Gaelic Football - Rules & Regulations discussion/clarification

[David McKeown]

Personally I let it continue a 'good' 5 seconds in those critical areas (goal scoring ops) and other than him committing an aggressive foul himself or literally taking the piss in steps I'll bring back for the original

2 games in a row now (football) lads and management are still unsure of the rules for even the basics that have been about for years.

As David has said many times, its not a black and white set of rules, it is in most parts down to the ref's interpretation of the rules which largely pisses people off, but that's the way it is currently until a review is done to tidy it up

Before the advantage rule we used to have the 'slow' whistle which allowed us to give a player a chance to 'break' free of a challenge and possibly set up play, or score.  Sort of stuck on both now lol!

There was one last night in the Cork v Limerick match that made me wonder. Cork attacking near the end chasing a goal. Advantage given inside the 21. Player breaks free, and gets a shot away off target. Goes over the bar but he was clearly shooting for goal. Should that come back? I mean I know he scored but Cork needed a goal and got one from a free in the same position against Clare the last day out. I genuinely don't know what should happen in that scenario. Would the attacker have been better deliberately missing?

Remembered it, never thought that any of the players or management wanted that retaken. But it's a good point because had he missed it would have undoubtedly been brought back for a 21 yard free.

The introduction of the advantage rule was to reduce the amount of fouls happening in the game, creating less breaks better fluency.

When done well it's better for the game, think it works better in hurling.

To be fair I think (as proved in hindsight) there was still enough time left. Had it been three or four minutes later there might have been more call to get the free

[Armagh18]

That's a good point.
It also reinforces my belief that the rule is wrong in that if you get an opportunity to shoot from a more advantageous position then you should not get a free regardless of the outcome.
It should be one or the other.

depends if you're shooting off balance i think

[Milltown Row2]

Hi men! I am Giovanni from Italy, I come from Rome. I am an amateur soccer player and now I discover this new sport, i.e. Gaelic Football.
I have already read all the rules but I still have doubts.
Ok, let's get started.

1. When the player is in possession of the ball, the ball is held in his hands, he could:
  A. throw the ball in the air and catch it again with your hands? I think not, right?
  B. throw the ball in the air, hit it with any part of the body except arms and hands and then catch it in the hands? I don't think so, am I right?
  C. throw the ball and hit it with any part of the body, maybe like someone throws the ball in the air and then hits it with his head, legal?
  D. Bringing the ball with the hands at head height and then, without either throwing or releasing it, hitting the ball with the head or any part of the body except the hands, legal?

2. Rule: 1.5 When the ball has not been caught, it may be bounced more than once in succession.. So a player could control the ball with one hand (or two?) and play it basketball style as far as he wants? It would be much easier than soloing so how come we don't see it? The reason I expect is that 'caught' does not infer with both hands?

3. When a player tries to catch a ball in the air he may touch the ball several times with his hands as long as he has control of it. But could he continue to bounce the ball from his hand into the air as Hurling players do with stick and ball?
Rule: To play the ball up with the hand(s) and catch it again before it touches the ground, another player, or goal-posts
But, according to the rule, a player, once he touches the ball once in the air, cannot touch it a second or third time?
I believe as long as he can't control the ball the player could do it, but if we interpret the rule literally this wouldn't be legal, would it?

4. Situation: a player takes possession and hops the ball.

 A. After the hop he flicks it up in the air and catches it before it bounces the ground, a posts or a player.
 B. he flicks it to pass the ball to someone else.
 C. he flicks it to score a goal.
are A, B, C legals?

5. Situation: a player with the foot or with other parts of body but the hands tries a "Sombrero trick" and:
 A. in the air he strikes the ball to an other direction.
 B. in the air he strikes the ball and then he caught it.
 C. in the air he caught it and goes on.

6. Ladies Gaelic football allows this:
Rule: A player may toss up the ball with one hand and play it off with the same hand.
So a player toss up the ball with right hand, surpass a player and then he can catch it with right hand, legal?
What does mean this Rule: Showing the Ball or Turning Twice with the ball is NOT a foul providing it is done within the 4 step rule.
I mean what are the showing the ball or turning twice.

Thanks

I'll leave these to the resident ref but you have given PTSD with point 2. The way that rule is to be interpreted after the Clifford or Ganey (can't remember which) goal makes no sense. For a ball to be considered bounced it has to leave the hands, hit the ground and return immediately into the hand. As a result the the rule basically says you can continue to bounce the ball provided you never bounce the ball.

I'll go through some of these later, but the bounce rule has been in place forever, you could if your opponents let you literally bounce it up the pitch.

But to say it's easier than soloing it is bananas, the ball is more exposed and easier tackled if bouncing it up the pitch, one of the main reasons as to why you don't see it done on purpose

Not sure why anyone would think showing the ball (providing the ball isn't shifted from one hand to the other) or turning twice within the time it takes 4 steps is or should be a foul, theoretically I can turn 20 times (if I was a ballerina) in the time it takes to take four steps.

[Milltown Row2]

That's a good point.
It also reinforces my belief that the rule is wrong in that if you get an opportunity to shoot from a more advantageous position then you should not get a free regardless of the outcome.
It should be one or the other.

depends if you're shooting off balance i think

There's no advantage if he misses within the 5 seconds. So if he misses then within the 5 seconds, bring it back for the free, because in olden times the ref gives the free and they score from it. I'm not sure of the logic he had a chance but missed, tough?

[Duine Inteacht Eile]

The logic is that you don't get 2 attempts at a shot for a foul. You get 1.

That can be a free or let the play continue if the opportunity is deemed by the ref to be better than the original free.

A free is not a guaranteed score. If you don't take advantage of it then tough. The same should apply to shots that are deemed to be "better than the free".

There is an advantage if he misses in the 5 seconds. He just didn't take it.

[David McKeown]

I think it comes down to what is the advantage to be assessed against. Apologies if this doesn't make sense but it's a little difficult for me to explain.

Is the advantage to be compared to the free I.E are the team within 5 seconds better off than they would be if they had the free. If it's that then missing the shot for a point or not having a shot/clear advantage should result in the free. As should fouling the ball.

If the advantage is to be compared to the situation he was in then simply getting away is probably an advantage and any shot definitely is.   

I think it should be somewhere between the two. I really don't like the idea of two shots at goal etc. At the same time I think the advantage has to be meaningful. I think we are trying to achieve some kind of cross between the rugby approach to advantage and the soccer approach. For me I think we should be far closer to the soccer approach.

On an aside I remember a ref in a club game a good few years ago now take a unique approach to the advantage rule. He played advantage on every foul if either team got an advantage. He shouted advantage and when challenged told the players I have to play on because one of the teams now has an advantage. It was bizarre.

[Duine Inteacht Eile]

I'm not sure I'm in agreement with how the 5 seconds thing actually works at the minute.
I think it should be the period of time the ref uses to see if an advantage presents itself. If it does then it's play on. Regardless of whether it is squandered or not.

Using your example there, I wouldn't be looking to see if a team are better off after 5 seconds but indeed if they were better off at any time during the 5 seconds.

[Milltown Row2]

The logic is that you don't get 2 attempts at a shot for a foul. You get 1.

That can be a free or let the play continue if the opportunity is deemed by the ref to be better than the original free.

A free is not a guaranteed score. If you don't take advantage of it then tough. The same should apply to shots that are deemed to be "better than the free".

There is an advantage if he misses in the 5 seconds. He just didn't take it.

And that's your opinion and grand. But that's not how it's done or intended.

A free is not guaranteed but it's a better advantage than a missed shot.

[Duine Inteacht Eile]

A missed free isn't. And that's the point, you shouldn't be looking at the outcome.
The penalty for committing a foul near your own goal is that the opposition is presented with a scoring opportunity (a free). They are not given a score, just the opportunity to get one. The onus is entirely on them to capitalise on that. If they miss it, tough luck.
The advantage rule should allow them to make use of a better opportunity if it presents itself but again, the onus should be entirely on them to capitalise on it and if they miss it, tough luck.

For me, the main reason for the advantage rule is so that the awarding of a free kick is not a punishment to the fouled team.

And of course it's my opinion.

[Milltown Row2]

A missed free isn't. And that's the point, you shouldn't be looking at the outcome.
The penalty for committing a foul near your own goal is that the opposition is presented with a scoring opportunity (a free). They are not given a score, just the opportunity to get one. The onus is entirely on them to capitalise on that. If they miss it, tough luck.
The advantage rule should allow them to make use of a better opportunity if it presents itself but again, the onus should be entirely on them to capitalise on it and if they miss it, tough luck.

For me, the main reason for the advantage rule is so that the awarding of a free kick is not a punishment to the fouled team.

And of course it's my opinion.

From a personal perspective from playing as a defender for most of my playing days I'd have same opinion.

That said when I started to play up front I'd be looking my advantage, in essence my cake and eat it attitude.

But the rules are the rules.. lots of them need looked at tweaked to help..

I'd love a rule that would wipe out slabbering, but hey can't fix that side of things

[Duine Inteacht Eile]

I think the black card is under utilised in regards to that.

[Armagh18]

One today there- we had a kickout, Oisin O'Neill won it and was fouled and from the free he played the ball back to the goalkeeper. Is that allowed or should it have been blown up as no one else had touched the ball?

[Nanderson]

One today there- we had a kickout, Oisin O'Neill won it and was fouled and from the free he played the ball back to the goalkeeper. Is that allowed or should it have been blown up as no one else had touched the ball?

Perfectly legal. Free kick is a new phase of play

[johnnycool]

MR2, was coaching the U10's the other night and one of them just pulled the sliotar out of another's hand during the game at the end .  I called a free and the wee bollox questioned me, but now I'm not sure if I was right. 

Was he right?

[Duine Inteacht Eile]

Pretty sure you were right.