So what do ye think of the black card rule now?

[Zulu]

This bit makes absolutely no sense to me.
so the referees arent capable of consistently implementing the rules we have, so the solution is to introduce another level of sanction that further complicates the decision process???

I don't agree it complicates it, on the contrary, it simplifies it. I ref a bit and I know exactly what is a black card now I still might miss one in a game due to being unsighted a bit or not 100% sure it was deliberate but I've no doubt as to what is or isn't a black card.

I am not just basing my view on seeing one or two county games since the rules came in but also in club games i have played in and i can honestly say they the black card rule has had very little if any positive influence in the way the game was played, but has resulted in numerous contentious calls and inconsistencies.

Don't see this in games I've reffed, played in or seen. Not a single player I know of has suggested it has had any negative impact and I would get feedback from all the clubs in our county through my involvement in the county board.

I think we must come from completely different view point to what constitutes a good game of football. Just because something leads to more scores doesn't mean it has improved the game.
If that was the case, sure why not just make the goals bigger and then we will have a fantastic sport.

I'd say we'd probably agree on what constitutes good football unless you don't like hard, physical football but I don't think a high scoring games means scores are too easy to come by either. I certainly don't need to see a 4 -14 to 3-16 game to think it is good but I don't think pulling a dragging fellas down is a mark of a good game either. You can have a high scoring physical game of football as well as a cracking low scoring game. I enjoyed last Sundays game, second half in particular and I also enjoyed the league semi finals, Dublin/Cork, Kildare/Mayo, Derry/Cork, Dublin/Mayo etc. in the league. I'm not in favour of anything that takes the physicality out of football, the opposite in fact but I'm 100% in favour of punishing lads severely for cynical fouling like just dredging down lads. I think we can have a very physical game while also taking out the horrible sight of forwards simply pulling down lads just so they can allow their teammates race back to set up the defence.

But look, we clearly have opposite views on this and we won't convince each other as we've both seen the evidence and have come to opposite conclusions so I'll leave it at that!

[blewuporstuffed]

I was watching the live coverage on Sunday and Colm O'Rourke bought up a point that I had been discussing a few weeks ago with a few mates about the advantage rule. Now my argument, as it turns out, was similar to O'Rourkes, at what point does an advantage occur. For example, if a lad is running through and a defender tries to take him down and a free would be given but the attacker breaks free, gets through to a one on one situation and smacks the ball off the cross bar. Will the play be taken back for the free? Or is getting the shot away an advantage? Is it irrelevant if the player scores or not as they had a shot at goal?

This is where i have issues with the advantage rule as well.
Again, it is good in theory, but in reality when is letting play go one EVER an advantage when its in a scoring position?
surely its always an advantage to stop the play and let the free taker kick it over the bar rather than allowing the man in possesion and extra few seconds to break free of the foul, steady himself and get the shot away, and as yous ay, if he misses can the referee bring it back?

Its maybe different if he has gotten free and is now through on goal, but other than that, i would say most teams would take the freekick 9 times out of 10.

Further out the field it maybe has more advantages as it stops teams deliberately fouling just to slow the game down and get bodies back behind the ball.

[Croí na hÉireann]

Well, using the rugby example of drop goals in particular, if a scoring attempt fails during the advantage period then the ref is entitled to revert to the initial penalty.

That's entirely logical. I couldn't believe O'Rourke and what he was suggesting the other day. Massive difference between shooting under pressure and a free kick from the same position. If no advantage or score within the 5 seconds, pull it back.

[BennyHarp]

Well, using the rugby example of drop goals in particular, if a scoring attempt fails during the advantage period then the ref is entitled to revert to the initial penalty.

Im not sure thats what the rule is here though, O'Rourke was saying - why should the attacker get two shots at goal? The advantage surely is to enable him to have the opportunity to score - not actually ensure he scores?

[BennyHarp]

Well, using the rugby example of drop goals in particular, if a scoring attempt fails during the advantage period then the ref is entitled to revert to the initial penalty.

That's entirely logical. I couldn't believe O'Rourke and what he was suggesting the other day. Massive difference between shooting under pressure and a free kick from the same position. If no advantage or score within the 5 seconds, pull it back.

The advantage is that a player has the opportunity to score. So my example was that the player has the advantage of a goalscoring opportunity. The fact he missed is irrelevant. Or alternatively - coming out of defence, the defender breaks free from a foul and looks up, within 5 seconds hits a long ball which a forward fails to gather and the opposition picks it up. Do we bring that back and let him hit a free?

[Croí na hÉireann]

Well, using the rugby example of drop goals in particular, if a scoring attempt fails during the advantage period then the ref is entitled to revert to the initial penalty.

That's entirely logical. I couldn't believe O'Rourke and what he was suggesting the other day. Massive difference between shooting under pressure and a free kick from the same position. If no advantage or score within the 5 seconds, pull it back.

The advantage is that a player has the opportunity to score. So my example was that the player has the advantage of a goalscoring opportunity. The fact he missed is irrelevant. Or alternatively - coming out of defence, the defender breaks free from a foul and looks up, within 5 seconds hits a long ball which a forward fails to gather and the opposition picks it up. Do we bring that back and let him hit a free?

In your first example he has hit the bar and the team has presumably lost possession within the 5 seconds of the foul. That is not an advantage in my book. In the other example they have also lost possession within the 5 seconds so yes it should be brought back. Maybe 5 seconds is too generous, that's another argument.

[AZOffaly]

Well, using the rugby example of drop goals in particular, if a scoring attempt fails during the advantage period then the ref is entitled to revert to the initial penalty.

That's entirely logical. I couldn't believe O'Rourke and what he was suggesting the other day. Massive difference between shooting under pressure and a free kick from the same position. If no advantage or score within the 5 seconds, pull it back.

I agree with this. It used to do my f**king head in when a ref would say 'I gave you the chance to score' when a lad was hanging off you. The reason you missed might have something to do with the ape on your back no? That was before the official advantage rule, but I'm sure the same applies. I like a brief period (maybe 5 seconds is too long) and if a clear advantage doesn't accrue, then award the free.  In rugby you have to demonstrate clear advantage. As Jinxy says, a missed drop goal will be brought back for the penalty, but if you get a penalty in your own 22 and drive it all the way up to the opposition 5 metre line you're not going to get to go back and kick the penalty if you knock on in there. Because you have gained a clear advantage in the flow of the game.

[BennyHarp]

Well, using the rugby example of drop goals in particular, if a scoring attempt fails during the advantage period then the ref is entitled to revert to the initial penalty.

That's entirely logical. I couldn't believe O'Rourke and what he was suggesting the other day. Massive difference between shooting under pressure and a free kick from the same position. If no advantage or score within the 5 seconds, pull it back.

The advantage is that a player has the opportunity to score. So my example was that the player has the advantage of a goalscoring opportunity. The fact he missed is irrelevant. Or alternatively - coming out of defence, the defender breaks free from a foul and looks up, within 5 seconds hits a long ball which a forward fails to gather and the opposition picks it up. Do we bring that back and let him hit a free?

In your first example he has hit the bar and the team has presumably lost possession within the 5 seconds of the foul. That is not an advantage in my book. In the other example they have also lost possession within the 5 seconds so yes it should be brought back. Maybe 5 seconds is too generous, that's another argument.

But 5 seconds is part of the argument. A play can move on significantly in that time. A player can have regained composure and got a shot away in that space of time, he isn't necessarily shooting with an ape on his back.

[PAULD123]

Well, using the rugby example of drop goals in particular, if a scoring attempt fails during the advantage period then the ref is entitled to revert to the initial penalty.

In the rules they state - "The referee shall allow the advantage to run by maintaining his arm in the upright position for up to five seconds after the initial foul or for less time if it becomes clear that no advantage has accrued."

So dead simple the referees should count five seconds in every situation from when a foul occurs. Five seconds is an enormous amount of time when the ball is in play. You could move the ball from the fifty to the square in two passes and have a shot and still just about be under five seconds. Advantage is a great rule and I think the five seconds is a fair amount though perhaps 3 would be less disruptive.

The problem is that from every game I have seen there isn't a referee in the country that can't count to five seconds. I have never seen an advantage go beyond 2 seconds and then be called back. If you don't get called back almost immediately then the referee isn't doing it.

As for a shot being an advantage it depends on the free. If it is 13m free dead centre and the team get a shot away at goals then I still do not consider that an advantage. In my opinion a 13m free is a near defo point so to get an advantage you don't just need a chance at a score you would actually have to score. A free beyond 30m, or very wide is a different matter. But I think close frees should always be pulled back. Similarly I think losing possession within 5 seconds should always be pulled back.

[Hardy]

It's not five seconds. It's up to five seconds. When the ref takes down his hand, normal play is in effect. If the advantage is established in two seconds and the ref takes down his hand, if the fouled player then shoots and misses, hard luck. If he fouls the ball, it's a free against him, etc. It's all down to when the referee decides advantage has or hasn't accrued and either takes down his hand to let play resume or blows the whistle for the original foul.

[BennyHarp]

It's not five seconds. It's up to five seconds. When the ref takes down his hand, normal play is in effect. If the advantage is established in two seconds and the ref takes down his hand, if the fouled player then shoots and misses, hard luck. If he fouls the ball, it's a free against him, etc. It's all down to when the referee decides advantage has or hasn't accrued and either takes down his hand to let play resume or blows the whistle for the original foul.

Ok, that makes sense. So, just to clarify then, if in my example, the player takes the shot whilst the ref still has his hand up then, if he misses, the play will be bought back. If the ref has taken his hand down before he shoots (as he thinks an advantage has been gained) then, the advantage is over and he will not get a free and play continues from the ball coming off the bar.

[Hardy]

I think that's how it's meant to work OK.

[orangeman]

Davy Coldrick last week. Joe Mc Quillan this week. Refs are finding it difficult to sort out this black card.

God help the mere mortal referees.

[Hound]

Davy Coldrick last week. Joe Mc Quillan this week. Refs are finding it difficult to sort out this black card.

God help the mere mortal referees.

In my opinion, the obvious lesson for the mere mortal refs is to only give the black card when absolutely certain the offender's main objective was to pull the attacker to the ground. If there's any doubt, you shouldn't give the black card.

I think McQuillan did fine. Kielt's was blatant a black card, but there were doubts over the earlier ones. A couple were borderline, but borderline shouldnt be enough to get black.

I find it really annoying the amount of fans, and now media, calling for more black cards. The refs are doing largely a really good job in the 4 or 5 months this has been in, but all this hoohah is likely to make a ballix of it and we could see far more black cards as the championship progresses. But hopefully the refs stay strong.

[magpie seanie]

Kielt deliberately tried to trip the Donegal guy but in no way did his action cause him to fall. The Donegal guy should have been booked for diving but was rewarded instead by his opponent having to leave the field.