This is not correctly monitored by the refs.
Yesterday we had:
Sice for Galway, 7 steps, bounce 7 steps, goal.
Jamie Clarke, Armagh, lost count of the steps, hits post.
The rule gets broken at least once a weekend, particularly if the Dubs are playing. It's unfair on opposing defences. The 'pundits' don't even bother to highlight it anymore.
You should call this the Kevin McMenamin Thread! Closely followed by Aidan O'shea!
That goal, what a strike, but he reminded me of DJ Carey with the steps. You'd hope to get a good strike with a 7 step run up.
Completely agree with this, it leaves it almost impossible to defend against the ball carrier legally , which is part of what has led to the 'swarm' or 'blanket' defence or whatever term the pundits want to use now.
The jamie clarke one at the weekend was ridiculous.
Martin McElhinny point - 10 steps, bounce, 7 steps, left foot shot
I have some sympathy if a lad is being dragged. I know it's technically not allowed to take more steps, and the ref should either penalise the defender or else penalise the attacker for overcarrying, but at least I understand it.
What kills me is the lads who take the little quick steps, like DJ. They get away with murder. And just because you are being harried shouldn't mean you're allowed take 10 steps. what's a defender to do? As long as he isn't fouling, he's entitled to try and tackle you legally.
Ya, we all don't mind 5 or even the odd six small steps but this carrying the ball along the hip and going off on a dance is what gets me.
Quote from: AZOffaly on June 15, 2015, 01:23:15 PM
I have some sympathy if a lad is being dragged. I know it's technically not allowed to take more steps, and the ref should either penalise the defender or else penalise the attacker for overcarrying, but at least I understand it.
What kills me is the lads who take the little quick steps, like DJ. They get away with murder. And just because you are being harried shouldn't mean you're allowed take 10 steps. what's a defender to do? As long as he isn't fouling, he's entitled to try and tackle you legally.
its a bit of a chicken and egg though, did the lad take teh extra steps because he was being dragged back, or did the defender drag him back beacuse he was on his 6/7th step and gettinga way from him?
Well if he's only pulling him back because he's already taken 7 steps, then it's obviously a free out. What I can understand is when a fella is being pulled back on his second or third step, and the ref allows him another 3 or 4 to get away.
One of the many issues I have with the implementation of the rules within the GAA. People still complain about the Cavanagh goal against Dublin in 2008, but again this was an example of a referee allowing a man extra steps due to him being pulled/fouled. Clarkes shot that hit the post yesterday was a joke.
One of the biggest issues I have is with the different threshold applied to get a free out the field as opposed to getting a free or penalty close to goal. Some of the tackles in around the danger area that are not blown would amlost always be blown in the middle of the pitch.
The tug after 3 steps stopped me getting a solo in and had to take another 3 to get away from the defender on a game at the weekend, blew up for over carrying. In my head I was like should have just dived and went to ground and then I'd have got my free. It's a tricky one. I think the 4 steps isn't really implemented, its more of a time thing. Its hard to explain but you always know when you need a solo or bounce so as to not get penalised, you don't be counting your steps.
Its one of the biggest problems in the game. Its not so much the steps themselves, but the ramifications. If the ref is going to allow a man as many steps as he wants to get round a defender, then a clean tackle is almost impossible.
Should the rule not be changed to x number of seconds rather than steps?
Why should someone with longer legs be allowed hold the ball for longer?
Three seconds and then play the ball would make more sense.
And before someone says it'd be difficult for a ref to count the number of seconds, they're pretty much doing it when judging a player standing still without playing the ball.
Quote from: AZOffaly on June 15, 2015, 01:49:51 PM
Well if he's only pulling him back because he's already taken 7 steps, then it's obviously a free out. What I can understand is when a fella is being pulled back on his second or third step, and the ref allows him another 3 or 4 to get away.
It is, but more often than not, its not given.
The only time over carrying seems to be blown is when a player is bottled up by 2/3 defenders and is going nowhere.
The times that a player burns a defender round the outside using 7/8 steps is rarely blown or the extra steps you seem to get when having a shot.
True. It appears the refs tend to blow for overcarrying when the flow of the game is affected, or if it's likely a ruck will develop. A lad bottled up will get called for overcarrying more often than not, even if he's not actually fouling the ball. A fella who sprints around the side of the ruck will probably get away with it.
At least once?
Who'd be a referee.
I don't suppose the ref counts the steps , I'd say he uses the maxim "it hust looks as if he must have over carried". I'm happy with that.
Have we ever seen anyone penalised for overcarrying in the wrong i.e. when they took 4 or less steps? Probably never happened in the history of the GAA!!!! I've said it for years - the game would be totally different (and better in my view) if the 4 steps rule was implemented in any way close to correctly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3E1MvfCIlXA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3E1MvfCIlXA)
Quote from: Donnellys Hollow on June 15, 2015, 03:52:47 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3E1MvfCIlXA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3E1MvfCIlXA)
10 is a very conservative appraisal of that!!!!
That was about 14 steps! I'm just surprise Martin made it 14 steps without diving to the ground looking for a free!
Half of Wicklow hanging out of him, barely the 5 steps.
Sad thing is the next video on You Tube that auto plays is Offaly v Kildare in 2006, 3-9 to 0-15 to Offaly. Jaysus it's been a brutal fall.
The day of the 6 subs! ;)
Cutting us with switchblades ye were.
Quote from: haranguerer on June 15, 2015, 02:10:04 PM
Its one of the biggest problems in the game. Its not so much the steps themselves, but the ramifications. If the ref is going to allow a man as many steps as he wants to get round a defender, then a clean tackle is almost impossible.
Excellent point - young players are coached to focus the tackle on when the player is soloing/hopping - if a player doesn't do this, it makes tackling legitimately far far more difficult.
I counted the steps of Jamie Clarke and he took 5!!
It's a much bigger problem than blankets or and excessive handpassing
It's excruciating explaining the rulrs to foreigners when quite clearly they don't exist and are just broad basic guidelines.
Obviously the problem implenting it is a ref blowing his wistle every 10 seconds and no-one wants that.... but how else is ever gonna be addressed?
Imo it's also the biggest problem in the sport's development worldwide as people cant see it as a proper sport if it doesn't have proper rules.
Now American football is fussy , too fussy but the sport respects the rules and a player/team will be penalised if someone is judged to have farted at the wrong time.
People. in other countries unfortunately see Gaelige football as one of those "anything goes" sports that doesn't have actual rules that players even
feel the need to follow.
The first galway goal yesterday was a great goal but technically it wasn't a goal because the scorer broke the rules of the game.
If we're going to change the championship format, while we're at it, why not increase it to 5 steps & be done with it, re-define (clearly)the tackle , & employ some think tank crew(i don't know) to come up with a way of limiting excessive handpassing regimes by forcing & rewarding players to kick the ball.
But I doubt anyone really wants that, not really, basically to the point that I've just wasted 10 mins of my life and will no doubt get attacked/raped/ by some deliverance style rednecks who won't and can't abide the thought of change at any level.
Ah f**k it
Quote from: magpie seanie on June 15, 2015, 03:42:26 PM
Have we ever seen anyone penalised for overcarrying in the wrong i.e. when they took 4 or less steps? Probably never happened in the history of the GAA!!!! I've said it for years - the game would be totally different (and better in my view) if the 4 steps rule was implemented in any way close to correctly.
I saw this once in a game I played in growing up, referee was making the rules up as he went along as tends to happen.
The 4 steps rule is an enigma, if it was implemented to the letter of the law it would make the game unwatchable/ruin the game. It would fundamentally change the way the game is played, and in the interim (much like the black card) would cause absolute chaos.
I am currently coaching adult players to break the 4 steps rule. The referee has too much to monitor without counting every single step every time the ball changes possession. It's about timing, getting used to taking 7 or 8 steps as a norm and not looking guilty doing it, that is the biggest give away of all.
Yes,looking like your not taking them is the trick. The dub mcmeinmen has this down to a fine art.
Jamie Clarke took 5 steps, then I think switched hands and off he went again, in fairness I think the ref was blinded in this instance and the little shuffle might have led the ref to have a doubt.
What I find baffling is that apart from Kevin McStay none of the pundits ever raise it as an issue.
One of my pet hates is when a lad takes two steps, thinks about a hand pass or solo but decides against it and takes another step, then he gets pulled for over carrying. Yet if he handed thought about the hand pass or solo and just ran for 6/7 steps it would be grand.
Quote from: tiempo on June 15, 2015, 09:16:41 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on June 15, 2015, 03:42:26 PM
Have we ever seen anyone penalised for overcarrying in the wrong i.e. when they took 4 or less steps? Probably never happened in the history of the GAA!!!! I've said it for years - the game would be totally different (and better in my view) if the 4 steps rule was implemented in any way close to correctly.
I saw this once in a game I played in growing up, referee was making the rules up as he went along as tends to happen.
The 4 steps rule is an enigma, if it was implemented to the letter of the law it would make the game unwatchable/ruin the game. It would fundamentally change the way the game is played, and in the interim (much like the black card) would cause absolute chaos.
I am currently coaching adult players to break the 4 steps rule. The referee has too much to monitor without counting every single step every time the ball changes possession. It's about timing, getting used to taking 7 or 8 steps as a norm and not looking guilty doing it, that is the biggest give away of all.
Players would have to change their style of play and they would. I think we'd have better, faster, more open games with less focus on maintaining possession. The battle between two players would be again to the fore.
Tactics evolve over time to counteract other tactics. I think Donegal are fascinating tactically and to my view Rory Gallagher is bringing them on exactly the same as if not better the Jimmy would have done.
Quote from: magpie seanie on June 16, 2015, 12:27:02 AM
Tactics evolve over time to counteract other tactics. I think Donegal are fascinating tactically and to my view Rory Gallagher is bringing them on exactly the same as if not better the Jimmy would have done.
McGuinness turned Donegal from also rans when they previously played in Crossmaglen to AI champions. Gallagher had a good platform to build on, but on recent evidence he has done a great job, Jimmy may have found it harder to vary his system.
Paddy Cunningham is the worst of the lot IMO. He over-carries when taking a bloody free!
Another thing that gets me when watching a game as a neutral is when a fella gets fouled on his third or fourth step, ref allows him to over carry then he gets fouled on his seventh or eight step does he blow him up, blow the defender up let him continue on to 12 steps? Does a foul count as a bounce in these scenarios or should he bounce immediately after he is not being fouled anymore? If so can he have to consecutive fouls? etc etc.. to To call it a grey area would be very generous.
When watching the game as a supporter you are going equally ballistic in this scenario depending on whether you are supporter of the defenders or of the attacker
Start blowing it up I say and the players will come back into line
ON the other hand I actually think I may have a solution from the Indian support Kabaddi where the players hold their breath (or doesn't breath in at least) when in play and chants and if they stop chanting the ref blows them up. We could do the same thing, when your in possession you have to chant your teams name over and over again and when you stop its a free out.
Quote from: armaghniac on June 16, 2015, 12:46:18 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on June 16, 2015, 12:27:02 AM
Tactics evolve over time to counteract other tactics. I think Donegal are fascinating tactically and to my view Rory Gallagher is bringing them on exactly the same as if not better the Jimmy would have done.
McGuinness turned Donegal from also rans when they previously played in Crossmaglen to AI champions. Gallagher had a good platform to build on, but on recent evidence he has done a great job, Jimmy may have found it harder to vary his system.
Very early days to be judging Gallagher. Wait until this season is over at least.
between overcarrying and stealing the few metres for a free (time for the FIFA spray?)
two things that really annoy me
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 16, 2015, 06:41:31 AM
Paddy Cunningham is the worst of the lot IMO. He over-carries when taking a bloody free!
Another thing that gets me when watching a game as a neutral is when a fella gets fouled on his third or fourth step, ref allows him to over carry then he gets fouled on his seventh or eight step does he blow him up, blow the defender up let him continue on to 12 steps? Does a foul count as a bounce in these scenarios or should he bounce immediately after he is not being fouled anymore? If so can he have to consecutive fouls? etc etc.. to To call it a grey area would be very generous.
When watching the game as a supporter you are going equally ballistic in this scenario depending on whether you are supporter of the defenders or of the attacker
Start blowing it up I say and the players will come back into line
ON the other hand I actually think I may have a solution from the Indian support Kabaddi where the players hold their breath (or doesn't breath in at least) when in play and chants and if they stop chanting the ref blows them up. We could do the same thing, when your in possession you have to chant your teams name over and over again and when you stop its a free out.
Sounds like you'd be short of breath pretty quickly due to whatever you are smoking!
Quote from: magpie seanie on June 16, 2015, 12:27:02 AM
Quote from: tiempo on June 15, 2015, 09:16:41 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on June 15, 2015, 03:42:26 PM
Have we ever seen anyone penalised for overcarrying in the wrong i.e. when they took 4 or less steps? Probably never happened in the history of the GAA!!!! I've said it for years - the game would be totally different (and better in my view) if the 4 steps rule was implemented in any way close to correctly.
I saw this once in a game I played in growing up, referee was making the rules up as he went along as tends to happen.
The 4 steps rule is an enigma, if it was implemented to the letter of the law it would make the game unwatchable/ruin the game. It would fundamentally change the way the game is played, and in the interim (much like the black card) would cause absolute chaos.
I am currently coaching adult players to break the 4 steps rule. The referee has too much to monitor without counting every single step every time the ball changes possession. It's about timing, getting used to taking 7 or 8 steps as a norm and not looking guilty doing it, that is the biggest give away of all.
Players would have to change their style of play and they would. I think we'd have better, faster, more open games with less focus on maintaining possession. The battle between two players would be again to the fore. Tactics evolve over time to counteract other tactics. I think Donegal are fascinating tactically and to my view Rory Gallagher is bringing them on exactly the same as if not better the Jimmy would have done.
I'll tell you what we would have as only last week I saw a ref implement the 4 steps rule very strictly.
Free kick after free kick after free kick...
4 steps is actually not an adequate allowance to play the game effectively and it would especially not deliver the benefits you suggest.
I actually think you'd have less 1 on 1 battles, and more quick passing through the hands. If you think about the one v one stuff, it's usually a ball into a forward, who comes out, turns and takes the man on. That's where the steps are commonly seen.
Quote from: tiempo on June 16, 2015, 11:02:28 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on June 16, 2015, 12:27:02 AM
Quote from: tiempo on June 15, 2015, 09:16:41 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on June 15, 2015, 03:42:26 PM
Have we ever seen anyone penalised for overcarrying in the wrong i.e. when they took 4 or less steps? Probably never happened in the history of the GAA!!!! I've said it for years - the game would be totally different (and better in my view) if the 4 steps rule was implemented in any way close to correctly.
I saw this once in a game I played in growing up, referee was making the rules up as he went along as tends to happen.
The 4 steps rule is an enigma, if it was implemented to the letter of the law it would make the game unwatchable/ruin the game. It would fundamentally change the way the game is played, and in the interim (much like the black card) would cause absolute chaos.
I am currently coaching adult players to break the 4 steps rule. The referee has too much to monitor without counting every single step every time the ball changes possession. It's about timing, getting used to taking 7 or 8 steps as a norm and not looking guilty doing it, that is the biggest give away of all.
Players would have to change their style of play and they would. I think we'd have better, faster, more open games with less focus on maintaining possession. The battle between two players would be again to the fore. Tactics evolve over time to counteract other tactics. I think Donegal are fascinating tactically and to my view Rory Gallagher is bringing them on exactly the same as if not better the Jimmy would have done.
I'll tell you what we would have as only last week I saw a ref implement the 4 steps rule very strictly.
Free kick after free kick after free kick...
4 steps is actually not an adequate allowance to play the game effectively and it would especially not deliver the benefits you suggest.
Until players know they're not going to get away with the 5th, 6th or 7th step then yes you'll get the free fest. Players and managers will learn to adapt accordingly, but then that old fly in the ointment is consistency of referees, if some blow for it and some don't, then you're left with the mess we currently see.
If a fella looks like he's about to kick the ball, or he has mastered the Alan Brogan '10-step hop', he can saunter along to his hearts content.
As a defender it was always the forward getting the extra steps.... I used to shout out the steps before making the challenge for the ball... Hoping the referee heard. Never made a blind bitta difference... Extra steps have always favoured the attacker, as I found out when I got older and played up front ;D....
As a referee I'm a 4 seconds type referee... As opposed to four steps, slight disadvantage on the vertically challenged type player (me)
Yeah a forward bearing down on goal is rarely pulled up for too many steps but a player catching the ball in middle of the field who twist and turns with 4 or 5 lads hanging out of him is often penalised.
I'd give players 5 steps and clamp down on it. I'd also only allow a closed fist handpass - another bug bear of mine!
Quote from: BennyHarp on June 17, 2015, 08:35:23 AM
I'd give players 5 steps and clamp down on it. I'd also only allow a closed fist handpass - another bug bear of mine!
Id probably agree with that.
Extend it to 5 steps and actually inforce it.
Doesn't anyone agree that it should be based on the length of time the ball is held rather than the number of steps.
When a player is bottled up by a swarm of player tackling him, the ref has to judge the time it would take to take four steps. If a man is running at full pace it's going to take him less time to take four steps than a man walking with the ball.
Four seconds with the ball regardless of what you do would make the rule simpler in my opinion.
Quote from: Esmarelda on June 17, 2015, 09:28:50 AM
Doesn't anyone agree that it should be based on the length of time the ball is held rather than the number of steps.
When a player is bottled up by a swarm of player tackling him, the ref has to judge the time it would take to take four steps. If a man is running at full pace it's going to take him less time to take four steps than a man walking with the ball.
Four seconds with the ball regardless of what you do would make the rule simpler in my opinion.
It possibly would, but you could take a hell of alot more steps than 4, travelling at full speed in 4 seconds
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on June 17, 2015, 09:31:01 AM
Quote from: Esmarelda on June 17, 2015, 09:28:50 AM
Doesn't anyone agree that it should be based on the length of time the ball is held rather than the number of steps.
When a player is bottled up by a swarm of player tackling him, the ref has to judge the time it would take to take four steps. If a man is running at full pace it's going to take him less time to take four steps than a man walking with the ball.
Four seconds with the ball regardless of what you do would make the rule simpler in my opinion.
It possibly would, but you could take a hell of alot more steps than 4, travelling at full speed in 4 seconds
I'd have no problem with that although now that you mention it maybe it should only be three seconds. It'd be easier for refs to judge I reckon.
4 seconds without playing the ball is much too long.
A fast player at top speed could run from the 45 to the 14 yard line without playing the ball. (Usain bolt would make it from the 45 to the endline!!!).
How would you tackle a player with the ball under his arm for 30-40 metres? - No chance
Quote from: westbound on June 17, 2015, 09:40:36 AM
4 seconds without playing the ball is much too long.
A fast player at top speed could run from the 45 to the 14 yard line without playing the ball. (Usain bolt would make it from the 45 to the endline!!!).
How would you tackle a player with the ball under his arm for 30-40 metres? - No chance
That's fair enough, so reduce it to three. Worst case, if a player comes on to a ball at full pace he runs for three seconds without playing it. A defender can still meet him forcing him to change direction and/or slow down.
Realistically only a player that is standing waiting for the player in this instance is going to be able to tackle him, i.e. if he takes the ball at full pace then it's very unlikely a defender will be matching that run at that pace.
It's not perfect I admit. But I reckon three seconds would work better than what we have currently.
Why change the rule when the problem is the refereeing? When are we ever going to come to grips with this basic issue? What does Pat McEneaney see his job as? What does Ayatollah Duffy have to say about the blatantly obvious refusal or inability of referees to implement the rules and the reasons for this?
If the usual procedures are applied, this will continue to be ignored until some gobshite on the Sunday game suddenly realises it has the makings of a headline for him. Because the opinion of a Sunday Games panellist is a more powerful force in the GAA than a congress, something will be done at that point. But, as usual, it will be the wrong thing, probably involving rule changes, further sanctions on players and a special congress which, at best, will make no difference or, at worst, will make things worse.
That's how the system seems to work. My own theory about why the administrators refuse to recognise the refereeing debacle is because referees are 'us' and players are 'them'. The job of 'us' is to control 'them'. We, being 'us', are right by definition and cannot be wrong. That would be an appalling vista. So if we're not implementing the rules, there must be something wrong with the rules.
Quote from: Hardy on June 17, 2015, 09:53:08 AM
Why change the rule when the problem is the refereeing? When are we ever going to come to grips with this basic issue? What does Pat McEneaney see his job as? What does Ayatollah Duffy have to say about the blatantly obvious refusal or inability of referees to implement the rules and the reasons for this?
If the usual procedures are applied, this will continue to be ignored until some gobshite on the Sunday game suddenly realises it has the makings of a headline for him. Because the opinion of a Sunday Games panellist is a more powerful force in the GAA than a congress, something will be done at that point. But, as usual, it will be the wrong thing, probably involving rule changes, further sanctions on players and a special congress which, at best, will make no difference or, at worst, will make things worse.
That's how the system seems to work. My own theory about why the administrators refuse to recognise the refereeing debacle is because referees are 'us' and players are 'them'. The job of 'us' is to control 'them'. We, being 'us', are right by definition and cannot be wrong. That would be an appalling vista. So if we're not implementing the rules, there must be something wrong with the rules.
I take your point but again I ask, how long can a player standing still hold the ball for without playing it? Is it the length of time the ref deems it would take him to walk four long strides or the time it would take a player with short legs to take four steps at full speed?
It's correct to look for good officiating but shouldn't we make their job as easy as possible?
The rule states four steps or the amount of time it would take to take four steps (or words to that effect - I'll check). Which effectively means whatever the referee decides it means, since it doesn't specify slow steps, fast steps, running steps, strolling steps, etc.
I agree the rules should be as simple as possible, but it doesn't matter what the rules are if the refs are making up their own.
Rule 1.7:
When a player is in possession of the ball it
may be:
(a) Carried in the hand for a maximum of four
consecutive steps or held in the hand for
no longer than the time needed to take four
steps.
Quote from: Hardy on June 17, 2015, 09:53:08 AM
Why change the rule when the problem is the refereeing? When are we ever going to come to grips with this basic issue? What does Pat McEneaney see his job as? What does Ayatollah Duffy have to say about the blatantly obvious refusal or inability of referees to implement the rules and the reasons for this?
If the usual procedures are applied, this will continue to be ignored until some gobshite on the Sunday game suddenly realises it has the makings of a headline for him. Because the opinion of a Sunday Games panellist is a more powerful force in the GAA than a congress, something will be done at that point. But, as usual, it will be the wrong thing, probably involving rule changes, further sanctions on players and a special congress which, at best, will make no difference or, at worst, will make things worse.
That's how the system seems to work. My own theory about why the administrators refuse to recognise the refereeing debacle is because referees are 'us' and players are 'them'. The job of 'us' is to control 'them'. We, being 'us', are right by definition and cannot be wrong. That would be an appalling vista. So if we're not implementing the rules, there must be something wrong with the rules.
could not agree more.
the only way that wahes if there are no cameras and people cant see what a feck up refs make of some games
and that aint going to happen any time soon.
the only solution is better training and for refs and a good quality runthrough of games in a post match meeting.
not some fecker coming out saying some unspecfied mistakes were make but over all were all brilliant
Quote from: Hardy on June 17, 2015, 10:09:34 AM
The rule states four steps or the amount of time it would take to take four steps (or words to that effect - I'll check). Which effectively means whatever the referee decides it means, since it doesn't specify slow steps, fast steps, running steps, strolling steps, etc.
I agree the rules should be as simple as possible, but it doesn't matter what the rules are if the refs are making up their own.
Exactly.
It's up to the ref so one ref can base it on walking and the next can base it on sprinting.
By leaving it up to the referees' interpretation you're increasing the likelihood of inconsistencies.
Yet another ref that can't count for that Donegal goal. At least this one will become a "talking point". If he hopped or solo'd per the rules he may not have scored. Nice swish with his arms to fool the ref.
And Bradley kicking a free from the penalty spot.....
The fella in charge of the Westmeath/Eastmeath match has clearly been reading this thread. I've seen more frees given for over-carrying in this game than all of the other matches combined that I've watched this season.
Quote from: Estimator on June 28, 2015, 03:17:35 PM
The fella in charge of the Westmeath/Eastmeath match has clearly been reading this thread. I've seen more frees given for over-carrying in this game than all of the other matches combined that I've watched this season.
It's great!
Quote from: manfromdelmonte on June 28, 2015, 03:21:13 PM
Quote from: Estimator on June 28, 2015, 03:17:35 PM
The fella in charge of the Westmeath/Eastmeath match has clearly been reading this thread. I've seen more frees given for over-carrying in this game than all of the other matches combined that I've watched this season.
It's great!
I'm pretty sure Bray overcarried for the opening point.
O'Reilly took a fair few steps before the donegal goal too.
Listening to the armagh game on the radio the commentator made mention of how may steps Clarke took for his first goal, so it must have been bad. Armagh struggling rightly to kill the game too til then.
Quote from: imtommygunn on June 29, 2015, 10:48:26 AM
O'Reilly took a fair few steps before the donegal goal too.
Must say I thought so but played it back at the time and he did actually shoot as he took his fifth stride
Dublin practice this in training. Holding the ball in one hand, making it seem you're about to bounce it while running for 8 steps is done by every Dublin player.
Quote from: Teo Lurley on June 29, 2015, 12:50:27 PM
Dublin practice this in training. Holding the ball in one hand, making it seem you're about to bounce it while running for 8 steps is done by every Dublin player.
It is still over carrying though.
The hop doesn't start till the ball leaves your hand
John Gildea (Donegal midfielder and McGuinness club mate from late 90s/2000s) used to be the man for the long hop. He would swing the ball like an NBA player going up to dunk. Between the start of the swing and ball leaving the hand he could have four or five steps taken.
Quote from: Esmarelda on June 29, 2015, 10:47:38 AM
Quote from: manfromdelmonte on June 28, 2015, 03:21:13 PM
Quote from: Estimator on June 28, 2015, 03:17:35 PM
The fella in charge of the Westmeath/Eastmeath match has clearly been reading this thread. I've seen more frees given for over-carrying in this game than all of the other matches combined that I've watched this season.
It's great!
I'm pretty sure Bray overcarried for the opening point.
maybe but he caught most of the overcarrying throughout the game, fair fecks to him
Quote from: haranguerer on June 29, 2015, 12:28:56 PM
Listening to the armagh game on the radio the commentator made mention of how may steps Clarke took for his first goal, so it must have been bad. Armagh struggling rightly to kill the game too til then.
Was only 8 or 9!
Connolly's goal was a close call. Probably one of those that you would give the benefit to the forward.
At a club game at the weekend and the ref called a lot of overcarrying fouls. To be honest no-one even batted an eyelid because they were so obvious. If anything he missed several more.
Quote from: Hardy on June 17, 2015, 09:53:08 AM
Why change the rule when the problem is the refereeing? When are we ever going to come to grips with this basic issue? What does Pat McEneaney see his job as? What does Ayatollah Duffy have to say about the blatantly obvious refusal or inability of referees to implement the rules and the reasons for this?
If the usual procedures are applied, this will continue to be ignored until some gobshite on the Sunday game suddenly realises it has the makings of a headline for him. Because the opinion of a Sunday Games panellist is a more powerful force in the GAA than a congress, something will be done at that point. But, as usual, it will be the wrong thing, probably involving rule changes, further sanctions on players and a special congress which, at best, will make no difference or, at worst, will make things worse.
That's how the system seems to work. My own theory about why the administrators refuse to recognise the refereeing debacle is because referees are 'us' and players are 'them'. The job of 'us' is to control 'them'. We, being 'us', are right by definition and cannot be wrong. That would be an appalling vista. So if we're not implementing the rules, there must be something wrong with the rules.
Great post. That's sadly the way it works, reference the black card debacle.
The black card was fine, and is fine, except for those refs who don't enforce it. As Hardy says. I think we've seen a lot less bollicky fouls out the field, and almost complete eradication of the body check.
That said, if the refs enforced the rules properly we probably wouldn't have needed a black card.
Of course, when a ref does enforce the rules, he's derided for being picky and not letting the play flow. It's a bit of a Hobson's choice.
I think Hardy's post was in response to me suggesting that the rule should be changed from steps taken to length of time taken.
His general point isn't wrong but that doesn't mean that the rules of the game shouldn't be changed if a better way is available.
Dublin minor goalie got stung against Kildare for over carrying. Probably right by the letter of the law as he took about 6/7 steps but the penalty was literally a penalty to Kildare. How harsh is that? I always assumed it was 13 meter free in but can't ever remember a goalie getting done in the square for it.
A technical foul in the small square is a penalty, but not in the large square, at least as far as I know.
Quote from: AZOffaly on June 30, 2015, 04:58:29 PM
A technical foul in the small square is a penalty, but not in the large square, at least as far as I know.
correct.
they must have been small 6/7 steps to get done in the small square
Quote from: manfromdelmonte on June 30, 2015, 05:29:59 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on June 30, 2015, 04:58:29 PM
A technical foul in the small square is a penalty, but not in the large square, at least as far as I know.
correct.
they must have been small 6/7 steps to get done in the small square
Probably turned and "went back across his goal" (aaaarrrrgggghhh).
Quote from: manfromdelmonte on June 30, 2015, 05:29:59 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on June 30, 2015, 04:58:29 PM
A technical foul in the small square is a penalty, but not in the large square, at least as far as I know.
correct.
they must have been small 6/7 steps to get done in the small square
Check it out here 29 mins in (well technically 29.30 but the first Kildare goal has to be seen)
http://www.tg4.tv/play.php?pid=4329734175001&title=GAA%202015&series=GAA%202015 (http://www.tg4.tv/play.php?pid=4329734175001&title=GAA%202015&series=GAA%202015)
God bless TG4 and Newstalk.
Longford minor game on before Kildare game, Sligo straight after.
Quote from: magpie seanie on June 30, 2015, 03:09:30 PM
Quote from: Hardy on June 17, 2015, 09:53:08 AM
Why change the rule when the problem is the refereeing? When are we ever going to come to grips with this basic issue? What does Pat McEneaney see his job as? What does Ayatollah Duffy have to say about the blatantly obvious refusal or inability of referees to implement the rules and the reasons for this?
If the usual procedures are applied, this will continue to be ignored until some gobshite on the Sunday game suddenly realises it has the makings of a headline for him. Because the opinion of a Sunday Games panellist is a more powerful force in the GAA than a congress, something will be done at that point. But, as usual, it will be the wrong thing, probably involving rule changes, further sanctions on players and a special congress which, at best, will make no difference or, at worst, will make things worse.
That's how the system seems to work. My own theory about why the administrators refuse to recognise the refereeing debacle is because referees are 'us' and players are 'them'. The job of 'us' is to control 'them'. We, being 'us', are right by definition and cannot be wrong. That would be an appalling vista. So if we're not implementing the rules, there must be something wrong with the rules.
Great post. That's sadly the way it works, reference the black card debacle.
Adding fuel to Hardy's fire, it has been completely missed that national referees have unofficially added a further category of foul that will receive a black card - the clothes line. It illustrates how poor the grasp of the actual rules that commentators and the general public have when this has gone completely unnoticed.
Correct AZ.
Usually refs give goalies a free out if anyone comes close to them.
O'Reilly and Clarke both over-carried. Connolly got a bit of leeway as someone tried to put him in a headlock which is fair enough.
Quote from: Rossfan on June 30, 2015, 09:39:53 PM
Correct AZ.
Usually refs give goalies a free out if anyone comes close to them.
What is the official rule there with goalkeepers? Is it any touch at all and it's a foul?
Quote from: tyroneboi on July 01, 2015, 10:26:06 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on June 30, 2015, 09:39:53 PM
Correct AZ.
Usually refs give goalies a free out if anyone comes close to them.
What is the official rule there with goalkeepers? Is it any touch at all and it's a foul?
Not correct.
Official rule book states:
"When he is within the small rectangle, the goalkeeper may not be charged but he may be challenged for possession of the ball, and his puck, kick or pass may be blocked. Incidental contact with the goalkeeper while playing the ball is permitted."
Quote from: westbound on July 01, 2015, 10:35:49 AM
Quote from: tyroneboi on July 01, 2015, 10:26:06 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on June 30, 2015, 09:39:53 PM
Correct AZ.
Usually refs give goalies a free out if anyone comes close to them.
What is the official rule there with goalkeepers? Is it any touch at all and it's a foul?
Not correct.
Official rule book states:
"When he is within the small rectangle, the goalkeeper may not be charged but he may be challenged for possession of the ball, and his puck, kick or pass may be blocked. Incidental contact with the goalkeeper while playing the ball is permitted."
Good to know the actual ruling! Seems like a cop out by referees who seem to just award a free for any contact at all.
Quote from: tyroneboi on July 01, 2015, 11:21:38 AM
Quote from: westbound on July 01, 2015, 10:35:49 AM
Quote from: tyroneboi on July 01, 2015, 10:26:06 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on June 30, 2015, 09:39:53 PM
Correct AZ.
Usually refs give goalies a free out if anyone comes close to them.
What is the official rule there with goalkeepers? Is it any touch at all and it's a foul?
Not correct.
Official rule book states:
"When he is within the small rectangle, the goalkeeper may not be charged but he may be challenged for possession of the ball, and his puck, kick or pass may be blocked. Incidental contact with the goalkeeper while playing the ball is permitted."
Good to know the actual ruling! Seems like a cop out by referees who seem to just award a free for any contact at all.
Couldn't agree more!
In fact, some goalkeepers 'charge' into attackers knowing full well that refs will usually penalise the attacker rather than penalise the goalkeeper for charging or overcarrying.
As an experiment, I'd love to get rid of this rule and allow the goalkeeper to be shoulder charged as any other player. There'd be some great fun!!!!!
(and when I say fun, I mean chaos!!!!! ;))
Quote from: westbound on July 01, 2015, 12:22:37 PM
Quote from: tyroneboi on July 01, 2015, 11:21:38 AM
Quote from: westbound on July 01, 2015, 10:35:49 AM
Quote from: tyroneboi on July 01, 2015, 10:26:06 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on June 30, 2015, 09:39:53 PM
Correct AZ.
Usually refs give goalies a free out if anyone comes close to them.
What is the official rule there with goalkeepers? Is it any touch at all and it's a foul?
Not correct.
Official rule book states:
"When he is within the small rectangle, the goalkeeper may not be charged but he may be challenged for possession of the ball, and his puck, kick or pass may be blocked. Incidental contact with the goalkeeper while playing the ball is permitted."
Good to know the actual ruling! Seems like a cop out by referees who seem to just award a free for any contact at all.
Couldn't agree more!
In fact, some goalkeepers 'charge' into attackers knowing full well that refs will usually penalise the attacker rather than penalise the goalkeeper for charging or overcarrying.
As an experiment, I'd love to get rid of this rule and allow the goalkeeper to be shoulder charged as any other player. There'd be some great fun!!!!!
(and when I say fun, I mean chaos!!!!! ;))
Its annoying when you see any sort of tackle on a keeper and then the whistle goes. Is intentionally laying on a ball not a free too as opposed to the more commonly given throw ball?
Quote from: DuffleKing on June 30, 2015, 09:34:37 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on June 30, 2015, 03:09:30 PM
Quote from: Hardy on June 17, 2015, 09:53:08 AM
Why change the rule when the problem is the refereeing? When are we ever going to come to grips with this basic issue? What does Pat McEneaney see his job as? What does Ayatollah Duffy have to say about the blatantly obvious refusal or inability of referees to implement the rules and the reasons for this?
If the usual procedures are applied, this will continue to be ignored until some gobshite on the Sunday game suddenly realises it has the makings of a headline for him. Because the opinion of a Sunday Games panellist is a more powerful force in the GAA than a congress, something will be done at that point. But, as usual, it will be the wrong thing, probably involving rule changes, further sanctions on players and a special congress which, at best, will make no difference or, at worst, will make things worse.
That's how the system seems to work. My own theory about why the administrators refuse to recognise the refereeing debacle is because referees are 'us' and players are 'them'. The job of 'us' is to control 'them'. We, being 'us', are right by definition and cannot be wrong. That would be an appalling vista. So if we're not implementing the rules, there must be something wrong with the rules.
Great post. That's sadly the way it works, reference the black card debacle.
Adding fuel to Hardy's fire, it has been completely missed that national referees have unofficially added a further category of foul that will receive a black card - the clothes line. It illustrates how poor the grasp of the actual rules that commentators and the general public have when this has gone completely unnoticed.
I think some of them are interpreting that as 'dragging the man to the ground'.
Nope - this decision has been taken and decreed. No interpretation required
What do you mean 'has been taken and decreed'?
The rule is deliberate dragging of a player to the ground. It doesn't say what part you have to hold onto to drag him. If you clothesline a lad, and maintain contact as he goes down, it may well look to a ref as if you have deliberately dragged him to the ground.
Which incidents in particular are you referring to though? I can't remember any black cards off the top of my head.
Quote from: AZOffaly on July 01, 2015, 02:02:08 PM
What do you mean 'has been taken and decreed'?
The rule is deliberate dragging of a player to the ground. It doesn't say what part you have to hold onto to drag him. If you clothesline a lad, and maintain contact as he goes down, it may well look to a ref as if you have deliberately dragged him to the ground.
Which incidents in particular are you referring to though? I can't remember any black cards off the top of my head.
The dangerous "clothesline" tackle was unofficially added to the list of tackles meriting a black card at the turn of the year. You don't have to tell me the actual definition of course - this is an add on - and i heard it directly from an intercounty referee. There were several examples during the league but I can't recall any in the championship - i'm assuming county teams have been unofficially informed.
I'm not doubting that's what you were told, but I doubt it's the truth. The problem they have is the 5 offences are very clear, so you can't just 'add' another one in there. Unless, and this is possible, they have classified the clothesline as a drag down. I'll ask around.
Keep an eye on it. Also, kicks which are not deemed "dangerous" are to be classified as trips and due a black card. This is built into their appraisal scores.
Wouldn't it be great if the rule was made official so that spectators wouldn't be scratching their heads?
That's what got Graham Reilly. I'd be amazed if this wasn't publicised though if that's the case. Reilly's 'kick' technically was a trip I suppose, so again it depends what you mean by adding these on.
If it was a clarification along the lines of 'lads, if a fella clotheslines a lad, and drags him to the ground, that's a black card because it's a drag down, don't give the yellow for the clothes line; and if a lad swings a lazy boot, and trips a lad up, that's a black card for a trip, rather than a yellow for dangerous play' then I could see that.
Quote from: Esmarelda on July 01, 2015, 02:16:29 PM
Wouldn't it be great if the rule was made official so that spectators wouldn't be scratching their heads?
Quote from: Esmarelda on July 01, 2015, 02:16:29 PM
Wouldn't it be great if the rule was made official so that spectators wouldn't be scratching their heads?
what do you mean? It is official...
Category II Infractions – Cynical Behaviour
5.10 To deliberately pull down an opponent.
5.11 To deliberately trip an opponent with hand(s), arm,
leg or foot.
5.12 To deliberately body collide with an opponent after
he has played the ball away or for the purpose of
taking him out of the movement of play.
5.13 To remonstrate in an aggressive manner with a
Match Official..
PENALTY FOR THE ABOVE FOULS -
(i) Order the offender off by showing him a
Black Card.
(ii) Allow a replacement from within the
substitutions permitted in Rule 2.4, Rules
of Specification.
(iii)Free kick from where the foul occurred
except as provided under Exceptions of
Rule 2.2.
5.14 To threaten or to use abusive or provocative
language or gestures to an opponent or teammate.
PENALTY FOR THE ABOVE FOULS -
(i) Order the offender off by showing him a
Black Card.
(ii) Allow a replacement from within the
83
substitutions permitted in Rule 2.4, Rules
of Specification.
(iii)Where an opponent is involved – Free kick
from where the foul occurred except as
provided under Exceptions of Rule 2.2.
Where a team-mate is involved - Throw in
the ball where the foul occurred except as
provided under Exceptions (v) and (vi) of
Rule 2.2.
I was referring to Duffleking's post about the high tackle being brought in unofficially.
I see what you mean. But I don't genuinely think it has been. As I say, perhaps a reinforcing that a clothesline which drags a lad to the ground, is a drag down, and a lazy kick which trips a lad, is a trip.
Quote from: AZOffaly on July 01, 2015, 02:44:21 PM
I see what you mean. But I don't genuinely think it has been. As I say, perhaps a reinforcing that a clothesline which drags a lad to the ground, is a drag down, and a lazy kick which trips a lad, is a trip.
No, referees felt that the "clothesline" tackle was an oversight from the original list of black card infractions (without the drag) as it invariably puts the recipient on the ground.
There was a pretty severe "clothesline" in the club game I was at on Sunday and it was deemed a red card. I think pretty much everyone at the game knew it was a red card - it was very dangerous.
I don't know DuffleKing. I don't see how that can be the case. In my view there are a few things left off the list (diving being a prime example) so you can't just go tacking things on without informing teams. I certainly haven't been made aware of any changes.
As I said, I could understand a clarification/reinforcement of the 5 fouls, and reminding them that a deliberate high challenge that pulls a lad to the ground is a black card.
In the case of a foul, a ref has to ask himself two questions. Question 1. Is it a pull down to the ground, a trip, or a body check off the ball? Question 2. Was it deliberate.
He can only award a black card if the answer to 1 and 2 is both 'Yes'.
Quote from: magpie seanie on July 01, 2015, 02:57:16 PM
There was a pretty severe "clothesline" in the club game I was at on Sunday and it was deemed a red card. I think pretty much everyone at the game knew it was a red card - it was very dangerous.
I'd be of the same opinion that a "clothesline" is in fact a dangerous tackle and a red
AZ - What DuffleKing is saying is undoubtedly what referees are being told. Worryingly, it seems to be at odds with the rules and I would suggest these "interpretations" that referees are instructed to make are adding to the inconsistency, rather than eliminating it.
People have different definitions of a clothesline too, I have to say.
Some people call a high tackle around the neck a clothesline. For others it's the sort of straight arm neck bar that you sometimes see in Rugby. Best example in Mean Machine. ("I think I broke his f**king neck")
The latter is a red card all day. The former probably would be a black if it results in the ball carrier going to the ground and is deemed deliberate. (It would be a pull down).
Quote from: magpie seanie on July 01, 2015, 03:40:12 PM
AZ - What DuffleKing is saying is undoubtedly what referees are being told. Worryingly, it seems to be at odds with the rules and I would suggest these "interpretations" that referees are instructed to make are adding to the inconsistency, rather than eliminating it.
You think so? I haven't heard it, nor have particularly noticed it to be honest. As I said, a high tackle around the neck, where the man goes to the ground, technically fits the definition of a black card as it is a pull down, so I could see why that is the case.
A straight arm clothesline is, was, and will remain a red card I'd imagine, not a black.
Quote from: AZOffaly on July 01, 2015, 03:43:40 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on July 01, 2015, 03:40:12 PM
AZ - What DuffleKing is saying is undoubtedly what referees are being told. Worryingly, it seems to be at odds with the rules and I would suggest these "interpretations" that referees are instructed to make are adding to the inconsistency, rather than eliminating it.
You think so? I haven't heard it, nor have particularly noticed it to be honest. As I said, a high tackle around the neck, where the man goes to the ground, technically fits the definition of a black card as it is a pull down, so I could see why that is the case.
A straight arm clothesline is, was, and will remain a red card I'd imagine, not a black.
Sorry AZ, I'm not sure that you're picking me up as I intended.
What I'm saying is that in their attempts to improve consistency, referee trainers/assessors are instructing refs how to interpret certain things but I believe it is actually making things worse. Instead of using the 2/3 seconds to work out what they really think of the incident (using their experience of attending, watching and officiating at hundreds/thousands of game) they also have to consider what the assessor told them to do. I'm critical of refs but I have sympathy for them here. I think a lot of the problems we have with refereeing come from the educators/assessors.
No doubt. I thought you were saying they have been told to add the 'clothesline' as a black card offence. In effect adding a 6th category of foul. I'd doubt that, I think it's just that they are saying, "lads dragging a lad down by the neck is still a deliberate pull down, even if it looks slightly different, and is therefore a black card".
I definitely think Referees assessors are not being used well. They should be a referee's support, not his judge. Help him learn, don't have him afraid he'll never get another game.
Quote from: AZOffaly on July 01, 2015, 03:43:40 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on July 01, 2015, 03:40:12 PM
AZ - What DuffleKing is saying is undoubtedly what referees are being told. Worryingly, it seems to be at odds with the rules and I would suggest these "interpretations" that referees are instructed to make are adding to the inconsistency, rather than eliminating it.
You think so? I haven't heard it, nor have particularly noticed it to be honest. As I said, a high tackle around the neck, where the man goes to the ground, technically fits the definition of a black card as it is a pull down, so I could see why that is the case.
A straight arm clothesline is, was, and will remain a red card I'd imagine, not a black.
A dangerous clothesline is a red - no question
A dangerous high tackle (not as violent) does not fit a red nor does it fit a black card a you claim - there must be a pulling down action.
This only applies at county level
If I deliberately tackle you around the neck, and pull you to the ground, that is definitely a pulling down action, and a black card. Give me an example of one of the black card offences you think has changed and I'll take a look at it. You might well be right, I don't know everything by any means, but I haven't heard or noticed a shift in this area.
Quote from: AZOffaly on July 01, 2015, 04:04:42 PM
If I deliberately tackle you around the neck, and pull you to the ground, that is definitely a pulling down action, and a black card. Give me an example of one of the black card offences you think has changed and I'll take a look at it. You might well be right, I don't know everything by any means, but I haven't heard or noticed a shift in this area.
Can't give you one off hand but you keep adding "and pull you to the ground" for some reason. I tackle you high and you go to ground - i'm no longer in contact with you as you fall - is the tackle in question. i'll search through later for an example but you can keep an eye this weekend.
It's happening all right.
I keep adding, 'and pull you to the ground' because that's what the rule says. A high tackle where the guy just falls over shouldn't be a black. Yellow or Red maybe, but not black. However if my neck tackle basically pulls you down to the ground, it would be a black if the ref thought he did it deliberately.
I think sometimes we overcomplicate this stuff, and I still can't call to mind a pure high tackle like you seem to mean getting a black card.
Quote from: AZOffaly on July 01, 2015, 04:20:25 PM
I keep adding, 'and pull you to the ground' because that's what the rule says. A high tackle where the guy just falls over shouldn't be a black. Yellow or Red maybe, but not black. However if my neck tackle basically pulls you down to the ground, it would be a black if the ref thought he did it deliberately.
I think sometimes we overcomplicate this stuff, and I still can't call to mind a pure high tackle like you seem to mean getting a black card.
This is the whole point. Referees have decreed that - without your addition - a high tackle is deemed a black card.
Quote from: DuffleKing on July 01, 2015, 04:29:39 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on July 01, 2015, 04:20:25 PM
I keep adding, 'and pull you to the ground' because that's what the rule says. A high tackle where the guy just falls over shouldn't be a black. Yellow or Red maybe, but not black. However if my neck tackle basically pulls you down to the ground, it would be a black if the ref thought he did it deliberately.
I think sometimes we overcomplicate this stuff, and I still can't call to mind a pure high tackle like you seem to mean getting a black card.
This is the whole point. Referees have decreed that - without your addition - a high tackle is deemed a black card.
The questions that come to mind are
1. where has this been decreed and by whom?
2. Where has this 'alleged' new additional black card offence been applied (i.e. an example)?
3. Why do you think this only applies at county level? (The black card rule is the same for club and county)
QuoteDonal Og admitted last night that T J Reid took ten steps before shooting to the net and then went on on to say that Galway shouldn't complain but should look at how they conceded the goal.
Kilkenny would still have won if the goal had of been disallowed so it didn't affect the result.
However, the correct decision should have been a free out and the goal disallowed, Donal Og is obviously afraid of upsetting Brian Cody and Des didn't pull him up for it.
This was posted on the SG thread. This is part of the issue, fear in some of the pundits to say it as it is or they won't be welcomed back to the SG.
Quote from: highorlow on July 07, 2015, 08:57:46 AM
QuoteDonal Og admitted last night that T J Reid took ten steps before shooting to the net and then went on on to say that Galway shouldn't complain but should look at how they conceded the goal.
Kilkenny would still have won if the goal had of been disallowed so it didn't affect the result.
However, the correct decision should have been a free out and the goal disallowed, Donal Og is obviously afraid of upsetting Brian Cody and Des didn't pull him up for it.
This was posted on the SG thread. This is part of the issue, fear in some of the pundits to say it as it is or they won't be welcomed back to the SG.
Was he not saying that Ger Aylward took the ten steps, although Reid wasn't many shorter than that.
Your man for Cork's first goal against Kerry took about 10 steps before handpassing across for O'Neill to score.
I know if I go out and take that many steps in a club game, I'll get blown for it.
Why do county players get away with it?
Not sure if JO'D overcarried when he crossed the ball to 'star' for Kerrigan's black card. I'd have to watch the SG again. He may have hopped it inbetween the 8 steps.
On a side note , the 'star' seems to have an influence over the refs, he reminded Paudie of a double hop early in the 1st half which Paudie [correctly] blew for.
Paudie then believed the 'star' for the penalty, all 'star' appears to have to do is hold his arms aloft and this gives refs some doubt. There is no way that he could have given that penalty based on a logical decision of foul play. It was the influence placed upon him by the 'star' that won the penalty.
Quote from: manfromdelmonte on July 07, 2015, 10:42:38 AM
I know if I go out and take that many steps in a club game, I'll get blown for it.
Why do county players get away with it?
Because it probably takes you 8 seconds to take 8 steps :) They're so quick 8 steps is the blink of an eye. Some of it is ridiculous though. The Kilkenny lad was living up to DJ's image with regard to steps.
Quote from: AZOffaly on July 07, 2015, 10:56:28 AM
Quote from: manfromdelmonte on July 07, 2015, 10:42:38 AM
I know if I go out and take that many steps in a club game, I'll get blown for it.
Why do county players get away with it?
Because it probably takes you 8 seconds to take 8 steps :) They're so quick 8 steps is the blink of an eye. Some of it is ridiculous though. The Kilkenny lad was living up to DJ's image with regard to steps.
DJ Carey - how to beat Wexford in 12 quick steps!!!!
Quote from: magpie seanie on July 07, 2015, 04:09:40 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on July 07, 2015, 10:56:28 AM
Quote from: manfromdelmonte on July 07, 2015, 10:42:38 AM
I know if I go out and take that many steps in a club game, I'll get blown for it.
Why do county players get away with it?
Because it probably takes you 8 seconds to take 8 steps :) They're so quick 8 steps is the blink of an eye. Some of it is ridiculous though. The Kilkenny lad was living up to DJ's image with regard to steps.
DJ Carey - how to beat Wexford in 12 quick steps!!!!
The Padraig Joyce of the hurling world
The 'pulling down' part of the black card is causing ambiguity. The man on the street sees someone launch an arm out around the neck pulling a guy back causing him to go to ground... this is not a black card. There has to be a clear pulling DOWN motion
Quote from: screenexile on July 07, 2015, 04:52:17 PM
The 'pulling down' part of the black card is causing ambiguity. The man on the street sees someone launch an arm out around the neck pulling a guy back causing him to go to ground... this is not a black card. There has to be a clear pulling DOWN motion
Unfortunatly its not just the man in the street struggling to make this distinction, the man in the middle isnt always calling it right either.
QuoteThere has to be a clear pulling DOWN motion
Please expand?
Is the rule not a deliberate pull down? That's what the commentators and co-commentators are always harping on about.
i.e. On Sunday, Moran's was delibrate = black but 'star's' foul was just blatant thuggery = yellow, even though it was deliberate blatant thuggery. Thems the rules lads!
The wording is "deliberate pull down"
You have some people who seem to think a deliberate pull of any sort is a black card - even still at club games I regularly hear folks who should know better; the GAA commentators/pundits could definitely do a better job in explaining it to the more casual GAA watcher, however when you have the likes of Tommy Carr on RTE saying that a clear striking motion isn't even worthy of card it's now wonder the more casual GAA fan has trouble distinguishing what is and isn't a black card 18 months on.
On a related matter there's definitely scope for adding more offenses/improving the wording in relation to certain offences. I knew when I read the pull down bit of the rule it would inevitably lead to issues down the road. Q.E.D.
A 'pull back' is not a black card
Nor is it a yellow card. Unless it is after the player already being 'noted' for another foul.
If a player pulls the jersey and holds on to it as his opponent goes to ground while moving away from him, is that a pull down?
If the pull was what caused the attacker to go down, then yes. Otherwise no. At least as the rule is written.
Sean Quigley gave the ball some amount of hops and solos for his first point on Sunday, he must have had one or the other for every couple of steps.