While an open handed handpass is fine for passing, I thought for a point it had to be with a closed fist. Does anyone know if this is the case?
Masters and Woods have used an open hand to handpass the ball over the bar in their most recent games.
According to the rules it has to be a closed fist for a point. Open hand not allowed.
sounds like a stupid rule. there is not a whole pile of difference. and at match speed it would be very difficult for officials to notice closed or open fist when making a hand pass whether it is to another player or over the bar.
What about Geraghty's goal then? Has Fergal Logan a case?
Unfortunately O'Neill Geraghty didn't hand pass the ball but stroke it which isn't the same thing. Having said that, it was quite a girly looking strike though and perhaps that may give grounds for appeal. :P
QuoteWhat about Geraghty's goal then? Has Fergal Logan a case?
I know you are only messing but for those who don't know its different if ball is "in flight". Open hand(s) can be used then for goal or point.
It's happening all the time, though. I suppose we'll have to wait for Westmeath to get beaten by a palmed point to have it tested in the courts.
A handpass is a handpass is a handpass is a handpass ..................
The handpassed point should only be allowed if the player is within the confines of the large rectangle. Nothing screams "I can't kick the ball properly" like someone running through and fisting the ball over from 30 yards out a la Collie Moran against Laois. Requires zero skill/ability.
When the ball is in flight any hand assisted score will count. Apart from that instance, why should points be allowed by the hand and not goals? Usually the fisted or hand-scored point by a player in possession is a cop out. If McGarty hadnt this option in 2002 Armagh would not have won an All-Ireland as a Sligo goal at that point (and it was point blank) would have ended Armagh at Croke Park. There have been plenty of other instances recently. This game is called football - let's make the scores live up to that name and do away with the hand scores altogether (except, as stated, from balls in flight).
Fisted point ok, fisted goal NOT. Do we want to go back to the 70's with all those hand passed goals (scored by Dublin and Kerry - don't start an arguement) spoiled things.
Quote from: Jinxy on August 15, 2007, 01:12:58 PM
The handpassed point should only be allowed if the player is within the confines of the large rectangle. Nothing screams "I can't kick the ball properly" like someone running through and fisting the ball over from 30 yards out a la Collie Moran against Laois. Requires zero skill/ability.
Jaysus Jinx, I'd prefer my chances kicking from 30 yards than fist passing over :-\
Quote from: Hardy on August 15, 2007, 01:02:06 PM
It's happening all the time, though. I suppose we'll have to wait for Westmeath to get beaten by a palmed point to have it tested in the courts.
Dangle, dangle, anyone???
Quote from: his holiness nb on August 15, 2007, 01:53:47 PM
Quote from: Jinxy on August 15, 2007, 01:12:58 PM
The handpassed point should only be allowed if the player is within the confines of the large rectangle. Nothing screams "I can't kick the ball properly" like someone running through and fisting the ball over from 30 yards out a la Collie Moran against Laois. Requires zero skill/ability.
Jaysus Jinx, I'd prefer my chances kicking from 30 yards than fist passing over :-\
Tell me about it, missed one from 15 yards last night in training...
Quote from: his holiness nb on August 15, 2007, 01:53:47 PM
Quote from: Jinxy on August 15, 2007, 01:12:58 PM
The handpassed point should only be allowed if the player is within the confines of the large rectangle. Nothing screams "I can't kick the ball properly" like someone running through and fisting the ball over from 30 yards out a la Collie Moran against Laois. Requires zero skill/ability.
Jaysus Jinx, I'd prefer my chances kicking from 30 yards than fist passing over :-\
I know lads who can fist the ball almost as far as they can kick it. Out of necessity really, as they couldn't hit the side of their house with a foot pass.
QuoteI suppose we'll have to wait for Westmeath to get beaten by a palmed point to have it tested in the courts.
:D :D :D :D :D
First of all I thought that your incinuation was ludicrous seanie but having checked the rules it is in fact true... I'm gobsmacked as I was convinced there was no difference between an open hand handpass and a fist pass. Obviously there is!!!
I would put my house on the fact that if you tested all the referees in the country at least 85% wouldn't know this rule!!!
To be honest there should be no open handed passes - they should all be close fisted passes...
The fisted score, goal or point, unless without being caught should be done away with completely. It requires no skill whatsoever and is usually an anticlimax when a player is bearing down on goal and opts to punch it over. Football remember!
Quote from: didlyi on August 15, 2007, 06:13:45 PM
The fisted score, goal or point, unless without being caught should be done away with completely. It requires no skill whatsoever and is usually an anticlimax when a player is bearing down on goal and opts to punch it over. Football remember!
that is absurd, you must never have bore down on goal in your life.
it happens all the time where defenders have an easy chance to block the kick as they have swarmed around the attacker in front of goal but they cant block the punch from going over the bar. this requires quick thinking and awareness NOT to use the foot and fist a point instead
Rubbish! What is this game. Football or handball. Your saying that to make it easy for everyone we let them fist the ball over the bar. Its a cop out and I bet Ive bore down on goal more often than you.
Quote from: didlyi on August 16, 2007, 04:59:31 PM
Rubbish! What is this game. Football or handball. Your saying that to make it easy for everyone we let them fist the ball over the bar. Its a cop out and I bet Ive bore down on goal more often than you.
Touché. The basis of you argument appears to be "is it handball or football?" Then perhaps we should do away with players being able to catch, or even touch, the ball with their hands. Sure why don't we reduce the sides to 11 to make it more interesting, ah feck, why allow points at all.
Ardal, yours is the argument of the GAA flat-earther.
Try watching the seriously over-hyped Dublin Kerry games of the late 70's or any Donegal team or (sadly) any recent Sigerson team. Puke handball it is.
Their devotion to the handpass makes a mockery of the term Gaelic football, the very essence of which is catch and kick. Those basic elements have been refined doen the years, often to good effect, but not all cahnges rae beneficial and the constant handpassing coupled with high levels of fitness have resulted in outdoor basketball which is unwatchable and which invites the constant fouling and dragging that has been a feature of the game for too long.
If you cannot recognise where the basic elements of good gaelic football are then maybe the 11-a-side game is for you after all.Anyway is anyone capable of making sense out of why a fisted point is allowed but not a goal - as I said before I think neither should be part of the game and I agree with previous posts that it is a cop out.
While I;'m at it I would limit the handpass to 3 consecutive passes. The rule would be hard to enfoorce at the start but eventually the over-passing would be caoched out of the game.
I'm not a big fan of the fisted point myself and it's getting more and more common. Most times now when a player is bearing down on goal from an angle you can nearly be sure that he's going to try and fist it over rather than kick it over or even shoot for goal.
Thank You Leo. They got rid of the fisted goal way back because it was too damn easy to score a goal in this fashion. Once the forward had rounded the defence he was in for a very soft goal and it happened many many times in the 70's. The fisted point is even easier but its only worth one point so they let it be.
I see that Dara O'Cinneide is another lurker on here or was it just coincidence that he highlighted the illegal handpass for a point on the SG??? Me thinks not, who else is out there boys???
I wish Eoin Bradley had the presence of mind to remember he was allowed fist the ball over the bar in Derry's last game.
It takes a thinking mind to be able to take a point with a fist over the bar, as all too often you see great work leading up to the final player in on goal, the keeper and two defenders blocking his way and the daft hoor goes for a goal anyway ?
Its another skill involved in Gaelic football. I think it is fine the way it is, maybe allowing the 'open hand' pass over the bar as well for a score.
What made me laugh last night was a young u17 lad in training said to me that he thought it would be great if you could handpass the ball into the net !
He genuinely did not know this was allowed 27 or so years ago !
Oh the innocence! ;D
Can't believe some people are calling for the fisted point to be done away with, Breheny today in the Indo also makes that call.
Ridiculous, the last thing we need to do for the game is reduce the number of possible ways to score.
Numerous times this year I've seen players surrounded approaching goal where a kick is impossible and they've fisted over a point, always a sign of a clever composed player and something I would encourage players to do if surrounded.
Quote from: Leo on August 17, 2007, 01:49:29 PM
Ardal, yours is the argument of the GAA flat-earther.
Try watching the seriously over-hyped Dublin Kerry games of the late 70's or any Donegal team or (sadly) any recent Sigerson team. Puke handball it is.
Their devotion to the handpass makes a mockery of the term Gaelic football, the very essence of which is catch and kick. Those basic elements have been refined doen the years, often to good effect, but not all cahnges rae beneficial and the constant handpassing coupled with high levels of fitness have resulted in outdoor basketball which is unwatchable and which invites the constant fouling and dragging that has been a feature of the game for too long.
If you cannot recognise where the basic elements of good gaelic football are then maybe the 11-a-side game is for you after all.Anyway is anyone capable of making sense out of why a fisted point is allowed but not a goal - as I said before I think neither should be part of the game and I agree with previous posts that it is a cop out.
While I;'m at it I would limit the handpass to 3 consecutive passes. The rule would be hard to enfoorce at the start but eventually the over-passing would be caoched out of the game.
i agree with the idea of the 3 consecutive handpasses. i do not like the basketball that goes on out field but i do believe the fisted point is a skill in itself.
the rule for the closed fist should just be got rid of anyway as no coach,player or ref adheres to it and its only time before one ref with an agenda decides to act on it and the whole issue of inconsistency will arise again
The fisted point sould be baned.It gives the keeper no chance at all. Its baned in hurley.
We had two strange incidents in club games earlier this year involving fisted scores one for us and one against us. The one against us occurred when one of our defenders caught a ball that came off the post. As soon as he had caught it, one of the opposing team put in a perfect tackle on the ball and it ended up in the net. Goal allowed. The second one then was something similar, one of our forwards tackled the ball out of the keepers hands and it went straight over the bar. Should both scores have been allowed? I definitely thought the point shouldn't have been but wasn't as sure about the goal.
Quote from: David McKeown on August 23, 2007, 09:52:52 AM
We had two strange incidents in club games earlier this year involving fisted scores one for us and one against us. The one against us occurred when one of our defenders caught a ball that came off the post. As soon as he had caught it, one of the opposing team put in a perfect tackle on the ball and it ended up in the net. Goal allowed. The second one then was something similar, one of our forwards tackled the ball out of the keepers hands and it went straight over the bar. Should both scores have been allowed? I definitely thought the point shouldn't have been but wasn't as sure about the goal.
great questions !
a bit hazy on this, but there is something about not being allowed to challenge the keeper in the square - I presume he was in it?
If so , for that reason I would have thought the point be disallowed. If he was outside the square then point is correctly awarded.
The goal though, I suppose as it was not actually fist passed into the goals, it was more akin to punching a lobbing ball into the net - although in this instance it was not lobbing but in a defenders hands.
As long as the contact was made only to the ball, I think that goal was legal.
What do others think?
I find it laughable that the decision to go for the easy, skill-free option and palm the ball over the bar from ten yards, when you can't be blocked, marks a player out as some sort of intellectual.
Once more - can anyone explain to me the reasoning that prompted the banning of the fisted goal, because it was seen as too easy and unfair, while retaining the fisted point, which is even easier? Is it because since, sure 'tis only a point, it's only one-third as unfair? Somehow, I wouldn't be surprised.
You can tackle the keeper in the square. You can't charge him. Has anyone ever seen this rule applied correctly?
QuoteYou can tackle the keeper in the square. You can't charge him. Has anyone ever seen this rule applied correctly?
Correct Hardy - you can tackle but you cannot use a shoulder charge. refs don't seem to know this and if the poor keeper is in bother he gets his free out.
Quote from: Hardy on August 23, 2007, 10:42:51 AM
I find it laughable that the decision to go for the easy, skill-free option and palm the ball over the bar from ten yards, when you can't be blocked, marks a player out as some sort of intellectual.
Once more - can anyone explain to me the reasoning that prompted the banning of the fisted goal, because it was seen as too easy and unfair, while retaining the fisted point, which is even easier? Is it because since, sure 'tis only a point, it's only one-third as unfair? Somehow, I wouldn't be surprised.
intellectual no
but all too often a player gets a rush of blood to the head and tries to blast the ball through a crowded defence in a vain attempt to score a goal when a point is fine. Scores are often hard enough to obtain and watch the amount of times a player in close proximity will feck up by forgetting to fist a point , instead he goes for goal or tries to pass to a colleague and loses posession.
Like the cork forwards last sunday. you often find that if one forward scored with t afisted point early on, the rest remember to do similar - monkey see monkey do.
Otherwise players tend to forget.
I thought on Sun that the cork lads must have been watching the first half of the minor game - where Galway fisted a couple of scores and it seemed to inspire the cork forwards to do so.
Football to me encompasses the mental side of things, whereas a forward after breaking a few tacked has to have the presence of mind (as in going for a fisted point) to place his shot low and hard rather than just blast it - as a blasted shot hit squarely will invariably go straight at the keeper - how many times do we see that.
So I like to see a forward thinking and taking a point and a guaranteed score rather than a rush of blood, a wasted chance and momentum given to the opposition.
I don't disagree with any of that (except maybe the bit about Cork copying the Galway minors - I think everything Cork did on Sunday was admirably well prepared in advance). Of course a player is right to go for an easy fist over the bar when the rules allow it, or a palm because he knows the ref won't pull it. My point is that I don't think the rules should allow it. It drags us further in the direction of netball (I don't even use basketball as the example anymore) and it's illogical to allow it while banning the fisted goal.
Just on the history of it:
Both the fisted goal and fisted point were banned initially. I'm guessing this was late 70s, maybe early 80s - but they were deffo gone by 83.
Then they brought back the fisted point, on an experimental basis first, then "they" thought it was a good idea so kept it. Late80s I'm guessing when this happened.
Personally I have no strong opinion on it like others, but I think they have it right. If the forwards do a good enough job to get the ball close to goal, then I dont see anything wrong with having the option to fist a point (its "intellectual" because so many players rarely take the "easy option" in any run of play!). But goals are worth more and are deliberately harder to get, i.e. there's a keeper there! Fisting the ball into the net would put the keeper at too big a disadvantage.
For the remainder of this championship, if I was a player I wouldnt take any chances with palming the ball over.
Quote from: Armagh4SamAgain on August 23, 2007, 09:05:20 AM
The fisted point sould be baned.It gives the keeper no chance at all. Its baned in hurley.
The kicked point doesn't usually give the keeper any chance either!
Quote from: lynchbhoy on August 23, 2007, 10:15:47 AM
Quote from: David McKeown on August 23, 2007, 09:52:52 AM
We had two strange incidents in club games earlier this year involving fisted scores one for us and one against us. The one against us occurred when one of our defenders caught a ball that came off the post. As soon as he had caught it, one of the opposing team put in a perfect tackle on the ball and it ended up in the net. Goal allowed. The second one then was something similar, one of our forwards tackled the ball out of the keepers hands and it went straight over the bar. Should both scores have been allowed? I definitely thought the point shouldn't have been but wasn't as sure about the goal.
great questions !
a bit hazy on this, but there is something about not being allowed to challenge the keeper in the square - I presume he was in it?
If so , for that reason I would have thought the point be disallowed. If he was outside the square then point is correctly awarded.
The goal though, I suppose as it was not actually fist passed into the goals, it was more akin to punching a lobbing ball into the net - although in this instance it was not lobbing but in a defenders hands.
As long as the contact was made only to the ball, I think that goal was legal.
What do others think?
Lynchbhoy
Not sure if the keeper was in the sqaure or not as I was at midfield but if he was outside the area he wasn't that far out. I would have thought the point shouldn't have been allowed because the ball was either palmed over the bar from the tackle which shouldn't be allowed as a point or else was fisted out of the tackle which is also a free. As I say not so confident on the goal
In '81 a special congress abolished handpasses for scores.
In '75, tackling a goalkeeper in the parallelogram was forbidden.
Quote from: David McKeown on August 23, 2007, 09:15:04 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on August 23, 2007, 10:15:47 AM
Quote from: David McKeown on August 23, 2007, 09:52:52 AM
We had two strange incidents in club games earlier this year involving fisted scores one for us and one against us. The one against us occurred when one of our defenders caught a ball that came off the post. As soon as he had caught it, one of the opposing team put in a perfect tackle on the ball and it ended up in the net. Goal allowed. The second one then was something similar, one of our forwards tackled the ball out of the keepers hands and it went straight over the bar. Should both scores have been allowed? I definitely thought the point shouldn't have been but wasn't as sure about the goal.
great questions !
a bit hazy on this, but there is something about not being allowed to challenge the keeper in the square - I presume he was in it?
If so , for that reason I would have thought the point be disallowed. If he was outside the square then point is correctly awarded.
The goal though, I suppose as it was not actually fist passed into the goals, it was more akin to punching a lobbing ball into the net - although in this instance it was not lobbing but in a defenders hands.
As long as the contact was made only to the ball, I think that goal was legal.
What do others think?
Lynchbhoy
Not sure if the keeper was in the sqaure or not as I was at midfield but if he was outside the area he wasn't that far out. I would have thought the point shouldn't have been allowed because the ball was either palmed over the bar from the tackle which shouldn't be allowed as a point or else was fisted out of the tackle which is also a free. As I say not so confident on the goal
From what the lads say above, the keeper can indeed be tackled in the square.
The only part of this that I think a free could have been awarded is in the manner of the tackle. Recently it was explained to us by GAA appointed coaches that you cant tackle with the hand moving up - in an uppercut fashion - only slapping down on the ball to free it from the man inposession, and you cant really hit the guys arm etc.
Trying to get consistent decision making by intercounty refs let alone club refs would be impossible imo.
Also if the guy slapped down hard on the ball there is a possibility that the ball would bounce over the bar - either way I think the point scored is valid.
Ah ok but I thought a point could not be scored with an open hand and that to be a fair tackle the hand making contact with the ball must be open? Have to agree though it will happen so rarely that we will never get any consistency as to the rule.
Quotei agree with the idea of the 3 consecutive handpasses. i do not like the basketball that goes on out field but i do believe the fisted point is a skill in itself.
the rule for the closed fist should just be got rid of anyway as no coach,player or ref adheres to it and its only time before one ref with an agenda decides to act on it and the whole issue of inconsistency will arise again
The most ignored rule in GAA the closed fist tackle... I remember an occasion in Toronto when I had the ballout for a solo and this big fat canadian hit the ball away and uppercutted me through my ribs rendering me breathless for 5 minutes. The ref asked the linesman... 'fair tackle?' and the linesman made a punching motion with a clenched fist saying 'yeah he got the ball'
I used to tackle with an open hand but it's very difficult to get any kind of force to knock the ball out of somebody's hands and you don't get pinged for a closed fist tackle if you get the ball so I reckoned if you can't beat 'em, join 'em!