Strange rules in the GAA - past or present

[5 Sams]

"Chargin  Ref". Heard in every county in Ireland. Was there ever a rule about it?

[Dont Matter]

Hey, that hitting the ball on the ground when you fall on the ground rule, was it Tyrone who got penalised for doing that in 95 against Dublin? I think the ball was off the ground but the foul was given for it being on the ground but really neither way was it a free anyway? Canavan wasn't it? Or has my memory failed me altogether?

[Dont Matter]

"Chargin  Ref". Heard in every county in Ireland. Was there ever a rule about it?

They probably have it written in some fancy lingo. Charin sums it up nicely.

[theticklemister]

Hey, that hitting the ball on the ground when you fall on the ground rule, was it Tyrone who got penalised for doing that in 95 against Dublin? I think the ball was off the ground but the foul was given for it being on the ground but really neither way was it a free anyway? Canavan wasn't it? Or has my memory failed me altogether?

Can't mind, it says in that rule that it must be the player who lost possession which has the legitimate right to palm the ball away on the ground, maybe he hasn't in possession.

[Farrandeelin]

Sheridan's goal shouldn't have stood on two separate counts...

1. He carried the ball in possession over the goal line in his hands. This isn't a valid score and is a free out to the opposition.
2. Even if he hadn't taken the ball over the line and assuming that he hadn't done so, he failed to effectively play the ball away when he released it therefore deemed to still be in possession. Sheridan made an attempt to kick the ball whilst on the ground, into the net but failed to connect with the ball completely (again hypothetically, before going over the line). Had he made a striking connection with the ball with his foot* before all of the ball crossed the line, the goal would count as at the moment of the ball being struck he would have been deemed to have played the ball away from himself - again emphasising that we're assuming that it hasn't already crossed the line.

* Indeed it wouldn't have had to strike the foot, any part of the leg below the knee would have been fine. However it it was struck off the knee or the thigh I would not be so sure, while on a solo run the toe-tap states that the ball must be dropped down towards the toe and you can't use your knee or thigh, there's isn't such clarity about playing the ball away with such a part of a players leg. I would make the call that as long as the attacking player connected with an attempt to strike the ball the goal would stand, but some refs might not.

That's the nearest to a correct statement of what happened that I've seen, Fionntamhnac. I suggest a slight modification - Joe didn't carry the ball across the line in the sense of running across the line in possession. (Nor, of course, did he dive across the line, as the great unwashed have it.) He fell across the line as the result of a foul by the Louth No. 10, who hand tripped him. The goalkeeper then sat on him momentarily, but that's neither here nor there.

In the meantime, the referee blew for a penalty for the foul, but nobody seemed to hear the whistle. When the ref saw the ball was over the line, he erroneously cancelled the penalty and awarded the goal.

The other myth favoured by the hygienically challenged is that he "threw the ball into the net". What really happened was that when the goalkeeper got off Joe, he found himself in possession of the ball lying on his back and decided to try to kick it into the net, not knowing he was already over the line. Normally, to kick the ball, you drop it onto your foot. If you drop the ball while lying on your back it falls, not on your foot, but on your chest. Joe knows his physics and so tried to throw the ball onto his foot, while swinging his leg in a kicking motion. He missed his foot completely, of course, due to lack of practice in this rarely required skill. (We're quick learners, though, and visit any under-ten training session on a Saturday morning these days and you'll see little lads practising shooting from the 13-metre line from the prone position.)

Just for the record, like.

Interesting post about the old rules, but I have to dispute the suggestion that the throw-in restart after goals was around in the seventies. Definitely not - nor even the sixties.

Fouled, and then sat on by the keeper, my hole Hardy(pardon the pun - or whatever that qualifies as), He and every man around him was scrambling and rolling and there wasn't an intentional foul committed except the blatant cheating move that Joe himself made. You can revisionise til you're ninety, but the facts are clearly shown on the clip. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxq6SofU_38

I had a look at the clip and I saw no foul on Joe.

[Dont Matter]

Hey, that hitting the ball on the ground when you fall on the ground rule, was it Tyrone who got penalised for doing that in 95 against Dublin? I think the ball was off the ground but the foul was given for it being on the ground but really neither way was it a free anyway? Canavan wasn't it? Or has my memory failed me altogether?

Can't mind, it says in that rule that it must be the player who lost possession which has the legitimate right to palm the ball away on the ground, maybe he hasn't in possession.

Yeah a Tyrone player had it, thin it was Canavan. He fell punched it whe it was a little bit off the ground, went to another Tyrone player and he kicked it over but the ref had already blown it.
That's what's in me head but that could be way off.

[Dont Matter]

Ok I got some vidgeio evidence. This actually did happen. Now it was the last minute of the game, Tyrone a point down. A high ball was sent in, John O'leary came out and punched it. Canavan fumbled with it and he fell, he quickly punched the ball to his left where a teamate knocked it over to level. Referee had already blown however. It's about 20:15 onwards on this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OU8HcU_fBH8

So, should that have been a free out even if Canavan touched it on the ground?
Jimmy McGee sounded decent on the little bit I heard on those highlights. Also Canavan scored 11 of the 12 Tyrone scores and he already got man of the match in 3 of Tyrones previous 4 games. Who got MoM in the final?

[BennyHarp]

Ok I got some vidgeio evidence. This actually did happen. Now it was the last minute of the game, Tyrone a point down. A high ball was sent in, John O'leary came out and punched it. Canavan fumbled with it and he fell, he quickly punched the ball to his left where a teamate knocked it over to level. Referee had already blown however. It's about 20:15 onwards on this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OU8HcU_fBH8

So, should that have been a free out even if Canavan touched it on the ground?
Jimmy McGee sounded decent on the little bit I heard on those highlights. Also Canavan scored 11 of the 12 Tyrone scores and he already got man of the match in 3 of Tyrones previous 4 games. Who got MoM in the final?

I think the question here (much as it pains me as a Tyrone man) is - did Canavan have possession of the ball when he fell to the ground? Did he actually have the ball under control when he fell? I don't think he did therefore was not entitled to touch it on the ground. The bigger question to me was if the ball was actually on the ground. It would be hard for Canavan to get an upward movement on a ball that was on the ground. It was bouncing so the pass was valid - that's been my story for nearly 18 years and I'm sticking to it.

I think Paul Curran got MoM that day if I'm not mistaken - but I could be wrong on that!

[Hardy]

Sheridan's goal shouldn't have stood on two separate counts...

1. He carried the ball in possession over the goal line in his hands. This isn't a valid score and is a free out to the opposition.
2. Even if he hadn't taken the ball over the line and assuming that he hadn't done so, he failed to effectively play the ball away when he released it therefore deemed to still be in possession. Sheridan made an attempt to kick the ball whilst on the ground, into the net but failed to connect with the ball completely (again hypothetically, before going over the line). Had he made a striking connection with the ball with his foot* before all of the ball crossed the line, the goal would count as at the moment of the ball being struck he would have been deemed to have played the ball away from himself - again emphasising that we're assuming that it hasn't already crossed the line.

* Indeed it wouldn't have had to strike the foot, any part of the leg below the knee would have been fine. However it it was struck off the knee or the thigh I would not be so sure, while on a solo run the toe-tap states that the ball must be dropped down towards the toe and you can't use your knee or thigh, there's isn't such clarity about playing the ball away with such a part of a players leg. I would make the call that as long as the attacking player connected with an attempt to strike the ball the goal would stand, but some refs might not.

That's the nearest to a correct statement of what happened that I've seen, Fionntamhnac. I suggest a slight modification - Joe didn't carry the ball across the line in the sense of running across the line in possession. (Nor, of course, did he dive across the line, as the great unwashed have it.) He fell across the line as the result of a foul by the Louth No. 10, who hand tripped him. The goalkeeper then sat on him momentarily, but that's neither here nor there.

In the meantime, the referee blew for a penalty for the foul, but nobody seemed to hear the whistle. When the ref saw the ball was over the line, he erroneously cancelled the penalty and awarded the goal.

The other myth favoured by the hygienically challenged is that he "threw the ball into the net". What really happened was that when the goalkeeper got off Joe, he found himself in possession of the ball lying on his back and decided to try to kick it into the net, not knowing he was already over the line. Normally, to kick the ball, you drop it onto your foot. If you drop the ball while lying on your back it falls, not on your foot, but on your chest. Joe knows his physics and so tried to throw the ball onto his foot, while swinging his leg in a kicking motion. He missed his foot completely, of course, due to lack of practice in this rarely required skill. (We're quick learners, though, and visit any under-ten training session on a Saturday morning these days and you'll see little lads practising shooting from the 13-metre line from the prone position.)

Just for the record, like.

Interesting post about the old rules, but I have to dispute the suggestion that the throw-in restart after goals was around in the seventies. Definitely not - nor even the sixties.

Fouled, and then sat on by the keeper, my hole Hardy(pardon the pun - or whatever that qualifies as), He and every man around him was scrambling and rolling and there wasn't an intentional foul committed except the blatant cheating move that Joe himself made. You can revisionise til you're ninety, but the facts are clearly shown on the clip. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxq6SofU_38

Is there a gibberish interpreter in the house?

[Dont Matter]

Yeah, you're right. He didn't have possession, he was controlling it but some very quick thinking to punch it like that. There's no replays of it on that video but didn't the Sunday game have a closer angle of it later that night? Looked clearly like it was off the ground.
Anyway, can't be changed now. Does every county have a story about a ref robbing them against Dublin?

[Hardy]

"Chargin  Ref". Heard in every county in Ireland. Was there ever a rule about it?

You still see frees for charging in possession. I think it's covered by Rule 5.33b:

(b) To charge an opponent unless:-
(i) he is in possession of the ball, or
(ii) he is playing the ball, or
(iii) both players are moving in the direction of
the ball to play it.

If you're in possession of the ball and charge an opponent, none of these exceptions applies.

[johnneycool]

There was a trialled ruling in hurling where instead of having the game started with the throw in in the centre of the field, it was started with a puck out instead.

I think the rule only lasted for the duration of the national league and died a death thankfully.

[Eamonnca1]

There was a trialled ruling in hurling where instead of having the game started with the throw in in the centre of the field, it was started with a puck out instead.

I think the rule only lasted for the duration of the national league and died a death thankfully.

What a stupid experiment that was. And all because of one man pulling a bit hard during a throw-in the previous year. The opening clash is one of the highlights of the game.

[johnneycool]

There was a trialled ruling in hurling where instead of having the game started with the throw in in the centre of the field, it was started with a puck out instead.

I think the rule only lasted for the duration of the national league and died a death thankfully.

What a stupid experiment that was. And all because of one man pulling a bit hard during a throw-in the previous year. The opening clash is one of the highlights of the game.

Aye, but the ball was still in the refs hand at the time..

[Bingo]

Rule 457(b)VII(4f) as amended by Rule 9846(xi)(b)

The Monaghan goalkeeper is allowed to take as many steps as he wants against Cavan once the game is in injury time and Monaghan have the lead.