The Mark - good or bad?

[DCR]

Time for the big wrecking lad in the middle again  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.

[blewuporstuffed]

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

[Fear ón Srath Bán]

... 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;

[sheamy]

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.

[Fear ón Srath Bán]

Agree with you there sheamy, it is a very grey area that badly needs clarification and consistent treatment from the men in the middle.

[pintsofguinness]

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???

[BennyHarp]

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??

[RogerMilla]

mark...good
handpass... bad

[moysider]

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.

[mountainboii]

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.

[Jinxy]

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! 

[orangeman]

Waste of time - forget about it.

And the fist pass as well.

[tyssam5]

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.

[mackers]

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.

[Smokin Joe]

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".