FRC proposals...black cards, marks etc

[Zulu]

No, no, no.

There's very little wrong with Gaelic Football, except obviously the whinging whining hoors that are allowed to commentate on it in the public sphere. They don't do this kind of shite with Hurling, and rightly so. The best policy would be to leave Football alone, at least until we're sure a change would benefit the game. That cannot be said of these proposed changes. Black cards are obviously useless for a range of reasons (I think we've discussed this before). The mark rewards a skill but at the expense of several other. Why, for example, should a back not be given a free for a block? It's as least as difficult a skill as the high catch. And finally, 30m is obviously ridiculous when you just consider the varying lengths of Gaelic Football pitches around the country ... it could easily have a greater negative impact on some teams than others. I get the strong feeling that these changes are proposed by people with an extremely limited grasp of how football is played.

As for "cynical fouls", couldn't you just award the score where there was a significant chance of it being taken prior to the foul?

Jesus man did you even think that through before posting? If a 30m penalty for back chat is ridiculous because of the varying lengths of GAA pitches then so is the 13m penalty for the same offence, likewise a sideline ball close to goal on a narrow pitch as opposed to a wider pitch. Of all the recommendations the 30m is indisputably sensible as it is a real deterrent to the shite hawkery we see after many frees have been awarded. And if brought in we would see an end to this stuff pretty quickly. How anyone can be opposed to that one is beyond me.

As for your own suggestion about predicting the future and awarding a score, do you watch any football, you've seen great scoring opportunities missed before right, or players getting goals sometimes and points others? You arrogantly dismiss the FRC's proposals as if submitted by a slow child yet come up with one that would mean a ref would have to decide whether a fouled player would have scored and if so whether he would have got a goal or a point. Wow!!

If we enforce the rules we have, that would be a start. "Cynical" fouls can be dealt with under the existing rules if we want - Cadogan hauled down Murphy with a rugby tackle in the last minute of their game at the weekend when he was odds on for a goal and only got a yellow, should have been straight red and a ban imo

But that's the point, Cadogan couldn't have been sent off for that foul under the current rules. Unlike soccer where it is a good deal easier to issue a red card for such an offence as it is generally much clearer that a goal scoring chance was prevented by the foul in football a ref would usually be in a lose lose situation as cynical fouling close to goal designed to prevent goal scoring opportunities may not necessarily have actually prevented one as other defenders would be close by. Both Colm Boyle and Alan Dillion cynically fouled Dublin players in last years semi to prevent Dublin creating a potential goal chance but I'm sure you wouldn't agree with them both being sent off and banned for the All Ireland?

A sin bin is the way to go IMO but since that's not on the table then I'd be willing to give the black cards a go. The bottom line is there is too much fouling in the game so something must be done. I do think though that any new rule should be trialled first and at lower levels first to see how it works away from the media glare and the self motivated moanings of IC managers.

[yellowcard]

No, no, no.

There's very little wrong with Gaelic Football, except obviously the whinging whining hoors that are allowed to commentate on it in the public sphere. They don't do this kind of shite with Hurling, and rightly so. The best policy would be to leave Football alone, at least until we're sure a change would benefit the game. That cannot be said of these proposed changes. Black cards are obviously useless for a range of reasons (I think we've discussed this before). The mark rewards a skill but at the expense of several other. Why, for example, should a back not be given a free for a block? It's as least as difficult a skill as the high catch. And finally, 30m is obviously ridiculous when you just consider the varying lengths of Gaelic Football pitches around the country ... it could easily have a greater negative impact on some teams than others. I get the strong feeling that these changes are proposed by people with an extremely limited grasp of how football is played.

As for "cynical fouls", couldn't you just award the score where there was a significant chance of it being taken prior to the foul?

Jesus man did you even think that through before posting? If a 30m penalty for back chat is ridiculous because of the varying lengths of GAA pitches then so is the 13m penalty for the same offence, likewise a sideline ball close to goal on a narrow pitch as opposed to a wider pitch. Of all the recommendations the 30m is indisputably sensible as it is a real deterrent to the shite hawkery we see after many frees have been awarded. And if brought in we would see an end to this stuff pretty quickly. How anyone can be opposed to that one is beyond me.

As for your own suggestion about predicting the future and awarding a score, do you watch any football, you've seen great scoring opportunities missed before right, or players getting goals sometimes and points others? You arrogantly dismiss the FRC's proposals as if submitted by a slow child yet come up with one that would mean a ref would have to decide whether a fouled player would have scored and if so whether he would have got a goal or a point. Wow!!

If we enforce the rules we have, that would be a start. "Cynical" fouls can be dealt with under the existing rules if we want - Cadogan hauled down Murphy with a rugby tackle in the last minute of their game at the weekend when he was odds on for a goal and only got a yellow, should have been straight red and a ban imo

But that's the point, Cadogan couldn't have been sent off for that foul under the current rules. Unlike soccer where it is a good deal easier to issue a red card for such an offence as it is generally much clearer that a goal scoring chance was prevented by the foul in football a ref would usually be in a lose lose situation as cynical fouling close to goal designed to prevent goal scoring opportunities may not necessarily have actually prevented one as other defenders would be close by. Both Colm Boyle and Alan Dillion cynically fouled Dublin players in last years semi to prevent Dublin creating a potential goal chance but I'm sure you wouldn't agree with them both being sent off and banned for the All Ireland?

A sin bin is the way to go IMO but since that's not on the table then I'd be willing to give the black cards a go. The bottom line is there is too much fouling in the game so something must be done. I do think though that any new rule should be trialled first and at lower levels first to see how it works away from the media glare and the self motivated moanings of IC managers.

Agree with a lot of that, particularly the sin bin in preference to the black card and also the trialling of these rules in smaller competitions/ lower levels.

[macdanger2]

Both Colm Boyle and Alan Dillion cynically fouled Dublin players in last years semi to prevent Dublin creating a potential goal chance but I'm sure you wouldn't agree with them both being sent off and banned for the All Ireland

Why are you sure of that? Because they're from Mayo? I think if a player makes no attempt to play the ball then it should be a red card regardless of where the foul happens? You can be sure teams wouldn't be long cutting it out if that were the case.

[Zulu]

So do you believe they should have been sent off and suspended for the final? I don't necessarily disagree that players who clearly make no attempt to play the ball should be sent off but I feel that players would just get a little smarter about that type of foul and if two players do it then it would be up to the ref to interpret if a genuine attempt was made to play the ball and he might get one wrong thus leading to uproar. I think we need a halfway house, the sin bin, which punishes players and teams but isn't so harsh that refs getting wrong would be a disaster for teams.

[macdanger2]

Honestly I don't remember the incidents you're referring to but yes with the caveat that such a policy would need to come in at the start of the year rather than at the business end of the championship.

Personally I think the sin bin would be good but it's unlikely to ht tried again

[Zulu]

Both players pulled Dublin lads back/down when they were trying to work a goal near the end, now neither time was the Dublin player through on goal like Murphy would have been last Saturday but neither Mayo man was attempting to tackle the ball and both were obviously trying to prevent a goal scoring opportunity as the resultant frees would have been gimmies for points.

As I said I wouldn't necessarily disagree that those types of fouls should be red cards but I think a sin bin is the more appropriate punishment. Don't really understand why the FRC didn't propose the sin bin when they also consider it the best option, I don't see why it couldn't be introduced at club level, and I do think it will eventually come in. I don't see the black cards getting through so the sin bin will come back up again in a few years. 

[Ard-Rí]

Jesus man did you even think that through before posting? If a 30m penalty for back chat is ridiculous because of the varying lengths of GAA pitches then so is the 13m penalty for the same offence, likewise a sideline ball close to goal on a narrow pitch as opposed to a wider pitch. Of all the recommendations the 30m is indisputably sensible as it is a real deterrent to the shite hawkery we see after many frees have been awarded. And if brought in we would see an end to this stuff pretty quickly. How anyone can be opposed to that one is beyond me.

Are you seriously suggesting that 13 metres is as damaging on a short pitch as 30 metres? Really? That the referee could move a ball forward at worst (for the defending team) 1/10 of the pitch to at best 1/4 of the pitch under the new rule. For dissent? As if the standard of refereeing is high enough to award them such ridiculous powers. Talk about throwing fuel on the fire!

As for your own suggestion about predicting the future and awarding a score, do you watch any football, you've seen great scoring opportunities missed before right, or players getting goals sometimes and points others? You arrogantly dismiss the FRC's proposals as if submitted by a slow child yet come up with one that would mean a ref would have to decide whether a fouled player would have scored and if so whether he would have got a goal or a point. Wow!!

Sure we've seen a similar system in operation in the rugby, your objections could be dealt with simply by giving the benefit of the doubt to the attacking team. If there was a reasonable chance the player would have scored a point, award it, likewise for a goal.

[Zulu]

Are you seriously suggesting that 13 metres is as damaging on a short pitch as 30 metres? Really? That the referee could move a ball forward at worst (for the defending team) 1/10 of the pitch to at best 1/4 of the pitch under the new rule. For dissent? As if the standard of refereeing is high enough to award them such ridiculous powers. Talk about throwing fuel on the fire!

Of course it's not but the principle is the same and the reason we have dissent and lads throwing the ball away or standing in front of the free taker is because they usually don't care about giving away 13m so it's a deterrent that doesn't deter. We need a deterrent that does deter and as someone else pointed out once a few frees that were well out of scoring range are brought forward into imminently scorable range all that messing would stop. Football improved in one simple stroke as we no longer have messing going after a free being awarded.

Sure we've seen a similar system in operation in the rugby, your objections could be dealt with simply by giving the benefit of the doubt to the attacking team. If there was a reasonable chance the player would have scored a point, award it, likewise for a goal.

Rugby is a totally different game and that rule is there because you could foul all day rather than concede a try when your try line is under threat. In football there is no way you could know whether a point or goal would be scored in 99% of situations and with a goal keeper trying to stop it there is no reason you couldn't argue any goal bound shot wouldn't have been stopped. Picture this, Meath 2 points down in the All Ireland final with time almost up and a Meath man is fouled as he breaks through on goal, ref decides (somehow) that the forward would only have put it over the bar rather than in the net so Meath lose by a point. Do you think anyone would think that fair or that any refs would like to be put in a position that they have to decide what a team scores without anyone taking a shot? A crazy suggestion.

[Ard-Rí]

Of course it's not but the principle is the same and the reason we have dissent and lads throwing the ball away or standing in front of the free taker is because they usually don't care about giving away 13m so it's a deterrent that doesn't deter. We need a deterrent that does deter and as someone else pointed out once a few frees that were well out of scoring range are brought forward into imminently scorable range all that messing would stop. Football improved in one simple stroke as we no longer have messing going after a free being awarded.

Firstly, the assumption here is that players have nothing to complain about when a referee awards a free. When the reality is bad referees (very common) get it wrong so often that some dissent is inevitable, regardless of rule changes. I've played matches with referees well known for giving straight red cards for dissent. Lads still gave them back-chat when they made a bad decision, from both sides. So I don't think 30 metres will change much.

Secondly, there's a huge discrepancy in the 13 metres awarded by one referee compared to the next one. Could be anything from 6 metres to 20. I could only expect that a 30 metre penalty would compound that problem.

Thirdly, there's not a huge problem with dissent in the game. Good referees can get through a game without incurring much talk back from players, and you rarely see players refusing to move away from a free taker before he kicks the ball. The penalty of 30 metres is punishment beyond the offence, in my opinion.

Rugby is a totally different game and that rule is there because you could foul all day rather than concede a try when your try line is under threat. In football there is no way you could know whether a point or goal would be scored in 99% of situations and with a goal keeper trying to stop it there is no reason you couldn't argue any goal bound shot wouldn't have been stopped. Picture this, Meath 2 points down in the All Ireland final with time almost up and a Meath man is fouled as he breaks through on goal, ref decides (somehow) that the forward would only have put it over the bar rather than in the net so Meath lose by a point. Do you think anyone would think that fair or that any refs would like to be put in a position that they have to decide what a team scores without anyone taking a shot? A crazy suggestion.

I don't think you quite understood me when I said give the benefit of the doubt to the attacking side. If there was (a) an imminent shot on goal, or (b) a strong possibility of a shot on goal prior to a "cynical" foul then award the goal, regardless of goalkeeper. You're looking for a deterrent, there it is. The defender will now prefer to give his keeper the chance to save the ball than to drag an opponent down.

[take_yer_points]

If a sinbin were to be introduced at club level, who would be the timekeeper? It can't possibly be left to the ref as they're proving more and more that they shouldn't even be the timekeeper for the match itself. Would it be easy to bring an extra neutral official? I'd assume clubs wouldn't be happy with an individual from a club involved in any given match taking up the role

[rrhf]

The media push for the new rules is obvious even to the point of having a go at managers who dare to differ.  This will get passed.  The GAA is heavily influenced by the media agenda as are you guys.   

[heffo]

The media push for the new rules is obvious even to the point of having a go at managers who dare to differ.  This will get passed.  The GAA is heavily influenced by the media agenda as are you guys.   

The FRC did a serious amount of consultation and surveying of players at all levels. To say their proposals from were influenced by the media is a nonsense.

Just as Mickey Harte is is entitled to disagree with any potential rule change, equally journalists can disagree with him. He doesn't own the GAA.

[Hardy]

I can only repeat what I said the last time we debated this:

I couldn't agree more, Ard-Rí. The Mary Poppins movement within the game, and especially within the media, has chipped away at the ethos of the game for decades, until it has reached the point where it is accepted without question that the game needs to be made more "attractive", that the only legitimate footballers are forwards, that defenders are some sort of criminal underclass whose excesses need to be curbed and that physical clashes are to be eliminated completely.

There is a widespread assumption that the biggest problem in the game is "cynical" fouling. You can't listen to a sports bulletin or read any news report on gaelic football without coming across the awful "cynical" cliché. This rules-revision circus has now institutionalised this nonsensical concept, with proposals emerging to penalise "deliberate and cynical" fouling with a different set of sanctions to those applied to other fouls.

A foul is a foul. The penalty is a free. Repeated fouling attracts a series of heavier sanctions. That's how it stands now. What, exactly, is wrong with that? Only two things, in my opinion – the failure or refusal of referees to apply the rules as written and their failure to recognise or punish the real cynicism - the cynical diving and cheating that seeks to mislead them. The solution to that is not to rewrite the rules, it is to fix the refereeing problem.

What is a cynical foul? Does the definition depend on the attitude of the fouler? How is this to be determined? Or is it to be based on the position on the pitch, or the time of the game, or the reaction of the player fouled (and we all know how that influences referees)? To illustrate the nonsense of this – try to define a non-cynical foul.

The biggest problem with this is not that it's addressing the wrong problem, but that it will worsen the biggest problem in the game – diving, cheating and injury-feigning. It is a diver's charter.

Not only that, but a proposal is now emerging to penalise the famous, imaginary "third man tackle", which, as we have shown here before, does not exist in the rules. There is nothing in the rules that says I must move out of the path of any player, whether he is in possession or not. (There is also nothing that says I may not move into his path, as long as I don't charge him, even though referees have been penalising this in a freelance capacity for decades now). And that's for good reason in (what was) a physical contact game.

If this proposal is approved, we will not only see misinterpretation, as players are penalised for standing their ground, but we'll see players altering course to ensure they are "fouled" (see players chasing the garryowen in rugby) and, of course, more diving.

These people are going to ruin our game. We need to fix the real problems of the game – diving, cheating and the growing namby-pambification of it – not make them worse in some sort of misguided, media-appeasing, hotch-potch of populist claptrap disguised as serious analysis and reform.

I would add two things:

1. My solution to the problem of the score-preventing rugby tackle in the last minute is a refinement of Ard-Rí's, that eliminates the need for the referee to judge the likelihood of a score. I'd penalise that type of foul (which is easily definable - two arms/hands on the opponent or a deliberate trip) with a 13m free in front of the posts or, if it happens anywhere inside the 13m line, with a penalty. This to apply no matter where on the field the foul occurs and, of course, no matter what stage of the game. I am always conscious of the danger of further encouraging diving (the biggest problem in the game - did I mention that?) but I think if you put two arms on the opponent, knowing the penalty, you deserve to be penalised, dive or not. The simulated-trip type of dive is more of a problem but, ultimately, referees have to referee.

2. I do think dissent and disrespect for referees is a problem. Of course, many referees richly earn that disrespect. Nevertheless, the games can't function without a culture of acceptance of refereeing decisions and this problem won't just persist – it will continually worsen if it's not tackled. We've learned that from observing soccer – the level of abuse and backchat to referees has escalated from zero thirty years ago to what we see now. We have to learn the solution from rugby.

[AQMP]

What Hardy said...Post Of The Year 2013.

[Fuzzman]

Yeah a lot of sense in that post Hardy and some interesting suggestions.

I've probably got more of a forward than a defender mindset when it comes to these things but I too (despite being from Tyrone  ) hate the whole pulling a man down to stop the chance of a score or even just to stop the momentum of a break away attack.
I don't always succeed but when I'm at matches and a foul is given (or not given) I try to ask myself how would I feel if that was against my team instead?
When Canavan pulled down Gooch near the end of 2005 final my very first reaction was "Ah God that's terrible" as I would have went mad had Gooch done it to Peter.

I am also a believer that if the punishments are spelled out clearly and severe enough and of course executed properly then players & management will change their mindset.
The fact is that players, even in an AI semi final are still willing to drag a man down to give away a 50 yard free as they believe they won't get sent off and miss the final nor will the other team get a score. If the free is taken up to the 13m line then players will change their behaviour.

The whole diving thing is indeed a blight and I know over the years we've done our fair share of it.
IMHO the only way to deal with it at intercounty level is via TV cameras. It's hard for refs to make a call there and then.
Of course there will be loads of matches where there will be no cameras but if players knew that if they are caught doing obvious dives, that they could miss the next game or two then again attitudes would change.