So what do ye think of the black card rule now?

[PAULD123]

blewuporstuffed, I'd suggest tackling strictly as per the rule book is impossible. I agree entirely that the rule book should be overhauled, as I said, after that refs course I took it that I could ref as I liked and nobody could show I was wrong bar the technical fouls which is a crazy situation.

I wouldn't say tackling according to the rules is impossible. In Gaelic (unlike soccer) you can obstruct. So you can use your body to obstruct the runner, you can obstruct him with your arms, and you can swipe at the ball so he can't bounce, solo, or pass it. What you can't do is push him, strike his body, or charge into him.

I think that is very possible providing one thing - Oh yeah, isn't there some rule about only having 4 steps or the equivalent time? Now if we forget that rule, and the vast majority of referees do, then yes it is impossible to defend to the rules. One rule depends on another and the rules for clean defending relies on an over-carrying forward being penalised.

[Zulu]

you can't actual touch another player bar when shouldering

ZULU, you wrote that yet you don't want to admit your wrong.

Point to me where it says in the definition (not rule) where you can't touch a player?

Ahh Jesus highorlow, what are you talking about? It's in black and white  - " deliberate bodily contact is forbidden. The only deliberate physical contact can be a Fair Charge" Or as I put it - "you can't actual touch another player bar when shouldering." Now I'm looking a both those sentences and trying to figure out what your issue is, can anyone else see a difference?

I'm not sure what you mean by definition and not rule but 'deliberate physical contact' can be anything from touching a players shoulder/chest/arm/leg to grabbing their jersey. It's there in the rule book, now nobody strictly adheres to this interpretation but a ref could do so and be deemed right as per rule book.

[Zulu]

blewuporstuffed, I'd suggest tackling strictly as per the rule book is impossible. I agree entirely that the rule book should be overhauled, as I said, after that refs course I took it that I could ref as I liked and nobody could show I was wrong bar the technical fouls which is a crazy situation.

I wouldn't say tackling according to the rules is impossible. In Gaelic (unlike soccer) you can obstruct. So you can use your body to obstruct the runner, you can obstruct him with your arms, and you can swipe at the ball so he can't bounce, solo, or pass it. What you can't do is push him, strike his body, or charge into him.

I think that is very possible providing one thing - Oh yeah, isn't there some rule about only having 4 steps or the equivalent time? Now if we forget that rule, and the vast majority of referees do, then yes it is impossible to defend to the rules. One rule depends on another and the rules for clean defending relies on an over-carrying forward being penalised.

But it is about interpretation of the rules. If you take the rule book literally then you can't obstruct (no deliberate physical contact) but of course we don't use that interpretation as it would make the sports non-contact. The problem is refs can have their own shade of grey and if anyone questions a decision then they can point to the rule book.

[Zulu]

Most of what has been said is correct regarding the rules etc. That doesn't stop a referee interpreting them in a consistent fashion. And in fact with all the courses, assessing and training they get, the interpretation shouldn't vary between refs all that much - certainly at the top level.

Exactly MS, there is a lot of grey in the rule book and it should be tidied up immediately before we can ever hope to get consistent interpretations of rules.

[magpie seanie]

Most of what has been said is correct regarding the rules etc. That doesn't stop a referee interpreting them in a consistent fashion. And in fact with all the courses, assessing and training they get, the interpretation shouldn't vary between refs all that much - certainly at the top level.

Exactly MS, there is a lot of grey in the rule book and it should be tidied up immediately before we can ever hope to get consistent interpretations of rules.

We either go Aussie Rules or soccer on it.

[Zulu]

Well I wouldn't like to see us do either but you're right we're betwixt and between at the moment. In saying that I love to see brilliant tackling as it is currently allowed it's just that it is very hard to know what degree of physicality should be permitted without pulling and dragging ensuing. I wonder would a limit on the number of tacklers help? I use that with the kids we couch sometimes and it certainly helps prevent swarming of the player, perhaps a max of two tackling simultaneously?

[blewuporstuffed]

would a time period such as 3 or 4 seconds be any easier for referees to keep track of rathe rthan number of steps?

[blewuporstuffed]

Well I wouldn't like to see us do either but you're right we're betwixt and between at the moment. In saying that I love to see brilliant tackling as it is currently allowed it's just that it is very hard to know what degree of physicality should be permitted without pulling and dragging ensuing. I wonder would a limit on the number of tacklers help? I use that with the kids we couch sometimes and it certainly helps prevent swarming of the player, perhaps a max of two tackling simultaneously?

i think that only a player on his feet should be able to be tackled.
we often see a player going to ground in possession before being mobbed by a group of defenders and ends up with no possible way of getting out of it.
If a defender knew that, right we have to let him back on his feet before we can tackle him, it might eliminate some of the scrums we get at the minute. particularly after a player takes a catch in the middle of the field and ends up on the ground.

[Zulu]

would a time period such as 3 or 4 seconds be any easier for referees to keep track of rathe rthan number of steps?

Could be, I find steps hard enough to keep track of especially on an absolutely consistent basis.

i think that only a player on his feet should be able to be tackled.

Agree entirely, though obviously I guy can't go to ground and not be tackled.

[highorlow]

ZULU, i'm not here arguing with you on a point scoring mission. Can ye Dubs not admit it when yer wrong though?

The parts you extracted say deliberate. That means you can touch a player as long as it's not deliberate, which completely contradicts your earlier stance of having the game strictly a non contact sport (bar shouldering), which it isn't. We were punished against Donegal in the AI when the ref must have thought the contact on Cillian O'Connor wasn't deliberate enough to merit a free in.

PAULD123 spelt out above where a large part of the problem is (overcarrying) and which isn't consistently brought to task.

[Hardy]

Go out and try and keep a count of steps while also adjudicating on whether the tackler is fouling the man in possession repeatedly ...

I see this quoted all the time as justification for referees allowing players to take extra steps. It's nonsense and another example of referees failing or refusing to apply the rules properly and/or making up their own rules.

There's no provision in the rules for referees to allow players to take extra steps because they're being fouled. None.

The referee has two options if the player in possession is being fouled. Give him a free or apply the advantage rule. If applying the advantage rule, he must hold up his hand to indicate that's what he is doing. *

In how many cases of extra steps or holding the ball too long do you see the referee indicating he's playing advantage? My own estimate - about 5%. The rest of the time he's applying either his own made-up advantage procedure or some unwritten convention that does not exist in the rules, along the lines of, "sure how could he play the ball with yer man hanging out of him?" 

The problem is that, much of the time, yer man is not hanging out of him, but trying to tackle him legitimately, but unable to because he won't play the ball and knows the referee will let him away with a few more steps to get away from this pesky defender trying to tackle him. This is one of the most frustrating things in the game and leads to much of the talk about the problem of definition of the tackle.

As far as I can see, there's no big problem with the definition of the tackle. The problem is with the failure/refusal of referees to referee in accordance with the rules. Though we could improve interpretation by issuing a directive to clarify in detail what is and isn't allowed and to remove nonsense like highorlow pointed out elsewhere, saying you can only tackle the ball, then saying one or  more players can tackle the player.


*Edit - I meant to say that even if the advantage rule is being applied, there's no provision for the player receiving the advantage to commit a foul (e.g. overcarry) and continue to receive the advantage.

[Zulu]

ZULU, i'm not here arguing with you on a point scoring mission. Can ye Dubs not admit it when yer wrong though?

The parts you extracted say deliberate. That means you can touch a player as long as it's not deliberate, which completely contradicts your earlier stance of having the game strictly a non contact sport (bar shouldering), which it isn't. We were punished against Donegal in the AI when the ref must have thought the contact on Cillian O'Connor wasn't deliberate enough to merit a free in.

PAULD123 spelt out above where a large part of the problem is (overcarrying) and which isn't consistently brought to task.

Well if you're not point scoring then you haven't read my post, I ain't a Dub either! This is what I said -

The reality is, if refs went out and reffed games in both hurling and football as per the rule book then there would be a holy heap of frees per game until players realised you can't actual touch another player bar when shouldering.

I never said the game was non contact, to satisfy the rather strange point you're making if I inserted the word 'deliberate' then you'd have no problem? If I try to tackle you then any contact I make is surely deliberate bar standing there with my arms by my side and you running into me. The point I was making and I think everyone bar you understands this is the rule book isn't well worded and if, IF, a ref decided to go out and ref as per the rule book he could give a free against any player that raises their hand out and touches another player. Do you think I'm saying that's the way it is or should be?

[Zulu]

Go out and try and keep a count of steps while also adjudicating on whether the tackler is fouling the man in possession repeatedly ...

I see this quoted all the time as justification for referees allowing players to take extra steps. It's nonsense and another example of referees failing or refusing to apply the rules properly and/or making up their own rules.

There's no provision in the rules for referees to allow players to take extra steps because they're being fouled. None.

The referee has two options if the player in possession is being fouled. Give him a free or apply the advantage rule. If applying the advantage rule, he must hold up his hand to indicate that's what he is doing. *

In how many cases of extra steps or holding the ball too long do you see the referee indicating he's playing advantage? My own estimate - about 5%. The rest of the time he's applying either his own made-up advantage procedure or some unwritten convention that does not exist in the rules, along the lines of, "sure how could he play the ball with yer man hanging out of him?" 

The problem is that, much of the time, yer man is not hanging out of him, but trying to tackle him legitimately, but unable to because he won't play the ball and knows the referee will let him away with a few more steps to get away from this pesky defender trying to tackle him. This is one of the most frustrating things in the game and leads to much of the talk about the problem of definition of the tackle.

As far as I can see, there's no big problem with the definition of the tackle. The problem is with the failure/refusal of referees to referee in accordance with the rules. Though we could improve interpretation by issuing a directive to clarify in detail what is and isn't allowed and to remove nonsense like highorlow pointed out elsewhere, saying you can only tackle the ball, then saying one or  more players can tackle the player.


*Edit - I meant to say that even if the advantage rule is being applied, there's no provision for the player receiving the advantage to commit a foul (e.g. overcarry) and continue to receive the advantage.

It isn't nonsense Hardy. I'm telling you that from my experience of reffing, I do find it hard to repeatedly judge steps while also trying to judge whether the tackler is fouling.

My philosophy when I ref a game is that I won't guess if it's a foul, I'll blow if I'm 100% sure and if not I don't. I doubt anybody could go out and get the steps right every time, all of the time so I tend to only look for those who take 6 or 7 steps and if you have your hand(s) on the attacker I'll give them a bit of leeway. Now I understand some of the points you make but if refs reffed strictly by the rule book they'd be slated for taking the physicality out of football.

This discussion could go around another lap or two but while refereeing standards are definitely a factor in this mess I'd ask lads to go out and ref 20 or 30 games and reflect on whether they were consistent and got all decisions right. I've definitely found myself looking on as the ref and thinking I could really let this go, give team A a free or team B a free and be correct (or wrong depending on your POV) whatever I do. The rule book IMO doesn't help refs.

[Hardy]

Go out and try and keep a count of steps while also adjudicating on whether the tackler is fouling the man in possession repeatedly ...

I see this quoted all the time as justification for referees allowing players to take extra steps. It's nonsense and another example of referees failing or refusing to apply the rules properly and/or making up their own rules.

There's no provision in the rules for referees to allow players to take extra steps because they're being fouled. None.

The referee has two options if the player in possession is being fouled. Give him a free or apply the advantage rule. If applying the advantage rule, he must hold up his hand to indicate that's what he is doing. *

In how many cases of extra steps or holding the ball too long do you see the referee indicating he's playing advantage? My own estimate - about 5%. The rest of the time he's applying either his own made-up advantage procedure or some unwritten convention that does not exist in the rules, along the lines of, "sure how could he play the ball with yer man hanging out of him?" 

The problem is that, much of the time, yer man is not hanging out of him, but trying to tackle him legitimately, but unable to because he won't play the ball and knows the referee will let him away with a few more steps to get away from this pesky defender trying to tackle him. This is one of the most frustrating things in the game and leads to much of the talk about the problem of definition of the tackle.

As far as I can see, there's no big problem with the definition of the tackle. The problem is with the failure/refusal of referees to referee in accordance with the rules. Though we could improve interpretation by issuing a directive to clarify in detail what is and isn't allowed and to remove nonsense like highorlow pointed out elsewhere, saying you can only tackle the ball, then saying one or  more players can tackle the player.


*Edit - I meant to say that even if the advantage rule is being applied, there's no provision for the player receiving the advantage to commit a foul (e.g. overcarry) and continue to receive the advantage.

It isn't nonsense Hardy. I'm telling you that from my experience of reffing, I do find it hard to repeatedly judge steps while also trying to judge whether the tackler is fouling.

My philosophy when I ref a game is that I won't guess if it's a foul, I'll blow if I'm 100% sure and if not I don't. I doubt anybody could go out and get the steps right every time, all of the time so I tend to only look for those who take 6 or 7 steps and if you have your hand(s) on the attacker I'll give them a bit of leeway. Now I understand some of the points you make but if refs reffed strictly by the rule book they'd be slated for taking the physicality out of football.

This discussion could go around another lap or two but while refereeing standards are definitely a factor in this mess I'd ask lads to go out and ref 20 or 30 games and reflect on whether they were consistent and got all decisions right. I've definitely found myself looking on as the ref and thinking I could really let this go, give team A a free or team B a free and be correct (or wrong depending on your POV) whatever I do. The rule book IMO doesn't help refs.

I think you've missed my point, Zulu. If you're giving the attacker a few extra steps because you deem he's being fouled, you're inventing your own rules.

By the way, it's interesting that you use the term "attacker". I think this betrays the widespread attitude that forwards should be given some extra assistance in their battle with those blasted nuisance defenders. Surely, if you think a player being fouled deserves some unofficial leeway, this philosophy should apply to all players, not just forwards?

[AZOffaly]

Jaysus Hardy, you must have been a back. I'm sure by 'attacker' Zulu means the person with the ball. After all, a defender coming out is launching an attack himself. In my experience, ANY player in possession is given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to steps if they are under pressure. If they are being fouled, the refs simply ignore the steps count I think.