FRC proposals...black cards, marks etc

[theticklemister]

Lads these rules have come in to improve the game and stop fouling.

I cant believe more people are not in support of this. If ye want to drag a player to the ground well this is the wrong sport for you. If anyone took in the Mayo v Dun na ngall game today ye would see the problem. A terrible spectacle with constant dragging and pulling. If the player realised there are ramifications then they would not do it. If the black book was in play today then it eould be thirteen a side; and ye know then maybe after a few lessons like these then county managers would realise that fouling does not pa like it does now.

[Hardy]

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?

I'd give the tactics and tacticians of the game a chance to resolve this before changing the rules. (That is if we really think good defending is a bad thing). Shooting from distance will overcome any defence, no matter how tightly massed, so in the natural order of things, strong defending (OK - packed, blanket defending, whatever) will improve the scoring skills of our forwards. 

[u bent op uw]

Will this make good referees better and make bad refs even worse ?


Will it make the 28 outfield players better or worse is more the point?.....why the one man in the middle again?

[Hardy]

Lads these rules have come in to improve the game and stop fouling.

I cant believe more people are not in support of this. If ye want to drag a player to the ground well this is the wrong sport for you. If anyone took in the Mayo v Dun na ngall game today ye would see the problem. A terrible spectacle with constant dragging and pulling. If the player realised there are ramifications then they would not do it. If the black book was in play today then it eould be thirteen a side; and ye know then maybe after a few lessons like these then county managers would realise that fouling does not pa like it does now.

Who has posted against more severe penalties for dragging down?

[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.

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?

Do the new rules make it harder or easier for a wing back to move up the field?
If they make it easier, then surely that's less time for forwards to funnel back and block up space.
Taking defenders down early and removing momentum gives teams time to get numbers back and set up their defensive screen.

[theticklemister]

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?

How do teams get so many men back to flood the defence??? By slowing down the movement of the ball from defence to attack; the greatest way of doing ths is fouling.

[ONeill]

It's easy to clumsy foul which isn't a black card offence. The onus on the ref to read intentions is disastrous. The amount of current players against this cannot be ignored. The reason they are is that a ref's judgement cannot be trusted whereas a yellow allowed for error of judgement.

But that's the disadvantages of an amateur game. The Yanks have on-pitch video reviews and multiple officials.

[blewuporstuffed]

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.

100% agree hardy

[BennyCake]

These emotional speeches and footage before the Black Card vote at Congress, reminds me of the Lisbon Treaty malarky...

Ireland says No. Ah, but we're gonna vote again. Didn't you f**kin hear us, we said No! So they roll out the big guns to make sure it goes through. The rock stars, sportsmen, politicians, TV celebs etc. Voting yes is the way to go people, blah blah blah. And of course it was pushed through.

Only the FRC were clever to make sure it (black card) went through first time. I'm sure if it failed, it would've been brought up again next year (like the Lisbon Treaty was). There's talk already about bringing the Mark rule up again next year.

[macdanger2]

Happy enough to see the Black Card introduced, will be interesting to see how it works - the application of it in practice is crucial to it being successful. Hopefully it will encourage coaches & teams to cut out the non-tackles you see in so many games these days. Would have preferred a sin-bin though.

Glad that the mark wasn't introduced, can't see what benefit it would bring to the game. Would see some merit in allowing a player who catches a kickout an extra 2-3 seconds before he's pulled for carrying.

Hawkeye & the clock were no-brainers.

Good to see the advantage rule being brought in and the changing of the length of club games being rejected.

I thought the 30m rule would have been beneficial, need to see more respect for refs, doesn't matter whether they're right or wrong (although there should be something brought in (not sure what) to improve the standard of reffing)

Motion 49 - what a waste of time:

This motion relates to the naming of county teams. It proposes that for all Senior Championship games, the teams should be given to the media four days before the game (e.g. Wednesday 12 noon for a Sunday game)

Anyone know whether Motion 53 was passed or not?? It appears to relate to the structure of the qualifiers.

[macdanger2]

Heard Eugene McGee on the radio afterwards, always thought he was a complete gobsh*te and my opinion remains unchanged.

Fair play to him for what he achieved with Offaly but I would have preferred if they had gotten someone with half a notion about football to chair the FRC e.g. Gilroy / JO'C / Kernan.

[cadence]

Heard Eugene McGee on the radio afterwards, always thought he was a complete gobsh*te and my opinion remains unchanged.

Fair play to him for what he achieved with Offaly but I would have preferred if they had gotten someone with half a notion about football to chair the FRC e.g. Gilroy / JO'C / Kernan.

arrah whisht.

[rrhf]

Another point here, Democracy is dead. 
a full county board meeting representing the people of that county mandates their representative to vote.  He spends 2 hours getting lobbied at Congress to and decides to do his own thing in keeping with the spirit of the weekend that is in it.  Sheep would have more shame.

[highorlow]

So McGee and his pals got their way. I read on Sunday's paper that he was in tears with the joy of this. I don't know the guy but I never liked the aul attitude in his articles and in his opinions. Always quick to knock the smaller teams and wants to come across as some kind of GAA wizard all the time.

This black card rule is a complete and utter cod, for the following obvious reasons.

1-it spells the end of any weaker teams getting through the back door (they won't have strong enough panels to keep coming on as strong enough sub replacements),
2-it won't stop the tactical fouling late on in games, how will it? A free sub comes on so it's worth fouling to maintain a lead late in a game. Does the man getting sidelined get any further sanction?
3-costs - it will now require teams to have an extra guy on the line for the team to control substitutes and record who is on black cards, blood etc etc,
4-confusion - per above at 3 plus the farce that will apply for refs trying to distinguish between black, yellow and straight red cards,
5- club level - some teams barely can get 18 /19 players at a inter or jnr match, shur if the opposition spot this and have say 22 then it will only encourage them to be more cynical rather than detract from it,

It was the refs that required improving and not the rules. This is an awful step backwards for the GAA and will not last.

[BennyHarp]

I haven't really read the full rule change, but if a player gets a black card and his team have used all their allocated normal substitutes, are they allowed to replace him?