FRC proposals...black cards, marks etc

[muppet]

Seems to me that yellows will be dished out for unintentional fouls (clumsy, bad tackling)
Black cards for intentional fouls (trips, rugby tackles)

Again, the jersey pull is not covered. Also those blocks are going to be impossible to manage. Going to be easy for the man laying off to deliberately time it so he runs into a defender just after release.

It is hard enough for refs to decide what a foul is, never mind trying to classify fouls. All in the heat of the action.

[ONeill]

Seems to me that yellows will be dished out for unintentional fouls (clumsy, bad tackling)
Black cards for intentional fouls (trips, rugby tackles)

Again, the jersey pull is not covered. Also those blocks are going to be impossible to manage. Going to be easy for the man laying off to deliberately time it so he runs into a defender just after release.

How is it not covered?

Did you read their definition of a cynical foul?

"To deliberately pull down an opponent"
"To deliberately trip an opponent with the hand(s), arm, leg or foot."
"To deliberately body collide with an opponent after he has played the ball away or for the purpose of taking him out of a movement of play"
" To threaten or to use abusive or provocative language or gestures to an opponent or a teammate"
"To remonstrate in an aggressive manner with a Match Official"

[Jinxy]

It's pulling an opponent.

[ONeill]

Pulling 'down' an opponent is the ruling and the clips all show rugby tackles. Unless they redefine that there'll be CCCCing all over the shop.

[Farrandeelin]

What if the ref doesn't see it?

[ONeill]

What if the ref doesn't see it?

You can't act on what you (or officials) don't see.

[From the Bunker]

You have a season started! I mean we are mid season! And the authorities decide to change the rules! Why were these rules not implemented before the regional Cups (McKeena, McGrath, FBD and O'Byrne) have started let alone the League! It would give managers, players and most importantly referees the chance to get their bearings. We are now left with Referees to make big decisions on Big championship days, without prior experience of the rules in a (should we say) more comfortable environment. The last big rule change was at the begining of the championship in 1999. A Leinster tie between Westmeath and Carlow. With the introduction of new rules, ref Niall Barrett of Cork dished out 14 yellow cards and sent off six players, four from Carlow. Westmeath won by four points. The rules changed back the next day! 

[ONeill]

Most don't come in til January 2014.

[thewobbler]

Call me a cynic. But I've been involved in the game too long to think that a measure like the black card will change the way games are played.

There's quite a few hatchet men in this world who've now been given a defined role.

They can now start the game, and line up key opponents for heavy tackles, and their team will actually improve for this action, when they're replaced with a better player.

[TacadoirArdMhacha]

Are people more stupid than they used to be?
In general?
The amount of lads that watch a match like Mayo vs. Donegal today and think that because there would have been a heap of black cards, the game will descend into farce when the new rule comes in.
Complete inability to join the dots.

I've noticed that myself. The concept that tougher sanctions might actually lead to a decrease in this type of tactical fouling seems entirely alien.

[Jinxy]

What if the ref doesn't see it?

Then it never happened. 

[Jinxy]

Call me a cynic. But I've been involved in the game too long to think that a measure like the black card will change the way games are played.

There's quite a few hatchet men in this world who've now been given a defined role.

They can now start the game, and line up key opponents for heavy tackles, and their team will actually improve for this action, when they're replaced with a better player.

You're a cynic.

[Hardy]

What if the ref doesn't see it?

You can't act on what you (or officials) don't see.

That's the problem - we all know that referees act on stuff they don't see or think they see. Most referees give frees for fouls that (a) never happened - they see a player fall, therefore he must have been fouled or (b) were the other way around - for instance, the famous "grabbing the defender's arm" trick. As you said in your post above, it will be child's play for players to play the ball and then run into the man - black card for the victim about 50% of the time, I predict. We see it all the time in rugby, where it's standard practice to look for somebody to run into after you kick ahead, in the hope of getting a penalty. Do we really expect referees who fall 80% of the time for the arm-grabbing trick to be wise to this one?

The real problems in the game - bad refereeing and diving - have been not only ignored but potentially worsened by these new rules. They will make bad refereeing worse because referees now have even more to misinterpret than they had and, as I say, they are also a diver's charter.

I have no problem with stiffening the rules against pulling down and tripping, but two things are wrong with this approach to it - (1) this is the wrong solution - a more severe playing penalty (a 13-metre free) would be better and (2) including the block in these sanctions is going to be disastrous because it's so easy to simulate a foul - i.e. cheat. You will have lads seeking out opportunities to crash into the Gooches, Laceys and Murphys of the game as early as possible.

Another dimension to the debate that has gone completely unremarked is that we have not just changed the penalties for existing fouls but defined a new foul - "To deliberately body collide with an opponent after he has played the ball away or for the purpose of taking him out of a movement of play". This was never in the rule book before and it's now an offence simply to move into a player's line of run, without charging him. Is this restriction desirable in a physical contact game?

We already have rules against charging without the ball and against the frontal charge. This is going a step further and, to me, will see even more basketball-type pirouetting to avoid making any physical contact with randomly passing players. Not to mention the problems of interpretation now presented to referees who have to decide not only whether a challenge was a frontal charge or a charge without the ball but whether it was a player standing his ground or moving to get in the way of another player.

This accumulation of restrictions on physical contact is inexorably moving the game in the direction of basketball. I can't believe football people, who really appreciate and love the essence of the game really want this, but we're being sleep-walked into it and you can be sure the next step is some other set of half-arsed nonsense designed to take even more contact out of the game in the name of "attractive" and "attacking" play.

[Syferus]

If we fitted players with spinal braces that gave them an electrical jolt when they tried to pass a ball backwards we could really sort this game out.

[ONeill]

Call me a cynic. But I've been involved in the game too long to think that a measure like the black card will change the way games are played.

There's quite a few hatchet men in this world who've now been given a defined role.

They can now start the game, and line up key opponents for heavy tackles, and their team will actually improve for this action, when they're replaced with a better player.

It's short-sighted. And the hacks afraid to assess it in cold light (away from the mass back-slapping of Congress day) are equally as culpable. What blights our game when it's at its most extreme is the tactic of cramming defences. Excellent fitness levels at county level means players can move en masse from defence to attack only to be faced with the same from the opposition. The Dublin-Donegal game of 2011 showed how poor it can look (even though I thought it was intriguing).

If they want to market the game in that respect (which I think is their big issue), this is not the answer. We'll still get packed, disciplined defences.

So what do you do -

Rule of 4 forwards at any given time must be in the opposition's half?
One man tackles?
13-a-side?
30m advances for dissent?
2 points for score outside the 30?