Foot Block Rule Question

[thewobbler]

so a goalkeeper cant use his feet so a goalkeeper cant use half of his limbs  to save ball

Honestly, I don't know. But I'd likely guess a keeper diving with his feet to prevent an attacker gaining  a clean strike would have to be a foul

[Wildweasel74]

The rule needs updated like the entire rulebook, seen a guy get his leg broke once from a foot block even Though accidental. The def should be a foot block which can cause harm. To the kicking player, ie: foot comes in straight or in front of the guy kicking the ball within a foot, I thought the Mayo penalty would not been dangerous to the player, and the other one, no where near it.

[marty34]

I think a foot block which is dangerous to the kicker is a penalty.

If there is a bit of distance it's ok I think as the kicker won't get hurt.

Problem, I think, distance isn't in the rule book so down to what the ref/umpires say.

[whitey]

Common sense would dictate that it should only be a foul if the kicking action of the kicker is impeded by the "blockers" foot

[thewobbler]

I think a foot block which is dangerous to the kicker is a penalty.

If there is a bit of distance it's ok I think as the kicker won't get hurt.

Problem, I think, distance isn't in the rule book so down to what the ref/umpires say.

Defining a distance might cause more problems than it solves. Let's say for example it's defined at 1.5m, which should be just distance enough to ensure that even the longest legged man in GAA can swing a connection through in full without fear of injury. Well... it's also likely distance enough for the attacker to aim for feet instead of goal. Anyone watching the game can tell when it's a deliberate ploy from the attacker.... but can a rule book? No.

Hence the vagueness is somewhat necessary. I'm not saying it can't be less vague. But at same time, not can it be described perfectly.

[marty34]

I think a foot block which is dangerous to the kicker is a penalty.

If there is a bit of distance it's ok I think as the kicker won't get hurt.

Problem, I think, distance isn't in the rule book so down to what the ref/umpires say.

Defining a distance might cause more problems than it solves. Let's say for example it's defined at 1.5m, which should be just distance enough to ensure that even the longest legged man in GAA can swing a connection through in full without fear of injury. Well... it's also likely distance enough for the attacker to aim for feet instead of goal. Anyone watching the game can tell when it's a deliberate ploy from the attacker.... but can a rule book? No.

Hence the vagueness is somewhat necessary. I'm not saying it can't be less vague. But at same time, not can it be described perfectly.

Common sense also required.

Mayo penalty was correct.

Monaghan one was not - as played blocked the shot with his foot from about 5/6 yards away so no danger to the lad shooting for goal.

[From the Bunker]

My favourite foot block penalty at 8:25

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IW9Kt3lZeAI

[GAABoardMod5]

RULE 5 - AGGRESSIVE FOULS

Category 1 Infractions

Definition of a Category I Infraction - Being ordered off on foot of either a second Cautionable Infraction or a
Cautionable Infraction followed by a Cynical Behaviour Infraction (In Football).

Category 1 – Related Infractions

5.1 To block or attempt to block with the boot when an opponent is kicking the ball from the hand(s).

5.2 To prevent or attempt to prevent an opponent from lifting or kicking the ball off the ground by striking
an opponent's hand, arm, foot or leg with the boot.

5.3 To engage in any other form of rough play.

PENALTY FOR THE ABOVE FOULS –
(i) Caution offender; order off for second cautionable foul
(ii) Free kick from where foul occurred except as provided under Exceptions of Rule 2.2.


Above is from the rule book 2022.  You might think the important part of  5.1 is "...when an opponent is kicking...".  And the important part of that is the definition of "is".  When does the kicking action stop?  When the ball has left the kicker's boot, like what is used to interpret the offside rule in soccer? 

Clearly, a block on the ball at the same time as the kicker makes contact with the ball is dangerous.  But once the ball has left the kicker's boot, it would seem that the rule says that blocking with the foot is ok. 

Finally, if Mayo did get a penalty, shouldn't the Monaghan player have been booked, per 5.3 (i) above?  If he wasn't...and I don't think he was...then the ref doesn't fully know the rule either. 

So when does "is kicking" become "has kicked" is the difference is whether a foot block is illegal or not.  In my mind, a kicking action is over when the kicking foot is back on the ground, by which time the ball can be a significant distance away, so that's hardly good enough for a defender. 

I defer to David McKeown and his legal mind and experience for an interpretation.

[Hound]

So when does "is kicking" become "has kicked" is the difference is whether a foot block is illegal or not.  In my mind, a kicking action is over when the kicking foot is back on the ground

I think that's  way too wide. It's just the follow through. Monaghan lad did a full follow through with his kick, and clearly the Mayo defender was far enough away to able to legally save the shot with his foot. Whereas the Mayo attacker had to stop his follow through as the Monaghan foot block was so close.

You won't get a better example of what's legal vs illegal than the two examples in the Mayo Monaghan match.

[Milltown Row2]

For me the foot block needs to make contact with the player for it to be deemed a penalty should it be done in the box. anything else is can be viewed as a well timed block, you could do damage blocking a ball on a players boot with your arms, have you seen the size of these players arms now?

Sliding in and blocking with the foot, is simple enough to call, its careless/reckless depending on the 'tackle' at the time, malice has to be there for me also, and conditions, as in when its been raining and the pitch is slippery..

So not always straight forward but hey that's the rules for ya

[Main Street]

The foot block is legal in soccer and happens often enough, the Monaghan footblock was harmless and good defending. If a defender had dived and blocked the ball with his body it would have been legal.

[David McKeown]

For me the foot block needs to make contact with the player for it to be deemed a penalty should it be done in the box. anything else is can be viewed as a well timed block, you could do damage blocking a ball on a players boot with your arms, have you seen the size of these players arms now?

Sliding in and blocking with the foot, is simple enough to call, its careless/reckless depending on the 'tackle' at the time, malice has to be there for me also, and conditions, as in when its been raining and the pitch is slippery..

So not always straight forward but hey that's the rules for ya

How do you interpret the attempt to block element of the offence then?

[Milltown Row2]

For me the foot block needs to make contact with the player for it to be deemed a penalty should it be done in the box. anything else is can be viewed as a well timed block, you could do damage blocking a ball on a players boot with your arms, have you seen the size of these players arms now?

Sliding in and blocking with the foot, is simple enough to call, its careless/reckless depending on the 'tackle' at the time, malice has to be there for me also, and conditions, as in when its been raining and the pitch is slippery..

So not always straight forward but hey that's the rules for ya

How do you interpret the attempt to block element of the offence then?

5.1 To block or attempt to block with the boot when an opponent is kicking the ball from the hand(s)

This bit?  By the rules they are saying its a foul so no one can argue if a ref gives it per rule, but using common sense (which we shouldn't apply depending on who is shouting at you) you can take the tackle for what it is at the time, if you feel he slid in dangerously caught him or not then intent is enough to call a penalty, if you feel he blocked the ball safely with his foot/feet with no dangerous play to it then play on.

I think we are all sensible enough to no the difference, and that rule needs looked at

[weareros]

I can't find footage but Dublin were given a penalty for Niall Daly foot block on Cormac Costello in 2021 and the foot block was as I recall as far away as recent ones not given. Not every ref is clear on this rule.

[Tatler Jack]

I can't find footage but Dublin were given a penalty for Niall Daly foot block on Cormac Costello in 2021 and the foot block was as I recall as far away as recent ones not given. Not every ref is clear on this rule.

I think he also got a black card for it. It seems to be an arbitrary decision by the ref. McIntrye and Early were spoofing on Saturday about space between foot and ball - sounded like justifying not giving Monaghan a penalty.