Gaelic Football - Rules & Regulations discussion/clarification

[Milltown Row2]

I'm not convinced. So a player can now win a mark be tackled/fouled to the ground immediately and get the foul. So where is the real benefit of the mark. The 50m advancement now only comes in if you foul twice immediately. I think we are going to see the impact of good quality high fielding lessened from this weekend.

I think the problem, and I only seen this at county games on tv, was the ridiculously improper application of that rule..

It's got to be a deliberate impediment, there needed to be a common approach to it, example, two players competing for a kick out, one player wins it other player, makes immediate unavoidable collision, he has genuinely attempted to win the ball, for me, that's not impeding the player that won it, mark given, play on, whereas in the games I've seen, every one, it resulted in a 50 m advancement

[David McKeown]

I'm not convinced. So a player can now win a mark be tackled/fouled to the ground immediately and get the foul. So where is the real benefit of the mark. The 50m advancement now only comes in if you foul twice immediately. I think we are going to see the impact of good quality high fielding lessened from this weekend.

I think the problem, and I only seen this at county games on tv, was the ridiculously improper application of that rule..

It's got to be a deliberate impediment, there needed to be a common approach to it, example, two players competing for a kick out, one player wins it other player, makes immediate unavoidable collision, he has genuinely attempted to win the ball, for me, that's not impeding the player that won it, mark given, play on, whereas in the games I've seen, every one, it resulted in a 50 m advancement

I agree I didnt like the way the old rule was being inconsistently refereed but the point I am making now is if I was an inter county manager I would be instructing my teams, if there is a clean catch at midfield immediately make the tackle and try and knock the ball away.  Slow down their attack let us get back.  Worst case scenario you concede a free and we are probably slightly better off than if you had just backed off initially

[Armagh18]

I'm not convinced. So a player can now win a mark be tackled/fouled to the ground immediately and get the foul. So where is the real benefit of the mark. The 50m advancement now only comes in if you foul twice immediately. I think we are going to see the impact of good quality high fielding lessened from this weekend.

I think the problem, and I only seen this at county games on tv, was the ridiculously improper application of that rule..

It's got to be a deliberate impediment, there needed to be a common approach to it, example, two players competing for a kick out, one player wins it other player, makes immediate unavoidable collision, he has genuinely attempted to win the ball, for me, that's not impeding the player that won it, mark given, play on, whereas in the games I've seen, every one, it resulted in a 50 m advancement

I agree I didnt like the way the old rule was being inconsistently refereed but the point I am making now is if I was an inter county manager I would be instructing my teams, if there is a clean catch at midfield immediately make the tackle and try and knock the ball away.  Slow down their attack let us get back.  Worst case scenario you concede a free and we are probably slightly better off than if you had just backed off initially

I think its a fair trade off from what we're currently seeing, teams effectively being given 2 points for a catch.

[David McKeown]

I'm not convinced. So a player can now win a mark be tackled/fouled to the ground immediately and get the foul. So where is the real benefit of the mark. The 50m advancement now only comes in if you foul twice immediately. I think we are going to see the impact of good quality high fielding lessened from this weekend.

I think the problem, and I only seen this at county games on tv, was the ridiculously improper application of that rule..

It's got to be a deliberate impediment, there needed to be a common approach to it, example, two players competing for a kick out, one player wins it other player, makes immediate unavoidable collision, he has genuinely attempted to win the ball, for me, that's not impeding the player that won it, mark given, play on, whereas in the games I've seen, every one, it resulted in a 50 m advancement

I agree I didnt like the way the old rule was being inconsistently refereed but the point I am making now is if I was an inter county manager I would be instructing my teams, if there is a clean catch at midfield immediately make the tackle and try and knock the ball away.  Slow down their attack let us get back.  Worst case scenario you concede a free and we are probably slightly better off than if you had just backed off initially

I think its a fair trade off from what we're currently seeing, teams effectively being given 2 points for a catch.

I'm on record as being opposed to what's currently happening but the point I'm making is the rules are lauded for rewarding high fielding. I think this change takes away a lot of that reward. I'll be interested to see how it pans out. I think a half way house would have worked better.

[Smokin Joe]

I'm not convinced. So a player can now win a mark be tackled/fouled to the ground immediately and get the foul. So where is the real benefit of the mark. The 50m advancement now only comes in if you foul twice immediately. I think we are going to see the impact of good quality high fielding lessened from this weekend.

I think the problem, and I only seen this at county games on tv, was the ridiculously improper application of that rule..

It's got to be a deliberate impediment, there needed to be a common approach to it, example, two players competing for a kick out, one player wins it other player, makes immediate unavoidable collision, he has genuinely attempted to win the ball, for me, that's not impeding the player that won it, mark given, play on, whereas in the games I've seen, every one, it resulted in a 50 m advancement

I agree I didnt like the way the old rule was being inconsistently refereed but the point I am making now is if I was an inter county manager I would be instructing my teams, if there is a clean catch at midfield immediately make the tackle and try and knock the ball away.  Slow down their attack let us get back.  Worst case scenario you concede a free and we are probably slightly better off than if you had just backed off initially

I think its a fair trade off from what we're currently seeing, teams effectively being given 2 points for a catch.

I'm on record as being opposed to what's currently happening but the point I'm making is the rules are lauded for rewarding high fielding. I think this change takes away a lot of that reward. I'll be interested to see how it pans out. I think a half way house would have worked better.

This is the half way house.  The team catching the mark is still rewarded.  The worst case is they have a free kick, but they are in possession which is so important given the ease that teams score with under the new rules of just 11 back.
To hear you David, you would think it's back to the pre-mark rules where a midfielder caught the ball and was surrounded and was blown up for overcarrying.  Now that didn't reward clean catching.  The current rules still do, but at least a kickout catch now does not equal to 2 points, which was the case far too often in recent weeks.

[Armagh18]

I'm not convinced. So a player can now win a mark be tackled/fouled to the ground immediately and get the foul. So where is the real benefit of the mark. The 50m advancement now only comes in if you foul twice immediately. I think we are going to see the impact of good quality high fielding lessened from this weekend.

I think the problem, and I only seen this at county games on tv, was the ridiculously improper application of that rule..

It's got to be a deliberate impediment, there needed to be a common approach to it, example, two players competing for a kick out, one player wins it other player, makes immediate unavoidable collision, he has genuinely attempted to win the ball, for me, that's not impeding the player that won it, mark given, play on, whereas in the games I've seen, every one, it resulted in a 50 m advancement

I agree I didnt like the way the old rule was being inconsistently refereed but the point I am making now is if I was an inter county manager I would be instructing my teams, if there is a clean catch at midfield immediately make the tackle and try and knock the ball away.  Slow down their attack let us get back.  Worst case scenario you concede a free and we are probably slightly better off than if you had just backed off initially

I think its a fair trade off from what we're currently seeing, teams effectively being given 2 points for a catch.

I'm on record as being opposed to what's currently happening but the point I'm making is the rules are lauded for rewarding high fielding. I think this change takes away a lot of that reward. I'll be interested to see how it pans out. I think a half way house would have worked better.

This is the half way house.  The team catching the mark is still rewarded.  The worst case is they have a free kick, but they are in possession which is so important given the ease that teams score with under the new rules of just 11 back.
To hear you David, you would think it's back to the pre-mark rules where a midfielder caught the ball and was surrounded and was blown up for overcarrying.  Now that didn't reward clean catching.  The current rules still do, but at least a kickout catch now does not equal to 2 points, which was the case far too often in recent weeks.

Agreed. And if you're daft enough to impede the mark and then the solo and go the 50 metres is deserved.

[David McKeown]

I'm not convinced. So a player can now win a mark be tackled/fouled to the ground immediately and get the foul. So where is the real benefit of the mark. The 50m advancement now only comes in if you foul twice immediately. I think we are going to see the impact of good quality high fielding lessened from this weekend.

I think the problem, and I only seen this at county games on tv, was the ridiculously improper application of that rule..

It's got to be a deliberate impediment, there needed to be a common approach to it, example, two players competing for a kick out, one player wins it other player, makes immediate unavoidable collision, he has genuinely attempted to win the ball, for me, that's not impeding the player that won it, mark given, play on, whereas in the games I've seen, every one, it resulted in a 50 m advancement

I agree I didnt like the way the old rule was being inconsistently refereed but the point I am making now is if I was an inter county manager I would be instructing my teams, if there is a clean catch at midfield immediately make the tackle and try and knock the ball away.  Slow down their attack let us get back.  Worst case scenario you concede a free and we are probably slightly better off than if you had just backed off initially

I think its a fair trade off from what we're currently seeing, teams effectively being given 2 points for a catch.

I'm on record as being opposed to what's currently happening but the point I'm making is the rules are lauded for rewarding high fielding. I think this change takes away a lot of that reward. I'll be interested to see how it pans out. I think a half way house would have worked better.

This is the half way house.  The team catching the mark is still rewarded.  The worst case is they have a free kick, but they are in possession which is so important given the ease that teams score with under the new rules of just 11 back.
To hear you David, you would think it's back to the pre-mark rules where a midfielder caught the ball and was surrounded and was blown up for overcarrying.  Now that didn't reward clean catching.  The current rules still do, but at least a kickout catch now does not equal to 2 points, which was the case far too often in recent weeks.

The midfield mark has existed for years. No one lorded the return of high fielding because of the mark. We were told it wasn't enough to encourage high fielding hence the 50m advancement for tackling after the mark.

Now we are back to just the mark which we have been told wasn't enough reward.

We can't have it both ways. Either the mark was sufficient reward and the advancement was unnecessary and by extension there was enough reward for high fielding.

Or it wasn't enough but we don't really want to reward high fielding any more. 

My point is simply I think there were better solutions in between. For example a 20-30m advancement or a prohibition on scoring directly from a resultant free kick.

[Smokin Joe]

The midfield mark has existed for years. No one lorded the return of high fielding because of the mark. We were told it wasn't enough to encourage high fielding hence the 50m advancement for tackling after the mark.

The reason there has been more emphasis on high fielding is due to the 40m kickout arc. The fact that almost every kickout is now contested this year is why there has been a much greater emphasis on high fielding.  It is not because of the 50m advancement.  The fact that kickouts now need to travel beyond the arc is is the single biggest impact on why kickouts are different this year to last year.

Believe me, this weekend teams will absolutely love to get their hands on a midfield mark even without it being marched forward 50m.  Why?  Because possession is so important this year as the top teams find it relatively easy to get a shot away on their attacks as there are less defensive bodies to try to work through than there was last year.

[David McKeown]

The midfield mark has existed for years. No one lorded the return of high fielding because of the mark. We were told it wasn't enough to encourage high fielding hence the 50m advancement for tackling after the mark.

The reason there has been more emphasis on high fielding is due to the 40m kickout arc. The fact that almost every kickout is now contested this year is why there has been a much greater emphasis on high fielding.  It is not because of the 50m advancement.  The fact that kickouts now need to travel beyond the arc is is the single biggest impact on why kickouts are different this year to last year.

Believe me, this weekend teams will absolutely love to get their hands on a midfield mark even without it being marched forward 50m.  Why?  Because possession is so important this year as the top teams find it relatively easy to get a shot away on their attacks as there are less defensive bodies to try to work through than there was last year.

I hope you are correct and I hope when they do they arent immediately fouled as theres little to no disincentive to fouling a player after a mark now.

Is it not also a little unfair to change the rule now should it not have been left a week

[Smokin Joe]

The midfield mark has existed for years. No one lorded the return of high fielding because of the mark. We were told it wasn't enough to encourage high fielding hence the 50m advancement for tackling after the mark.

The reason there has been more emphasis on high fielding is due to the 40m kickout arc. The fact that almost every kickout is now contested this year is why there has been a much greater emphasis on high fielding.  It is not because of the 50m advancement.  The fact that kickouts now need to travel beyond the arc is is the single biggest impact on why kickouts are different this year to last year.

Believe me, this weekend teams will absolutely love to get their hands on a midfield mark even without it being marched forward 50m.  Why?  Because possession is so important this year as the top teams find it relatively easy to get a shot away on their attacks as there are less defensive bodies to try to work through than there was last year.

I hope you are correct and I hope when they do they arent immediately fouled as theres little to no disincentive to fouling a player after a mark now.

Is it not also a little unfair to change the rule now should it not have been left a week

I would contend there is still a disincentive to foul after the mark.  You foul, what happens next? 
The player immediately takes the solo and go and you then either have to let him go so he is attacking on the front foot  as he can't be tackled for 8 metres or ele you impede him then and it gets brought forward 50m.
Both those are effectively the same, if not worse, than just letting the player play on after the mark as at least he could be tackled earlier than if he took a solo and go for the foul.

[GTP]

The player immediately takes the solo and go and you then either have to let him go so he is attacking on the front foot  a

Watched an underage match last night in which I believe the new rule was applied - player won a mark off the opposition kick out just over the 45 and was impeded. Previously a 2-point shot or 21m free, attacking team got free took the solo and go charged forward to edge of the arc got turned over and opposition broke to score a point.
If this happens during the rest of the inter county season the commentary will be that is a 3-point swing against team X. The rules may require a legitimate tidying up exercise, although I have doubts on this particular one, but fundamentally changing it mid-season and mid competition is not a good idea.
 

[Rossfan]

Changing it because 1 Inter Co Ref Ref seemed to over apply it and the 2 teams' managers moaned about it!!
Knee jerk reactions not the best idea.

[Armagh18]

Changing it because 1 Inter Co Ref Ref seemed to over apply it and the 2 teams' managers moaned about it!!
Knee jerk reactions not the best idea.

Seen plenty of it being over applied at club level too tbh.

[Cortoon]

In the last two minutes of the game, the clock should stop every time the ball is not in play.     

[thebigfullforward]

Why did Cawley bring the ball in for the last play of the game yesterday? O'Connor was bringing it back like you're meant to. I know you can't throw the ball because one of our minor players was punished for doing that