FRC proposals...black cards, marks etc

[LeoMc]

+2
Tyrone have been accused of being divers for years. You would imagine a team so well versed in this tactic would be all in favour of a rule which would give them further advantage. 

Another change I would not be in favour of is the mark. It will not encourage of improve the "art" of high fielding but will instead reduce the number of contested kick-outs in the game. Mid-fielders will be encouraged to break the ball down rather than risk their opposite number getting a free kick. From the more tactically savvy Managers it will lead to a series of Stephen Cluxton clones (Morgan!) spraying kick-outs to fast mobile players who will be taking the ball unchallenged at head height and lead to more stop-start realigning of players into tactical formations as the mark is called and taken.

[johnneycool]

No, no, no.

There's very little wrong with Gaelic Football, except obviously the whinging whining hoors that are allowed to commentate on it in the public sphere. They don't do this kind of shite with Hurling, and rightly so. The best policy would be to leave Football alone, at least until we're sure a change would benefit the game. That cannot be said of these proposed changes. Black cards are obviously useless for a range of reasons (I think we've discussed this before). The mark rewards a skill but at the expense of several other. Why, for example, should a back not be given a free for a block? It's as least as difficult a skill as the high catch. And finally, 30m is obviously ridiculous when you just consider the varying lengths of Gaelic Football pitches around the country ... it could easily have a greater negative impact on some teams than others. I get the strong feeling that these changes are proposed by people with an extremely limited grasp of how football is played.

As for "cynical fouls", couldn't you just award the score where there was a significant chance of it being taken prior to the foul?

Hurling is different, and cannot be compared to football, but it does have its problems which for the most part aren't commented on by hurling pundits on RTE as they're constantly in promotional mode for the sport.
The football pundits to a man are negative and will go out of their way to tell you what is wrong with a team rather than Ger Lock lying back in the chair gushing with praise of the great exhibition we have before us. There needs to be a bit of balance in both sets of pundits.

There is a negativity creeping into hurling where the spare arm is used to halt the progress of an opponent and only Donal O'G Cusack has brought it up, but with his history its only Cork sour grapes, but he has a point. Also any dirty pulls are almost dismissed without comment unless big Duignan is on the mic at the game.
You get the feeling sometimes that Cody, great manager and all that he is, sets the agenda for the referees especially when his team are involved, he'd sometimes make Alex Ferguson blush.

Hurling rules are fine the way they are, it's just that referee's need to have the confidence and backing of Croke park to enforce them with a bit of common sense thrown in.

[yellowcard]

Black card vote too close to call


The black card proposal is expected to split delegates at Congress.
The Football Review Committee's black card proposal is expected to split delegates at this weekend's GAA Congress in Derry.

The motion requires a two-thirds majority to be passed, and with 330 delegates expected to attend, 110 votes are all that are needed to defeat it.
Several counties will be opposing the motion, including Cork, Tipperary, Limerick, Down, Tyrone, Westmeath, Fermanagh, Armagh and Antrim. It is also thought that Kilkenny, Donegal and Waterford will reject its introduction to Gaelic football.

Among the counties in the 'yes' camp are Dublin, Galway, Kildare, Wexford, Kerry, Longford and Cavan. Laois, Meath, Offaly and Monaghan are also expected to give the motion its backing.

If accepted, the black card will punish players who pull down, trip or collide with an opponent. The first three players in a team who receive a black card can be replaced, but no replacement is permitted after that.

[Jinxy]

Westmeath are gone very cynical altogether.

[crossfire]

I can only repeat what I said the last time we debated this:

I couldn't agree more, Ard-Rí. The Mary Poppins movement within the game, and especially within the media, has chipped away at the ethos of the game for decades, until it has reached the point where it is accepted without question that the game needs to be made more "attractive", that the only legitimate footballers are forwards, that defenders are some sort of criminal underclass whose excesses need to be curbed and that physical clashes are to be eliminated completely.

There is a widespread assumption that the biggest problem in the game is "cynical" fouling. You can't listen to a sports bulletin or read any news report on gaelic football without coming across the awful "cynical" cliché. This rules-revision circus has now institutionalised this nonsensical concept, with proposals emerging to penalise "deliberate and cynical" fouling with a different set of sanctions to those applied to other fouls.

A foul is a foul. The penalty is a free. Repeated fouling attracts a series of heavier sanctions. That's how it stands now. What, exactly, is wrong with that? Only two things, in my opinion – the failure or refusal of referees to apply the rules as written and their failure to recognise or punish the real cynicism - the cynical diving and cheating that seeks to mislead them. The solution to that is not to rewrite the rules, it is to fix the refereeing problem.

What is a cynical foul? Does the definition depend on the attitude of the fouler? How is this to be determined? Or is it to be based on the position on the pitch, or the time of the game, or the reaction of the player fouled (and we all know how that influences referees)? To illustrate the nonsense of this – try to define a non-cynical foul.

The biggest problem with this is not that it's addressing the wrong problem, but that it will worsen the biggest problem in the game – diving, cheating and injury-feigning. It is a diver's charter.

Not only that, but a proposal is now emerging to penalise the famous, imaginary "third man tackle", which, as we have shown here before, does not exist in the rules. There is nothing in the rules that says I must move out of the path of any player, whether he is in possession or not. (There is also nothing that says I may not move into his path, as long as I don't charge him, even though referees have been penalising this in a freelance capacity for decades now). And that's for good reason in (what was) a physical contact game.

If this proposal is approved, we will not only see misinterpretation, as players are penalised for standing their ground, but we'll see players altering course to ensure they are "fouled" (see players chasing the garryowen in rugby) and, of course, more diving.

These people are going to ruin our game. We need to fix the real problems of the game – diving, cheating and the growing namby-pambification of it – not make them worse in some sort of misguided, media-appeasing, hotch-potch of populist claptrap disguised as serious analysis and reform.

I would add two things:

1. My solution to the problem of the score-preventing rugby tackle in the last minute is a refinement of Ard-Rí's, that eliminates the need for the referee to judge the likelihood of a score. I'd penalise that type of foul (which is easily definable - two arms/hands on the opponent or a deliberate trip) with a 13m free in front of the posts or, if it happens anywhere inside the 13m line, with a penalty. This to apply no matter where on the field the foul occurs and, of course, no matter what stage of the game. I am always conscious of the danger of further encouraging diving (the biggest problem in the game - did I mention that?) but I think if you put two arms on the opponent, knowing the penalty, you deserve to be penalised, dive or not. The simulated-trip type of dive is more of a problem but, ultimately, referees have to referee.

2. I do think dissent and disrespect for referees is a problem. Of course, many referees richly earn that disrespect. Nevertheless, the games can't function without a culture of acceptance of refereeing decisions and this problem won't just persist – it will continually worsen if it's not tackled. We've learned that from observing soccer – the level of abuse and backchat to referees has escalated from zero thirty years ago to what we see now. We have to learn the solution from rugby.

Great post, Hardy

[DuffleKing]

The media push for the new rules is obvious even to the point of having a go at managers who dare to differ.  This will get passed.  The GAA is heavily influenced by the media agenda as are you guys.   

The FRC did a serious amount of consultation and surveying of players at all levels. To say their proposals from were influenced by the media is a nonsense.

Just as Mickey Harte is is entitled to disagree with any potential rule change, equally journalists can disagree with him. He doesn't own the GAA.

What players?

In my experience the overwhelming (by far) majority of players do not want any part of these proposals except for the 30m addition.

This review committee was an ill conceived attempt to change the game in ways that some badly positioned big wigs thought was what the "public" wanted to see. The consultation largely ignored the people who play the game and went with the predetermined outcome that the taskmasters had set.

That this whole process was deliberately and stealthily positioned in the press - even to the point of enlisting a journalist as the chair - is not up for debate. The pressure that the odd journo who takes a differing opinion is subjected to is evidence enough for me on that fact.

[Rossfan]

Serious levels of paranoia out there 

[macdanger2]

I can only repeat what I said the last time we debated this:

I couldn't agree more, Ard-Rí. The Mary Poppins movement within the game, and especially within the media, has chipped away at the ethos of the game for decades, until it has reached the point where it is accepted without question that the game needs to be made more "attractive", that the only legitimate footballers are forwards, that defenders are some sort of criminal underclass whose excesses need to be curbed and that physical clashes are to be eliminated completely.

There is a widespread assumption that the biggest problem in the game is "cynical" fouling. You can't listen to a sports bulletin or read any news report on gaelic football without coming across the awful "cynical" cliché. This rules-revision circus has now institutionalised this nonsensical concept, with proposals emerging to penalise "deliberate and cynical" fouling with a different set of sanctions to those applied to other fouls.

A foul is a foul. The penalty is a free. Repeated fouling attracts a series of heavier sanctions. That's how it stands now. What, exactly, is wrong with that? Only two things, in my opinion – the failure or refusal of referees to apply the rules as written and their failure to recognise or punish the real cynicism - the cynical diving and cheating that seeks to mislead them. The solution to that is not to rewrite the rules, it is to fix the refereeing problem.

What is a cynical foul? Does the definition depend on the attitude of the fouler? How is this to be determined? Or is it to be based on the position on the pitch, or the time of the game, or the reaction of the player fouled (and we all know how that influences referees)? To illustrate the nonsense of this – try to define a non-cynical foul.

The biggest problem with this is not that it's addressing the wrong problem, but that it will worsen the biggest problem in the game – diving, cheating and injury-feigning. It is a diver's charter.

Not only that, but a proposal is now emerging to penalise the famous, imaginary "third man tackle", which, as we have shown here before, does not exist in the rules. There is nothing in the rules that says I must move out of the path of any player, whether he is in possession or not. (There is also nothing that says I may not move into his path, as long as I don't charge him, even though referees have been penalising this in a freelance capacity for decades now). And that's for good reason in (what was) a physical contact game.

If this proposal is approved, we will not only see misinterpretation, as players are penalised for standing their ground, but we'll see players altering course to ensure they are "fouled" (see players chasing the garryowen in rugby) and, of course, more diving.

These people are going to ruin our game. We need to fix the real problems of the game – diving, cheating and the growing namby-pambification of it – not make them worse in some sort of misguided, media-appeasing, hotch-potch of populist claptrap disguised as serious analysis and reform.

I would add two things:

1. My solution to the problem of the score-preventing rugby tackle in the last minute is a refinement of Ard-Rí's, that eliminates the need for the referee to judge the likelihood of a score. I'd penalise that type of foul (which is easily definable - two arms/hands on the opponent or a deliberate trip) with a 13m free in front of the posts or, if it happens anywhere inside the 13m line, with a penalty. This to apply no matter where on the field the foul occurs and, of course, no matter what stage of the game. I am always conscious of the danger of further encouraging diving (the biggest problem in the game - did I mention that?) but I think if you put two arms on the opponent, knowing the penalty, you deserve to be penalised, dive or not. The simulated-trip type of dive is more of a problem but, ultimately, referees have to referee.

2. I do think dissent and disrespect for referees is a problem. Of course, many referees richly earn that disrespect. Nevertheless, the games can't function without a culture of acceptance of refereeing decisions and this problem won't just persist – it will continually worsen if it's not tackled. We've learned that from observing soccer – the level of abuse and backchat to referees has escalated from zero thirty years ago to what we see now. We have to learn the solution from rugby.

You might want to check that again hardy, you say it's impossible to define a cynical foul yet you make a decent attempt at it in a subsequent point.

Agreed though that diving is a huge problem and is very difficult to.address

[Hardy]

I can only repeat what I said the last time we debated this:

I couldn't agree more, Ard-Rí. The Mary Poppins movement within the game, and especially within the media, has chipped away at the ethos of the game for decades, until it has reached the point where it is accepted without question that the game needs to be made more "attractive", that the only legitimate footballers are forwards, that defenders are some sort of criminal underclass whose excesses need to be curbed and that physical clashes are to be eliminated completely.

There is a widespread assumption that the biggest problem in the game is "cynical" fouling. You can't listen to a sports bulletin or read any news report on gaelic football without coming across the awful "cynical" cliché. This rules-revision circus has now institutionalised this nonsensical concept, with proposals emerging to penalise "deliberate and cynical" fouling with a different set of sanctions to those applied to other fouls.

A foul is a foul. The penalty is a free. Repeated fouling attracts a series of heavier sanctions. That's how it stands now. What, exactly, is wrong with that? Only two things, in my opinion – the failure or refusal of referees to apply the rules as written and their failure to recognise or punish the real cynicism - the cynical diving and cheating that seeks to mislead them. The solution to that is not to rewrite the rules, it is to fix the refereeing problem.

What is a cynical foul? Does the definition depend on the attitude of the fouler? How is this to be determined? Or is it to be based on the position on the pitch, or the time of the game, or the reaction of the player fouled (and we all know how that influences referees)? To illustrate the nonsense of this – try to define a non-cynical foul.

The biggest problem with this is not that it's addressing the wrong problem, but that it will worsen the biggest problem in the game – diving, cheating and injury-feigning. It is a diver's charter.

Not only that, but a proposal is now emerging to penalise the famous, imaginary "third man tackle", which, as we have shown here before, does not exist in the rules. There is nothing in the rules that says I must move out of the path of any player, whether he is in possession or not. (There is also nothing that says I may not move into his path, as long as I don't charge him, even though referees have been penalising this in a freelance capacity for decades now). And that's for good reason in (what was) a physical contact game.

If this proposal is approved, we will not only see misinterpretation, as players are penalised for standing their ground, but we'll see players altering course to ensure they are "fouled" (see players chasing the garryowen in rugby) and, of course, more diving.

These people are going to ruin our game. We need to fix the real problems of the game – diving, cheating and the growing namby-pambification of it – not make them worse in some sort of misguided, media-appeasing, hotch-potch of populist claptrap disguised as serious analysis and reform.

I would add two things:

1. My solution to the problem of the score-preventing rugby tackle in the last minute is a refinement of Ard-Rí's, that eliminates the need for the referee to judge the likelihood of a score. I'd penalise that type of foul (which is easily definable - two arms/hands on the opponent or a deliberate trip) with a 13m free in front of the posts or, if it happens anywhere inside the 13m line, with a penalty. This to apply no matter where on the field the foul occurs and, of course, no matter what stage of the game. I am always conscious of the danger of further encouraging diving (the biggest problem in the game - did I mention that?) but I think if you put two arms on the opponent, knowing the penalty, you deserve to be penalised, dive or not. The simulated-trip type of dive is more of a problem but, ultimately, referees have to referee.

2. I do think dissent and disrespect for referees is a problem. Of course, many referees richly earn that disrespect. Nevertheless, the games can't function without a culture of acceptance of refereeing decisions and this problem won't just persist – it will continually worsen if it's not tackled. We've learned that from observing soccer – the level of abuse and backchat to referees has escalated from zero thirty years ago to what we see now. We have to learn the solution from rugby.

You might want to check that again hardy, you say it's impossible to define a cynical foul yet you make a decent attempt at it in a subsequent point.

Agreed though that diving is a huge problem and is very difficult to.address

The rugby-tackle and tripping fouls I mentioned, that can be used with impunity at present to prevent match-winning scores and need to be dealt with, are no more cynical than any other foul and less cynical than diving and cheating.

I don't accept the concept of a "cynical" foul. If any intentional foul is cynical, all are cynical. You might as well call it a foul foul. The "cynical foul" is just another mindless catchphrase that has grown up in recent times and I'd bet if you asked ten people using it to define it, you'd get ten different answers. People seem to use it to mean various types of behaviour, including the "third man tackle" (also non-existent and not mentioned anywhere in the Official Guide), time-wasting, blocking the quick free, tripping, the rugby tackle, etc. That is, almost every type of foul there is.

Strangely, the one type of foul that I would class as truly cynical is hardly ever mentioned in this context. That's the cheating that seeks (cynically) to have people punished for doing nothing. And even more strangely, fouls in hurling are never deemed to be cynical. Why is that?

[RMDrive]

Decision time for the FRC proposals

[ONeill]

Carried so far:

Motion 3 -  sees number of teams competing in Liam MacCarthy Cup reduced to 13 by 2016. The number of teams guaranteed their place in competition reduced to 10
Motion 4 - Croke Park and other GAA stadia opened for one-off events such as RWC 2023 and 2027
Motion 60 - Hurlers will be required to remove helmets during National Anthem, Amhrán na bhFiann

[ONeill]

Paul Earley has made a presentation to Congress on the issue of cynical fouling and calls for support of the motion to introduce a 'black card' to punish infringements in that category. Dublin chairman Andy Kettle is the first delegate from the floor to back the new proposals and urges the hurling fraternity not be concerned that these rules will be impinged on them. He describes cynicism as "a cancer on the game."

Fraternity?

[Hardy]

Who will be giving the "presentation" in opposition to the black card proposal?

[Denn Forever]

Sounds like the proper use of the word Fraternity.

fra·ter·ni·ty (fr-tûrn-t)
n. pl. fra·ter·ni·ties
1. A body of people associated for a common purpose or interest, such as a guild.
2. A group of people joined by similar backgrounds, occupations, interests, or tastes: the fraternity of bird watchers.
3. A chiefly social organization of men students at a college or university, usually designated by Greek letters.
4. Roman Catholic Church A sodality.
5. The quality or condition of being brothers; brotherliness.

[ONeill]

I picture complicated handshakes.