The Mark - good or bad?

[Fear ón Srath Bán]

Disapointed the new square ball rule was not passed.

Why? Twas a load a bollocks.

It was better than the old (current) one. Trying to decide if the ball is 'in the square' or not when it's half a mile up in the air ffs.

Aye, and as the summer and fitness progress, let's all just mass in the square and await the hail mary. Great fun and spectacle.

[Fear ón Srath Bán]

Sure, it's already being done only with them standing on the edge of the square. Big difference ffs.

Massive difference hs. Massive difference in being right on top of the keeper with being able only just to put a fist to the ball, and in giving the keeper a free run to clear the ball before it drops and anyone else gets a chance to put a knuckle to it. Massive difference.

Another pile of shite of a rule-change, glad sense prevailed.

PS I know that it's imperfect, but what this rule-change was saying/implying was that there was no need whatsoever for any rule in the first place; patent nonsense. Let's keep the square ball until we move towards a less imperfect implementation of the rule itself as it was originally envisaged, i.e., technology.

[Fear ón Srath Bán]

Let's hope Tyrone aren't the first team to be caught out...

Good man, that would be a first for us 

[ardmhachaabu]

If you get a fist to the ball on the edge of the square, the 'keeper will do well to save it.

Ok, let us have a summer of inaccuracy, inconsistency and fecking unfairness. Let's hope Tyrone aren't the first team to be caught out with Paddy Cunningham creeping into the square a tad early to send yis to the qualifiers. There'd be some f**king roaring out of yis then.

I'd love to see it

[Hound]

No surprise that the moaning minority shout the loudest and get listened to. Tis the way of the GAA.

From Dublin's point of view, binning the new fist pass rule is good as too many of our players coudn't figure it out 

The mark not going through is an opportunity lost - it was clearly good for the game, and people who said it slowed down the game either haven't seen it often enough or more likely, are just plain liars.   

I think it would have been pretty neutral for the Dubs, though I'[d say over the course of the league we may have conceded a few more marks than we caught, but not much in it. The likes of Cork, Kerry, Meath, Kildare might have benefitted, and those teams unable to field high balls would have lost out.

[Fear ón Srath Bán]

The mark not going through is an opportunity lost - it was clearly good for the game, and people who said it slowed down the game either haven't seen it often enough or more likely, are just plain liars.   

Or you're just a plain mongrel Hound 

Explain to me, how does blowing a whistle to halt play actually speed up the game, seriously (and I've seen it often enough during the league)?

[mountainboii]

The mark not going through is an opportunity lost - it was clearly good for the game, and people who said it slowed down the game either haven't seen it often enough or more likely, are just plain liars.   

Or you're just a plain mongrel Hound 

Explain to me, how does blowing a whistle to halt play actually speed up the game, seriously (and I've seen it often enough during the league)?

It didn't particularly do either. What it did was reward clean catches and significantly reduce the number of rucks in the midfield area. Tyrone are among the best ruckers in the game, which probably explained their opposition to the mark.

[Jinxy]

We'll never be able to make any proper rule changes until we kick Tyrone out of the association.
They are holding the rest of us back.

[Zulu]

The problem as I see it is we trial new rules during the leagues. If we can only change rules every five years why not trial these at underage first, (minor and U21 county, development squad competitions too for that matter) and the ones that work best for a year or two can then be trialled at senior level in the pre-season and leagues for at least two years to see how they go.

[mackers]

Very disappointing...........we can look forward to a summer of rugby mauls and throw balls in the midfield area.........but sure as long as Mickey Harte is happy.

[mountainboii]

The problem as I see it is we trial new rules during the leagues. If we can only change rules every five years why not trial these at underage first, (minor and U21 county, development squad competitions too for that matter) and the ones that work best for a year or two can then be trialled at senior level in the pre-season and leagues for at least two years to see how they go.

Thought the same when these rules were first announced. It really is a stupid way of doing things.

[Zulu]

It really is AFS. There is too much at stake and too much analysis at senior level for rules to bed in and players too get used to them. I mean if any rule is going to come into the games they need to be able to work at the lower levels anyway so why not try them there first, does anyone know why this isn't they way things are done?

[TacadoirArdMhacha]

Dissapointing to see such a potentially progressive rule not introduced. Effectively the delegates have valued harrassing and hounding over one of the real skills of the game. Ok there weren't as many marks as you'd have expected in matches but those that were awarded worked well, particularly if there had been an amendment to make the mark optional. The potential improvement it would have brought to our game over the next few years has been lost and that's a real pity.

[mountainboii]

It really is AFS. There is too much at stake and too much analysis at senior level for rules to bed in and players too get used to them. I mean if any rule is going to come into the games they need to be able to work at the lower levels anyway so why not try them there first, does anyone know why this isn't they way things are done?

There's probably an argument that the only way that all 32 counties get an equal glimpse at the rules in action is if they're tried out in a national competition. There might be a bit of merit in this, but I still think that any new rules should pass a couple of tests at lower levels before they're given a look in at senior intercounty level. Throwing them straight in at the highest level is ridiculous.

[Zulu]

It sure is, but if the rules were tried at lower levels and the ones deemed to be working best were then tried at IC level we could see how rules impact the game over two or even three years, at different levels and in different environments. Who's to say we wouldn't have seen more fielding in CP on a summers day than we'd see in Navan on a wet March evening? You'd wonder about the GAA sometimes.