Just would like it cleared up. What would a player needed to have done to commit a third man tackle? There was a discussion on it at work today and there were many definitions.
My reading of it is,
When one man lays off a pass to a team mate. He makes a run to either receive a pass back or join the attack, and is taken out off it by someone from the opposing team. I suppose when a player is tackled when he doesn't have the ball, but is making a run.
a third man tackle is basically a tackle on a player who has not got possession of the ball occurring when the player is obstructed or blocked from gaining posession by an opposing player.
Basically watch any Armagh game in 2002
******opens can of worms and runs away*********
Quote from: whassupp2 on January 06, 2009, 09:31:57 PM
a third man tackle is basically a tackle on a player who has not got possession of the ball occurring when the player is obstructed or blocked from gaining posession by an opposing player.
Yeah I think this is a good definition. The player been tackled has to have the opportunity to gain possession in the near future. If some lad is blocked down the other end of the field then thats more of an off the ball tackle than a third man tackle
QuoteBasically watch any Armagh game in 2002
******opens can of worms and runs away*********
Armagh & Crossmaglen under Joe Kernan did employ the third man tackle extensively but it was not considered a foul back then. Referees are more aware of it now.
Quote from: Gabriel_Hurl on January 06, 2009, 10:30:29 PM
Basically watch any Armagh game in 2002
******opens can of worms and runs away*********
2002 until present day ??
Are "third m an Tackle" and "off the ball tackle" actually named in the rule book? And if so what, what are their definitions?
On another issue, see that Joe Kernan is calling for honesty in the papers at the moment. What hypocrisy!!!
Quote from: tonesfirstandlast on January 07, 2009, 11:16:19 AM
Are "third m an Tackle" and "off the ball tackle" actually named in the rule book? And if so what, what are their definitions?
On another issue, see that Joe Kernan is calling for honesty in the papers at the moment. What hypocrisy!!!
How exactly?
Because he introduced a tactic which was against the spirit and the law of the game that went unpunished!
Try and keep up SLK :D
Quote from: SidelineKick on January 07, 2009, 11:18:50 AM
Quote from: tonesfirstandlast on January 07, 2009, 11:16:19 AM
Are "third m an Tackle" and "off the ball tackle" actually named in the rule book? And if so what, what are their definitions?
On another issue, see that Joe Kernan is calling for honesty in the papers at the moment. What hypocrisy!!!
How exactly?
His Armagh and Crossmaglen teams were dirty teams and bent the rules to the limit on every occasion.
Quote from: NAG on January 07, 2009, 11:29:23 AM
Because he introduced a tactic which was against the spirit and the law of the game that went unpunished!
Try and keep up SLK :D
Jesus not the SPIRIT!! God he should have been shot by a firing squad ::)
As someone posted previously:
Quote from: StGallsGAA on January 07, 2009, 10:45:28 AM
Armagh & Crossmaglen under Joe Kernan did employ the third man tackle extensively but it was not considered a foul back then. Referees are more aware of it now.
They played within the rules of the game and bent them to breaking point, but guess what, they didn't break!
Many teams bend the rules, more so now than ever, especially with finding loopholes to get out of suspensions etc. Big Joe was no different than any manager....IN THE FACT THAT HE BENT THE RULES.
EDITED TO PLEASE HARDY
He was a lot different to most managers. He won several All-Ireland titles.
Quote from: tonesfirstandlast on January 07, 2009, 11:16:19 AM
Are "third m an Tackle" and "off the ball tackle" actually named in the rule book? And if so what, what are their definitions?
The phrases "third man tackle" and "off the ball tackle" don't appear in the rule book, but I'd say this is the rule that covers it (under Rule 5 - Aggressive Fouls):
5.25
(a) To charge an opponent in the back or to the front.
(b) To charge an opponent unless:-
(i) he is in possession of the ball, or
(ii) he is playing the ball, or
(iii) both players are moving in the direction of the ball to play it.
(c) To charge an opponent for the purpose of giving an advantage to a team-mate.
I think myself that, like many rules in the guide, the phrase "moving in the direction of the ball to play it" is too open to interpretation. If a player is running towards a team-mate who is in possession of the ball, to receive a handpass, is he "moving in the direction of the ball to play it" and can you charge him? I'd say nobody knows.
And what does "to charge an opponent for the purpose of giving an advantage to a team-mate" mean? Surely every time you shoulder charge an opponent legitimately you're doing it to give an advantage to all your team mates. A bit like Bill Shankly's "if one of my players is not interfering with play, I want to know why".
Is somebody taking my name in vain. :D :D :D
This thread is a wind up lads......a Bellaghy man asking for a definition of a third man tackle??
Why doesn't he just go along to any one of his club's matches. Or their U6 coaching sessions. :D :D :D
Quote from: StGallsGAA on January 07, 2009, 10:45:28 AM
QuoteBasically watch any Armagh game in 2002
******opens can of worms and runs away*********
Armagh & Crossmaglen under Joe Kernan did employ the third man tackle extensively but it was not considered a foul back then. Referees are more aware of it now.
EH?
Yeah it's always been a foul but our standard of refereeing means that this law was not always enforced as it should have been.
I can't speak for every incident, but my reading of the rule put up by Hardy is that much of what is considered as a third man tackle is not in fact a foul.
Quote from: Hardy on January 07, 2009, 12:13:41 PM
Quote from: tonesfirstandlast on January 07, 2009, 11:16:19 AM
Are "third m an Tackle" and "off the ball tackle" actually named in the rule book? And if so what, what are their definitions?
The phrases "third man tackle" and "off the ball tackle" don't appear in the rule book, but I'd say this is the rule that covers it (under Rule 5 - Aggressive Fouls):
5.25
(a) To charge an opponent in the back or to the front.
(b) To charge an opponent unless:-
(i) he is in possession of the ball, or
(ii) he is playing the ball, or
(iii) both players are moving in the direction of the ball to play it.
(c) To charge an opponent for the purpose of giving an advantage to a team-mate.
I think myself that, like many rules in the guide, the phrase "moving in the direction of the ball to play it" is too open to interpretation. If a player is running towards a team-mate who is in possession of the ball, to receive a handpass, is he "moving in the direction of the ball to play it" and can you charge him? I'd say nobody knows.
And what does "to charge an opponent for the purpose of giving an advantage to a team-mate" mean? Surely every time you shoulder charge an opponent legitimately you're doing it to give an advantage to all your team mates. A bit like Bill Shankly's "if one of my players is not interfering with play, I want to know why".
I have highlighted the word "charged" as it is clearly the active part of the foul. Very often a third man tackle is given when a player blocks someone after they have passed the ball. Unless the "offending" player actually moves to "charge" his opponent then there is no foul. If you stand your ground and an opposing player runs into you after the ball has gone that is clearly not a foul. This is the supposed "tactic" that people are suggesting Joe brought into our game and Armagh's. It is no different in my view from a screen in basketball, or a soccer player sheparding a ball over the sideline by blocking his opponent.
Quote from: screenexile on January 07, 2009, 12:42:31 PM
Yeah it's always been a foul but our standard of refereeing means that this law was not always enforced as it should have been.
I wouldn't exactly blame it on the standard of refereeing. It was just one of those things that was "tolerated" at the time, like stealing ground at a free kick. Cynical managers and coaches will always pick up on these type of things and use them to their teams best advantage. It is really only when we see teams using these methods to gain an unfair advantage AND being successful, that the powers that be step in and order a clampdown. This years target will hopefully be the diver (ala O'Mahony or Conway).
Well, as Brokencrossbar says, (and I hadn't thought of it that way) it doesn't seem to be an unfair advantage at all and would seem to be quite within the rules, as long as it's a "screen" or block and not a charge. I had a quick search, just to be sure and there's no rule against what's known (and penalised) in soccer as "obstruction". The word appears only once in the Official Guide - apparently it's an offence in hurling to "use the hurley to obstruct an opponent". I've also checked "block" (appears only in reference to blocking the ball) and "check" - no mention.
That would indicate to me that the concept of obstruction is deliberately omitted from the rules, since the rule-makers have certainly considered it and decided it's unfair to use a hurley to do it. That seems to imply it's OK to use your body to do it. Certainly, armed with this knowledge, I'd be asking a ref what rule he was penalising me under if he did me for a "third man tackle" when all I did was stood in the way of a man making a run. Of course I know the reasoned logical reply I'd get too!
Quote from: Spirit of 94 on January 07, 2009, 01:01:10 PM
Quote from: screenexile on January 07, 2009, 12:42:31 PM
Yeah it's always been a foul but our standard of refereeing means that this law was not always enforced as it should have been.
I wouldn't exactly blame it on the standard of refereeing. It was just one of those things that was "tolerated" at the time, like stealing ground at a free kick. Cynical managers and coaches will always pick up on these type of things and use them to their teams best advantage. It is really only when we see teams using these methods to gain an unfair advantage AND being successful, that the powers that be step in and order a clampdown. This years target will hopefully be the diver (ala O'Mahony or Conway).
I'll agree on the diver thing but the rest quite frankly is bollocks.
There is no such thing as a third man tackle and there never has been. Enforcing the law is what to do if there is a law, but there isn't so there is no "tolerating". So I'm not really sure how there can be a clampdown on a "rule" that doesn't exist.
Our standard of refereeing isn't really the main issue (though it exacerbates the problem)- its how we treat the referees. I've had to pull players on my own team away from ref's shouting every sort of abuse at them for not blowing for a "third man tackle". In the GAA we have never put the same emphasis on teaching young players the rules of the game and respect for the referees that are inherent in rugby. That is one of the biggest gaps in our games today.
Cynical managers and coaches using things to their best advantage? Whatever next? telling their team to outscore the opposition. Teaching the players the rules of the game isn't cynical its smart. And playing within the letter of the law isn't unfair its competitive.
Amen heganboy.
Quote from: heganboy on January 07, 2009, 02:52:13 PM
Quote from: Spirit of 94 on January 07, 2009, 01:01:10 PM
Quote from: screenexile on January 07, 2009, 12:42:31 PM
Yeah it's always been a foul but our standard of refereeing means that this law was not always enforced as it should have been.
I wouldn't exactly blame it on the standard of refereeing. It was just one of those things that was "tolerated" at the time, like stealing ground at a free kick. Cynical managers and coaches will always pick up on these type of things and use them to their teams best advantage. It is really only when we see teams using these methods to gain an unfair advantage AND being successful, that the powers that be step in and order a clampdown. This years target will hopefully be the diver (ala O'Mahony or Conway).
I'll agree on the diver thing but the rest quite frankly is bollocks.
There is no such thing as a third man tackle and there never has been. Enforcing the law is what to do if there is a law, but there isn't so there is no "tolerating". So I'm not really sure how there can be a clampdown on a "rule" that doesn't exist.Our standard of refereeing isn't really the main issue (though it exacerbates the problem)- its how we treat the referees. I've had to pull players on my own team away from ref's shouting every sort of abuse at them for not blowing for a "third man tackle". In the GAA we have never put the same emphasis on teaching young players the rules of the game and respect for the referees that are inherent in rugby. That is one of the biggest gaps in our games today.
Cynical managers and coaches using things to their best advantage? Whatever next? telling their team to outscore the opposition. Teaching the players the rules of the game isn't cynical its smart. And playing within the letter of the law isn't unfair its competitive.
1. Offical Rule Guide.
5.16 To push an opponent or hold an opponent with
the hand(s).Of course there can't be a rule to exactly cover each and every misdemeanour. It's all about interpretation. :o :o
2. Formalise the interpretation of the rule or CHANGE the rule. :o :o
3. Maybe in your club (or mine) but there are certainly clubs who do place huge emphasis on teaching young players to respect referees.
4. There's nothing wrong with managers seeking an advantage as long as it's within the rules. The hint for you is the word "cynical". I've used this to emphasise that these men are exploiting the rules. ::) ::)
5. If your're so fond of rugby maybe you should stick to it. ;D ;D
I really hate getting into these things back and forth, but seriously...
Quote from: Spirit of 94 on January 07, 2009, 03:24:52 PM
1. Offical Rule Guide.
5.16 To push an opponent or hold an opponent with
the hand(s).
Of course there can't be a rule to exactly cover each and every misdemeanour. It's all about interpretation. :o :o
2. Formalise the interpretation of the rule or CHANGE the rule. :o :o
3. Maybe in your club (or mine) but there are certainly clubs who do place huge emphasis on teaching young players to respect referees.
4. There's nothing wrong with managers seeking an advantage as long as it's within the rules. The hint for you is the word "cynical". I've used this to emphasise that these men are exploiting the rules. ::) ::)
5. If your're so fond of rugby maybe you should stick to it. ;D ;D
oh boy where to start?
first question: what has rule 5.16 i.e. the foul for pushing or pulling an opponent got to do with this thread? As far as I can see the title of the thread is "what is a third man tackle" the answer is that there is no such thing. If you are replying to a thread about "what is pushing or pulling an opponent" your response may be in the wrong thread.
To your second "point" there is no need to
Quote"Formalise the interpretation of the rule or CHANGE the rule. :o :o "
if there is no rule. Unless of course you are back to discussing the push and pull rule which seems to me to be in pretty good shape as is.
I am delighted to hear about clubs teaching players to respect referees, its a start.
I'm sorry I missed the subtlety of the hint, cynical interpretation of the rules eh? that counts as exploitation? The rules are the rules- the only one with the power to interpret them as they see fit is the referee, that's his/her job. If there is no rule in the book then it can't be interpreted. Though maybe they should have a closer look at your push pull thing- that could give great insight. I can't help but wonder though, did Tyrone cyncaly exploit rule 3.1 in this years All Ireland Football final? "The team with the greater points total is the winner"?
QuoteIf your're so fond of rugby
If my what are so fond of rugby?
Heganboy, you've just gone all grumpy on us since the change :P
There is no third man tackle, simple as that, move it on now!!!
Quote from: heganboy on January 07, 2009, 03:58:21 PM
I really hate getting into these things back and forth, but seriously...
Quote from: Spirit of 94 on January 07, 2009, 03:24:52 PM
1. Offical Rule Guide.
5.16 To push an opponent or hold an opponent with
the hand(s).
Of course there can't be a rule to exactly cover each and every misdemeanour. It's all about interpretation. :o :o
2. Formalise the interpretation of the rule or CHANGE the rule. :o :o
3. Maybe in your club (or mine) but there are certainly clubs who do place huge emphasis on teaching young players to respect referees.
4. There's nothing wrong with managers seeking an advantage as long as it's within the rules. The hint for you is the word "cynical". I've used this to emphasise that these men are exploiting the rules. ::) ::)
5. If your're so fond of rugby maybe you should stick to it. ;D ;D
oh boy where to start?
first question: what has rule 5.16 i.e. the foul for pushing or pulling an opponent got to do with this thread? As far as I can see the title of the thread is "what is a third man tackle" the answer is that there is no such thing. If you are replying to a thread about "what is pushing or pulling an opponent" your response may be in the wrong thread.
To your second "point" there is no need to Quote"Formalise the interpretation of the rule or CHANGE the rule. :o :o "
if there is no rule. Unless of course you are back to discussing the push and pull rule which seems to me to be in pretty good shape as is.
I am delighted to hear about clubs teaching players to respect referees, its a start.
I'm sorry I missed the subtlety of the hint, cynical interpretation of the rules eh? that counts as exploitation? The rules are the rules- the only one with the power to interpret them as they see fit is the referee, that's his/her job. If there is no rule in the book then it can't be interpreted. Though maybe they should have a closer look at your push pull thing- that could give great insight. I can't help but wonder though, did Tyrone cyncaly exploit rule 3.1 in this years All Ireland Football final? "The team with the greater points total is the winner"?
QuoteIf your're so fond of rugby
If my what are so fond of rugby?
Jaysus
you're hard work.
Of course it doesnt' say "third man tackle" anywhere in the rules. Did you miss the word INTERPRETATION. ??? ???
If the rule doesn't cover the misdemeanour adequately (i.e. there is a grey area) then IMO there is a need to formalise or change the rule.
So the refs are the only ones with the power to interpret the rules eh? You for real?? Who instructs the referees??
If
YOU'RE going to criticise grammar/ spelling make sure
YOU'VE done
YOU'RE homework.......or else
YOU'RE just going to look silly. ;D ;D ;D
oh Feck it- what BC1 said...
I give up
Quote from: Spirit of 94 on January 07, 2009, 04:22:46 PM
Quote from: heganboy on January 07, 2009, 03:58:21 PM
I really hate getting into these things back and forth, but seriously...
Quote from: Spirit of 94 on January 07, 2009, 03:24:52 PM
1. Offical Rule Guide.
5.16 To push an opponent or hold an opponent with
the hand(s).
Of course there can't be a rule to exactly cover each and every misdemeanour. It's all about interpretation. :o :o
2. Formalise the interpretation of the rule or CHANGE the rule. :o :o
3. Maybe in your club (or mine) but there are certainly clubs who do place huge emphasis on teaching young players to respect referees.
4. There's nothing wrong with managers seeking an advantage as long as it's within the rules. The hint for you is the word "cynical". I've used this to emphasise that these men are exploiting the rules. ::) ::)
5. If your're so fond of rugby maybe you should stick to it. ;D ;D
oh boy where to start?
first question: what has rule 5.16 i.e. the foul for pushing or pulling an opponent got to do with this thread? As far as I can see the title of the thread is "what is a third man tackle" the answer is that there is no such thing. If you are replying to a thread about "what is pushing or pulling an opponent" your response may be in the wrong thread.
To your second "point" there is no need to Quote"Formalise the interpretation of the rule or CHANGE the rule. :o :o "
if there is no rule. Unless of course you are back to discussing the push and pull rule which seems to me to be in pretty good shape as is.
I am delighted to hear about clubs teaching players to respect referees, its a start.
I'm sorry I missed the subtlety of the hint, cynical interpretation of the rules eh? that counts as exploitation? The rules are the rules- the only one with the power to interpret them as they see fit is the referee, that's his/her job. If there is no rule in the book then it can't be interpreted. Though maybe they should have a closer look at your push pull thing- that could give great insight. I can't help but wonder though, did Tyrone cyncaly exploit rule 3.1 in this years All Ireland Football final? "The team with the greater points total is the winner"?
QuoteIf your're so fond of rugby
If my what are so fond of rugby?
Jaysus you're hard work.
Of course it doesnt' say "third man tackle" anywhere in the rules. Did you miss the word INTERPRETATION. ??? ???
If the rule doesn't cover the misdemeanour adequately (i.e. there is a grey area) then IMO there is a need to formalise or change the rule.
So the refs are the only ones with the power to interpret the rules eh? You for real?? Who instructs the referees??
If YOU'RE going to criticise grammar/ spelling make sure YOU'VE done YOU'RE homework.......or else YOU'RE just going to look silly. ;D ;D ;D
Indeed!
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on January 07, 2009, 04:10:44 PM
Heganboy, you've just gone all grumpy on us since the change :P
There is no third man tackle, simple as that, move it on now!!!
Fair enough there is no rule which is titled 3rd man tackle but I think what most people people would refer to as a 3rd man tackle would fall under the rule 5.25 stated above. Essentially charging however it would be a certain type, for example charging a lad in the back way of the ball would not be referred to as a 3rd man tackle where running into a man to stop him from making a run to collect possession would. And that is against the rules and should be penalised.
Sorry Sideline I got sidetracked and forgot to add:
Draw a circle around whichever of these do you think is correct?
I thought it might help HB with his 11 plus/ Key Stage exam. :D :D
:D admirable cover up!
don't know what a key stage is but sure as long as you're happy:
from the GAA official website:
QuoteThe essential role of the Referee is to:
"Apply the Rules in order to create conditions for our Games to be played well. The Rules spell out the conditions for our Games to be played well; the Proper Application of the Rules creates these conditions."
The Referee has the responsibility to create the conditions for Players to play with skill, courage, commitment, genius, flair, strength and legitimate aggression. This is achieved through the proper application of the Rules to Protect, Preserve and Promote our Games.
Proper application of the rules allows players to play with Skill, Courage, Commitment, Genius, Flair, Strength and legitimate Aggression. Proper application of the rules enables the referee to fulfill his responsibility to Protect, Preserve and Promote our games.
the rule book instructs the referees- Unless you are aware of another source of rules?
Quote from: heganboy on January 07, 2009, 07:17:55 PM
don't know what a key stage is but sure as long as you're happy:
from the GAA official website:
QuoteThe essential role of the Referee is to:
"Apply the Rules in order to create conditions for our Games to be played well. The Rules spell out the conditions for our Games to be played well; the Proper Application of the Rules creates these conditions."
The Referee has the responsibility to create the conditions for Players to play with skill, courage, commitment, genius, flair, strength and legitimate aggression. This is achieved through the proper application of the Rules to Protect, Preserve and Promote our Games.
Proper application of the rules allows players to play with Skill, Courage, Commitment, Genius, Flair, Strength and legitimate Aggression. Proper application of the rules enables the referee to fulfill his responsibility to Protect, Preserve and Promote our games.
the rule book instructs the referees- Unless you are aware of another source of rules?
For the last time, did you miss the word
interpretation??The Games Development Committee runs a programme of Coach, Administrator and Referee Education (CARE).
Referee Education.
The Referee Education programme is organised across Club, County and National levels of the Association (for both Hurling and Gaelic Football). The aim of the programme is to develop Referees who can facilitate the proper conduct of Gaelic games at all stages of the Pathway to Elite Performance (PEP).
The Referee Education programme consists of the following inputs:
1. Foundation Course
As the basic course required to Referee at official level within the Association, completion of the Foundation Course certifies participants as Club Referees. Including inputs on the practical elements of Refereeing,
the spirit of the Gaelic games and a detailed study of the Rules of each Code, the Foundation Course provides a fundamental introduction to the application of the Rules of Gaelic games. Participants are expected to be 17 years of age or older. A Conversion Course provides an opportunity for those active Referees who have not previously undertaken a Foundation Course to enter the System.
A modified version of the Foundation Course is geared towards Post-Primary school students, while a number of introductory initiatives are available at Primary School and Underage Club level e.g. Young Referees/Young Whistlers Programme.
2. Serving Referees Course
The Serving Referees Course is an annual refresher course for active Club Referees. The Course provides an in-depth study if Refereeing and also includes elements on the roles of the Umpires and Linesmen,
and adaptations or clarifications of the Playing Rules that occur from year to year. 3. Provincial Referees Course
A series of three seminars for Referees identified as having the potential to officiate at Inter-County Level, the Provincial Referees Course provides an opportunity for participants to study a wider variety of elements required for Refereeing at an advanced level, including Role, Player Management, Physical Fitness for Refereeing and Team Work.
4. National Referees Seminars
This involves a series of seminars held over the course of the playing season that cater for Referees who officiate at Senior grades at National Level. Including specialised inputs relating to various aspects of Referee performance,
the seminars focus on issues of interpretation and clarification in an open and interactive environment.
Quote from: tonesfirstandlast on January 07, 2009, 11:29:49 AM
Quote from: SidelineKick on January 07, 2009, 11:18:50 AM
Quote from: tonesfirstandlast on January 07, 2009, 11:16:19 AM
Are "third m an Tackle" and "off the ball tackle" actually named in the rule book? And if so what, what are their definitions?
On another issue, see that Joe Kernan is calling for honesty in the papers at the moment. What hypocrisy!!!
How exactly?
His Armagh and Crossmaglen teams were dirty teams and bent the rules to the limit on every occasion.
Have you still not got over them Ulster club final defeats.? :( :(
5.25
(a) To charge an opponent in the back or to the front.
(b) To charge an opponent unless:-
(i) he is in possession of the ball, or
(ii) he is playing the ball, or
(iii) both players are moving in the direction of the ball to play it.
(c) To charge an opponent for the purpose of giving an advantage to a team-mate.
So there are no actual '3rd man tackle' rules - only the above.
I wonder how the 3rd man tackle being a fould came into play then.
Still this would explain why there is a bit of ambiguity there.
From when I first played underage this ruling was often enforced by a ref.
Charging might be the wording above, but I suppose shielding, blocking off or holding back/pulling a man trying to run past you or trying to get to tackle a man with the ball the other side of you when you hold/shield/block off them causes the 'foul'.
Have performed the act myself on occasion and reckon I got away with it most times I would have done it.
Prob something the GAA rule administrators could look at defining more properly if its to be standardised and properly taught to refs.
Be better off concentrating on the likes of this rather than that yellow card substitute merry-go-round fiasco !
There is obviously no third man tackle rule in the game spirit. news to me but obviously its a myth we've allowed to formulate in our minds. claiming refereees can "interpret" something which is not a foul under the official guide as a foul is a ridiculous concept.
It occurs to me that "shepharding" as happens so effectively in aussie rules and something which we complain bitterly about in international rules, is very close to, if not actually, legal in gaelic football?
Third man tackle wouldn't be the only mythical rule. The "rolling ball" one really gets me. Where did people ever get that stupid idea from?
What about "TWO TURNS REF!!!"
What would be seen as a "third man tackle" would be a situation where for example, I have passed the ball to a team mate. I see an opposition player going in to tackle him. To prevent him carrying out the tackle I shoulder him and let my team-mate away. That was always seen as "third man tackle" and is clearly covered under Rule 5.25 (c). Anything else comes down to interpretation by the referee of what happens on the field, not the rule itself. The rule is clear-cut to me, to commit a foul under this rule there has to be a "charge", a physical and aggressive movement towards an opposing player. To stand in front of someone and block their run does not constitute a charge, to "shield" the ball or one of your team mates does not constitute a charge, to hand off a player as he runs past you, IMHO, would not be a charge. The last one may be a foul under another rule, but certainly not under this rule.
Feck, The Frank Murphyism is starting to seep into me through osmosis!!!
I was asking an Armagh lad yesterday does he think this new yellow card rules will have much effect on Armagh's style of play.
Surely with the amount of times they follow through with tackles they could pick up loads of yellows.
Like most Armagh lads I know he reckoned not really as he believe Armagh are not a dirty team and are not as cynical as many other teams.
I just wondered does the average NEUTRAL (i.e. Not us biased Tyrone or Kerry fans) think that Armagh over the past 5/6 years have been over physical in their style of play and often use a rough it up strategy to eventually wear down their opponents.
I know, I know its a can of worms but it just amazes me how many Armagh fans have grown to believe their own stories and have grown blind to what constitutes a foul now and what doesn't. e.g. dragging of jersey by McKeever on Stevie O'Neill in 2005.
I see Peter McDonnell has said he wants to focus more on the attacking side of the game this year and so is planning to change their style.
Quote from: Fuzzman on January 08, 2009, 12:10:18 PM
I see Peter McDonnell has said he wants to focus more on the attacking side of the game this year and so is planning to change their style.
Do you mean attack the player rather than stop the player?
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on January 08, 2009, 11:50:20 AM
What would be seen as a "third man tackle" would be a situation where for example, I have passed the ball to a team mate. I see an opposition player going in to tackle him. To prevent him carrying out the tackle I shoulder him and let my team-mate away. That was always seen as "third man tackle" and is clearly covered under Rule 5.25 (c). Anything else comes down to interpretation by the referee of what happens on the field, not the rule itself. The rule is clear-cut to me, to commit a foul under this rule there has to be a "charge", a physical and aggressive movement towards an opposing player. To stand in front of someone and block their run does not constitute a charge, to "shield" the ball or one of your team mates does not constitute a charge, to hand off a player as he runs past you, IMHO, would not be a charge. The last one may be a foul under another rule, but certainly not under this rule.
Feck, The Frank Murphyism is starting to seep into me through osmosis!!!
would a step into his path not be considered as a form of 'charge'
whereby the'charge' is not the act of actually hitting/colliding with the person, but 'charge' could be interpreted as knowingly obstructing the guy?
....and charge being the ac of movement....
I'd say some brolly/logan type could make a case for that !
:D
Quote from: The GAA on January 08, 2009, 11:34:51 AM
There is obviously no third man tackle rule in the game spirit. news to me but obviously its a myth we've allowed to formulate in our minds. claiming refereees can "interpret" something which is not a foul under the official guide as a foul is a ridiculous concept.
Look, I think everyone on here is agreed that they have seen this type of misdemeanour penalised. So if there is no rule, then why has it been penailised? Simple answer, it's down to the referee's interpretation of existing rules.
which rules in particular?
could it not just be that they don't know the rules?
Quote from: lynchbhoy on January 08, 2009, 12:30:43 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on January 08, 2009, 11:50:20 AM
What would be seen as a "third man tackle" would be a situation where for example, I have passed the ball to a team mate. I see an opposition player going in to tackle him. To prevent him carrying out the tackle I shoulder him and let my team-mate away. That was always seen as "third man tackle" and is clearly covered under Rule 5.25 (c). Anything else comes down to interpretation by the referee of what happens on the field, not the rule itself. The rule is clear-cut to me, to commit a foul under this rule there has to be a "charge", a physical and aggressive movement towards an opposing player. To stand in front of someone and block their run does not constitute a charge, to "shield" the ball or one of your team mates does not constitute a charge, to hand off a player as he runs past you, IMHO, would not be a charge. The last one may be a foul under another rule, but certainly not under this rule.
Feck, The Frank Murphyism is starting to seep into me through osmosis!!!
would a step into his path not be considered as a form of 'charge'
whereby the'charge' is not the act of actually hitting/colliding with the person, but 'charge' could be interpreted as knowingly obstructing the guy?
....and charge being the ac of movement....
I'd say some brolly/logan type could make a case for that !
:D
Every dictionary definition for the word charge refers to an aggressive move towards another person/item etc. The wording of the rule is quite clear that for there to be a foul there has to be a "charge". The common usage of charge is that someone makes a forceful move against someone/something else. There is no intent to charge. If someone obstructs another player then the active part of that is the person who is blocked, and under this rule he technically could be accused of a "charge" under this rule.
The third man tackle has developed through misinterpretation of a rule over a period of time, until it has become acceptable that it actually is a rule itself. If the GAA want to look at the rule and clarify it, well and good. I have previously stated that there needs to be a wholesale review of the rules by a body who would have the expertise to see through the nuances the way Frank Murphy can and clear up all the ambiguities. HAving the tw you mentioned along with Frank would be a great start.
Quote from: The GAA on January 08, 2009, 12:43:48 PM
which rules in particular?
could it not just be that they don't know the rules?
The consensus on here favours Rule 5.25, but personally I can see how a referee might interpret Rule 5.16 to suit.
To suggest that referees just don't know the rules, now there's a ridiculous concept if you're looking for one.
Quote from: Hardy on January 08, 2009, 11:37:37 AM
Third man tackle wouldn't be the only mythical rule. The "rolling ball" one really gets me. Where did people ever get that stupid idea from?
From a bobbling ball. If the ball hit a divot or is still hopping at a low level from a pass then ball is in the air and as such can be just plucked from the air. Now obviously lads see this and some reckon the ball was only rolling and not bobbling, then they say well if he got away with picking up a rolling ball so can I. Over time it becomes confused in some people's mind.
Although I agree the rule is crystal clear, if the ball is not in the air, the toe has to go under it.
Quote from: Hardy on January 08, 2009, 11:37:37 AM
Third man tackle wouldn't be the only mythical rule. The "rolling ball" one really gets me. Where did people ever get that stupid idea from?
Or what about the famous shout in hurling... "He's got no hurl ref!"
Quote from: Spirit of 94 on January 08, 2009, 01:00:06 PM
To suggest that referees just don't know the rules, now there's a ridiculous concept if you're looking for one.
:D
I know the general consensus on here has been for Rule 5.25 (my own preference was 5.16) but I think we've all been barking up the wrong tree.
1.6 Player(s) may tackle an opponent for the ball.
1.7 Provided he has at least one foot on the
ground, a player may make a side-to-side
charge on an opponent:-
(a) who is in possession of the ball, or
(b) who is playing the ball, or
(c) when both players are moving in the
direction of the ball to play it.
A player cannot be tackeld unless he has possession of the ball, or is moving in the direction of the ball with an opponent to play it.
The RULE is in fact quite clear and the "third man tackle" is indeed an offence as a tackle is being made on a player whois not in possession of the ball.
A tackle is defined elsewhere as being on the ball, not the man. So Rule 1.7 is not defining a form of tackle. It's saying you are allowed to shoulder charge in the manner described.
Since the rule book has lots of definitions elsewhere of what's not allowed (tripping, holding, pushing, punching, kicking, etc.), I'd submit that the law-makers' approach is clearly to list what is NOT allowed, which leads to the reasonable assumption that anything not listed IS allowed. Therefore if they had meant to define obstructing a player's path as a foul, it's reasonable to assume they'd have listed it with all the other stuff that's not allowed.
Quote from: Spirit of 94 on January 08, 2009, 02:42:38 PM
I know the general consensus on here has been for Rule 5.25 (my own preference was 5.16) but I think we've all been barking up the wrong tree.
1.6 Player(s) may tackle an opponent for the ball.
1.7 Provided he has at least one foot on the
ground, a player may make a side-to-side
charge on an opponent:-
(a) who is in possession of the ball, or
(b) who is playing the ball, or
(c) when both players are moving in the
direction of the ball to play it.
A player cannot be tackeld unless he has possession of the ball, or is moving in the direction of the ball with an opponent to play it.
The RULE is in fact quite clear and the "third man tackle" is indeed an offence as a tackle is being made on a player whois not in possession of the ball.
None of this prohibits standing your ground and shielding the ball or ball carrier
Quote from: The GAA on January 08, 2009, 03:37:41 PM
Quote from: Spirit of 94 on January 08, 2009, 02:42:38 PM
I know the general consensus on here has been for Rule 5.25 (my own preference was 5.16) but I think we've all been barking up the wrong tree.
1.6 Player(s) may tackle an opponent for the ball.
1.7 Provided he has at least one foot on the
ground, a player may make a side-to-side
charge on an opponent:-
(a) who is in possession of the ball, or
(b) who is playing the ball, or
(c) when both players are moving in the
direction of the ball to play it.
A player cannot be tackeld unless he has possession of the ball, or is moving in the direction of the ball with an opponent to play it.
The RULE is in fact quite clear and the "third man tackle" is indeed an offence as a tackle is being made on a player whois not in possession of the ball.
None of this prohibits standing your ground and shielding the ball or ball carrier
So how many players do you see doing just this, without raising thier hands to fend off the opponent?
From Hogan Stand January 2005;
We have in fact the best-defined tackle in any field game I know. The tackle is on the BALL, not the man. How clearer can it be? The difficulty is when players go outside this simple definition and start tackling the man by pulling, dragging, tripping, charging, elbowing, kicking and sometimes with the closed fist. By the way, it must always be the open hand, but again, that got lost somewhere in translation.
you see it plenty actually from astute players. standing hands in the air, perfectly in the tackler's way telling the ref he's not involved. similar to the off side forward in rugby telling the ref he doesn't mean to be in the scrum halfs way.
we do not have the best defined tackle in a field game. despite the rules, there is incidental contact allowed. certainly, the shoulder charge is n ot tackling the ball.
Quote from: The GAA on January 08, 2009, 03:46:43 PM
you see it plenty actually from astute players. standing hands in the air, perfectly in the tackler's way telling the ref he's not involved. similar to the off side forward in rugby telling the ref he doesn't mean to be in the scrum halfs way.
we do not have the best defined tackle in a field game. despite the rules, there is incidental contact allowed. certainly, the shoulder charge is n ot tackling the ball.
Afraid I must disagree,
most players I have seen tend to use both hands to (i) protect themselves and (ii) make sure they stop/ slow down their opponent.
The shoulder charge is a tackle for the ball in many cases especially if the player in possession drops the ball as a result of the tackle. John McEntee's tackle on Martin Harney in Ulster Final springs to mind.
Quote from: Spirit of 94 on January 08, 2009, 04:11:29 PM
Afraid I must disagree, most players I have seen tend to use both hands to (i) protect themselves and (ii) make sure they stop/ slow down their opponent.
we seem to be talkig about different scenarios here. you seem to be talking about a passer being "taken out" by a would be tackler. i'm talking generally about shielding a ball carrier from your own team... shepharding as the aussies call it
Quote from: Spirit of 94 on January 08, 2009, 04:11:29 PM
The shoulder charge is a tackle for the ball in many cases especially if the player in possession drops the ball as a result of the tackle. John McEntee's tackle on Martin Harney in Ulster Final springs to mind.
ah come on now, that's nonsense. By no stretch of the imagination is a shoulder charg a tackle on the ball.
Quote from: The GAA on January 08, 2009, 04:27:23 PM
Quote from: Spirit of 94 on January 08, 2009, 04:11:29 PM
Afraid I must disagree, most players I have seen tend to use both hands to (i) protect themselves and (ii) make sure they stop/ slow down their opponent.
we seem to be talkig about different scenarios here. you seem to be talking about a passer being "taken out" by a would be tackler. i'm talking generally about shielding a ball carrier from your own team... shepharding as the aussies call it
Quote from: Spirit of 94 on January 08, 2009, 04:11:29 PM
The shoulder charge is a tackle for the ball in many cases especially if the player in possession drops the ball as a result of the tackle. John McEntee's tackle on Martin Harney in Ulster Final springs to mind.
ah come on now, that's nonsense. By no stretch of the imagination is a shoulder charg a tackle on the ball.
1. Maybe you start a different thread on shielding (or shepherding). This one is about the third man tackle.
2. IMO the Rule clearly indicates that a shoulder charge is a pre-cursor to gaining possession of the ball from an opponent, either as a result of the initial charge or subsequent tackle. This might not always be the end result (more often than not its not) but that's the intention.
Quote from: Spirit of 94 on January 08, 2009, 04:46:36 PM
1. Maybe you start a different thread on shielding (or shepherding). This one is about the third man tackle.
Eh, no. what i'm talking about is a "third man tackle" in the traditional sense. what you're talking about has never been known as anthing other than a late tackle boss.
Quote from: Spirit of 94 on January 08, 2009, 04:46:36 PM
2. IMO the Rule clearly indicates that a shoulder charge is a pre-cursor to gaining possession of the ball from an opponent, either as a result of the initial charge or subsequent tackle. This might not always be the end result (more often than not its not) but that's the intention.
ballax. in no way can a shoulder charge be deemed
a tackle on the ball as you are attempting to claim.
someone with a bit of cop on help me out here.
Quote from: The GAA on January 08, 2009, 04:51:14 PM
someone with a bit of cop on help me out here.
as Jack once said
Quotethink of a man, and I take away reason and accountability.
Quote from: heganboy on January 08, 2009, 05:37:50 PM
Quote from: The GAA on January 08, 2009, 04:51:14 PM
someone with a bit of cop on help me out here.
as Jack once said Quotethink of a man, and I take away reason and accountability.
Yeah and one of my favourites:
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."
-Bertrand Russell
read my tagline below....
Quote from: heganboy on January 09, 2009, 03:25:16 PM
read my tagline below....
It'll look good on
YOUR headstone. :D :D :D
ok, so I think there's no third man tackle rule, you believe its there by implication and ref's should interpret the rules to apply it.
I think that's it in a nutshell. Can't we just agree to disagree?
maybe even without boldface type and smiley faces?
Yes, but a tackler taking out a passer after he shifts the ball on is not a "third man tackle" by any definition, as spirit espouses. its a late tackle.
It's not a tackle at all.
Not in the sat night in the back of the taxi way, no.
Quote from: heganboy on January 09, 2009, 04:28:14 PM
ok, so I think there's no third man tackle rule, you believe its there by implication and ref's should interpret the rules to apply it.
I think that's it in a nutshell. Can't we just agree to disagree?
maybe even without boldface type and smiley faces?
Why........is it because they highlight
YOUR mistake, the one you haven't even been big enough to admit yet.
Quote from: The GAA on January 09, 2009, 04:38:54 PM
Yes, but a tackler taking out a passer after he shifts the ball on is not a "third man tackle" by any definition, as spirit espouses. its a late tackle.
From Hogan Stand (again) January 2005
Then you have the third man tackle or taking the passer out of the one-two pass. In soccer parlance this is called the wall pass where the man passing gives a simple give and go pass in the belief he will get it back when the opponent in the middle is bypassed. In GAA this practice is a recent enough development whereby the passer was blocked, hindered and very often 'taken out'.Be good enough to do a modicum of research to support your views before running off at your keyboard.
Quote from: Spirit of 94 on January 10, 2009, 12:36:11 PM
Then you have the third man tackle or taking the passer out of the one-two pass. In soccer parlance this is called the wall pass where the man passing gives a simple give and go pass in the belief he will get it back when the opponent in the middle is bypassed. In GAA this practice is a recent enough development whereby the passer was blocked, hindered and very often 'taken out'.
That's not a third man tackle nor a distant cousi of one.
P.S. don't embarrass yourself by claiming to have done research by reading hoganstand. that's like claiming to be an expert on current affairs by watching blue peter
Quote from: Uladh on January 10, 2009, 12:43:42 PM
Quote from: Spirit of 94 on January 10, 2009, 12:36:11 PM
Then you have the third man tackle or taking the passer out of the one-two pass. In soccer parlance this is called the wall pass where the man passing gives a simple give and go pass in the belief he will get it back when the opponent in the middle is bypassed. In GAA this practice is a recent enough development whereby the passer was blocked, hindered and very often 'taken out'.
That's not a third man tackle nor a distant cousi of one.
P.S. don't embarrass yourself by claiming to have done research by reading hoganstand. that's like claiming to be an expert on current affairs by watching blue peter
You haven't even had the good manners to give your definition of a third man tackle. I'm not claiming to be an expert but, unlike yourself, I'll back my opinions with any material available, be it the Offical Rules or Hoganstand. Seeking out information, from whatever source, qualifies as research. Running of opinions without backing them up is called slabberin.
Jaysus you're a touchy young fella
Slabberin is when you talk nonsense continually.
following through on a man who has passed the ball is not a third man tackle in anyone's language. i wasn't aware that i had to come up with some other piece of unrelated information to be entitled to express that view?
what is it your looking for? a definition of the third man tackle?
i think this thread has illustrated to you that there is no such thing as a third man tackle under GAA rules so a definition would be impossible.
if you're askin for my understanding of what a third man tackle is i would view it as a player from either team getting involved in the contact when a tackler is engaged with the fella carrying the ball.
Quote from: Spirit of 94 on January 10, 2009, 12:24:36 PM
Quote from: heganboy on January 09, 2009, 04:28:14 PM
ok, so I think there's no third man tackle rule, you believe its there by implication and ref's should interpret the rules to apply it.
I think that's it in a nutshell. Can't we just agree to disagree?
maybe even without boldface type and smiley faces?
Why........is it because they highlight YOUR mistake, the one you haven't even been big enough to admit yet.
please clarify
Quote from: heganboy on January 12, 2009, 07:53:55 PM
Quote from: Spirit of 94 on January 10, 2009, 12:24:36 PM
Quote from: heganboy on January 09, 2009, 04:28:14 PM
ok, so I think there's no third man tackle rule, you believe its there by implication and ref's should interpret the rules to apply it.
I think that's it in a nutshell. Can't we just agree to disagree?
maybe even without boldface type and smiley faces?
Why........is it because they highlight YOUR mistake, the one you haven't even been big enough to admit yet.
please clarify
Fed up with this. Let's agree to disagree.
I see Ballyhegan have advertised for a manger. Any big name candidates yet?
Quote from: criostlinn on January 06, 2009, 08:58:23 PM
My reading of it is,
When one man lays off a pass to a team mate. He makes a run to either receive a pass back or join the attack, and is taken out off it by someone from the opposing team. I suppose when a player is tackled when he doesn't have the ball, but is making a run.
i couldnt have put it better myself. we were toaght that in school, but then it was quickly frowned upon, it seems to have cleaned up a bit now, and it does get punished. although, if you do it in a subtle manner it can often go unnoticed! ;) after all you dont have to take a man out, just a litttle 'push' to stop his momentum does the job just as well.