The Sunday Game

[Redhand Santa]

Referees tend to restart the clock if a lad is being fouled, rather than stop the play for the free, but yes I believe that technically you must play the ball every 4 steps, and failing to do so is a free. If you have not gained advantage within the 5 seconds then the Ref can award you the original free.

Another one on the advantage rule... Why is advantage seen as a score? In most cases, if a lad is being fouled, and the ref plays the 5 second advantage, and he gets a shot off, even an unimpeded shot, but it goes wide; I'd say 7 or 8 times out of 10 the play is brought back for the free. I'm not sure the rulebook says the advantage must result in a score! I'm all for giving a free to a lad who's shot is affected by the foul, but some of the call backs are ridiculous.

I absolutely hate this interpretation of the advantage rule. A player can get fouled but break the tackle take two solos and miss with no one near him from 21 yards out and still get another go at from the free. Makes no sense to me at all, the player got the advantage and shouldn't get another go at it. As you say if he's fouled and shoots off balance or something its a different story and should get the free.

The interpretation slows the game down even more as play goes on for 5 seconds and gets called back even if the player had the advantage and just misses the score or plays a misplaced pass. Something that definitely needs looked at.

[haranguerer]

Bugbear of mine - the failure to regulate steps is responsible for a lot of issues with the game.

The defender is unable to time his tackle, which leads to much of the pulling and dragging we see.

[Fuzzman]

My understanding is that referees are trying as best as they can to keep the game flowing and not always be stopping the game when there are fouls.
If a player is being fouled but he remains on his feet then the ref often decides to not stop play but to play the advantage and allow the player some leeway with the number of steps.
If he didn't allow the extra steps then the attacking player would be punished for staying on his feet despite being fouled.

So in my eyes you should be punishing the player who is doing the fouling NOT the player who is trying to play on anyway in order to get his shot/pass away. Another way of looking at it would be that by giving the free (and not the advantage with extra steps) you are rewarding the fouling player as he has stopped a possible goal scoring chance.

I agree that it is too much when the player misses his coring chance and then it's called back anyway. It's far too much of an advantage. Is it like that too in rugby?

[AZOffaly]

I think that's where it's coming from. In Rugby a penalty advantage in the opposition half is almost always seen as 'worst case scenario this team will get a shot at goal'. Advantage is almost a free play of several phases to see if you score a try. I think GAA refs are applying that logic to fouls in the scoring zone as well.

[Fuzzman]

AQMP, are you of the thinking then that if an Antrim forward is through one on one with the last defender and he has taken three steps, the defender tackles him and pulls him back but the forward wriggles free and takes another 3 steps and scores a goal, you think that the referee must blow him up for 6 steps and it's a free out as he's broken the 4 steps rule?

Have you noticed that MOST refs don't do this and it certainly seems to benefit the flow of the game.
To award the free in and not give the advantage even though he's broken the number of steps rule is rewarding the defender for fouling imho.

[haranguerer]

My understanding is that referees are trying as best as they can to keep the game flowing and not always be stopping the game when there are fouls.
If a player is being fouled but he remains on his feet then the ref often decides to not stop play but to play the advantage and allow the player some leeway with the number of steps.
If he didn't allow the extra steps then the attacking player would be punished for staying on his feet despite being fouled.

So in my eyes you should be punishing the player who is doing the fouling NOT the player who is trying to play on anyway in order to get his shot/pass away. Another way of looking at it would be that by giving the free (and not the advantage with extra steps) you are rewarding the fouling player as he has stopped a possible goal scoring chance.

Not the case, with the advantage rule the referee can easily signal a free but allow play to continue. The fact is, in most cases, the player in possession isn't being fouled. If he is, punish it, ok short term may mean a few more frees, but longer term a lot less, and an altogether better game with skill becoming much more prevalent and necessary for tackling.

[westbound]

but surely, the object of the exercise is to discourage/remove fouling? If that is the objective then giving the attacking team the biggest advantage possible id the best way to discourage fouling.
So I'm all in favour of giving the forward the scoring chance and if it's missed then call back the free (within the 5 seconds obviously).
I wouldn't be a big fan of the advantage interpretation in rugby that can sometimes go on for 10/20/30 seconds and then be called  back. But within the 5 seconds I'd be happy with it (maybe shorten this to 3 seconds if people think 5 seconds is too long).
One other thing I would say, if the free wasn't in a scorable position then I would say the advantage has already been gained by creating the scoring chance and therefore the free shouldn't be called back. I know the definition of scorable is probably different to everyone, but I'm talking about a situation where a fould is committed on the half way line (not scorable) and the ref allows advantage and the attackers create (and miss) a chance within the 5 seconds. I wouldn't be calling back the free in this case as the advantage was gained by moving the ball forward from the half way line into the forwards.

IMO, the opportunity for a teams free-taker to have a free shot at goal is a bigger advantage than a player to have a shot at goal from open play and so if that shot goes wide the free is the bigger advantage!

[AZOffaly]

I think that's where it's coming from. In Rugby a penalty advantage in the opposition half is almost always seen as 'worst case scenario this team will get a shot at goal'. Advantage is almost a free play of several phases to see if you score a try. I think GAA refs are applying that logic to fouls in the scoring zone as well.

Advantage is almost a free play of several phases to see if you score a try.  Not exactly, an advantage can accrue where you move the ball up the field for say 25 metres or make a break out of your own half.  Also it helps that the ref in rugby calls "Advantage over"

Where does the scoring zone begin and end?

What I'm saying is that 9/10 if a penalty advantage is in the opposition half, the only way advantage is NOT seen as to have accrued is if the team fails to score a try. How many times have you seen a scorable penalty advantage 'expire' after a few phases of progress. Very seldom.  In your own half, slightly more alright.

Take Munster v Ospreys last Saturday even. Munster had a penalty out on the right, but they must have went through nearly 6 or 7 phases, nearly got a try and were either held up or knocked on themselves. Ref brought it back for the kick at goal.

[DuffleKing]

Jesus lads the steps thing is easy. You've 4 (or 10 depending on the ref), fouled or not.

[macdanger2]

AQMP, are you of the thinking then that if an Antrim forward is through one on one with the last defender and he has taken three steps, the defender tackles him and pulls him back but the forward wriggles free and takes another 3 steps and scores a goal, you think that the referee must blow him up for 6 steps and it's a free out as he's broken the 4 steps rule?

Have you noticed that MOST refs don't do this and it certainly seems to benefit the flow of the game.
To award the free in and not give the advantage even though he's broken the number of steps rule is rewarding the defender for fouling imho.

First of all the chances of an Antrim forward getting in that position are negligible! 

But more seriously it's not what you or I think, it's what the rules of the game are.  In the scenario you describe above it's a free out all day.  You're not allowed to take six steps in possession without playing the ball.  The fact that a lot of refs seem to let this go (and I agree they do) is an issue of refs not applying the rules of the game, or inconsistent refereeing. 

FWIW I advocate allowing a player six steps and enforcing the rule rigidly.

Is it not a free in for the first foul? Advantage was played, the player with the advantage fouled the ball so play is called back for the first foul

[Fuzzman]

But more seriously it's not what you or I think, it's what the rules of the game are.  In the scenario you describe above it's a free out all day.  You're not allowed to take six steps in possession without playing the ball.  The fact that a lot of refs seem to let this go (and I agree they do) is an issue of refs not applying the rules of the game, or inconsistent refereeing. 

FWIW I advocate allowing a player six steps and enforcing the rule rigidly.

It's what the referee thinks and how he applies the rules and this is why you sometimes hear comments like "applying the rules to the letter of the law" which means sometimes refs don't always apply them this way but use their common sense.

You said "You're not allowed to take six steps in possession without playing the ball" which is correct BUT the reason he's not able to play the ball is because he's being fouled. So the ref has to make the decision does he give him a free in or does he wait for a few seconds to see does he gain an advantage from allowing him to play on. To me this is good refereeing as he's showing experience and common sense to benefit the player being fouled.
If he breaks free from the fouling challenge and then goes on to take more than 4 steps then I agree then he should be pulled up for a foul.

Often it will take a player a few steps to regain his balance before he can take a solo or bounce.

[Esmarelda]

It's an awful pity there's no subscription channel that could have shown that Carlow v Wexford game.

What about the poor ould lads in New Ross and Gorey that couldn't make the trip to the game? I assume Brolly has been tweeting about it.

[Never beat the deeler]

AQMP, are you of the thinking then that if an Antrim forward is through one on one with the last defender and he has taken three steps, the defender tackles him and pulls him back but the forward wriggles free and takes another 3 steps and scores a goal, you think that the referee must blow him up for 6 steps and it's a free out as he's broken the 4 steps rule?

Have you noticed that MOST refs don't do this and it certainly seems to benefit the flow of the game.
To award the free in and not give the advantage even though he's broken the number of steps rule is rewarding the defender for fouling imho.

First of all the chances of an Antrim forward getting in that position are negligible! 

But more seriously it's not what you or I think, it's what the rules of the game are.  In the scenario you describe above it's a free out all day.  You're not allowed to take six steps in possession without playing the ball.  The fact that a lot of refs seem to let this go (and I agree they do) is an issue of refs not applying the rules of the game, or inconsistent refereeing. 

FWIW I advocate allowing a player six steps and enforcing the rule rigidly.

Is it not a free in for the first foul? Advantage was played, the player with the advantage fouled the ball so play is called back for the first foul

Of course it is! I can't believe this is even a discussion

[grounded]

Jesus lads the steps thing is easy. You've 4 (or 10 depending on the ref), fouled or not.

Hold on a second there, you forgot about the half steps. It takes 3 half steps to equal a full step!

[AZOffaly]

Or if you are a small player, you can take up to 24 little quick steps.