Author Topic: Gaelic Football - Rules & Regulations discussion/clarification  (Read 55895 times)

twohands!!!

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2455
    • View Profile
Re: Gaelic Football - Rules & Regulations discussion/clarification
« Reply #405 on: February 13, 2020, 06:28:27 PM »
Heard David Gough explaining this. The new watches the refs have cater for this and it's all done correctly to the rules. Trouble here is lack of understanding of the rules and possibly the GAA doing a poor job of communicating the actual situation.

Quelle Surprise.

Quote
GAA insist time keeping is not a major issue in games
No plans for review despite accusations of inconsistency by Meath boss
Tue, Feb 11, 2020, 01:00
Seán Moran
 
The GAA have no plans to review time keeping procedures after criticism from Meath manager Andy McEntee of the lack of added time played in his team’s narrow defeat by Mayo in Navan.

Feargal McGill, the GAA’s Head of Games Administration, said that he was happy with the standard of time keeping, which was overhauled a few years ago in order to address time wasting. As a result, matches frequently run up to the 76th and 77th minutes.

“I have to say that I think there’s a high standard of consistency at the moment from our officials in how they apply the rules on time. We have minimum allowances for substitutions and regulations that were introduced at the start of 2016 to ensure that adequate additional time was being played.

“I don’t think you have the situation where people are walking away from matches every week complaining about the amount of time being played or not played.

“There have been high-profile incidents recently of referees playing way over the announced time – the Kilcoo game [All-Ireland club football final against Corofin] and the Dublin game [last Saturday] and if you look at both of those games you’d see that the referee got it right.”

McEntee’s unhappiness was made clear to print, digital and broadcast media after the match when he contrasted how his team had been granted no additional time beyond the announced four minutes with Dublin’s experience on Saturday night. Both he and his players seemed to anticipate a further opportunity to equalise after Thomas Reilly had cut the deficit to a point.

“I can’t believe – the amount of breaks that were there in those four minutes of extra-time and we don’t play two seconds of extra-time? Dublin got two minutes last night [Saturday] to get an equalising score. There’s a level of inconsistency all over the place. And they want referees to get respect. They’ve got to show a little bit too.

“It’s one rule for the Dublin’s and the bigger names in this world and it’s a different rule for everybody else.”

He referred to an incident in which Mayo replacement Bryan Walsh had been down injured during additional time.

“He’s supposed to play on . . .” he said of Tyrone referee Seán Hurson. “I mean if that guy is lying down on the ground for 30 seconds holding his head – 30 seconds, you get two scores in 30 seconds”

The Meath manager had grounds for grievance in that instance. Four minutes were announced as injury-time but whereas the injury stopped play for 35 seconds, the clock stopped at four minutes 10 seconds after O’Reilly’s score.

Down referee Ciarán Branagan added three minutes to the announced six at Croke Park on Saturday, enabling Dublin to close a six-point deficit by the 79th minute. Most observers accept that the match had been held up for that amount of time, as the referee administered some cards, injuries were treated and replacements took to the field.

McGill contends however that referees are far more aware of the need to address deliberate time wasting.

“When the board goes up for five minutes’ additional time and teams are trying to run down the clock and as a reaction to that, referees are now way more conscious of the fact that there needs to be at least five minutes of injury-time. People at matches know the phrase, ‘there’ll be at least five minutes additional time’.”

Seven years ago, a motion to congress was successful in introducing the countdown clock familiar from women’s football. But after trialling the idea in third-level college’s fixtures, the GAA decided not to proceed after identifying what were seen as shortcomings in the system.

As a result, the 2013 amendment was deleted at a subsequent Congress.

The misgivings about the time-keeping system that has proved successful in the women’s game were based on reputational damage to the association, according to the report presented to Central Council:

“As part of the two trials of the clock/hooter system conducted, a number of concerns were raised by those who witnessed the trials in action with regard to the impact the introduction of the clock and hooter might have on the playing of our games.

“These included operating officials, referees, players, mentors and spectators. These concerns – along with the suggested protocol for implementation – were also presented to Central Council delegates. In the main, the concerns centred on potential damage to the reputation of association:

These included human error or failure to operate it properly, system failure, prevalence of ‘fouling down’ the clock, the playing of ‘keep ball’ when the clock was in view and deliberate concession of possession in order to make the ball go dead.”


There are no plans to revisit the idea.

Article from the Irish Times a few days back.

Regarding the first bit in bold I don't think I've been at any tight game in the last few years at every level where timekeeping wasn't raised as an issue afterwards.
It's a consistent theme be in club, school or intercounty where the score is tight.

The second bit in bold shows the flimsiness of the case against a hooter system given all the arguements listed here against it already occur.
I argue that more reputational damage is being done by continuing on with the current system.
It's as certain as rain is wet there will be countless more tight games where the ref's timekeeping comes up as an issue until eventually a hooter system is adopted.

The key argument in favour of a hooter system is the blatant evidence of the women's game where the hooter system works so well in literally thousands of games.

I'd love to hear those who have adopted the "yerra things are grand" approach like Feargal here make the case as to why things would not be better with a hooter system like the women's game.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2020, 06:30:11 PM by twohands!!! »

Main Street

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12430
    • View Profile
Re: Gaelic Football - Rules & Regulations discussion/clarification
« Reply #406 on: February 13, 2020, 07:33:43 PM »
Heard David Gough explaining this. The new watches the refs have cater for this and it's all done correctly to the rules. Trouble here is lack of understanding of the rules and possibly the GAA doing a poor job of communicating the actual situation.
Perhaps David needs to communicate better to Brannigan that the time a ref spends running after players, explaining the nature of the offence in great detail, finally booking players and the time players use to take a free kick is not time to be added on,  especially when Dublin are in dire straits.

Dubhaltach

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 88
    • View Profile
Re: Gaelic Football - Rules & Regulations discussion/clarification
« Reply #407 on: February 13, 2020, 10:44:32 PM »
Heard David Gough explaining this. The new watches the refs have cater for this and it's all done correctly to the rules. Trouble here is lack of understanding of the rules and possibly the GAA doing a poor job of communicating the actual situation.

Quelle Surprise.

Quote
GAA insist time keeping is not a major issue in games
No plans for review despite accusations of inconsistency by Meath boss
Tue, Feb 11, 2020, 01:00
Seán Moran
 
The GAA have no plans to review time keeping procedures after criticism from Meath manager Andy McEntee of the lack of added time played in his team’s narrow defeat by Mayo in Navan.

Feargal McGill, the GAA’s Head of Games Administration, said that he was happy with the standard of time keeping, which was overhauled a few years ago in order to address time wasting. As a result, matches frequently run up to the 76th and 77th minutes.

“I have to say that I think there’s a high standard of consistency at the moment from our officials in how they apply the rules on time. We have minimum allowances for substitutions and regulations that were introduced at the start of 2016 to ensure that adequate additional time was being played.

“I don’t think you have the situation where people are walking away from matches every week complaining about the amount of time being played or not played.

“There have been high-profile incidents recently of referees playing way over the announced time – the Kilcoo game [All-Ireland club football final against Corofin] and the Dublin game [last Saturday] and if you look at both of those games you’d see that the referee got it right.”

McEntee’s unhappiness was made clear to print, digital and broadcast media after the match when he contrasted how his team had been granted no additional time beyond the announced four minutes with Dublin’s experience on Saturday night. Both he and his players seemed to anticipate a further opportunity to equalise after Thomas Reilly had cut the deficit to a point.

“I can’t believe – the amount of breaks that were there in those four minutes of extra-time and we don’t play two seconds of extra-time? Dublin got two minutes last night [Saturday] to get an equalising score. There’s a level of inconsistency all over the place. And they want referees to get respect. They’ve got to show a little bit too.

“It’s one rule for the Dublin’s and the bigger names in this world and it’s a different rule for everybody else.”

He referred to an incident in which Mayo replacement Bryan Walsh had been down injured during additional time.

“He’s supposed to play on . . .” he said of Tyrone referee Seán Hurson. “I mean if that guy is lying down on the ground for 30 seconds holding his head – 30 seconds, you get two scores in 30 seconds”

The Meath manager had grounds for grievance in that instance. Four minutes were announced as injury-time but whereas the injury stopped play for 35 seconds, the clock stopped at four minutes 10 seconds after O’Reilly’s score.

Down referee Ciarán Branagan added three minutes to the announced six at Croke Park on Saturday, enabling Dublin to close a six-point deficit by the 79th minute. Most observers accept that the match had been held up for that amount of time, as the referee administered some cards, injuries were treated and replacements took to the field.

McGill contends however that referees are far more aware of the need to address deliberate time wasting.

“When the board goes up for five minutes’ additional time and teams are trying to run down the clock and as a reaction to that, referees are now way more conscious of the fact that there needs to be at least five minutes of injury-time. People at matches know the phrase, ‘there’ll be at least five minutes additional time’.”

Seven years ago, a motion to congress was successful in introducing the countdown clock familiar from women’s football. But after trialling the idea in third-level college’s fixtures, the GAA decided not to proceed after identifying what were seen as shortcomings in the system.

As a result, the 2013 amendment was deleted at a subsequent Congress.

The misgivings about the time-keeping system that has proved successful in the women’s game were based on reputational damage to the association, according to the report presented to Central Council:

“As part of the two trials of the clock/hooter system conducted, a number of concerns were raised by those who witnessed the trials in action with regard to the impact the introduction of the clock and hooter might have on the playing of our games.

“These included operating officials, referees, players, mentors and spectators. These concerns – along with the suggested protocol for implementation – were also presented to Central Council delegates. In the main, the concerns centred on potential damage to the reputation of association:

These included human error or failure to operate it properly, system failure, prevalence of ‘fouling down’ the clock, the playing of ‘keep ball’ when the clock was in view and deliberate concession of possession in order to make the ball go dead.”


There are no plans to revisit the idea.

Article from the Irish Times a few days back.

Regarding the first bit in bold I don't think I've been at any tight game in the last few years at every level where timekeeping wasn't raised as an issue afterwards.
It's a consistent theme be in club, school or intercounty where the score is tight.


The second bit in bold shows the flimsiness of the case against a hooter system given all the arguements listed here against it already occur.
I argue that more reputational damage is being done by continuing on with the current system.
It's as certain as rain is wet there will be countless more tight games where the ref's timekeeping comes up as an issue until eventually a hooter system is adopted.

The key argument in favour of a hooter system is the blatant evidence of the women's game where the hooter system works so well in literally thousands of games.

I'd love to hear those who have adopted the "yerra things are grand" approach like Feargal here make the case as to why things would not be better with a hooter system like the women's game.

Well said.

This just further highlights the absolute disconnect between the top brass of the GAA and the grassroots. I mean is this fella watching games at all? It's an issue that crops up on most weekends!

Here's another quote from Feargal McGill '“The game (Kildare v Mayo) has been fixed for 7pm in Croke Park, and that is not going to change under any circumstances”. A common theme is digging the heels in despite all of the evidence telling you that you're wrong. Like the Newbridge episode, they'll eventually buckle on the stopclock but only after pressure is put on. Always reactive and never proactive.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2020, 10:54:53 PM by Dubhaltach »

Milltown Row2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22196
  • It was the Ref that did it!!
    • View Profile
Re: Gaelic Football - Rules & Regulations discussion/clarification
« Reply #408 on: February 13, 2020, 10:55:32 PM »
Heard David Gough explaining this. The new watches the refs have cater for this and it's all done correctly to the rules. Trouble here is lack of understanding of the rules and possibly the GAA doing a poor job of communicating the actual situation.

Quelle Surprise.

Quote
GAA insist time keeping is not a major issue in games
No plans for review despite accusations of inconsistency by Meath boss
Tue, Feb 11, 2020, 01:00
Seán Moran
 
The GAA have no plans to review time keeping procedures after criticism from Meath manager Andy McEntee of the lack of added time played in his team’s narrow defeat by Mayo in Navan.

Feargal McGill, the GAA’s Head of Games Administration, said that he was happy with the standard of time keeping, which was overhauled a few years ago in order to address time wasting. As a result, matches frequently run up to the 76th and 77th minutes.

“I have to say that I think there’s a high standard of consistency at the moment from our officials in how they apply the rules on time. We have minimum allowances for substitutions and regulations that were introduced at the start of 2016 to ensure that adequate additional time was being played.

“I don’t think you have the situation where people are walking away from matches every week complaining about the amount of time being played or not played.

“There have been high-profile incidents recently of referees playing way over the announced time – the Kilcoo game [All-Ireland club football final against Corofin] and the Dublin game [last Saturday] and if you look at both of those games you’d see that the referee got it right.”

McEntee’s unhappiness was made clear to print, digital and broadcast media after the match when he contrasted how his team had been granted no additional time beyond the announced four minutes with Dublin’s experience on Saturday night. Both he and his players seemed to anticipate a further opportunity to equalise after Thomas Reilly had cut the deficit to a point.

“I can’t believe – the amount of breaks that were there in those four minutes of extra-time and we don’t play two seconds of extra-time? Dublin got two minutes last night [Saturday] to get an equalising score. There’s a level of inconsistency all over the place. And they want referees to get respect. They’ve got to show a little bit too.

“It’s one rule for the Dublin’s and the bigger names in this world and it’s a different rule for everybody else.”

He referred to an incident in which Mayo replacement Bryan Walsh had been down injured during additional time.

“He’s supposed to play on . . .” he said of Tyrone referee Seán Hurson. “I mean if that guy is lying down on the ground for 30 seconds holding his head – 30 seconds, you get two scores in 30 seconds”

The Meath manager had grounds for grievance in that instance. Four minutes were announced as injury-time but whereas the injury stopped play for 35 seconds, the clock stopped at four minutes 10 seconds after O’Reilly’s score.

Down referee Ciarán Branagan added three minutes to the announced six at Croke Park on Saturday, enabling Dublin to close a six-point deficit by the 79th minute. Most observers accept that the match had been held up for that amount of time, as the referee administered some cards, injuries were treated and replacements took to the field.

McGill contends however that referees are far more aware of the need to address deliberate time wasting.

“When the board goes up for five minutes’ additional time and teams are trying to run down the clock and as a reaction to that, referees are now way more conscious of the fact that there needs to be at least five minutes of injury-time. People at matches know the phrase, ‘there’ll be at least five minutes additional time’.”

Seven years ago, a motion to congress was successful in introducing the countdown clock familiar from women’s football. But after trialling the idea in third-level college’s fixtures, the GAA decided not to proceed after identifying what were seen as shortcomings in the system.

As a result, the 2013 amendment was deleted at a subsequent Congress.

The misgivings about the time-keeping system that has proved successful in the women’s game were based on reputational damage to the association, according to the report presented to Central Council:

“As part of the two trials of the clock/hooter system conducted, a number of concerns were raised by those who witnessed the trials in action with regard to the impact the introduction of the clock and hooter might have on the playing of our games.

“These included operating officials, referees, players, mentors and spectators. These concerns – along with the suggested protocol for implementation – were also presented to Central Council delegates. In the main, the concerns centred on potential damage to the reputation of association:

These included human error or failure to operate it properly, system failure, prevalence of ‘fouling down’ the clock, the playing of ‘keep ball’ when the clock was in view and deliberate concession of possession in order to make the ball go dead.”


There are no plans to revisit the idea.

Article from the Irish Times a few days back.

Regarding the first bit in bold I don't think I've been at any tight game in the last few years at every level where timekeeping wasn't raised as an issue afterwards.
It's a consistent theme be in club, school or intercounty where the score is tight.


The second bit in bold shows the flimsiness of the case against a hooter system given all the arguements listed here against it already occur.
I argue that more reputational damage is being done by continuing on with the current system.
It's as certain as rain is wet there will be countless more tight games where the ref's timekeeping comes up as an issue until eventually a hooter system is adopted.

The key argument in favour of a hooter system is the blatant evidence of the women's game where the hooter system works so well in literally thousands of games.

I'd love to hear those who have adopted the "yerra things are grand" approach like Feargal here make the case as to why things would not be better with a hooter system like the women's game.

Well said.

This just further highlights the absolute disconnect between the top brass of the GAA and the grassroots. I mean is this fella watching games at all? It's an issue that crops up on most weekends!

I walk away from a match with few thoughts, we could have played better, we were brilliant, can’t remember last time I walked away from a game as a supporter going, flip sake, we should have had 2 more minutes there at the end!
Anything I post is not the view of the County Board!! Nobody died in the making of this post ;-)

Dubhaltach

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 88
    • View Profile
Re: Gaelic Football - Rules & Regulations discussion/clarification
« Reply #409 on: February 13, 2020, 11:01:46 PM »
Heard David Gough explaining this. The new watches the refs have cater for this and it's all done correctly to the rules. Trouble here is lack of understanding of the rules and possibly the GAA doing a poor job of communicating the actual situation.

Quelle Surprise.

Quote
GAA insist time keeping is not a major issue in games
No plans for review despite accusations of inconsistency by Meath boss
Tue, Feb 11, 2020, 01:00
Seán Moran
 
The GAA have no plans to review time keeping procedures after criticism from Meath manager Andy McEntee of the lack of added time played in his team’s narrow defeat by Mayo in Navan.

Feargal McGill, the GAA’s Head of Games Administration, said that he was happy with the standard of time keeping, which was overhauled a few years ago in order to address time wasting. As a result, matches frequently run up to the 76th and 77th minutes.

“I have to say that I think there’s a high standard of consistency at the moment from our officials in how they apply the rules on time. We have minimum allowances for substitutions and regulations that were introduced at the start of 2016 to ensure that adequate additional time was being played.

“I don’t think you have the situation where people are walking away from matches every week complaining about the amount of time being played or not played.

“There have been high-profile incidents recently of referees playing way over the announced time – the Kilcoo game [All-Ireland club football final against Corofin] and the Dublin game [last Saturday] and if you look at both of those games you’d see that the referee got it right.”

McEntee’s unhappiness was made clear to print, digital and broadcast media after the match when he contrasted how his team had been granted no additional time beyond the announced four minutes with Dublin’s experience on Saturday night. Both he and his players seemed to anticipate a further opportunity to equalise after Thomas Reilly had cut the deficit to a point.

“I can’t believe – the amount of breaks that were there in those four minutes of extra-time and we don’t play two seconds of extra-time? Dublin got two minutes last night [Saturday] to get an equalising score. There’s a level of inconsistency all over the place. And they want referees to get respect. They’ve got to show a little bit too.

“It’s one rule for the Dublin’s and the bigger names in this world and it’s a different rule for everybody else.”

He referred to an incident in which Mayo replacement Bryan Walsh had been down injured during additional time.

“He’s supposed to play on . . .” he said of Tyrone referee Seán Hurson. “I mean if that guy is lying down on the ground for 30 seconds holding his head – 30 seconds, you get two scores in 30 seconds”

The Meath manager had grounds for grievance in that instance. Four minutes were announced as injury-time but whereas the injury stopped play for 35 seconds, the clock stopped at four minutes 10 seconds after O’Reilly’s score.

Down referee Ciarán Branagan added three minutes to the announced six at Croke Park on Saturday, enabling Dublin to close a six-point deficit by the 79th minute. Most observers accept that the match had been held up for that amount of time, as the referee administered some cards, injuries were treated and replacements took to the field.

McGill contends however that referees are far more aware of the need to address deliberate time wasting.

“When the board goes up for five minutes’ additional time and teams are trying to run down the clock and as a reaction to that, referees are now way more conscious of the fact that there needs to be at least five minutes of injury-time. People at matches know the phrase, ‘there’ll be at least five minutes additional time’.”

Seven years ago, a motion to congress was successful in introducing the countdown clock familiar from women’s football. But after trialling the idea in third-level college’s fixtures, the GAA decided not to proceed after identifying what were seen as shortcomings in the system.

As a result, the 2013 amendment was deleted at a subsequent Congress.

The misgivings about the time-keeping system that has proved successful in the women’s game were based on reputational damage to the association, according to the report presented to Central Council:

“As part of the two trials of the clock/hooter system conducted, a number of concerns were raised by those who witnessed the trials in action with regard to the impact the introduction of the clock and hooter might have on the playing of our games.

“These included operating officials, referees, players, mentors and spectators. These concerns – along with the suggested protocol for implementation – were also presented to Central Council delegates. In the main, the concerns centred on potential damage to the reputation of association:

These included human error or failure to operate it properly, system failure, prevalence of ‘fouling down’ the clock, the playing of ‘keep ball’ when the clock was in view and deliberate concession of possession in order to make the ball go dead.”


There are no plans to revisit the idea.

Article from the Irish Times a few days back.

Regarding the first bit in bold I don't think I've been at any tight game in the last few years at every level where timekeeping wasn't raised as an issue afterwards.
It's a consistent theme be in club, school or intercounty where the score is tight.


The second bit in bold shows the flimsiness of the case against a hooter system given all the arguements listed here against it already occur.
I argue that more reputational damage is being done by continuing on with the current system.
It's as certain as rain is wet there will be countless more tight games where the ref's timekeeping comes up as an issue until eventually a hooter system is adopted.

The key argument in favour of a hooter system is the blatant evidence of the women's game where the hooter system works so well in literally thousands of games.

I'd love to hear those who have adopted the "yerra things are grand" approach like Feargal here make the case as to why things would not be better with a hooter system like the women's game.

Well said.

This just further highlights the absolute disconnect between the top brass of the GAA and the grassroots. I mean is this fella watching games at all? It's an issue that crops up on most weekends!

I walk away from a match with few thoughts, we could have played better, we were brilliant, can’t remember last time I walked away from a game as a supporter going, flip sake, we should have had 2 more minutes there at the end!
The thoughts you refer to are not mutually exclusive.

PadraicHenryPearse

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 566
    • View Profile
Re: Gaelic Football - Rules & Regulations discussion/clarification
« Reply #410 on: February 19, 2020, 07:13:32 PM »
i made this comment on the dublin monaghan thread but with the added time etc. at the end took over discussion.

i believe there was a sub made after monaghan won a mark in 2nd half (mcmanus i think). is this correct can you make a sub after a mark?

Main Street

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12430
    • View Profile
Re: Gaelic Football - Rules & Regulations discussion/clarification
« Reply #411 on: February 19, 2020, 07:47:01 PM »
i made this comment on the dublin monaghan thread but with the added time etc. at the end took over discussion.

i believe there was a sub made after monaghan won a mark in 2nd half (mcmanus i think). is this correct can you make a sub after a mark?
Are you asking if a mark constitutes a break in play where a sub can be made?

PadraicHenryPearse

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 566
    • View Profile
Re: Gaelic Football - Rules & Regulations discussion/clarification
« Reply #412 on: February 19, 2020, 08:14:20 PM »
yes, thats my question. apologies for being unclear.

Main Street

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12430
    • View Profile
Re: Gaelic Football - Rules & Regulations discussion/clarification
« Reply #413 on: February 19, 2020, 08:48:24 PM »
I can see your point though (ie. if it is your point), if it was the case that McManus made the mark and the Monaghan momentum was halted in order to allow the crafty Dubs to make a substitution, thereby nullifying the honestly won advantage.

PadraicHenryPearse

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 566
    • View Profile
Re: Gaelic Football - Rules & Regulations discussion/clarification
« Reply #414 on: February 19, 2020, 09:09:31 PM »
I thought the mark lasts 15 seconds so the advantage could have been seen to be with mcmanus also.

if it is only 15 seconds then its not a break in play in my opinion.

Main Street

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12430
    • View Profile
Re: Gaelic Football - Rules & Regulations discussion/clarification
« Reply #415 on: February 19, 2020, 09:35:36 PM »
I thought the mark lasts 15 seconds so the advantage could have been seen to be with mcmanus also.

if it is only 15 seconds then its not a break in play in my opinion.
The mark is only a 5 seconds break if the player chooses to take the free kick.

Nanderson

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 162
    • View Profile
Re: Gaelic Football - Rules & Regulations discussion/clarification
« Reply #416 on: February 19, 2020, 10:00:45 PM »
I thought the mark lasts 15 seconds so the advantage could have been seen to be with mcmanus also.

if it is only 15 seconds then its not a break in play in my opinion.
The mark is only a 5 seconds break if the player chooses to take the free kick.
pretty sure its 15. at least thats what we have been told for the new rules this year. was 5 last year afaik

JoG2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3478
    • View Profile
Re: Gaelic Football - Rules & Regulations discussion/clarification
« Reply #417 on: February 19, 2020, 10:11:16 PM »
15 secs yes. And ref's have been instructed to give the player taking a mark a couple of steps to decide if he wishes to take the mark ie put his hand up

PadraicHenryPearse

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 566
    • View Profile
Re: Gaelic Football - Rules & Regulations discussion/clarification
« Reply #418 on: February 19, 2020, 10:19:54 PM »
is there also guidance about not signalling the mark and playing on. you cannot be tackled for 4 steps or length of time it takes to take 4 steps.

if this happens in the large rectangle would it be a penalty or 14m free?

lenny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1838
    • View Profile
Re: Gaelic Football - Rules & Regulations discussion/clarification
« Reply #419 on: February 19, 2020, 10:23:02 PM »
15 secs yes. And ref's have been instructed to give the player taking a mark a couple of steps to decide if he wishes to take the mark ie put his hand up

Forwards get 15 seconds, defenders get 5 seconds. I suppose the difference being the forward is given more time as he is kicking for a point.