Munster championship 2014

[muppet]

Bullshit.

Crash of the Nash?

[CorkMan]

Giving the advantage to the defending team.

[Zulu]

Not really, just adhering to what the original rule was meant to be.

[CorkMan]

Fewer penalties will be scored now. If it is adhering to the original rule then the rule gives the advanatage  to the defenders. This encourages cynical fouling. The number of players on the line needs to be reduced by at least one with this new rule.

[Asal Mor]

Fewer penalties will be scored now. If it is adhering to the original rule then the rule gives the advanatage  to the defenders. This encourages cynical fouling. The number of players on the line needs to be reduced by at least one with this new rule.

This is a good point. Defenders will be much quicker to pull down attackers who are heading for goal. This new rule will reduce the percentage of attempts on goal from 20 yard frees and that cuts down on the excitement of the game. The Nash style was dangerous(though very skillful and exciting) but I don't think they needed to go this far to stop it.

I don't understand why they couldn't just put a limit on it. Say, if the free-taker could gain a max of 3 or 4 yards with the lift. That would have put things back to the way they were pre-Nash.

[Lecale2]

'Nash Free' dead after rule clarification
10 June 2014

The days of Anthony Nash gaining seven yards with his penalty and 20m free taking style look to be over after a recommendation from the GAA's Management Committee.

Central council will review the proposal and are expected to pass it, meaning the rule change will be in place from this weekend.

From now a player taking a penalty or 20m free can take a 7m run up but must not strike the sliotar inside the 20m line. A goalkeeper cannot leave his line until the ball is struck rather than lifted.

The GAA statement in full:

The Management Committee of the GAA has asked Central Council to consider and adjudicate on the following recommendations for Interpretations of Rule in relation to the Playing Rules of Hurling 2.2 Exceptions (i) and (ii), 2.3, 2.5 and 4.16(b)

* The terms "taken" or "retaken" in Rules 2.2 Exceptions (i) and (ii) and 2.3 shall mean the ball being "struck".

* A player taking a penalty or a 20m free puck, may bring the ball back up to seven metres from the 20m line for the purposes of making a traditional run at the ball, but shall strike the ball on or outside the 20m line but not inside it.
Exception: In the context of Rule 2.5, if a player taking a penalty or free puck on the actual 20m line fails to lift the ball at the first attempt or fails to strike it with the hurley, and that action causes the ball to marginally cross inside the 20m line, the player, as provided for in this Rule, shall be allowed to strike the ball on the ground without delay.

* (a) The players defending a penalty or free puck awarded on the centre point of the 20m line shall stand on their goal-line and may not move towards the 20m line until the ball has been actually struck. 'Lifting' the ball with the hurley does not constitute 'striking the ball'.

(b) The players defending a free puck awarded on the 20m line at a point other than on the centre point of that line shall stand a minimum of 20m from the point of award of the free and may not move closer to that point of award until the ball has been actually struck. 'Lifting' the ball with the hurley does not constitute 'striking the ball'

* This Interpretation shall, in accordance with Rule 3.43, Official Guide Part 1, have the force of Rule until Congress 2015, when the issues will be further addressed by way of Motion(s).

[Zulu]

Fewer penalties will be scored now. If it is adhering to the original rule then the rule gives the advanatage  to the defenders. This encourages cynical fouling. The number of players on the line needs to be reduced by at least one with this new rule.

This is a good point. Defenders will be much quicker to pull down attackers who are heading for goal. This new rule will reduce the percentage of attempts on goal from 20 yard frees and that cuts down on the excitement of the game. The Nash style was dangerous(though very skillful and exciting) but I don't think they needed to go this far to stop it.

I don't understand why they couldn't just put a limit on it. Say, if the free-taker could gain a max of 3 or 4 yards with the lift. That would have put things back to the way they were pre-Nash.

The ball is now far lighter so the potential to score a 21 yard free was much greater than it was 20 years ago. I don't think a 21 yard free was ever meant to be a very good goal scoring chance. Why should you be allowed to take a 21 yard free from anywhere other than 21 yards? No other sport in the world allows free takers the latitude to take frees closer than where they're awarded nor would anyone justify claims that they should be by saying it gives them a better chance to score!

[johnneycool]

Should just take it out of the hand too ffs.

What I don't get is that nothing was done about this all winter as Cork were accused of blocking and resisting any move on the current ruling (which doesn't make sense), then after one keeper rushing Nash which the referee allowed Central Council can all of a sudden re-write the rule book??

How does that make sense?

[AZOffaly]

It doesn't, but I suppose the rush out opens you up to even more injury and the GAA were scared of that. I don't see the problem with this to  be honest. What Nash was doing was technically fine according to the rules, but was an obvious danger to the lads on the line. The rushing out was a natural progression, and I think they've found a decent compromise. Nash can still take a 7 metre run up if he likes, but the shot will at least have to travel 20 metres instead of 12 or 13.

[johnneycool]

It doesn't, but I suppose the rush out opens you up to even more injury and the GAA were scared of that. I don't see the problem with this to  be honest. What Nash was doing was technically fine according to the rules, but was an obvious danger to the lads on the line. The rushing out was a natural progression, and I think they've found a decent compromise. Nash can still take a 7 metre run up if he likes, but the shot will at least have to travel 20 metres instead of 12 or 13.

The end result IMO is also the best of a bad lot, but who in Croke park seen fit to change the 'interpretation' of the rules from last years, players must remain on the line until the ball is struck to yip the ball is live once its jabbed to yesterdays new ruling that the ball must be struck on the 20 Metre line??

Who are these people changing rules willy nilly?

[AZOffaly]

I don't think it's a 'rule' change per se. I think it's an interpretation change. You see this a lot in soccer and rugby as well. The rule is probably still written exactly as it was, but they are asking referees to enforce this consistent interpretation. It's not an ideal solution, but I think it's going to help avoid some dangerous situations up and down the country, and it does still allow the big lift and run up too.

[Canalman]

Flip side I see now is way more penalties now being saved. One extreme to the other.

Personally would prefer only the goalie on the line and the strike as it is now being proposed. Bit of drama with the odds rightly favouring the guy taking the penalty but still giving the goalie a chance.

Sliotar still far too light which is a big bugbear of mine.

[johnneycool]

I don't think it's a 'rule' change per se. I think it's an interpretation change. You see this a lot in soccer and rugby as well. The rule is probably still written exactly as it was, but they are asking referees to enforce this consistent interpretation. It's not an ideal solution, but I think it's going to help avoid some dangerous situations up and down the country, and it does still allow the big lift and run up too.

Oh, its a rule change alright. Up until yesterday free takers were allowed to jab the ball forward inside the 20 metre line, now they can't. That to my mind is a rule change.

[AZOffaly]

I don't think the wording of the rule has changed. Pedantic I know.

[johnneycool]

I don't think the wording of the rule has changed. Pedantic I know.

Not yet. That rubber stamping will take place next April.