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

[Zulu]

As AZ says Hardy I just meant the man in possession rather than forwards.

I think you've missed my point, Zulu. If you're giving the attacker a few extra steps because you deem he's being fouled, you're inventing your own rules.

I agree to a point but if I applied the rules strictly then any contact you make with the attacker is a foul and if you blew that all the time then you'd accused of taking the physicality out of football. IMO, both football and (in particular) hurling are riddled with fouls but if you blew them all the games would be very different and poorer spectacles.

I don't know what the solution is but I do think reffing is a bit of a no win situation.

[StephenC]

If reffing to the rules takes the physicality out of football then the problem is with the rules, not the refs.
The ones who get shafted here are the refs. They've a set of rules that they can't enforce (because the result wouldn't be football) and instead have to find some fabled sweet-spot where the game flows, there is plenty of physicality and both traditionalists and modernists are happy. 

[Milltown Row2]

To cover a miskick where the ball rolls a few feet?

I suppose so but, by the rule, there's nothing to stop him dribbling it all they way up the field, as far as I can see (other than having it taken away from him, of course).

This was brought up at a referees convention I was at in Croke Park, and yes as you say could dribble it the whole way up the pitch lol

[Hardy]

Jaysus Hardy, you must have been a back. I'm sure by 'attacker' Zulu means the person with the ball. After all, a defender coming out is launching an attack himself. In my experience, ANY player in possession is given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to steps if they are under pressure. If they are being fouled, the refs simply ignore the steps count I think.

I'd like to think that's true, AZ and I'm not just getting at Zulu, but I've said here before, and I'm not the only one, that the black-card stuff came in on a current of opinion that's anti-defending. There's a misguided belief that high scoring means good football. Witness all the guff about the hugely increased scoring rate in the league being "proof" that the black card was working.

[Hardy]

Jaysus Hardy, you must have been a back.

I meant to respond to this slur. I was an all-rounder - equally bad in all positions.

[AZOffaly]

Jaysus Hardy, you must have been a back. I'm sure by 'attacker' Zulu means the person with the ball. After all, a defender coming out is launching an attack himself. In my experience, ANY player in possession is given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to steps if they are under pressure. If they are being fouled, the refs simply ignore the steps count I think.

I'd like to think that's true, AZ and I'm not just getting at Zulu, but I've said here before, and I'm not the only one, that the black-card stuff came in on a current of opinion that's anti-defending. There's a misguided belief that high scoring means good football. Witness all the guff about the hugely increased scoring rate in the league being "proof" that the black card was working.

I think I've been consistent in my belief that the benefit of the black card down the field. Forwards pulling down backs coming out with the ball. That's the benefit of it that I see. A pull down 30 yards out is a score anyway. A pull down 90 yards out removes the chance to build a score.

[supersarsfields]

As AZ says Hardy I just meant the man in possession rather than forwards.

I think you've missed my point, Zulu. If you're giving the attacker a few extra steps because you deem he's being fouled, you're inventing your own rules.

I agree to a point but if I applied the rules strictly then any contact you make with the attacker is a foul and if you blew that all the time then you'd accused of taking the physicality out of football. IMO, both football and (in particular) hurling are riddled with fouls but if you blew them all the games would be very different and poorer spectacles.

I don't know what the solution is but I do think reffing is a bit of a no win situation.

But the problem there is that if the attacker was required to take his solo or bounce every 3-4steps as required then the defender would be able to tackle without having contact on the player. But now you're lucky to see a solo or bounce every 6-7 steps on average, which in my opinion is causing more defenders to tackle the body in an attempt to slow players down as disposing a forward on the run at present can be virtually impossible legally.
I mean taking it down to the basics, to tackle the ball at the minute you have to tackle open handed and attempt to flick the ball away. AFAIR the closed fist tackle has been clamped down on so realistically you are only looking at being able to dispose the ball when the attacker is taking either a solo or bounce, as a good forward with be virtually impossible to get the ball of in between without a closed fist tackle. Currently that means an attacker is only really open to be tackled every 6-7 steps at present. To me that's too much in favour to the attacker.
I know it's a bit chicken or egg in what's the best thing to do. Do you enforce the 3-4 steps rigidly, which will be a nightmare at the start while people readjust. And then enforce the minimised contact as well so that any contact to the body bar the shoulder is penalised. Or do you leave it as is regarding the steps but try and redefine the tackle to allow for more contact (This wouldn't be easy). Because at the minute we've a system that is allowing attackers the leeway in attack, but that isn't allowing defenders any leeway in the tackle. And I don't think that's a better spectacle. 

[highorlow]

Well if you're not point scoring then you haven't read my post, I ain't a Dub either! This is what I said -

The reality is, if refs went out and reffed games in both hurling and football as per the rule book then there would be a holy heap of frees per game until players realised you can't actual touch another player bar when shouldering.

I never said the game was non contact, to satisfy the rather strange point you're making if I inserted the word 'deliberate' then you'd have no problem? If I try to tackle you then any contact I make is surely deliberate bar standing there with my arms by my side and you running into me. The point I was making and I think everyone bar you understands this is the rule book isn't well worded and if, IF, a ref decided to go out and ref as per the rule book he could give a free against any player that raises their hand out and touches another player. Do you think I'm saying that's the way it is or should be?

You still haven't pointed to me where it says anywhere in GAA rules or definitions where players cannot touch each other. Until you do this you lose the argument.

[highorlow]

I'm telling you that from my experience of reffing, I do find it hard to repeatedly judge steps while also trying to judge whether the tackler is fouling.

Ah now FFS they let you ref matches. That says it all, enough said.

[PAULD123]

I don't agree at all that observing the rules correctly would take physicality out of football. As I said before  What you can't do to an attacking player is push him (with your hands), strike his body, grab him with your hands, or charge into him. You can still obstruct and block him with your body, he can be held up physically with your body and arms.

So blocking a player, getting close, bearing down on him, harrying him by pushing him a bit with your chest into his back (from standing not charging run), and wrapping your arms around (so long as you don't grab him and "hold him with the hands") are all legal physicality. All that makes it really awkward for an attacking player to get the ball to the bounce or toe tap. But all that is wasted if the attacker is allowed to take 6 steps or hold the ball for more than 3-4 seconds.

I have described good defending and it should be rewarded, not considered borderline. I don't agree that it is that difficult to differentiate between that and - a push with the hands, a charge in the back, a grab of the shirt, or a strike on the body. I don't think there is a withdrawal of physicality and I still think the steps rule should be policed a lot more to improve both fast attacking passing/shooting and cleaner defending.

[AZOffaly]

It's a bit chicken and egg. Attackers (man in possession) take 6 steps or more under pressure, and are let away with it, because defenders don't defend like that by and large Paul. But defenders don't defend like that because as you said, attackers are allowed take 6 steps or more.

[Zulu]

Well if you're not point scoring then you haven't read my post, I ain't a Dub either! This is what I said -

The reality is, if refs went out and reffed games in both hurling and football as per the rule book then there would be a holy heap of frees per game until players realised you can't actual touch another player bar when shouldering.

I never said the game was non contact, to satisfy the rather strange point you're making if I inserted the word 'deliberate' then you'd have no problem? If I try to tackle you then any contact I make is surely deliberate bar standing there with my arms by my side and you running into me. The point I was making and I think everyone bar you understands this is the rule book isn't well worded and if, IF, a ref decided to go out and ref as per the rule book he could give a free against any player that raises their hand out and touches another player. Do you think I'm saying that's the way it is or should be?

You still haven't pointed to me where it says anywhere in GAA rules or definitions where players cannot touch each other. Until you do this you lose the argument.

Right, I've figured this out, you're on holidays and are spending it drinking or else your just an ignorant individual?

You've been illogically aggressive and confrontational on this from the get go so I'm not going to engage you any longer. However, if there is anyone on this board who agrees with you I'll discuss it with them. So for the saner posters here, this was my original post -

The reality is, if refs went out and reffed games in both hurling and football as per the rule book then there would be a holy heap of frees per game until players realised you can't actual touch another player bar when shouldering.

So I said IF refs went BY THE LETTER OF THE LAW in the rule book you couldn't touch any player in possession bar shouldering them.

Now here is the rule -

The Tackle is a skill by which a player may dispossess an opponent or frustrate his objective within the Rules of Fair Play. The tackle is aimed at the ball, not the player. The tackler may use his body to confront the opponent but deliberate bodily contact (such as punching, slapping, arm holding, pushing, tripping, jersey pulling or a full frontal charge) is forbidden. The only deliberate physical contact can be a Fair Charge i.e. Shoulder-to-shoulder with at least one foot on the ground. More than one player can tackle the player in possession."

I've highlighted the bit that supports my point.

So highorlow is saying I'm wrong to claim a ref could go out and give a foul for any physical contact when tackling under the above rule, NOT THAT HE SHOULD OR THAT THEY CURRENTLY DO BUT THAT HE COULD. If anyone agrees with highorlow can they please come on and explain to me how that is wrong because this guy hasn't made an ounce of sense and I'm sick of the tone of his posts on an issue that shouldn't arouse too much anger.

[BennyHarp]

Well if you're not point scoring then you haven't read my post, I ain't a Dub either! This is what I said -

The reality is, if refs went out and reffed games in both hurling and football as per the rule book then there would be a holy heap of frees per game until players realised you can't actual touch another player bar when shouldering.

I never said the game was non contact, to satisfy the rather strange point you're making if I inserted the word 'deliberate' then you'd have no problem? If I try to tackle you then any contact I make is surely deliberate bar standing there with my arms by my side and you running into me. The point I was making and I think everyone bar you understands this is the rule book isn't well worded and if, IF, a ref decided to go out and ref as per the rule book he could give a free against any player that raises their hand out and touches another player. Do you think I'm saying that's the way it is or should be?

You still haven't pointed to me where it says anywhere in GAA rules or definitions where players cannot touch each other. Until you do this you lose the argument.

Right, I've figured this out, you're on holidays and are spending it drinking or else your just an ignorant individual?

You've been illogically aggressive and confrontational on this from the get go so I'm not going to engage you any longer. However, if there is anyone on this board who agrees with you I'll discuss it with them. So for the saner posters here, this was my original post -

The reality is, if refs went out and reffed games in both hurling and football as per the rule book then there would be a holy heap of frees per game until players realised you can't actual touch another player bar when shouldering.

So I said IF refs went BY THE LETTER OF THE LAW in the rule book you couldn't touch any player in possession bar shouldering them.

Now here is the rule -

The Tackle is a skill by which a player may dispossess an opponent or frustrate his objective within the Rules of Fair Play. The tackle is aimed at the ball, not the player. The tackler may use his body to confront the opponent but deliberate bodily contact (such as punching, slapping, arm holding, pushing, tripping, jersey pulling or a full frontal charge) is forbidden. The only deliberate physical contact can be a Fair Charge i.e. Shoulder-to-shoulder with at least one foot on the ground. More than one player can tackle the player in possession."

I've highlighted the bit that supports my point.

So highorlow is saying I'm wrong to claim a ref could go out and give a foul for any physical contact when tackling under the above rule, NOT THAT HE SHOULD OR THAT THEY CURRENTLY DO BUT THAT HE COULD. If anyone agrees with highorlow can they please come on and explain to me how that is wrong because this guy hasn't made an ounce of sense and I'm sick of the tone of his posts on an issue that shouldn't arouse too much anger.

Interesting line of argument Zulu - classy!

[Zulu]

Well Benny, highorlow has engaged with me in an aggressive manner right from the start and has repeatedly replied with an insulting and confrontational tone. I've tried to elaborate and explain my point but this guy hasn't managed to do that at any point so I've addressed him the way he has been addressing me. Perhaps not the right thing to do but considering my point was only the rule book can be interpreted in a certain way his 'panties in twist' attitude has become quite annoying.

[PAULD123]

Well Benny, highorlow has engaged with me in an aggressive manner right from the start and has repeatedly replied with an insulting and confrontational tone. I've tried to elaborate and explain my point but this guy hasn't managed to do that at any point so I've addressed him the way he has been addressing me. Perhaps not the right thing to do but considering my point was only the rule book can be interpreted in a certain way his 'panties in twist' attitude has become quite annoying.

Zulu, This is an interesting discussion that is getting disrupted by your argument with highorlow. In this instance highorlow is being needlessly confrontational. I think his comments to you were unfair but could I ask you to join in the rest of us and ignore him.

I read your quote regarding the rules of the tackle. You are right tat it was worded badly in it's clarification (actually made it much worse). But tat quote isn't actually in the rule book is it? The actual rules allow for a fair amount of physicality as I described earlier, don't they? The instances mentioned in your quote are all the same as the ones I stated were illegal. But the physical contact I suggest is allowed is surely still ok?

I am interested in your opinion as you are a ref