The Mark - good or bad?

[Any craic]

http://www.youtube.com/user/UlsterGAA - Mickey sez no. Seamus says yes. Differing opinions from two Tyrone men. Seamus, by the way, is Chairman of the Football Rules Revision Committee. It's early days but I thought it was good. There wasn't that much to notice, apart from Clarke's spectacular catch.

[AN other]

There isn't that much to notice is right. Clean fielding from a kick-out is rare enough and any marks, as rare as they were, didn't slow down the game in Mullingar yesterday any (Not that it was particularly fast paced anyway...). I think this one is a good idead that might just stick.
I think that fist-pass rule is crazy though, impossible to call definitively 100% of the time and I don't see any benefit to it. Am I missing something?

[thejuice]

By the sounds of it, it didn't make any impact in the Meath-Longford game. Marty Clarke took his really well.

[Onlooker]

I agree with another, the mark has made little difference to the game, but the handpass rule change is a disaster and should be dropped for the National League.  Forget about it, once the McKenna Cup, McGrath Cup etc. are over.

[Hardy]

t the handpass rule change is a disaster

Why?

[Onlooker]

It has seriously increased the number of frees in games and IMO it is impossible for the referee to see all handpasses to make sure they are made with the closed fist.   Some wrong passes will be seen, but others will be missed and it will lead to controversies in every game.  That is my take after seeing 2 matches at the weekend and it is a view that was shared by anyone that I spoke to at either game.

[sheamy]

I am not usually in favour of tinkering with the rules. However, I have not heard one good reason why the mark is a bad idea. I think it is an excellent idea.

On Sunday in Casement Park, Patsy Bradley from Derry gave a master-class in the art of high fielding taking 4-5 marks - a few of which brought applause from both sets of supporters! All of the resultant kicks were quickly taken in order to gain most advantage.

It simply rewards the skill of the high field and doesn't slow the game down as some are suggesting. Of course it could be used to slow the game by a team with a lot of good high fielders in a winning position. However, that's a small price to pay to see the skill displayed more frequently.

Without the mark the player who performs the catch is automatically at a disadvantage as more often than not they are easily swallowed up by a crowd of opposing players.

[Hardy]

It has seriously increased the number of frees in games and IMO it is impossible for the referee to see all handpasses to make sure they are made with the closed fist.   Some wrong passes will be seen, but others will be missed and it will lead to controversies in every game.  That is my take after seeing 2 matches at the weekend and it is a view that was shared by anyone that I spoke to at either game.

That's interesting. I would have been in favour of banning the handpass because I think it militates against good FOOTball - i.e. devalues kicking. But there's always the law of unintended effects and if the change leads to more frees and stoppages an bad decisions, that's not great.

I wonder if that would only be a temporary phenomenon, though. I can remember when the handpass wasn't allowed. That rule was introduced sometime in the fifties, I think, because people felt there was too much handpassing to the detriment of kicking skills. Under the new rule, the only playing of the ball with the hand allowed was with a closed fist. That's the football I remember from my early days, before the handpass was re-introduced in the seventies.

The thing is, I don't ever remember a problem of interpretation when it was fist-passing only, because people simply didn't try to use the open hand. I wonder if we'd get to that stage pretty quickly if this new rule were kept?

[blewuporstuffed]

It has seriously increased the number of frees in games and IMO it is impossible for the referee to see all handpasses to make sure they are made with the closed fist.   Some wrong passes will be seen, but others will be missed and it will lead to controversies in every game.  That is my take after seeing 2 matches at the weekend and it is a view that was shared by anyone that I spoke to at either game.

That's interesting. I would have been in favour of banning the handpass because I think it militates against good FOOTball - i.e. devalues kicking. But there's always the law of unintended effects and if the change leads to more frees and stoppages an bad decisions, that's not great.

I wonder if that would only be a temporary phenomenon, though. I can remember when the handpass wasn't allowed. That rule was introduced sometime in the fifties, I think, because people felt there was too much handpassing to the detriment of kicking skills. Under the new rule, the only playing of the ball with the hand allowed was with a closed fist. That's the football I remember from my early days, before the handpass was re-introduced in the seventies.

The thing is, I don't ever remember a problem of interpretation when it was fist-passing only, because people simply didn't try to use the open hand. I wonder if we'd get to that stage pretty quickly if this new rule were kept?

but way do we need to change the handpass rule at all? As far as i'm concerned it is fine
As for the mark, i havent made my mind up yet, i will need to see more games to see the true effect of it, when players get a little more used to it.

[nrico2006]

I am not usually in favour of tinkering with the rules. However, I have not heard one good reason why the mark is a bad idea. I think it is an excellent idea.

On Sunday in Casement Park, Patsy Bradley from Derry gave a master-class in the art of high fielding taking 4-5 marks - a few of which brought applause from both sets of supporters! All of the resultant kicks were quickly taken in order to gain most advantage.

It simply rewards the skill of the high field and doesn't slow the game down as some are suggesting. Of course it could be used to slow the game by a team with a lot of good high fielders in a winning position. However, that's a small price to pay to see the skill displayed more frequently.

Without the mark the player who performs the catch is automatically at a disadvantage as more often than not they are easily swallowed up by a crowd of opposing players

I think that too many people get all wet and excited regarding high fielding.  It is one of the skills of the game but well drilled teams have been able to negate it at times by swarming the player who wins the ball.  But is it not a skill in itself to be able to evade challenges etc and make your way out of trouble?  There is a way to counteract all the skills in football and those methods are skills in their own right.  Where do you stop with regards to tinkering with rules to enable certain skills to flourish?  Do we allow a man an unchallenged shot at goal whenever he wins a ball out in front of his man in order to improve the frequency of long range shots?  No, I don't think so.  The game should be left the way it is.  If a player is good enough to win a ball in the air then so be it but trying to give these players an advantage for executing one of the basic skills of the game is something that should not happen. 

[muppet]

I am not usually in favour of tinkering with the rules. However, I have not heard one good reason why the mark is a bad idea. I think it is an excellent idea.

On Sunday in Casement Park, Patsy Bradley from Derry gave a master-class in the art of high fielding taking 4-5 marks - a few of which brought applause from both sets of supporters! All of the resultant kicks were quickly taken in order to gain most advantage.

It simply rewards the skill of the high field and doesn't slow the game down as some are suggesting. Of course it could be used to slow the game by a team with a lot of good high fielders in a winning position. However, that's a small price to pay to see the skill displayed more frequently.

Without the mark the player who performs the catch is automatically at a disadvantage as more often than not they are easily swallowed up by a crowd of opposing players

I think that too many people get all wet and excited regarding high fielding.  It is one of the skills of the game but well drilled teams have been able to negate it at times by swarming the player who wins the ball.  But is it not a skill in itself to be able to evade challenges etc and make your way out of trouble?  There is a way to counteract all the skills in football and those methods are skills in their own right.  Where do you stop with regards to tinkering with rules to enable certain skills to flourish?  Do we allow a man an unchallenged shot at goal whenever he wins a ball out in front of his man in order to improve the frequency of long range shots?  No, I don't think so.  The game should be left the way it is.  If a player is good enough to win a ball in the air then so be it but trying to give these players an advantage for executing one of the basic skills of the game is something that should not happen.

The mark will come into its own in the Championship &  not in the shadow boxing of January football. A recognised quality fielder draws negative tactics and in the summer he will meet the blanket on landing. We want to reward the spectacular skill, not the organised army of dwarfs. 

That is what the mark is trying to deal with and I'm not surprised it has little effect this time of year but I think it will later.

[sheamy]

nrico, now we're cooking!

'swarming the player'. where does that stop and the two man tackle rule come into effect? If a player goes to ground after catching a ball, is it right that 3 men stand over him not letting him back onto his feet? 50% of the time the free kick goes for "over-carrying" (impossible as you are not taking steps!) and 50% of the time it goes to the fella on the ground. Utter madness.

I think there is a lot of merit in what you are saying and it's entirely possible the proposed rules are an over-reaction to what is in fact a problem that has been a failure to define, or rather implement consistently, the rules around the tackle properly.

[Hardy]

I am not usually in favour of tinkering with the rules. However, I have not heard one good reason why the mark is a bad idea. I think it is an excellent idea.

On Sunday in Casement Park, Patsy Bradley from Derry gave a master-class in the art of high fielding taking 4-5 marks - a few of which brought applause from both sets of supporters! All of the resultant kicks were quickly taken in order to gain most advantage.

It simply rewards the skill of the high field and doesn't slow the game down as some are suggesting. Of course it could be used to slow the game by a team with a lot of good high fielders in a winning position. However, that's a small price to pay to see the skill displayed more frequently.

Without the mark the player who performs the catch is automatically at a disadvantage as more often than not they are easily swallowed up by a crowd of opposing players

I think that too many people get all wet and excited regarding high fielding.  It is one of the skills of the game but well drilled teams have been able to negate it at times by swarming the player who wins the ball.  But is it not a skill in itself to be able to evade challenges etc and make your way out of trouble?  There is a way to counteract all the skills in football and those methods are skills in their own right.  Where do you stop with regards to tinkering with rules to enable certain skills to flourish?  Do we allow a man an unchallenged shot at goal whenever he wins a ball out in front of his man in order to improve the frequency of long range shots?  No, I don't think so.  The game should be left the way it is.  If a player is good enough to win a ball in the air then so be it but trying to give these players an advantage for executing one of the basic skills of the game is something that should not happen. 

I disagree. All sports "t**ker" with the rules to promote the positive aspects and skills of the games and to try to eradicate negative ones. That's how the rules come to be in the first place and as you say yourself, the game doesn't stay static because coaches, rightly, look for ways to gain advantage from the rules as they stand. That's where square ball, offside in soccer, lineout laws in rugby, etc. came from.

The problem of course is in reaching agreement on what's positive, what's negative, what needs changing and how to change it. That's where the debate happens and in that regard, I think we should be focussing on eradicating more serious ills in the game like diving, injury feigning and abuse of referees.

[Edit - I see the automatic language monitor censored my use of the word t i n k e r!]

[ha ha derry]

Time for the big wrecking lad in the middle again  you know the type, can,t kick, can,t catch, but has fists of iron 

[muppet]

Time for the big wrecking lad in the middle again  you know the type, can,t kick, can,t catch, but has fists of iron 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDusS5Q_JjE