Gaelic Football - Rules & Regulations discussion/clarification

[David McKeown]

And how is the fouled player to know he has an advantage? eyes in the back of his head?
It's a totally idiotic advantage rule when you can lose the advantage inside 4 seconds.

If a player does happen to notice that he has the advantage, can he stop play and say, 'thanks ref but I want the free kick not the so called advantage'?

No, he has to 'honestly' play on and make the ref call it that no advantage is being gained.

I think a ref would give the free in the case of getting bottled up, as it would be clear no advantage is being gained at the start of the bottling up.

It's where the attacking player overcarries for no ones fault but their own that a foul would be called.

Doesn't sound like a consistent application of the rules. If you give the advantage surely you have to let the 5 seconds play out in case you come out of being bottled up.

Never liked the advantage rule. I think it's trying to be all things to all men and ends up just being farcical

[Main Street]

And how is the fouled player to know he has an advantage? eyes in the back of his head?
It's a totally idiotic advantage rule when you can lose the advantage inside 4 seconds.

If a player does happen to notice that he has the advantage, can he stop play and say, 'thanks ref but I want the free kick not the so called advantage'?

No, he has to 'honestly' play on and make the ref call it that no advantage is being gained.

I think a ref would give the free in the case of getting bottled up, as it would be clear no advantage is being gained at the start of the bottling up.

It's where the attacking player overcarries for no ones fault but their own that a foul would be called.

Thanks,  are you saying if the ref plays advantage but subsequently the player gets caught in a swarm and holds onto the ball too long, the ref would generally call the play back for the advantage as you alluded to?

But that in the event of the player committing a technical foul on his own accord (too many steps), the ref will generally call the foul against the player?

[weareros]

And how is the fouled player to know he has an advantage? eyes in the back of his head?
It's a totally idiotic advantage rule when you can lose the advantage inside 4 seconds.

If a player does happen to notice that he has the advantage, can he stop play and say, 'thanks ref but I want the free kick not the so called advantage'?

No, he has to 'honestly' play on and make the ref call it that no advantage is being gained.

I think a ref would give the free in the case of getting bottled up, as it would be clear no advantage is being gained at the start of the bottling up.

It's where the attacking player overcarries for no ones fault but their own that a foul would be called.

Thanks,  are you saying if the ref plays advantage but subsequently the player gets caught in a swarm and holds onto the ball too long, the ref would generally call the play back for the advantage as you alluded to?

But that in the event of the player committing a technical foul on his own accord (too many steps), the ref will generally call the foul against the player?

Refs rarely penalise steps when advantage is given. Tommy Conroy was given an advantage in the 1st half yesterday, proceeded to take way too many steps. Gough stopped play and gave original free to Mayo, which they pointed.

[JoG2]

And how is the fouled player to know he has an advantage? eyes in the back of his head?
It's a totally idiotic advantage rule when you can lose the advantage inside 4 seconds.

If a player does happen to notice that he has the advantage, can he stop play and say, 'thanks ref but I want the free kick not the so called advantage'?

No, he has to 'honestly' play on and make the ref call it that no advantage is being gained.

I think a ref would give the free in the case of getting bottled up, as it would be clear no advantage is being gained at the start of the bottling up.

It's where the attacking player overcarries for no ones fault but their own that a foul would be called.

A simple rule made into a minefield by the powers that be. The addition to the rule in the official guide / rules (effective from March 2024), in the referee's handbook (which was obviously news to me yesterday, and I want state on record that I'm delighted to have this new rule add-on learnt to let rip at a future game) states:

Foul Subsequent to Advantage Award
If, during the advantage period, a foul is committed by a player of the team which was originally fouled then the advantage is cancelled and a free kick/puck awarded for the "second" foul.

The above is not stated in the Official Playing Rules.

5.44   
When an Aggressive Foul is committed, the Referee may allow the play to continue if the referee considers that this presents the potential of a goal-scoring opportunity or another advantage to the team offended by creating or capitalising on time and space. The Referee shall signal that advantage by raising an arm upright and shall allow the advantage to run by maintaining that arm in the upright position for up to five seconds afterthe foul or for less time if it becomes clear that no advantage has accrued. If the referee deems no advantage to have accrued, the Referee may subsequently award a free for the foul from where it occurred, except as provided under Exceptions (v) and (vi) of Rule 2.2

For clarity Rule 2.2 (v and vi)

(v)When play is restarted by throwing in the ball after a foul(s) within 13m ofthe sideline, the throw-in shall be given 13m from the sideline and directly infield from where the foul(s) occurred.
(vi) When play is restarted by throwing in the ball after a foul(s) between the endline and the 20m line, the throw-in shall be given on the 20m line opposite where the foul(s)        occurred, subject to the provisions stated in



On the rule itself, if a player (hypothetical scenario, the player is bursting into the big D, 20m out from goal) is fouled, the ref's hand goes up to signal 5 seconds advantage, the player breaks free and shoots from 15m out, dead centre, misses, the ref will call it back. 2 bites of the cherry if you will.
Now, the same player takes 6 steps trying evade another defender, maybe he's been knocked off balance during the first tackle, commits a technical foul, maybe charges into another player, and loses the advantage.
Before the advantage rule was brought in, the player would have just got the very scorable free. Now, he could get either 2 easy shots for a score or nothing. Once the hands goes up, he has 5 seconds to not foul or he loses the free. He can't shout to ref  'here, I'll take the free thanks'..

If, for example, Conor Loftus during the final play in yesterday's Connacht final had been initially fouled and Gough's hand was up giving Loftus his 5 seconds advantage when the 2 Galway players tackled him (you can't tackle a man's neck and face, but that's for another day), Loftus was deemed to have committed a technical foul ie over carried the ball and would therefore have lost his advantage. In the olden days, Loftus gets his free, batters it up the pitch, game over.

Advantage 101 by the GAA

[David McKeown]

Even this bit doesnt make sense

5.44   
When an Aggressive Foul is committed, the Referee may allow the play to continue if the referee considers that this presents the potential of a goal-scoring opportunity or another advantage to the team offended by creating or capitalising on time and space. The Referee shall signal that advantage by raising an arm upright and shall allow the advantage to run by maintaining that arm in the upright position for up to five seconds after the foul or for less time if it becomes clear that no advantage has accrued. If the referee deems no advantage to have accrued, the Referee may subsequently award a free for the foul from where it occurred, except as provided under Exceptions (v) and (vi) of Rule 2.2

The referee may allow the play to continue if there is a potential for an advantage in the next five seconds but can allow less if no advantage accrues in that lesser time.  What if no advantage accrues after say 3 seconds but one might still occur.  What does the ref do?  The tenses are wrong are they not?

I am even more confused now by the rule than I was when i didnt actually know what it was

[JoG2]

Even this bit doesnt make sense

5.44   
When an Aggressive Foul is committed, the Referee may allow the play to continue if the referee considers that this presents the potential of a goal-scoring opportunity or another advantage to the team offended by creating or capitalising on time and space. The Referee shall signal that advantage by raising an arm upright and shall allow the advantage to run by maintaining that arm in the upright position for up to five seconds after the foul or for less time if it becomes clear that no advantage has accrued. If the referee deems no advantage to have accrued, the Referee may subsequently award a free for the foul from where it occurred, except as provided under Exceptions (v) and (vi) of Rule 2.2

The referee may allow the play to continue if there is a potential for an advantage in the next five seconds but can allow less if no advantage accrues in that lesser time.  What if no advantage accrues after say 3 seconds but one might still occur.  What does the ref do?  The tenses are wrong are they not?

I am even more confused now by the rule than I was when i didnt actually know what it was

 

[Milltown Row2]

Personally I let it continue a 'good' 5 seconds in those critical areas (goal scoring ops) and other than him committing an aggressive foul himself or literally taking the piss in steps I'll bring back for the original

2 games in a row now (football) lads and management are still unsure of the rules for even the basics that have been about for years.

As David has said many times, its not a black and white set of rules, it is in most parts down to the ref's interpretation of the rules which largely pisses people off, but that's the way it is currently until a review is done to tidy it up

Before the advantage rule we used to have the 'slow' whistle which allowed us to give a player a chance to 'break' free of a challenge and possibly set up play, or score.  Sort of stuck on both now lol!

[Rossfan]

Too hot to be looking up the playing rules in T.O....

You make a forward mark, signal you're taking it,  can you punch the ball over the bar or must it be kicked?

[Milltown Row2]

Too hot to be looking up the playing rules in T.O....

You make a forward mark, signal you're taking it,  can you punch the ball over the bar or must it be kicked?

You'd need to be on glue to fist the ball over the bar when calling a mark. Even if that is allowed I'd be calling that one up

[Duine Inteacht Eile]

It's a free kick from the hands.

[Gianni]

Hi men! I am Giovanni from Italy, I come from Rome. I am an amateur soccer player and now I discover this new sport, i.e. Gaelic Football.
I have already read all the rules but I still have doubts.
Ok, let's get started.

1. When the player is in possession of the ball, the ball is held in his hands, he could:
  A. throw the ball in the air and catch it again with your hands? I think not, right?
  B. throw the ball in the air, hit it with any part of the body except arms and hands and then catch it in the hands? I don't think so, am I right?
  C. throw the ball and hit it with any part of the body, maybe like someone throws the ball in the air and then hits it with his head, legal?
  D. Bringing the ball with the hands at head height and then, without either throwing or releasing it, hitting the ball with the head or any part of the body except the hands, legal?

2. Rule: 1.5 When the ball has not been caught, it may be bounced more than once in succession.. So a player could control the ball with one hand (or two?) and play it basketball style as far as he wants? It would be much easier than soloing so how come we don't see it? The reason I expect is that 'caught' does not infer with both hands?

3. When a player tries to catch a ball in the air he may touch the ball several times with his hands as long as he has control of it. But could he continue to bounce the ball from his hand into the air as Hurling players do with stick and ball?
Rule: To play the ball up with the hand(s) and catch it again before it touches the ground, another player, or goal-posts
But, according to the rule, a player, once he touches the ball once in the air, cannot touch it a second or third time?
I believe as long as he can't control the ball the player could do it, but if we interpret the rule literally this wouldn't be legal, would it?

4. Situation: a player takes possession and hops the ball.

 A. After the hop he flicks it up in the air and catches it before it bounces the ground, a posts or a player.
 B. he flicks it to pass the ball to someone else.
 C. he flicks it to score a goal.
are A, B, C legals?

5. Situation: a player with the foot or with other parts of body but the hands tries a "Sombrero trick" and:
 A. in the air he strikes the ball to an other direction.
 B. in the air he strikes the ball and then he caught it.
 C. in the air he caught it and goes on.

6. Ladies Gaelic football allows this:
Rule: A player may toss up the ball with one hand and play it off with the same hand.
So a player toss up the ball with right hand, surpass a player and then he can catch it with right hand, legal?
What does mean this Rule: Showing the Ball or Turning Twice with the ball is NOT a foul providing it is done within the 4 step rule.
I mean what are the showing the ball or turning twice.

Thanks

[David McKeown]

Personally I let it continue a 'good' 5 seconds in those critical areas (goal scoring ops) and other than him committing an aggressive foul himself or literally taking the piss in steps I'll bring back for the original

2 games in a row now (football) lads and management are still unsure of the rules for even the basics that have been about for years.

As David has said many times, its not a black and white set of rules, it is in most parts down to the ref's interpretation of the rules which largely pisses people off, but that's the way it is currently until a review is done to tidy it up

Before the advantage rule we used to have the 'slow' whistle which allowed us to give a player a chance to 'break' free of a challenge and possibly set up play, or score.  Sort of stuck on both now lol!

There was one last night in the Cork v Limerick match that made me wonder. Cork attacking near the end chasing a goal. Advantage given inside the 21. Player breaks free, and gets a shot away off target. Goes over the bar but he was clearly shooting for goal. Should that come back? I mean I know he scored but Cork needed a goal and got one from a free in the same position against Clare the last day out. I genuinely don't know what should happen in that scenario. Would the attacker have been better deliberately missing?

[David McKeown]

Hi men! I am Giovanni from Italy, I come from Rome. I am an amateur soccer player and now I discover this new sport, i.e. Gaelic Football.
I have already read all the rules but I still have doubts.
Ok, let's get started.

1. When the player is in possession of the ball, the ball is held in his hands, he could:
  A. throw the ball in the air and catch it again with your hands? I think not, right?
  B. throw the ball in the air, hit it with any part of the body except arms and hands and then catch it in the hands? I don't think so, am I right?
  C. throw the ball and hit it with any part of the body, maybe like someone throws the ball in the air and then hits it with his head, legal?
  D. Bringing the ball with the hands at head height and then, without either throwing or releasing it, hitting the ball with the head or any part of the body except the hands, legal?

2. Rule: 1.5 When the ball has not been caught, it may be bounced more than once in succession.. So a player could control the ball with one hand (or two?) and play it basketball style as far as he wants? It would be much easier than soloing so how come we don't see it? The reason I expect is that 'caught' does not infer with both hands?

3. When a player tries to catch a ball in the air he may touch the ball several times with his hands as long as he has control of it. But could he continue to bounce the ball from his hand into the air as Hurling players do with stick and ball?
Rule: To play the ball up with the hand(s) and catch it again before it touches the ground, another player, or goal-posts
But, according to the rule, a player, once he touches the ball once in the air, cannot touch it a second or third time?
I believe as long as he can't control the ball the player could do it, but if we interpret the rule literally this wouldn't be legal, would it?

4. Situation: a player takes possession and hops the ball.

 A. After the hop he flicks it up in the air and catches it before it bounces the ground, a posts or a player.
 B. he flicks it to pass the ball to someone else.
 C. he flicks it to score a goal.
are A, B, C legals?

5. Situation: a player with the foot or with other parts of body but the hands tries a "Sombrero trick" and:
 A. in the air he strikes the ball to an other direction.
 B. in the air he strikes the ball and then he caught it.
 C. in the air he caught it and goes on.

6. Ladies Gaelic football allows this:
Rule: A player may toss up the ball with one hand and play it off with the same hand.
So a player toss up the ball with right hand, surpass a player and then he can catch it with right hand, legal?
What does mean this Rule: Showing the Ball or Turning Twice with the ball is NOT a foul providing it is done within the 4 step rule.
I mean what are the showing the ball or turning twice.

Thanks

I'll leave these to the resident ref but you have given PTSD with point 2. The way that rule is to be interpreted after the Clifford or Ganey (can't remember which) goal makes no sense. For a ball to be considered bounced it has to leave the hands, hit the ground and return immediately into the hand. As a result the the rule basically says you can continue to bounce the ball provided you never bounce the ball.

[Duine Inteacht Eile]

That's a good point.
It also reinforces my belief that the rule is wrong in that if you get an opportunity to shoot from a more advantageous position then you should not get a free regardless of the outcome.
It should be one or the other.

[Milltown Row2]

Personally I let it continue a 'good' 5 seconds in those critical areas (goal scoring ops) and other than him committing an aggressive foul himself or literally taking the piss in steps I'll bring back for the original

2 games in a row now (football) lads and management are still unsure of the rules for even the basics that have been about for years.

As David has said many times, its not a black and white set of rules, it is in most parts down to the ref's interpretation of the rules which largely pisses people off, but that's the way it is currently until a review is done to tidy it up

Before the advantage rule we used to have the 'slow' whistle which allowed us to give a player a chance to 'break' free of a challenge and possibly set up play, or score.  Sort of stuck on both now lol!

There was one last night in the Cork v Limerick match that made me wonder. Cork attacking near the end chasing a goal. Advantage given inside the 21. Player breaks free, and gets a shot away off target. Goes over the bar but he was clearly shooting for goal. Should that come back? I mean I know he scored but Cork needed a goal and got one from a free in the same position against Clare the last day out. I genuinely don't know what should happen in that scenario. Would the attacker have been better deliberately missing?

Remembered it, never thought that any of the players or management wanted that retaken. But it's a good point because had he missed it would have undoubtedly been brought back for a 21 yard free.

The introduction of the advantage rule was to reduce the amount of fouls happening in the game, creating less breaks better fluency.

When done well it's better for the game, think it works better in hurling.