Marky Mark and the GAA from 1 January

[ha ha derry]

the mark really is a non event. read comments from a university manager recently saying that they did'nt prepare for it (mark rule) but will have it sorted in a couple of weeks.
more of an issue imho is gang tackling and overcarrying the ball. by addressing these issues we would have a much better spectacle.
1 player should only be allowed to tackle the ball carrier. second player in results in a free to the player in possession. so if a midfielder gains possession from a kickout he only has 1 player to contend with. any tackle from behind (of any kind) free to player in possession.
in return, defender get rewarded for good tackling / defending by ref consistently enforcing 4 step rule.

[haranguerer]

We might actually see less congestion in the middle.
If you commit too many players there and there is a mark, you're effectively taken out of the game.
The way it worked for the last 10 years or more was you jumped against one or two, caught the ball, landed and then another two were waiting on the ground for you.
With the mark rule, that's four players who are now redundant in terms of getting back to defend your free kick.
I think we may actually get back to the good old fashioned aerial duel, as it's not the end of the world if your opponent catches it clean, as long as you have plenty of men back.
Or maybe I'm just hopelessly optimistic.

Your 'hopelessly optimistic' appears to be: more players back in defence earlier

[westbound]

I'm not against the mark as such, BUT surely it'll actually lead to less teams pushing up on defenders to prevent short kick outs (and therefore actually lead to more short kick outs?)

Take the example of the way Kerry pushed up on Cluxton's kick out for the goal this year. That was high risk from Kerry, but obviously they figured it was worth the risk because cluxton was never going to be able to kick it long enough to get it to a Dublin player in space.
However, if there was the possibility of a mark for the dublin midfielders, who then had a free run (or a free kick) into the kerry defense there is no way in the world the kerry players would have pressed up the way they did. The risk is too high IMO.

So, I can only see this leading to more short kick outs rather than less.

One of the reasons short kick outs happen is because of the speed at which the kick out is taken. If kick-outs are taken slower it gives players time to push up on all the defenders. (Obviously, this could have a negative effect of allowing teams time to get everyone back in their own half!!!!)

[twohands!!!]

the mark really is a non event. read comments from a university manager recently saying that they did'nt prepare for it (mark rule) but will have it sorted in a couple of weeks.
more of an issue imho is gang tackling and overcarrying the ball. by addressing these issues we would have a much better spectacle.
1 player should only be allowed to tackle the ball carrier. second player in results in a free to the player in possession. so if a midfielder gains possession from a kickout he only has 1 player to contend with. any tackle from behind (of any kind) free to player in possession.
in return, defender get rewarded for good tackling / defending by ref consistently enforcing 4 step rule.

Yeah I think this will have very little impact from what I've heard of the university games so far.

[seafoid]

University is different to senior intercounty.
Which came first? Puke football or the model  of the modern f Footballer ? If the defensive systems were banned would fellas be able to play like 20 years ago?  Or have the Benny Coulters and Liam McHales been bred out of the game? Can players be trusted to think?
Do the stats people need to start measuring things differently ?
Puke football is like the Roundheads in the English civil war.
Cavalier football is in the doldrums. Eg Down, Meath, Galway , Offaly.

[BennyCake]

University is different to senior intercounty.
Which came first? Puke football or the model  of the modern f Footballer ? If the defensive systems were banned would fellas be able to play like 20 years ago?  Or have the Benny Coulters and Liam McHales been bred out of the game? Can players be trusted to think?
Do the stats people need to start measuring things differently ?
Puke football is like the Roundheads in the English civil war.
Cavalier football is in the doldrums. Eg Down, Meath, Galway , Offaly.

Yes those players are few these days. The modern midfielder is smaller, all round running and carrying player. There won't suddenly be dozens of 7 foot midfielder emerging in January.

The horse has already bolted. The game has changed.

[Jinxy]

We might actually see less congestion in the middle.
If you commit too many players there and there is a mark, you're effectively taken out of the game.
The way it worked for the last 10 years or more was you jumped against one or two, caught the ball, landed and then another two were waiting on the ground for you.
With the mark rule, that's four players who are now redundant in terms of getting back to defend your free kick.
I think we may actually get back to the good old fashioned aerial duel, as it's not the end of the world if your opponent catches it clean, as long as you have plenty of men back.
Or maybe I'm just hopelessly optimistic.

Your 'hopelessly optimistic' appears to be: more players back in defence earlier

Then they are basically conceding kick-out possession to the other team.

[westbound]

We might actually see less congestion in the middle.
If you commit too many players there and there is a mark, you're effectively taken out of the game.
The way it worked for the last 10 years or more was you jumped against one or two, caught the ball, landed and then another two were waiting on the ground for you.
With the mark rule, that's four players who are now redundant in terms of getting back to defend your free kick.
I think we may actually get back to the good old fashioned aerial duel, as it's not the end of the world if your opponent catches it clean, as long as you have plenty of men back.
Or maybe I'm just hopelessly optimistic.

Your 'hopelessly optimistic' appears to be: more players back in defence earlier

Then they are basically conceding kick-out possession to the other team.

And this could turn out to be the worst thing about the new mark rule....it could result in some teams just putting nearly all players behind the half way line because they know they are going to concede possession to the 6'6'' midfielder around the half way line.

In honesty, it's very hard to know how this will impact games. It really should have been trialled for longer rather than just implemented after a few college games.

[haranguerer]

We might actually see less congestion in the middle.
If you commit too many players there and there is a mark, you're effectively taken out of the game.
The way it worked for the last 10 years or more was you jumped against one or two, caught the ball, landed and then another two were waiting on the ground for you.
With the mark rule, that's four players who are now redundant in terms of getting back to defend your free kick.
I think we may actually get back to the good old fashioned aerial duel, as it's not the end of the world if your opponent catches it clean, as long as you have plenty of men back.
Or maybe I'm just hopelessly optimistic.

Your 'hopelessly optimistic' appears to be: more players back in defence earlier

Then they are basically conceding kick-out possession to the other team.

I'm not commenting on how it will work out, just on what you're saying. You've said we might get back to an aeriel duel as less people will be committed in the middle, as when they are committed they are '...redundant in terms of getting back to defend your free kick'.If they're not to be redundant in defending your free kick, then it stands to reason they'll be in defence.

[LeoMc]

What's the alternative lads, in an attempt to mitigate the scourge that is the short kick out and to promote high fielding? There seems to be considerable pessimism/criticism but not much in the way of alternatives. I don't think it's a panacea but in the slow moving world of GAA regulations it's a small positive step, providing it's implemented correctly.. 

As a keeper you'll want to kick the ball shorter now unless you're Steven Cluxton the last thing you'll want to do is hoof a 50/50 ball out to the middle in case you concede a mark. The only way to stop a short kickout is to outlaw it!

+1.
Every team will set up with a keeper who can accurately chip the ball 31-35 yards into the chest of a MDMA / Mattie Donnelly type runner.
Teams will now start with clean possession 50 yards from their own goal instead of under pressure on their own 21 yard lines so this will evolve to even more bodies around the middle to kill off space around their own 40.

I don't get you.
Teams will kick the ball out 35 yards and win clean possession instead of taking short kick-outs, and this will result in more bodies around the middle?
If there are more bodies in the middle, what's to stop the keeper taking a short kick-out?
The way I see it, we might get more bodies hanging around the HF line trying to hedge their bets and cover midfield runners and the full back line.
Either way, I don't see how the introduction of a mark will increase congestion around the middle of the field, and even if it does, that's going to leave the keeper with more options for short kick-outs.
Basically, this will be business as usual but with the added bonus of more clean catching out the field.
I'm not saying there will be a massive increase but I think the net effect will either be neutral or positive.

To clarify. IMO teams will initially try to exploit this new rule to their advantage. Think of Cluxton chipping the ball into the chest of MDMA running into space. Teams will evolve to counter this and push more players in to close off the space and as you say they will revert to the short kick out. The risk of the opposition clean catching your kick out will make keepers less likely to kick it beyond the 45 unless the odds are stacked in their favour.
Anyway lets wait and see how it evolves.

[thewobbler]

I don't see this happening Leo Mc. Certainly not with any team that actually has a head on its shoulders. And I do find some of the concepts described by you and others as a bit mad.

The whole point of quick restarts (a la Cluxton) is to catch opponents on the hop; they've committed too many players forward or to the opposite side of the pitch. The attack stems from the momentum created by taking these potential barriers out of play.

The last thing on earth that will go through MDMA's head in such a scenario is to call for a mark, which means stopping the game and giving his opponents a valuable few seconds to recover their positions.

After all, what advantage is actually accrued in this scenario from taking a mark? What use on earth is clean possession when a) you are forced to kick that possession at least 13m and b) your opponents are now all behind the ball. Think this one out folks.

---

Fundamentally this is why the concept of the mark is completely flawed in Gaelic Football. It doesn't actually provide any advantage to the recipient in the overwhelming majority of circumstances. Moving the ball quickly through your hands to an oncoming half back who can break the midfield line has always been the most effective way to beat teams in the middle third. The mark don't change that.

[Esmarelda]

I don't see this happening Leo Mc. Certainly not with any team that actually has a head on its shoulders. And I do find some of the concepts described by you and others as a bit mad.

The whole point of quick restarts (a la Cluxton) is to catch opponents on the hop; they've committed too many players forward or to the opposite side of the pitch. The attack stems from the momentum created by taking these potential barriers out of play.

The last thing on earth that will go through MDMA's head in such a scenario is to call for a mark, which means stopping the game and giving his opponents a valuable few seconds to recover their positions.

After all, what advantage is actually accrued in this scenario from taking a mark? What use on earth is clean possession when a) you are forced to kick that possession at least 13m and b) your opponents are now all behind the ball. Think this one out folks.

---

Fundamentally this is why the concept of the mark is completely flawed in Gaelic Football. It doesn't actually provide any advantage to the recipient in the overwhelming majority of circumstances. Moving the ball quickly through your hands to an oncoming half back who can break the midfield line has always been the most effective way to beat teams in the middle third. The mark don't change that.

Theoretically, don't the opposition players have to move away from the player making the mark even if he then elects to play on? That's one advantage, although I think you make a good point with regards to actually electing to take the free.

[Zulu]

The mark is only really an advantage for the guy who fields the ball in a cluster of players but that is unlikely to happen too often but when it does the mark will be a good think. I don't really see it having much of an impact either way but I think it's worth a look at and if it helps generate more high fielding contests great but if not then little will be lost. Teams should get back to going man on man for kickouts anyway as there is no real advantage to what's going on now bar making the game more of a running sport and it isn't helpful.

[AZOffaly]

I think Stephen Cluxton, and other accurate (normally!!) kick out experts might result in a few marks. It just has to be caught cleanly before it bounces, right? There's no stipulation it has to be a soaring catch to the clouds?

In that case, a  45 metre driven kick to a man running towards the sideline would also count as a mark, and I think that will be seen more than the contested high catch with the big man winning it. Half forwards and half backs might get more marks than midfielders.

Is a mark also awarded to the other team? If a kickout is caught by the opposition outside your 45, is a mark awarded then? And can they score from it?

[dferg]

I think Stephen Cluxton, and other accurate (normally!!) kick out experts might result in a few marks. It just has to be caught cleanly before it bounces, right? There's no stipulation it has to be a soaring catch to the clouds?

In that case, a  45 metre driven kick to a man running towards the sideline would also count as a mark, and I think that will be seen more than the contested high catch with the big man winning it. Half forwards and half backs might get more marks than midfielders.

Is a mark also awarded to the other team? If a kickout is caught by the opposition outside your 45, is a mark awarded then? And can they score from it?

Great question.  A team is playing into the wind and the opposition catch the kickout.  They will probably be within range of scoring from the resulting 'mark'.  This could result in even more of a safety first approach from teams as they really can't afford the opposition to catch the ball within scoring range.