Gaelic Football - Rules & Regulations discussion/clarification

[Main Street]

There's no way anyone who understands the rules could call a foul on clifford.

With a foul being called, can a player in possession of the ball, hop the ball and instead of catching the ball on the rebound, decide to fist it over an opponent's head, run around and repossess the ball?

That is perfectly legal

Thanks, though  i meant to write 'without a foul being called', the answer still fits he question.

[David McKeown]

I thought the Clifford incident was a foul. You aren't allowed to transfer the possession of the ball from one hand to another unless both hands are on the ball simultaneously I thought.

[DuffleKing]

No, Clifford is not in possession or control of the ball at the instant he flicks it over the defender's head. The ball has been bounced but possession is not regained - it's in the air.

In the same way that he could score a goal with that action whereas he couldn't if he was in control of the ball

[magpie seanie]

No, Clifford is not in possession or control of the ball at the instant he flicks it over the defender's head. The ball has been bounced but possession is not regained - it's in the air.

In the same way that he could score a goal with that action whereas he couldn't if he was in control of the ball

Correct. I didn't think this was so difficult.

[David McKeown]

No, Clifford is not in possession or control of the ball at the instant he flicks it over the defender's head. The ball has been bounced but possession is not regained - it's in the air.

In the same way that he could score a goal with that action whereas he couldn't if he was in control of the ball

I'm going to completely disagree here in respect of a goal. Clifford has possession of the ball. Bounces it but doesn't lose possession therefore he retains possession in the split second before flicking it over the head and catching it with his other hand. If you were correct then all you had to do score a fisted goal is bounce the ball and punch it as it comes back up.

[Harold Disgracey]

Can a player stand on the crossbar to stop a free kick going over the bar? Or stand on another players shoulder?

Didn't McGeeney lift Andrew McCann in the air in a vain attempt to block Maurice Fitzgerald's late free in the drawn 2000 semi?

[BennyCake]

Can a player stand on the crossbar to stop a free kick going over the bar? Or stand on another players shoulder?

Didn't McGeeney lift Andrew McCann in the air in a vain attempt to block Maurice Fitzgerald's late free in the drawn 2000 semi?

Yes I had that in mind when asking that question.

Just wondered if he had have stood on his shoulders, and he blocked the ball, would it have been allowed?

Or if two or three players created a set of stairs for another player(s) to run up them, and get high into the air to block the kick. I mean, as long as he/they was far enough away from the kicker, why wouldn't that be allowed?

[DuffleKing]

No, Clifford is not in possession or control of the ball at the instant he flicks it over the defender's head. The ball has been bounced but possession is not regained - it's in the air.

In the same way that he could score a goal with that action whereas he couldn't if he was in control of the ball

I'm going to completely disagree here in respect of a goal. Clifford has possession of the ball. Bounces it but doesn't lose possession therefore he retains possession in the split second before flicking it over the head and catching it with his other hand. If you were correct then all you had to do score a fisted goal is bounce the ball and punch it as it comes back up.

Correct - that would be a legitimate goal. Who would risk the timing and variances of a bounce when bearing down on a keeper?

[David McKeown]

No, Clifford is not in possession or control of the ball at the instant he flicks it over the defender's head. The ball has been bounced but possession is not regained - it's in the air.

In the same way that he could score a goal with that action whereas he couldn't if he was in control of the ball

I'm going to completely disagree here in respect of a goal. Clifford has possession of the ball. Bounces it but doesn't lose possession therefore he retains possession in the split second before flicking it over the head and catching it with his other hand. If you were correct then all you had to do score a fisted goal is bounce the ball and punch it as it comes back up.

Correct - that would be a legitimate goal. Who would risk the timing and variances of a bounce when bearing down on a keeper?

I disagree you remain in possession of the ball when bouncing it. Playing rule 1 states:

When a player is in possession of the ball, it may be:-
(a) carried for a maximum of four consecutive steps or held in the hand(s) for no longer than the time needed to take four steps;
(b) played from the foot to the hand(s) -toe- tapped;
(c) bounced once, and once after each toe-tap;
(d) changed from one hand to the other once,
with the original holding hand maintaining
contact until the change is completed;

Playing rule 3 states as far as is relevant

A player on the team attacking a goal and who is in possession of the ball may not score:
(i) by carrying the ball over his opponents' goal line;
(ii) a goal with his hands except as provided in Rule 1.2, Exception (ii) but may score a point with the open hand(s) or fist.

[David McKeown]

So for me Clifford fouled the ball by transferring it between hands in effect throwing the ball

[Keyser soze]

If he had  soloed [sp] the ball and it skipped away from him and he then flicked it to another player that would not be deemed a foul by most referees as you would see that regularly happening in matches and I cannot recall it ever being penalised, so why should it be any different because he bounced the ball/

[David McKeown]

If he had  soloed [sp] the ball and it skipped away from him and he then flicked it to another player that would not be deemed a foul by most referees as you would see that regularly happening in matches and I cannot recall it ever being penalised, so why should it be any different because he bounced the ball/

Your example is different for a couple of reasons. 1. If the ball skipped away from him after a solo then he arguably wouldn't be in possession any more. 2 There is nothing wrong with bouncing the ball then as it's coming back to your hand flicking it to a team mate but transferring it between hands or scoring are specifically not allowed under the rules.

[twohands!!!]

There's no way that Clifford has possession for the entire passage of play.

If the Cork back hadn't bought the dummy and dived in, it would have been relatively easy for him to just jump up and win possession of the ball travelling through the air after Clifford flicks it up.

I don't see how can Clifford be deemed to be in possession of the ball, if the Cork player (or any other player) could have obtained possession by simply plucking it out of the air?

[Main Street]

So for me Clifford fouled the ball by transferring it between hands in effect throwing the ball

In that incident I don't see what Clifford did that is covered by the rule on changing hands.
The question is , did Clifford break this rule?
'To play the ball up with the hand(s) and catch it again before it touches the ground, another player, or goal-posts.'

if he didn't foul and is deemed not to have been in possession of the ball when he flicked it over the head of the Cork player, then the change of hands does not come into the equation.
It's either he fouled when when flicking the ball over and catching it, or not? 

[westbound]

If a player bounces (or solos) the ball with nobody near him and it goes a little bit too high and he taps it with one hand to bring the ball down and then catches it in the other hand.....is that a foul?

That's effectively what clifford did (except there was a defender in the way).