http://www.youtube.com/user/UlsterGAA (http://www.youtube.com/user/UlsterGAA) - Mickey sez no. Seamus says yes. Differing opinions from two Tyrone men. Seamus, by the way, is Chairman of the Football Rules Revision Committee. It's early days but I thought it was good. There wasn't that much to notice, apart from Clarke's spectacular catch.
There isn't that much to notice is right. Clean fielding from a kick-out is rare enough and any marks, as rare as they were, didn't slow down the game in Mullingar yesterday any (Not that it was particularly fast paced anyway...). I think this one is a good idead that might just stick.
I think that fist-pass rule is crazy though, impossible to call definitively 100% of the time and I don't see any benefit to it. Am I missing something?
By the sounds of it, it didn't make any impact in the Meath-Longford game. Marty Clarke took his really well.
I agree with another, the mark has made little difference to the game, but the handpass rule change is a disaster and should be dropped for the National League. Forget about it, once the McKenna Cup, McGrath Cup etc. are over.
It has seriously increased the number of frees in games and IMO it is impossible for the referee to see all handpasses to make sure they are made with the closed fist. Some wrong passes will be seen, but others will be missed and it will lead to controversies in every game. That is my take after seeing 2 matches at the weekend and it is a view that was shared by anyone that I spoke to at either game.
I am not usually in favour of tinkering with the rules. However, I have not heard one good reason why the mark is a bad idea. I think it is an excellent idea.
On Sunday in Casement Park, Patsy Bradley from Derry gave a master-class in the art of high fielding taking 4-5 marks - a few of which brought applause from both sets of supporters! All of the resultant kicks were quickly taken in order to gain most advantage.
It simply rewards the skill of the high field and doesn't slow the game down as some are suggesting. Of course it could be used to slow the game by a team with a lot of good high fielders in a winning position. However, that's a small price to pay to see the skill displayed more frequently.
Without the mark the player who performs the catch is automatically at a disadvantage as more often than not they are easily swallowed up by a crowd of opposing players.
Quote from: Onlooker on January 19, 2010, 12:20:50 PM
It has seriously increased the number of frees in games and IMO it is impossible for the referee to see all handpasses to make sure they are made with the closed fist. Some wrong passes will be seen, but others will be missed and it will lead to controversies in every game. That is my take after seeing 2 matches at the weekend and it is a view that was shared by anyone that I spoke to at either game.
That's interesting. I would have been in favour of banning the handpass because I think it militates against good FOOTball - i.e. devalues kicking. But there's always the law of unintended effects and if the change leads to more frees and stoppages an bad decisions, that's not great.
I wonder if that would only be a temporary phenomenon, though. I can remember when the handpass wasn't allowed. That rule was introduced sometime in the fifties, I think, because people felt there was too much handpassing to the detriment of kicking skills. Under the new rule, the only playing of the ball with the hand allowed was with a closed fist. That's the football I remember from my early days, before the handpass was re-introduced in the seventies.
The thing is, I don't ever remember a problem of interpretation when it was fist-passing only, because people simply didn't try to use the open hand. I wonder if we'd get to that stage pretty quickly if this new rule were kept?
Quote from: Hardy on January 19, 2010, 01:57:20 PM
Quote from: Onlooker on January 19, 2010, 12:20:50 PM
It has seriously increased the number of frees in games and IMO it is impossible for the referee to see all handpasses to make sure they are made with the closed fist. Some wrong passes will be seen, but others will be missed and it will lead to controversies in every game. That is my take after seeing 2 matches at the weekend and it is a view that was shared by anyone that I spoke to at either game.
That's interesting. I would have been in favour of banning the handpass because I think it militates against good FOOTball - i.e. devalues kicking. But there's always the law of unintended effects and if the change leads to more frees and stoppages an bad decisions, that's not great.
I wonder if that would only be a temporary phenomenon, though. I can remember when the handpass wasn't allowed. That rule was introduced sometime in the fifties, I think, because people felt there was too much handpassing to the detriment of kicking skills. Under the new rule, the only playing of the ball with the hand allowed was with a closed fist. That's the football I remember from my early days, before the handpass was re-introduced in the seventies.
The thing is, I don't ever remember a problem of interpretation when it was fist-passing only, because people simply didn't try to use the open hand. I wonder if we'd get to that stage pretty quickly if this new rule were kept?
but way do we need to change the handpass rule at all? As far as i'm concerned it is fine
As for the mark, i havent made my mind up yet, i will need to see more games to see the true effect of it, when players get a little more used to it.
QuoteI am not usually in favour of tinkering with the rules. However, I have not heard one good reason why the mark is a bad idea. I think it is an excellent idea.
On Sunday in Casement Park, Patsy Bradley from Derry gave a master-class in the art of high fielding taking 4-5 marks - a few of which brought applause from both sets of supporters! All of the resultant kicks were quickly taken in order to gain most advantage.
It simply rewards the skill of the high field and doesn't slow the game down as some are suggesting. Of course it could be used to slow the game by a team with a lot of good high fielders in a winning position. However, that's a small price to pay to see the skill displayed more frequently.
Without the mark the player who performs the catch is automatically at a disadvantage as more often than not they are easily swallowed up by a crowd of opposing players
I think that too many people get all wet and excited regarding high fielding. It is one of the skills of the game but well drilled teams have been able to negate it at times by swarming the player who wins the ball. But is it not a skill in itself to be able to evade challenges etc and make your way out of trouble? There is a way to counteract all the skills in football and those methods are skills in their own right. Where do you stop with regards to tinkering with rules to enable certain skills to flourish? Do we allow a man an unchallenged shot at goal whenever he wins a ball out in front of his man in order to improve the frequency of long range shots? No, I don't think so. The game should be left the way it is. If a player is good enough to win a ball in the air then so be it but trying to give these players an advantage for executing one of the basic skills of the game is something that should not happen.
Quote from: nrico2006 on January 19, 2010, 02:17:13 PM
QuoteI am not usually in favour of tinkering with the rules. However, I have not heard one good reason why the mark is a bad idea. I think it is an excellent idea.
On Sunday in Casement Park, Patsy Bradley from Derry gave a master-class in the art of high fielding taking 4-5 marks - a few of which brought applause from both sets of supporters! All of the resultant kicks were quickly taken in order to gain most advantage.
It simply rewards the skill of the high field and doesn't slow the game down as some are suggesting. Of course it could be used to slow the game by a team with a lot of good high fielders in a winning position. However, that's a small price to pay to see the skill displayed more frequently.
Without the mark the player who performs the catch is automatically at a disadvantage as more often than not they are easily swallowed up by a crowd of opposing players
I think that too many people get all wet and excited regarding high fielding. It is one of the skills of the game but well drilled teams have been able to negate it at times by swarming the player who wins the ball. But is it not a skill in itself to be able to evade challenges etc and make your way out of trouble? There is a way to counteract all the skills in football and those methods are skills in their own right. Where do you stop with regards to tinkering with rules to enable certain skills to flourish? Do we allow a man an unchallenged shot at goal whenever he wins a ball out in front of his man in order to improve the frequency of long range shots? No, I don't think so. The game should be left the way it is. If a player is good enough to win a ball in the air then so be it but trying to give these players an advantage for executing one of the basic skills of the game is something that should not happen.
The mark will come into its own in the Championship & not in the shadow boxing of January football. A recognised quality fielder draws negative tactics and in the summer he will meet the blanket on landing. We want to reward the spectacular skill, not the organised army of dwarfs.
That is what the mark is trying to deal with and I'm not surprised it has little effect this time of year but I think it will later.
nrico, now we're cooking!
'swarming the player'. where does that stop and the two man tackle rule come into effect? If a player goes to ground after catching a ball, is it right that 3 men stand over him not letting him back onto his feet? 50% of the time the free kick goes for "over-carrying" (impossible as you are not taking steps!) and 50% of the time it goes to the fella on the ground. Utter madness.
I think there is a lot of merit in what you are saying and it's entirely possible the proposed rules are an over-reaction to what is in fact a problem that has been a failure to define, or rather implement consistently, the rules around the tackle properly.
Quote from: nrico2006 on January 19, 2010, 02:17:13 PM
QuoteI am not usually in favour of tinkering with the rules. However, I have not heard one good reason why the mark is a bad idea. I think it is an excellent idea.
On Sunday in Casement Park, Patsy Bradley from Derry gave a master-class in the art of high fielding taking 4-5 marks - a few of which brought applause from both sets of supporters! All of the resultant kicks were quickly taken in order to gain most advantage.
It simply rewards the skill of the high field and doesn't slow the game down as some are suggesting. Of course it could be used to slow the game by a team with a lot of good high fielders in a winning position. However, that's a small price to pay to see the skill displayed more frequently.
Without the mark the player who performs the catch is automatically at a disadvantage as more often than not they are easily swallowed up by a crowd of opposing players
I think that too many people get all wet and excited regarding high fielding. It is one of the skills of the game but well drilled teams have been able to negate it at times by swarming the player who wins the ball. But is it not a skill in itself to be able to evade challenges etc and make your way out of trouble? There is a way to counteract all the skills in football and those methods are skills in their own right. Where do you stop with regards to tinkering with rules to enable certain skills to flourish? Do we allow a man an unchallenged shot at goal whenever he wins a ball out in front of his man in order to improve the frequency of long range shots? No, I don't think so. The game should be left the way it is. If a player is good enough to win a ball in the air then so be it but trying to give these players an advantage for executing one of the basic skills of the game is something that should not happen.
I disagree. All sports "t**ker" with the rules to promote the positive aspects and skills of the games and to try to eradicate negative ones. That's how the rules come to be in the first place and as you say yourself, the game doesn't stay static because coaches, rightly, look for ways to gain advantage from the rules as they stand. That's where square ball, offside in soccer, lineout laws in rugby, etc. came from.
The problem of course is in reaching agreement on what's positive, what's negative, what needs changing and how to change it. That's where the debate happens and in that regard, I think we should be focussing on eradicating more serious ills in the game like diving, injury feigning and abuse of referees.
[Edit - I see the automatic language monitor censored my use of the word t i n k e r!]
Time for the big wrecking lad in the middle again ;D you know the type, can,t kick, can,t catch, but has fists of iron ;)
Quote from: ha ha derry on January 19, 2010, 03:15:38 PM
Time for the big wrecking lad in the middle again ;D you know the type, can,t kick, can,t catch, but has fists of iron ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDusS5Q_JjE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDusS5Q_JjE)
Quote from: ha ha derry on January 19, 2010, 03:15:38 PM
Time for the big wrecking lad in the middle again ;D you know the type, can,t kick, can,t catch, but has fists of iron ;)
Agree entirely - only 1 clean catch in the 1st half Tyrone v St Mary's. Rest of the time every kickout was punched. I fear that the new rule could end up having the opposite effect on the skill it is intended to promote. Alas.
Quote from: sheamy on January 19, 2010, 02:51:15 PM
nrico, now we're cooking!
'swarming the player'. where does that stop and the two man tackle rule come into effect? If a player goes to ground after catching a ball, is it right that 3 men stand over him not letting him back onto his feet? 50% of the time the free kick goes for "over-carrying" (impossible as you are not taking steps!) and 50% of the time it goes to the fella on the ground. Utter madness.
I think there is a lot of merit in what you are saying and it's entirely possible the proposed rules are an over-reaction to what is in fact a problem that has been a failure to define, or rather implement consistently, the rules around the tackle properly.
im not sure such a rule exists
Quote from: sheamy on January 19, 2010, 02:51:15 PM
... If a player goes to ground after catching a ball, is it right that 3 men stand over him not letting him back onto his feet? 50% of the time the free kick goes for "over-carrying" (impossible as you are not taking steps!) and 50% of the time it goes to the fella on the ground. Utter madness.
Incorrect, the (sub)rule:
1.4 When a player is in possession of the ball, it may be:-
(a) carried for a maximum of four consecutive
steps or held in the hand(s) for no longer
than the time needed to take four steps;
fair enough fear...I knew there was something to that effect. hadn't the words to hand. point still stands though. It's very easy to crouch over a fella and prevent him standing up once he goes down. very grey area.
Agree with you there sheamy, it is a very grey area that badly needs clarification and consistent treatment from the men in the middle.
Quote from: Hardy on January 19, 2010, 01:57:20 PM
Quote from: Onlooker on January 19, 2010, 12:20:50 PM
It has seriously increased the number of frees in games and IMO it is impossible for the referee to see all handpasses to make sure they are made with the closed fist. Some wrong passes will be seen, but others will be missed and it will lead to controversies in every game. That is my take after seeing 2 matches at the weekend and it is a view that was shared by anyone that I spoke to at either game.
That's interesting. I would have been in favour of banning the handpass because I think it militates against good FOOTball - i.e. devalues kicking. But there's always the law of unintended effects and if the change leads to more frees and stoppages an bad decisions, that's not great.
I wonder if that would only be a temporary phenomenon, though. I can remember when the handpass wasn't allowed. That rule was introduced sometime in the fifties, I think, because people felt there was too much handpassing to the detriment of kicking skills. Under the new rule, the only playing of the ball with the hand allowed was with a closed fist. That's the football I remember from my early days, before the handpass was re-introduced in the seventies.
The thing is, I don't ever remember a problem of interpretation when it was fist-passing only, because people simply didn't try to use the open hand. I wonder if we'd get to that stage pretty quickly if this new rule were kept?
What age are you???
I personally would be against the mark, we have our rules and our skills so i see no reason why we should parachute in a rule from another sport. I know people have said this time and time again, but if the rules we have were implemented properly we would overcome alot of the problems. As some eluded to earlier, teams will implement a structure to nullafy the mark, be that a big man to break the ball, or to hit short kick outs. If the plan is to increase the number of high catches (and it may be successful in doing that to an extent) we will however also see alot more scrimmaging for possession on the floor for the breaking ball - so we will be in fact just moving the problem as teams will focus on pressurising the man picking up the break ball and making him turn the ball over by overcarrying! What will we do then - introduce a scrummage from rugby to sort out break ball??
mark...good
handpass... bad
Quote from: sheamy on January 19, 2010, 04:17:23 PM
fair enough fear...I knew there was something to that effect. hadn't the words to hand. point still stands though. It's very easy to crouch over a fella and prevent him standing up once he goes down. very grey area.
Nothing wrong with crouching over somebody as long as no foul being committed ie. slapping or pushing with knees or whatever. It has often been a criticism of the game that there is no clearly defined tackle. Surrounding a player in possession and preventing him from playing the ball one of the few ways in the game to turn over the ball. I dont see much wrong with the 'use it or lose it' approach. A lot of times lads get surrounded is when they make a decision to try and break a tackle and not lay the ball off.
There was never a mark in our game. As much as I like high fielding I dont want the game to stop when it happens. As a coach I d prefer to see the ball broken to a supporting player and keeping the tempo up rather than seeing a player going for a mark.
In Armagh today we got a glimpse of the disaster the mark rule can be in the hands of the wrong referee. You know, the type of officious w**ker that insists on every kick being taken from an exact spot and who refuses to use common sense and let the ball catcher play on when it is an advantage for him to do so.
After three games I am not in favour of it. The disadvantages outweigh the advantages. I don't feel the benefit for the odd high catcher who finds himself bottled up is sufficient to put up with the additional stuttering of the play.
Worked fine in our game today.
We must have had 8 or 9 marks and it didn't slow the game down.
I dunno why ye are complaining about Ulster teams just punching the ball because that's all they ever do anyway! ;)
Waste of time - forget about it.
And the fist pass as well.
Quote from: AFS on January 24, 2010, 06:35:09 PM
In Armagh today we got a glimpse of the disaster the mark rule can be in the hands of the wrong referee. You know, the type of officious w**ker that insists on every kick being taken from an exact spot and who refuses to use common sense and let the ball catcher play on when it is an advantage for him to do so.
After three games I am not in favour of it. The disadvantages outweigh the advantages. I don't feel the benefit for the odd high catcher who finds himself bottled up is sufficient to put up with the additional stuttering of the play.
Can't you play on if you want in Aussie rules? Definitely a stupid rule if it slows the game down when a player would be better to play on.
Quote from: AFS on January 24, 2010, 06:35:09 PM
In Armagh today we got a glimpse of the disaster the mark rule can be in the hands of the wrong referee. You know, the type of officious w**ker that insists on every kick being taken from an exact spot and who refuses to use common sense and let the ball catcher play on when it is an advantage for him to do so.
After three games I am not in favour of it. The disadvantages outweigh the advantages. I don't feel the benefit for the odd high catcher who finds himself bottled up is sufficient to put up with the additional stuttering of the play.
But do you not think that it was the ref's interpretation of the rule that slowed the game up rather than the rule itself? The last two Armagh games I felt the mark was reffed properly as the ref used the advantage rule when it applied, as you say today that plonker just blew the whistle straight away. If reffed properly the rule will not slow the game up.
In the new trial rules does the referee HAVE to award a mark or can he let the player play on?
If it is to have any chance of working then the player has to have the choice (a la Aussie rules).
There was one occasion today in Armagh when James Lavery caught a mark and had burst through the tacklers and had plenty of empty space in front of him. As already mentioned, the ref called him back about 10 yards to take the mark.
The ref shrugged his shoulders as if to say "I can do nothing about it, them's the rules".
Quote from: mackers on January 24, 2010, 08:17:25 PM
Quote from: AFS on January 24, 2010, 06:35:09 PM
In Armagh today we got a glimpse of the disaster the mark rule can be in the hands of the wrong referee. You know, the type of officious w**ker that insists on every kick being taken from an exact spot and who refuses to use common sense and let the ball catcher play on when it is an advantage for him to do so.
After three games I am not in favour of it. The disadvantages outweigh the advantages. I don't feel the benefit for the odd high catcher who finds himself bottled up is sufficient to put up with the additional stuttering of the play.
But do you not think that it was the ref's interpretation of the rule that slowed the game up rather than the rule itself? The last two Armagh games I felt the mark was reffed properly as the ref used the advantage rule when it applied, as you say today that plonker just blew the whistle straight away. If reffed properly the rule will not slow the game up.
Fair point. With a few tweaks and a bit of sensible refereeing, it could have a future. My main worry is that useless, common sense free refereeing performances like the one today are not infrequent. As it currently stands, the mark rule has huge potential for inconsistency, and therefore, controversy.
Quote from: Smokin Joe on January 24, 2010, 08:22:42 PM
In the new trial rules does the referee HAVE to award a mark or can he let the player play on?
If it is to have any chance of working then the player has to have the choice (a la Aussie rules).
There was one occasion today in Armagh when James Lavery caught a mark and had burst through the tacklers and had plenty of empty space in front of him. As already mentioned, the ref called him back about 10 yards to take the mark.
The ref shrugged his shoulders as if to say "I can do nothing about it, them's the rules".
That would've been the sensible way of doing things. God knows why they thought it would be better to leave it up to the referee.
Quote from: Smokin Joe on January 24, 2010, 08:22:42 PM
In the new trial rules does the referee HAVE to award a mark or can he let the player play on?
If it is to have any chance of working then the player has to have the choice (a la Aussie rules).
There was one occasion today in Armagh when James Lavery caught a mark and had burst through the tacklers and had plenty of empty space in front of him. As already mentioned, the ref called him back about 10 yards to take the mark.
The ref shrugged his shoulders as if to say "I can do nothing about it, them's the rules".
Noticed that myself but that was typical of the way that the match was refereed, the mark doesn't HAVE to be given, it is to be used at the discretion of the ref which was obviously too complicated for him. ::) ::)
As i said earlier, it's like a lot of other rules, there's nothing wrong with it if it is properly refereed.
At Sligo-Gmit game today and while ref was poor he operated the mark well. When a player was in space he let it go but if fielder was challenged on landing he blew it up.
The handpass/fistpass one was a disaster. Especially tough on lads tackled to ground who were inclined to handpass out
There was a similar occurrence in the Tyrone v Cavan game where he called back a Cavan man who had space in front of him to run into. In the international rules is it not the case that the officials blew the whistle to indicate a clean catch but that the player could still carry on with the ball even though the whistle had gone?
Think the Marks a waste of time. More balls being broken now then ever before.
There was plenty of ball caught in Parnell Park yesterday Indiana.
Quote from: Lawrence of Knockbride on January 25, 2010, 01:13:01 PM
There was a similar occurrence in the Tyrone v Cavan game where he called back a Cavan man who had space in front of him to run into. In the international rules is it not the case that the officials blew the whistle to indicate a clean catch but that the player could still carry on with the ball even though the whistle had gone?
That to me is the way to go. A whistle to indicate the mark and then the player has a choice to play on or stop. The caveat probably has to do with taking the mark from no further forward than where the mark was made. Irish players have always struggled with this in International Rules. Whereas the Aussies diligently trot back before taking the kick our lot seem genetically programmed not to take a single step backwards.
That's all true, Muppet.
I haven't seen a game with marks yet, so can't comment on the experiment, but one suggestion I'd make is to do away with the whistle for the mark altogether. I always found it very irritating in the IR to have whistles going every time a ball was caught. Your natural inclination is to expect play to stop and the player's natural inclination must be the same.
Everyone knows it's a free kick if the ball is caught from the kickout, so let the player play on or stop as he wishes and only blow the whistle if somebody tries to tackle him before four steps.
http://www.youtube.com/user/quinnj91 (http://www.youtube.com/user/quinnj91) - Niall McKenna gets marked down after a catch against Cavan. To be fair to the ref, maybe he just made a mistake. It's a good idea overall, I've been at 6 games and it's never really been an issue, apart from this one.
The mark is a great idea, and it should stay. The only problem as you all say is about whether the player has the choice to play on or stop and take the mark. I dont think there is any real argument against it. The mark is a real crowd pleaser, and it rewards an excellent skill, thats the bottom line to be honest.
I think it should stay, we've finally found a use for Mark Ward
Quote from: thejuice on February 06, 2010, 08:31:59 PM
I think it should stay, we've finally found a use for Mark Ward
And it protected Ronan McGarrity ;D
In theory the mark is a good idea. BUT Is it right that a midfielder of about 6ft 4in can get a mark while a defender of about 5ft 10in can make a great catch under pressure in his own area and then get blown up for over carrying. Also on a separate note the refs need to watch the right player takes he mark. Unless mistaken yesterday a Meath player made a great catch. A second player took the free and hit it against an Armagh player and the ref moved the ball up. I thought a throw ball was the correct call!
Bad thing.
Makes the game stop start. Also favours the bigger player. If a man catches the ball he is entitled to be tackled once he lands. It would destroy the heat of battle of championship football.
Dont know whys theres a constant need to change the rules.
Doesn't slow the game at all.
Keep it.
Darragh Ó Sé retiring makes the mark more acceptable ;)
Quote from: Hardy on January 19, 2010, 01:57:20 PM
Quote from: Onlooker on January 19, 2010, 12:20:50 PM
It has seriously increased the number of frees in games and IMO it is impossible for the referee to see all handpasses to make sure they are made with the closed fist. Some wrong passes will be seen, but others will be missed and it will lead to controversies in every game. That is my take after seeing 2 matches at the weekend and it is a view that was shared by anyone that I spoke to at either game.
That's interesting. I would have been in favour of banning the handpass because I think it militates against good FOOTball - i.e. devalues kicking. But there's always the law of unintended effects and if the change leads to more frees and stoppages an bad decisions, that's not great.
I wonder if that would only be a temporary phenomenon, though. I can remember when the handpass wasn't allowed. That rule was introduced sometime in the fifties, I think, because people felt there was too much handpassing to the detriment of kicking skills. Under the new rule, the only playing of the ball with the hand allowed was with a closed fist. That's the football I remember from my early days, before the handpass was re-introduced in the seventies.
The thing is, I don't ever remember a problem of interpretation when it was fist-passing only, because people simply didn't try to use the open hand. I wonder if we'd get to that stage pretty quickly if this new rule were kept?
Hardy would you know the year in the 70's that the hand pass rule was changed.Thanks
Quote from: glens abu on February 25, 2010, 09:02:15 AM
Quote from: Hardy on January 19, 2010, 01:57:20 PM
Quote from: Onlooker on January 19, 2010, 12:20:50 PM
It has seriously increased the number of frees in games and IMO it is impossible for the referee to see all handpasses to make sure they are made with the closed fist. Some wrong passes will be seen, but others will be missed and it will lead to controversies in every game. That is my take after seeing 2 matches at the weekend and it is a view that was shared by anyone that I spoke to at either game.
That's interesting. I would have been in favour of banning the handpass because I think it militates against good FOOTball - i.e. devalues kicking. But there's always the law of unintended effects and if the change leads to more frees and stoppages an bad decisions, that's not great.
I wonder if that would only be a temporary phenomenon, though. I can remember when the handpass wasn't allowed. That rule was introduced sometime in the fifties, I think, because people felt there was too much handpassing to the detriment of kicking skills. Under the new rule, the only playing of the ball with the hand allowed was with a closed fist. That's the football I remember from my early days, before the handpass was re-introduced in the seventies.
The thing is, I don't ever remember a problem of interpretation when it was fist-passing only, because people simply didn't try to use the open hand. I wonder if we'd get to that stage pretty quickly if this new rule were kept?
Hardy would you know the year in the 70's that the hand pass rule was changed.Thanks
I don't remember exactly and I can't find any references to it. I suppose you've tried that yourself. The best I can suggest is to check video archives. I'd be fairy certain the old fist-pass-only rule was still in place in 1970. I have the video of that year's AIF somewhere and I'll check it when I can. I'm also fairly sure the Kerry team of 1975 were hand passing at a great rate, so I'd guess it was sometime between those two years.
Or can any of our other long-in-the-tooth members remember?
Quote from: Hardy on February 25, 2010, 10:36:15 AM
Quote from: glens abu on February 25, 2010, 09:02:15 AM
Quote from: Hardy on January 19, 2010, 01:57:20 PM
Quote from: Onlooker on January 19, 2010, 12:20:50 PM
It has seriously increased the number of frees in games and IMO it is impossible for the referee to see all handpasses to make sure they are made with the closed fist. Some wrong passes will be seen, but others will be missed and it will lead to controversies in every game. That is my take after seeing 2 matches at the weekend and it is a view that was shared by anyone that I spoke to at either game.
That's interesting. I would have been in favour of banning the handpass because I think it militates against good FOOTball - i.e. devalues kicking. But there's always the law of unintended effects and if the change leads to more frees and stoppages an bad decisions, that's not great.
I wonder if that would only be a temporary phenomenon, though. I can remember when the handpass wasn't allowed. That rule was introduced sometime in the fifties, I think, because people felt there was too much handpassing to the detriment of kicking skills. Under the new rule, the only playing of the ball with the hand allowed was with a closed fist. That's the football I remember from my early days, before the handpass was re-introduced in the seventies.
The thing is, I don't ever remember a problem of interpretation when it was fist-passing only, because people simply didn't try to use the open hand. I wonder if we'd get to that stage pretty quickly if this new rule were kept?
Hardy would you know the year in the 70's that the hand pass rule was changed.Thanks
I don't remember exactly and I can't find any references to it. I suppose you've tried that yourself. The best I can suggest is to check video archives. I'd be fairy certain the old fist-pass-only rule was still in place in 1970. I have the video of that year's AIF somewhere and I'll check it when I can. I'm also fairly sure the Kerry team of 1975 were hand passing at a great rate, so I'd guess it was sometime between those two years.
Or can any of our other long-in-the-tooth members remember?
thanks I cant find a ref to it anywhere but rem playing in 75/76 and nearly sure it was the fist pass then,but I am sure your right about the Kerry team so that is why I am confused.Thanks anyway.
The rules have changed loads of times over the years so I really don't understand why people get so hot under the collar when they try to change them again.
This isn't to do with the mark rule, but i didnt know what other thead to put it on.
Im watching a basketball game here. When a player is fouled, he goes to the free-throw line himself. Wonder what you lot would think of that idea? Its basically the old 'if you make it, take it' or 'makers takers' rule as I see it. Made me think if such a rule could be a good thing for gaelic football. And even hurling aswell I suppose.
I think it's an interesting one, and wuld be positive for football, because it'd mean everyone had to improve their kicking abilities. Perfect example, a corner-back makes a real lung-busting run up the feild with one-two's the wholeway etc, only to be fouled on the 14yrd line. Then the corner forward taps it over and gets all the credit and applause from the crowd. In reference to the basketball again, it means that you arent just a donkey on the team you know, you must have all the skills to play. This, in my opinion, can surely only lead to better all-round ability in players in the future. Just wondering what fellow posters thought..
Quote from: EagleLord on March 03, 2010, 02:28:20 AM
This isn't to do with the mark rule, but i didnt know what other thead to put it on.
Im watching a basketball game here. When a player is fouled, he goes to the free-throw line himself. Wonder what you lot would think of that idea? Its basically the old 'if you make it, take it' or 'makers takers' rule as I see it. Made me think if such a rule could be a good thing for gaelic football. And even hurling aswell I suppose.
I think it's an interesting one, and wuld be positive for football, because it'd mean everyone had to improve their kicking abilities. Perfect example, a corner-back makes a real lung-busting run up the feild with one-two's the wholeway etc, only to be fouled on the 14yrd line. Then the corner forward taps it over and gets all the credit and applause from the crowd. In reference to the basketball again, it means that you arent just a donkey on the team you know, you must have all the skills to play. This, in my opinion, can surely only lead to better all-round ability in players in the future. Just wondering what fellow posters thought..
Interesting idea I kind of like it. But it would mean giving license to rugby tackle certain players even 20 yards in front of goals. i.e. 'Hack a Shaq' to expand on your basketball reference. Could lead to frustration that a team gets punished less for fouling cleverly.
Quote from: tyssam5 on March 03, 2010, 02:59:16 AM
Quote from: EagleLord on March 03, 2010, 02:28:20 AM
This isn't to do with the mark rule, but i didnt know what other thead to put it on.
Im watching a basketball game here. When a player is fouled, he goes to the free-throw line himself. Wonder what you lot would think of that idea? Its basically the old 'if you make it, take it' or 'makers takers' rule as I see it. Made me think if such a rule could be a good thing for gaelic football. And even hurling aswell I suppose.
I think it's an interesting one, and wuld be positive for football, because it'd mean everyone had to improve their kicking abilities. Perfect example, a corner-back makes a real lung-busting run up the feild with one-two's the wholeway etc, only to be fouled on the 14yrd line. Then the corner forward taps it over and gets all the credit and applause from the crowd. In reference to the basketball again, it means that you arent just a donkey on the team you know, you must have all the skills to play. This, in my opinion, can surely only lead to better all-round ability in players in the future. Just wondering what fellow posters thought..
Interesting idea I kind of like it. But it would mean giving license to rugby tackle certain players even 20 yards in front of goals. i.e. 'Hack a Shaq' to expand on your basketball reference. Could lead to frustration that a team gets punished less for fouling cleverly.
I do see your point there and it is a valid one of course. It may lead to more fouling, because a defence would rather concede a free to a lanky midfeilder or half back, and take the chance of him missing the free, before he has the chance to offload it to a sharpshootr corner forward. You could just agrue then the foul system that the GAA tried a few years ago, Im not sure whether it is still enforced, whee a player can be yellow carded or even sinbinned for persistant fouling. I just think it would improve the all roun ability of every player. Gone would be te days of a terrier corner back who's a wee hard nut that isn't allowed to kick the ball. The same rule would obviously apply to everywhere on the pitch, not just th scoring zone.
Not sure if this is the best place to post this. Anyway.
This weekend the powers that be will debate and decide on if the new rules will be brought in or not. This led me to think. Of all the people voting how many have watched more than 1 or 2 matches with these rules? Do they all take soundings from their club and county members and players? I specifically ask because at the start of the league I would have been against most, as I even commented earlier on this thread. However, after watching 7 league games and 2 McKenna cup games my thoughts are changing.
Initially I thought the mark was stupid. In recent matches I have seen teams working ways to gain a mark and there has been less bunching than before. Admittedly this may be because Division 2 football has not been of a very high standard this year. I now think the mark may be a good idea but would like the catcher to have the option of calling it.
The penalty move seems a good idea and the taking of kickouts from the 13m line irrelevant. I am still not sure of what is the bes way to deal with the square ball.
Finally, the fist pass. Something had to be done because the ball was being thrown too often. The rule introduced may be to strict but I feel that if it is not introduced referees will still be strict on the handpass throughout the summer. Has anyone managed to come to any conclusions?
The mark has made no discernable difference.
I agree ,but I always wonder about the interpretation of what is travelling/over carrying ? I coach young lads and tell them that the dispossessing the man is the main thing not primary possession . I remember trying to get some of the Rugby boys I went to college to play real football .It was a disaster as they though they could push /hand off the tackler .
The hard thing to decide about is the hand pass . It is a skill ,but can you imagine a total ban then I think we would have a really different game .
The mark is the most interesting of the experiments, it deserves a longer trial. The obvious effect is gaining clean possession when executed, eliminating the effect of the swarm culture. I don't know if it has translated into any scores.
I like the fist pass but looks almost impossible to be regulated with any consistency.
Maybe it is time to experiment with 2 refs, one in each half.
Quote from: Main Street on April 15, 2010, 09:38:08 AM
The mark is the most interesting of the experiments, it deserves a longer trial. The obvious effect is gaining clean possession when executed, eliminating the effect of the swarm culture. I don't know if it has translated into any scores.
I like the fist pass but looks almost impossible to be regulated with any consistency.
Maybe it is time to experiment with 2 refs, one in each half.
i cant believe people that have actually watch the national league think the fist pass rule is a good idea,there is absolutly no need for it if the existing rule is implimented properly.
if a player 'throws' the ball as alot of people seem to be suggesting happens regularly, then blow him up for it, dont bring in a new rule which is even harder to enforce consistantly!
The things that are worth keeping are the square ball rule and the ball having to out of play to end the game. The mark, i am sort of indifferent about.I think it could maybe work ok, but i wouldnt be that bothered if they didnt go with it either
Europea League style you mean..next there will be video refereeing.. ;)
For me the biggest issue still remains to be time keeping. The clock should stop when the balls not in play, and a hooter/buzzer at the end. That would eliminate the controversy of the ref 'playing for a draw' or people being outrages at the amount of injury time being played etc. I'll give an example. 70mins gone on the clock, ref has said there is 2 mins of stoppage time, the loosing side are on the in their opponents half, ref cant blow the game up becasue they are on the attack, they end up getting a goal in the 3rd minute! Cue the onslaught of the other manager, saying he played over the time he said he would!
Im bringing in a lot of American style officiating here arent I..damm..as much as I hate the yanks..they have got clear rules on their games..time keeping/refereeing/fouling/makers-takers...there arent many controversies in their sports..
I think the mark was been a success, it's great to see good fielding rewarded rather than penalised. Contrary to arguments against it at the start, it hasn't slowed up any games, in fact it has quickened them up with no melees in the middle of the park after a fielder catches the ball. The vast majority of the time the fielder hasn't used the mark as a free kick as such and has moved the ball on quickly.
Yip-the mark is a good idea
The other fear was that a team with a height disadvantage would resort to the constant use of short kick outs.
Quote from: mackers on April 15, 2010, 10:12:06 AM
I think the mark was been a success, it's great to see good fielding rewarded rather than penalised. Contrary to arguments against it at the start, it hasn't slowed up any games, in fact it has quickened them up with no melees in the middle of the park after a fielder catches the ball. The vast majority of the time the fielder hasn't used the mark as a free kick as such and has moved the ball on quickly.
I'd agree with this. I was opposed to it a few months back after seeing a couple of refs make a balls of it, but it's looking like a decent idea now that everyone is a bit more used to it. Though, the rule could still do with a wee tweak to leave the player with the choice of accepting the mark or playing on.
I think the mark is an excellent rule, it might not promote high fielding as much as people want but it stops the swarming after you catch it. I hope they keep it as it has cleaned out alot of negative play around the centre. Its actually got rid of hop balls as most ref sit on the fence when it comes to swarming.
Quote from: AFS on April 15, 2010, 11:29:19 AM
Quote from: mackers on April 15, 2010, 10:12:06 AM
I think the mark was been a success, it's great to see good fielding rewarded rather than penalised. Contrary to arguments against it at the start, it hasn't slowed up any games, in fact it has quickened them up with no melees in the middle of the park after a fielder catches the ball. The vast majority of the time the fielder hasn't used the mark as a free kick as such and has moved the ball on quickly.
I'd agree with this. I was opposed to it a few months back after seeing a couple of refs make a balls of it, but it's looking like a decent idea now that everyone is a bit more used to it. Though, the rule could still do with a wee tweak to leave the player with the choice of accepting the mark or playing on.
the mark could work, but does need a bit of tweaking.
in the dublin tyrone game there were several occassions were the referee didnt give the mark when he should have.
maybe it should be up to the player to call it, giving them the choice to play on if they want or to call the mark and take the free (similar to rugby)
Quote from: SLIGONIAN on April 15, 2010, 11:33:19 AM
I think the mark is an excellent rule, it might not promote high fielding as much as people want but it stops the swarming after you catch it. I hope they keep it as it has cleaned out alot of negative play around the centre. Its actually got rid of hop balls as most ref sit on the fence when it comes to swarming.
Absolutely right, either than was the outcome of a clean catch previously or the midfielder caught the ball, he was swarmed, blew up for overcarrying. Ref blew a free, midfielder wouldn't give the ball back, there was a wrestling match..............it was getting tiresome and it was slowing the game up.
Quote from: hardstation on April 15, 2010, 01:43:21 AM
On the handpass rule:
Bernard Flynn (on Sunday Sport) had it right imo. He said that it is now 7 or 8 weeks into the 'new' rules and players who cannot close their fist when attempting a fist pass are the problem, not the referees. He is right. Some players are simply not making an effort to close their fists. There were people on here saying that it slows the game down (I'd like to see their opinions on the mark). The only way it slows the game down is when they are blown up for a free because they didn't bother their hole to close their fist. Let's be honest, you'd have to be a spastic not to be able to master a fist pass after 7 or 8 weeks.
According to some of our posters, 'you' cannot execute an accurate fist pass at close range. Bollix by my reckoning (in fact, I really can't understand it). Very few players are able to execute a kick pass these days. Some training needed.
While I don't necessarily agree that the slap-pass is somehow bad, while the fist-pass is fine, I agree with Bernadette and Hardstation that to say the fist pass slows down the game is a nonsense. Its players being stupid that has caused the extra whistles.
I'm in favour of the mark, so long as the refs all get the same briefing on how to referree it.
I wonder what chance any of these rules being passed. As I said earlier at the start I was against the mark but now, with tweeking, believe it could be good. From Armagh threads I know Mackers and AFS go to a good number of games and they are favouring it now too. As I said earlier will the rulemakers vote against it, or other rules, because they think they won't work or because they have seen enough games to make an informed decision. I know many will have seen enough to make informed decisions but if 2/3 majority is needed (not sure) is it likely any change will be passed? I must say though that of all the new rules tested over the last 5 years these appear to have been the most sensible.
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on April 15, 2010, 11:43:17 AM
Quote from: AFS on April 15, 2010, 11:29:19 AM
Quote from: mackers on April 15, 2010, 10:12:06 AM
I think the mark was been a success, it's great to see good fielding rewarded rather than penalised. Contrary to arguments against it at the start, it hasn't slowed up any games, in fact it has quickened them up with no melees in the middle of the park after a fielder catches the ball. The vast majority of the time the fielder hasn't used the mark as a free kick as such and has moved the ball on quickly.
I'd agree with this. I was opposed to it a few months back after seeing a couple of refs make a balls of it, but it's looking like a decent idea now that everyone is a bit more used to it. Though, the rule could still do with a wee tweak to leave the player with the choice of accepting the mark or playing on.
the mark could work, but does need a bit of tweaking.
in the dublin tyrone game there were several occassions were the referee didnt give the mark when he should have.
maybe it should be up to the player to call it, giving them the choice to play on if they want or to call the mark and take the free (similar to rugby)
The rule is fine as it is as the player that catches the ball is encouraged to play on unless he is impeded.
If he is the ref will give him a free.
If the player calls the mark himself you will get lads stopping every time they catch the ball because they can't see what's behind them so they play it safe.
Let the ref decide and keep the game moving.
On the hand pass, I think this is bad, as ive seen refs give frees and honestly i couldnt tell if it was open hand or not. Way too hard to enforce. I didnt think there was much wrong with the open hand pass anyway. You were still striking the ball so dont know what the problem was.
Quote from: Jinxy on April 15, 2010, 01:33:19 PM
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on April 15, 2010, 11:43:17 AM
Quote from: AFS on April 15, 2010, 11:29:19 AM
Quote from: mackers on April 15, 2010, 10:12:06 AM
I think the mark was been a success, it's great to see good fielding rewarded rather than penalised. Contrary to arguments against it at the start, it hasn't slowed up any games, in fact it has quickened them up with no melees in the middle of the park after a fielder catches the ball. The vast majority of the time the fielder hasn't used the mark as a free kick as such and has moved the ball on quickly.
I'd agree with this. I was opposed to it a few months back after seeing a couple of refs make a balls of it, but it's looking like a decent idea now that everyone is a bit more used to it. Though, the rule could still do with a wee tweak to leave the player with the choice of accepting the mark or playing on.
the mark could work, but does need a bit of tweaking.
in the dublin tyrone game there were several occassions were the referee didnt give the mark when he should have.
maybe it should be up to the player to call it, giving them the choice to play on if they want or to call the mark and take the free (similar to rugby)
The rule is fine as it is as the player that catches the ball is encouraged to play on unless he is impeded.
If he is the ref will give him a free.
If the player calls the mark himself you will get lads stopping every time they catch the ball because they can't see what's behind them so they play it safe.
Let the ref decide and keep the game moving.
The players are practically dictating things now anyway. When someone wants a mark they stop and shout the head off themselves until they get it. I've yet to see a player that wants a mark not get it. Despite this, lads are still deciding to play on frequently enough. Fully handing the decision over to the player would eliminate a problem that is arising at least a couple of times per match. This is when fellas want to play on but are pulled back for their mark, and worse still, depending on how fussy the ref is, ordered back to the exact spot from which the mark was taken, significantly slowing things down and hindering any advantage that could've originally been had.
Any coincidence in the fact that Tyrone were relegated out of Division 1 this year while the mark was in force? Was Mickey Harte right to complain about the introduction of the mark with his Tyrone team in mind?
Will there ever be a week when Micky Harte isnt complaining about something. :D
From what I can see the so-called "mark" has not made much difference to the game. Having said that I'd be slightly more in favour of it if was enacted the same way as aussie rules - i.e. the player calling and/or awarded the mark has to move back towards his own goal and kick from where he caught it, rather than in the GAA version where the player is awarded a free and the opposing team is supposed to retreat. This way the player catching the ball is rewarded whilst the opposing team is not necessarily disadvantaged just because a player makes a clean catch (whao wee - catch me whilst I faint with amazement).
It hasn't made any real difference because no manager has serously attempted to prepare tactically for the mark. Most keepers still to prefer the "worrying the ball" approach; kicking it as high and hard as is humanly possible. If the mark is retained (and I hope it is, though I would extend it to defensive catches in the big square) you should see an awful lot more marks as managers realise the rule is here to stay and plan accordingly.
It's a fairly simple call for me: has it slowed the game down? Yes, it has; ergo, ditch it. (Nothing to do with our relegation, we were going down anyway.)
And nothing to do with the fact that no-one in Tyrone is capable of taking a high catch.
You need only look at the best midfielder in Ulster last year, Kevin Hughes, who didn't even compete in the air against Niall McKeever in the Ulster final.
We can see through you and Mickey Harte.
Quote from: saffron sam2 on April 15, 2010, 10:28:02 PM
And nothing to do with the fact that no-one in Tyrone is capable of taking a high catch.
You need only look at the best midfielder in Ulster last year, Kevin Hughes, who didn't even compete in the air against Niall McKeever in the Ulster final.
We can see through you and Mickey Harte.
tyrone have the best fielder of the ball they have had in a long time at midfield this year, aidan cassidy.as FOSB says, the mark rule has nothing to do with our relegation.
I dont think the mark was either negative or positive for tyrone in the league,we were far more affected by the handpass rule
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on April 15, 2010, 10:13:15 PM
It's a fairly simple call for me: has it slowed the game down? Yes, it has; ergo, ditch it. (Nothing to do with our relegation, we were going down anyway.)
If you had a midfielder that could catch the ball you wouldn't say that. ;)
I've been at Meath games where we've had 5/6 marks and it doesn't slow the game down one bit.
If the Louth lad was unimpeded after he caught the ball and the ref blew his whistle then the ref made a balls of it.
"A free kick shall be awarded to a player who catches the ball from a kick out between the two 45 metre lines. This free kick must be taken by the player who catches the ball. Exception: The kick may be taken by another member of the player's team if the player who catches the ball is injured prior to the free kick being taken.
"In practical terms this will mean that while the free-kick can be awarded, the referee, as with any other foul may allow play to continue if he considers it to be to the advantage of the player who catches the ball. Once he allows play to continue, he may not subsequently award a free."
The bit in bold seems to be more common in my experience than the ref blowing for a free.
Opposition players back off pretty quickly when a kick-out is fielded.
Quote from: saffron sam2 on April 15, 2010, 10:28:02 PM
And nothing to do with the fact that no-one in Tyrone is capable of taking a high catch.
None so blind as those who cannot see; like see Hughes in the 2nd half on Sunday, for example. Cavanagh the Elder isn't half-bad either.
Quote from: saffron sam2 on April 15, 2010, 10:28:02 PM
You need only look at the best midfielder in Ulster last year, Kevin Hughes, who didn't even compete in the air against Niall McKeever in the Ulster final.
And that cost us.
Quote from: saffron sam2 on April 15, 2010, 10:28:02 PM
We can see through you and Mickey Harte.
But you can't see (see above... Oh Sorry! You can't!)
Ye Saffron Bollix, wait until the 23rd May! ;) :D
Quote from: hardstation on April 15, 2010, 11:48:07 PM
We can see through your footwear, to be fair.
(Fair) footwear fascist.
Quote from: hardstation on April 15, 2010, 11:44:37 PM
Caught the ball, ran on (I think he even shrugged off lame tackle) and then hoofed it.
I don't think I see it like you do though Jinxy. Surely it's up to the player who catches the ball to decide if he wants to have a mark. If he just wants to play on, he should be allowed to.
I suppose it's like most of our rules.
The extent to which it affects the game is dependent on how competent the referee is.
A decent ref will know when to blow the whistle and when to let the man go.
Ah sure, let's introduce another impediment to free-flowing football. Mark = Crap.
Quote from: hardstation on April 16, 2010, 01:29:32 AM
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on April 16, 2010, 01:17:26 AM
Ah sure, let's introduce another impediment to free-flowing football. Mark = Crap.
Sandwiches will not like that. Has Donnelly really been that bad?
Must do better ;)
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on April 16, 2010, 01:17:26 AM
Ah sure, let's introduce another impediment to free-flowing football. Mark = Crap.
You'd rather have the endless hop balls and wrestling matches when midfielders wouldn't release the ball for frees then..................
Quote from: SLIGONIAN on April 15, 2010, 01:41:36 PM
On the hand pass, I think this is bad, as ive seen refs give frees and honestly i couldnt tell if it was open hand or not. Way too hard to enforce. I didnt think there was much wrong with the open hand pass anyway. You were still striking the ball so dont know what the problem was.
There is not much wrong with the open hand pass in the game but it is a slippery slope to throwing the ball on the sly and we all have seen the throws go undetected by the ref.
I see Seamus Woods of the CCC (Tyrone man) having ago in Irish News at counties who may only be carrying the vote of their senior manager with a 'self serving' agenda rather than greater good of the game in mind? Wonder who that might be ::)
Quote from: mackers on April 16, 2010, 02:11:22 PM
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on April 16, 2010, 01:17:26 AM
Ah sure, let's introduce another impediment to free-flowing football. Mark = Crap.
You'd rather have the endless hop balls and wrestling matches when midfielders wouldn't release the ball for frees then..................
When a midfielder is surrounded, there are many of the catcher's teammates who are free and unmarked. If he's too slow to release (and his teammates too slow to cop on), tough shit.
It was a genuine frustration for me that there was this extra fecking blow of the whistle to halt play (for both teams) -- Gaelic Football is
not Aussie Rules, the respective tackles are worlds apart (literally); we do not need this import from a foreign sport.
God you really are Mickey Harte. :D
Does ANYONE in Tyrone like anything new ::)
Jasus they're so effin stuck in the mud it's unreal.
How about a little debate, instead of these pathetic joint Connacht-Leinster attempts at a put-down :D
Quote from: Rossfan on April 16, 2010, 09:24:54 PM
Does ANYONE in Tyrone like anything new ::)
Jasus they're so effin stuck in the mud it's unreal.
I like turtles.
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on April 16, 2010, 10:26:09 PM
How about a little debate, instead of these pathetic joint Connacht-Leinster attempts at a put-down :D
Down with this sort of thing.
And, by the way, Peter Canavan is God, not me ;)
Sorry Jinxy ;)
The Mark is gone. Thank God the Peter sense prevailed.
Kickout and penalty rules passed at congress - mark, square ball and hand pass rules defeated
http://twitter.com/ranelaghgaels (http://twitter.com/ranelaghgaels)
Thank God. The mark rule was only going to increase short kickouts straight into players chests anyway. The handpass rule was going to be a nightmare.
Maybe they could now spend more time trying to get referees to use a bit of common sense during games and put a bit of effort into promoting the games instead of constantly trying to fundamentally change the playing rules.
Quote from: tyrone86 on April 16, 2010, 11:35:45 PM
Kickout and penalty rules passed at congress - mark, square ball and hand pass rules defeated
Go h-iontach!
Since when did Seamus Woods become a bleedin' authority on all things good for Gaelic Football? From my recollections of him he was a bloody awful coach and manager with tyrone minors back in the mid-80s - though not sure what the Carrickmore and Omagh CBS men think of him.
And so another set of experimental rules bite the dust. Perhaps next time they'll grow a set of b**** and try and sort out the real problem with football - the tackle - or rather lack off.
Disapointed the new square ball rule was not passed.
Quote from: hardstation on April 17, 2010, 12:15:12 AM
Are they gassed as of now or will they remain for the league finals?
They'll remain for the finals. We do like to make eejits of ourselves at times.
Boo.
Quote from: donelli on April 17, 2010, 12:13:06 AM
Disapointed the new square ball rule was not passed.
Why? Twas a load a bollocks.
Quote from: hardstation on April 17, 2010, 12:53:44 AM
Quote from: ONeill on April 17, 2010, 12:48:42 AM
Quote from: donelli on April 17, 2010, 12:13:06 AM
Disapointed the new square ball rule was not passed.
Why? Twas a load a bollocks.
It was better than the old (current) one. Trying to decide if the ball is 'in the square' or not when it's half a mile up in the air ffs.
Aye, and as the summer and fitness progress, let's all just mass in the square and await the hail mary. Great fun and spectacle.
Quote from: hardstation on April 17, 2010, 01:02:18 AM
Sure, it's already being done only with them standing on the edge of the square. Big difference ffs.
Massive difference hs. Massive difference in being right on top of the keeper with being able only just to put a fist to the ball, and in giving the keeper a free run to clear the ball before it drops and anyone else gets a chance to put a knuckle to it. Massive difference.
Another pile of shite of a rule-change, glad sense prevailed.
PS I know that it's imperfect, but what this rule-change was saying/implying was that there was no need whatsoever for
any rule in the first place; patent nonsense. Let's keep the square ball until we move towards a less imperfect implementation of the rule itself as it was originally envisaged, i.e., technology.
Quote from: hardstation on April 17, 2010, 01:17:47 AM
Let's hope Tyrone aren't the first team to be caught out...
Good man, that would be a first for us ;)
Quote from: hardstation on April 17, 2010, 01:17:47 AM
If you get a fist to the ball on the edge of the square, the 'keeper will do well to save it.
Ok, let us have a summer of inaccuracy, inconsistency and fecking unfairness. Let's hope Tyrone aren't the first team to be caught out with Paddy Cunningham creeping into the square a tad early to send yis to the qualifiers. There'd be some f**king roaring out of yis then.
:D
I'd love to see it
No surprise that the moaning minority shout the loudest and get listened to. Tis the way of the GAA.
From Dublin's point of view, binning the new fist pass rule is good as too many of our players coudn't figure it out ::)
The mark not going through is an opportunity lost - it was clearly good for the game, and people who said it slowed down the game either haven't seen it often enough or more likely, are just plain liars.
I think it would have been pretty neutral for the Dubs, though I'[d say over the course of the league we may have conceded a few more marks than we caught, but not much in it. The likes of Cork, Kerry, Meath, Kildare might have benefitted, and those teams unable to field high balls would have lost out.
Quote from: Hound on April 17, 2010, 11:06:36 AM
The mark not going through is an opportunity lost - it was clearly good for the game, and people who said it slowed down the game either haven't seen it often enough or more likely, are just plain liars.
Or you're just a plain mongrel Hound ;)
Explain to me, how does blowing a whistle to halt play actually speed up the game, seriously (and I've seen it often enough during the league)?
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on April 17, 2010, 11:24:22 AM
Quote from: Hound on April 17, 2010, 11:06:36 AM
The mark not going through is an opportunity lost - it was clearly good for the game, and people who said it slowed down the game either haven't seen it often enough or more likely, are just plain liars.
Or you're just a plain mongrel Hound ;)
Explain to me, how does blowing a whistle to halt play actually speed up the game, seriously (and I've seen it often enough during the league)?
It didn't particularly do either. What it did was reward clean catches and significantly reduce the number of rucks in the midfield area. Tyrone are among the best ruckers in the game, which probably explained their opposition to the mark.
We'll never be able to make any proper rule changes until we kick Tyrone out of the association.
They are holding the rest of us back.
The problem as I see it is we trial new rules during the leagues. If we can only change rules every five years why not trial these at underage first, (minor and U21 county, development squad competitions too for that matter) and the ones that work best for a year or two can then be trialled at senior level in the pre-season and leagues for at least two years to see how they go.
Very disappointing...........we can look forward to a summer of rugby mauls and throw balls in the midfield area.........but sure as long as Mickey Harte is happy. ::) ::)
Quote from: Zulu on April 17, 2010, 05:29:18 PM
The problem as I see it is we trial new rules during the leagues. If we can only change rules every five years why not trial these at underage first, (minor and U21 county, development squad competitions too for that matter) and the ones that work best for a year or two can then be trialled at senior level in the pre-season and leagues for at least two years to see how they go.
Thought the same (http://gaaboard.com/board/index.php?topic=14760.msg696169#msg696169) when these rules were first announced. It really is a stupid way of doing things.
It really is AFS. There is too much at stake and too much analysis at senior level for rules to bed in and players too get used to them. I mean if any rule is going to come into the games they need to be able to work at the lower levels anyway so why not try them there first, does anyone know why this isn't they way things are done?
Dissapointing to see such a potentially progressive rule not introduced. Effectively the delegates have valued harrassing and hounding over one of the real skills of the game. Ok there weren't as many marks as you'd have expected in matches but those that were awarded worked well, particularly if there had been an amendment to make the mark optional. The potential improvement it would have brought to our game over the next few years has been lost and that's a real pity.
Quote from: Zulu on April 17, 2010, 06:27:52 PM
It really is AFS. There is too much at stake and too much analysis at senior level for rules to bed in and players too get used to them. I mean if any rule is going to come into the games they need to be able to work at the lower levels anyway so why not try them there first, does anyone know why this isn't they way things are done?
There's probably an argument that the only way that all 32 counties get an equal glimpse at the rules in action is if they're tried out in a national competition. There might be a bit of merit in this, but I still think that any new rules should pass a couple of tests at lower levels before they're given a look in at senior intercounty level. Throwing them straight in at the highest level is ridiculous.
It sure is, but if the rules were tried at lower levels and the ones deemed to be working best were then tried at IC level we could see how rules impact the game over two or even three years, at different levels and in different environments. Who's to say we wouldn't have seen more fielding in CP on a summers day than we'd see in Navan on a wet March evening? You'd wonder about the GAA sometimes.
Quote from: mackers on April 17, 2010, 05:43:51 PM
Very disappointing...........we can look forward to a summer of rugby mauls and throw balls in the midfield area.........but sure as long as Mickey Harte is happy. ::) ::)
Does this mean that the new rules were scrapped?? And its back to normal??
Yeah, all except the kick out and penalty rules which were always going to get through.
Quote from: hardstation on April 17, 2010, 10:23:54 PM
What was the reason for changing the kick out rule?
So as to confuse the spectators at lowly club games where there is no scoreboard.
How many times have you been at a game and not been certain whether the ref has awarded a score or not?
You waited until the kick out was taken, and if it was from the 21 then you knew that the score stood.
I'm afraid from now on you'll have scores of old men standing along the sideline asking each other if that was a score or did the ref give a square ball :'(
Quote from: hardstation on April 17, 2010, 10:23:54 PM
What was the reason for changing the kick out rule?
None.
They should just leave things alone!
Strange - not a word here about the GPA. Are they still getting the 3 million, or whatever it was? What are they going to do with it? What's not going to be done that would otherwise have been done with the money? Or am I just a barstool malcontent, or whatever Dessie's term of abuse du jour is?