Rule about handpassed point?

[lynchbhoy]

We had two strange incidents in club games earlier this year involving fisted scores one for us and one against us.  The one against us occurred when one of our defenders caught a ball that came off the post.  As soon as he had caught it, one of the opposing team put in a perfect tackle on the ball and it ended up in the net.  Goal allowed.  The second one then was something similar, one of our forwards tackled the ball out of the keepers hands and it went straight over the bar.  Should both scores have been allowed?  I definitely thought the point shouldn't have been but wasn't as sure about the goal.

great questions !

a bit hazy on this, but there is something about not being allowed to challenge the keeper in the square - I presume he was in it?
If so , for that reason I would have thought the point be disallowed. If he was outside the square then point is correctly awarded.

The goal though, I suppose as it was not actually fist passed into the goals, it was more akin to punching a lobbing ball into the net - although in this instance it was not lobbing but in a defenders hands.
As long as the contact was made only to the ball, I think that goal was legal.
What do others think?

[Hardy]

I find it laughable that the decision to go for the easy, skill-free option and palm the ball over the bar from ten yards, when you can't be blocked, marks a player out as some sort of intellectual.

Once more - can anyone explain to me the reasoning that prompted the banning of the fisted goal, because it was seen as too easy and unfair, while retaining the fisted point, which is even easier? Is it because since, sure 'tis only a point, it's only one-third as unfair? Somehow, I wouldn't be surprised.

[Hardy]

You can tackle the keeper in the square. You can't charge him. Has anyone ever seen this rule applied correctly?

[magpie seanie]

You can tackle the keeper in the square. You can't charge him. Has anyone ever seen this rule applied correctly?

Correct Hardy - you can tackle but you cannot use a shoulder charge. refs don't seem to know this and if the poor keeper is in bother he gets his free out.

[lynchbhoy]

I find it laughable that the decision to go for the easy, skill-free option and palm the ball over the bar from ten yards, when you can't be blocked, marks a player out as some sort of intellectual.

Once more - can anyone explain to me the reasoning that prompted the banning of the fisted goal, because it was seen as too easy and unfair, while retaining the fisted point, which is even easier? Is it because since, sure 'tis only a point, it's only one-third as unfair? Somehow, I wouldn't be surprised.

intellectual no
but all too often a player gets a rush of blood to the head and tries to blast the ball through a crowded defence in a vain attempt to score a goal when a point is fine. Scores are often hard enough to obtain and watch the amount of times a player in close proximity will feck up by forgetting to fist a point , instead he goes for goal or tries to pass to a colleague and loses posession.

Like the cork forwards last sunday. you often find that if one forward scored with t afisted point early on, the rest remember to do similar - monkey see monkey do.
Otherwise players tend to forget.
I thought on Sun that the cork lads must have been watching the first half of the minor game - where Galway fisted a couple of scores and it seemed to inspire the cork forwards to do so.

Football to me encompasses the mental side of things, whereas a forward after breaking a few tacked has to have the presence of mind (as in going for a fisted point) to place his shot low and hard rather than just blast it - as a blasted shot hit squarely will invariably go straight at the keeper - how many times do we see that.
So I like to see a forward thinking and taking a point and  a guaranteed score rather than a rush of blood, a wasted chance and momentum given to the opposition.

[Hardy]

I don't disagree with any of that (except maybe the bit about Cork copying the Galway minors - I think everything Cork did on Sunday was admirably well prepared in advance). Of course a player is right to go for an easy fist over the bar when the rules allow it, or a palm because he knows the ref won't pull it. My point is that I don't think the rules should allow it. It drags us further in the direction of netball (I don't even use basketball as the example anymore) and it's illogical to allow it while banning the fisted goal.

[Hound]

Just on the history of it:

Both the fisted goal and fisted point were banned initially. I'm guessing this was late 70s, maybe early 80s - but they were deffo gone by 83.

Then they brought back the fisted point, on an experimental basis first, then "they" thought it was a good idea so kept it. Late80s I'm guessing when this happened.

Personally I have no strong opinion on it like others, but I think they have it right. If the forwards do a good enough job to get the ball close to goal, then I dont see anything wrong with having the option to fist a point (its "intellectual" because so many players rarely take the "easy option" in any run of play!). But goals are worth more and are deliberately harder to get, i.e. there's a keeper there! Fisting the ball into the net would put the keeper at too big a disadvantage. 

For the remainder of this championship, if I was a player I wouldnt take any chances with palming the ball over.

[Bacon]

The fisted point sould be baned.It gives the keeper no chance at all. Its baned in hurley.

The kicked point doesn't usually give the keeper any chance either!

[David McKeown]

We had two strange incidents in club games earlier this year involving fisted scores one for us and one against us.  The one against us occurred when one of our defenders caught a ball that came off the post.  As soon as he had caught it, one of the opposing team put in a perfect tackle on the ball and it ended up in the net.  Goal allowed.  The second one then was something similar, one of our forwards tackled the ball out of the keepers hands and it went straight over the bar.  Should both scores have been allowed?  I definitely thought the point shouldn't have been but wasn't as sure about the goal.

great questions !

a bit hazy on this, but there is something about not being allowed to challenge the keeper in the square - I presume he was in it?
If so , for that reason I would have thought the point be disallowed. If he was outside the square then point is correctly awarded.

The goal though, I suppose as it was not actually fist passed into the goals, it was more akin to punching a lobbing ball into the net - although in this instance it was not lobbing but in a defenders hands.
As long as the contact was made only to the ball, I think that goal was legal.
What do others think?

Lynchbhoy

Not sure if the keeper was in the sqaure or not as I was at midfield but if he was outside the area he wasn't that far out. I would have thought the point shouldn't have been allowed because the ball was either palmed over the bar from the tackle which shouldn't be allowed as a point or else was fisted out of the tackle which is also a free.  As I say not so confident on the goal

[ONeill]

In '81 a special congress abolished handpasses for scores.

In '75, tackling a goalkeeper in the parallelogram was forbidden.

[lynchbhoy]

We had two strange incidents in club games earlier this year involving fisted scores one for us and one against us.  The one against us occurred when one of our defenders caught a ball that came off the post.  As soon as he had caught it, one of the opposing team put in a perfect tackle on the ball and it ended up in the net.  Goal allowed.  The second one then was something similar, one of our forwards tackled the ball out of the keepers hands and it went straight over the bar.  Should both scores have been allowed?  I definitely thought the point shouldn't have been but wasn't as sure about the goal.

great questions !

a bit hazy on this, but there is something about not being allowed to challenge the keeper in the square - I presume he was in it?
If so , for that reason I would have thought the point be disallowed. If he was outside the square then point is correctly awarded.

The goal though, I suppose as it was not actually fist passed into the goals, it was more akin to punching a lobbing ball into the net - although in this instance it was not lobbing but in a defenders hands.
As long as the contact was made only to the ball, I think that goal was legal.
What do others think?

Lynchbhoy

Not sure if the keeper was in the sqaure or not as I was at midfield but if he was outside the area he wasn't that far out. I would have thought the point shouldn't have been allowed because the ball was either palmed over the bar from the tackle which shouldn't be allowed as a point or else was fisted out of the tackle which is also a free.  As I say not so confident on the goal

From what the lads say above, the keeper can indeed be tackled in the square.
The only part of this that I think a free could have been awarded is in the manner of the tackle. Recently it was explained to us by GAA appointed coaches that you cant tackle with the hand moving up - in an uppercut fashion - only slapping down on the ball  to free it from the man inposession, and you cant really hit the guys arm etc.
Trying to get consistent decision making by intercounty refs let alone club refs would be impossible imo.
Also if the guy slapped down hard on the ball there is a possibility that the ball would bounce over the bar - either way I think the point scored is valid.

[David McKeown]

Ah ok but I thought a point could not be scored with an open hand and that to be a fair tackle the hand making contact with the ball must be open?  Have to agree though it will happen so rarely that we will never get any consistency as to the rule.

[screenexile]

i agree with the idea of the 3 consecutive handpasses. i do not like the basketball that goes on out field but i do believe the fisted point is a skill in itself.
the rule for the closed fist should just be got rid of anyway as no coach,player or ref adheres to it and its only time before one ref with an agenda decides to act on it and the whole issue of inconsistency will arise again

The most ignored rule in GAA the closed fist tackle... I remember an occasion in Toronto when I had the ballout for a solo and this big fat canadian hit the ball away and uppercutted me through my ribs rendering me breathless for 5 minutes. The ref asked the linesman... 'fair tackle?' and the linesman made a punching motion with a clenched fist saying 'yeah he got the ball'

I used to tackle with an open hand but it's very difficult to get any kind of force to knock the ball out of somebody's hands and you don't get pinged for a closed fist tackle if you get the ball so I reckoned if you can't beat 'em, join 'em!