Gaelic Football - Rules & Regulations discussion/clarification

[Armagh18]

Yeah would agree there, advantage should always be with the team with the free

[Milltown Row2]

The purpose of the solo and go was to speed up the game... now you are looking them to survey their options first before deciding, ah I'll do solo and go now!

Its fine as it is, the only time its brought back is if they have taken the solo and go from more than four steps away from free in a more advantageous position or if the ref has stopped play for a card  or injury, its a great addition to the rules as it cuts out the shite talk around the free being given in the first place 

[Stall the Bailer]

Can't be taken within 20m line unless on the defensive side.

[Milltown Row2]

Can't be taken within 20m line unless on the defensive side.

Yeah that's true, same as quick free kicks in that area (forwards)

[GTP]

The purpose of the solo and go was to speed up the game... now you are looking them to survey their options first before deciding, ah I'll do solo and go now!

Its fine as it is, the only time its brought back is if they have taken the solo and go from more than four steps away from free in a more advantageous position or if the ref has stopped play for a card  or injury, its a great addition to the rules as it cuts out the shite talk around the free being given in the first place 

I was thinking the time on the ball for the free taker may be the reason as I was typing. But the referee already has the option to overturn a free, if too much time is being taken, which would not change if a solo and go was an option. Therefore, in theory it would not slow the game down any further as you would still be at risk of losing the free.
In the example I gave McGuigan would have known he was in danger of getting blown up and taken off with a solo and go – saving the advantage to the fouled team and speeding up the game as it wouldn't have to be brought back followed by a messy throw in (or is the free turned over? Can't remember which happened)
When you don't have the choice of a solo and go it is usually as a result of a more serious foul – e.g. the ref has stopped play for a card or injury – making these less advantageous to the fouled teams seems unfair.
I don't think I have heard anyone say they are against the 'solo and go' which made me wonder why it is not used to it's full advantage / potential.

[twohands!!!]

I was thinking the time on the ball for the free taker may be the reason as I was typing. But the referee already has the option to overturn a free, if too much time is being taken, which would not change if a solo and go was an option. Therefore, in theory it would not slow the game down any further as you would still be at risk of losing the free.
In the example I gave McGuigan would have known he was in danger of getting blown up and taken off with a solo and go – saving the advantage to the fouled team and speeding up the game as it wouldn't have to be brought back followed by a messy throw in (or is the free turned over? Can't remember which happened)
When you don't have the choice of a solo and go it is usually as a result of a more serious foul – e.g. the ref has stopped play for a card or injury – making these less advantageous to the fouled teams seems unfair.
I don't think I have heard anyone say they are against the 'solo and go' which made me wonder why it is not used to it's full advantage / potential.

Count me in as one who believes the solo-and-go should be allowed for all frees.

The current situation (when a player doesn't have the option of solo-and-going from a free) means that the team who are taking the free are in the situation where the options are  either having to take a shot at the posts (which depending on how far out the free is might be basically impossible) or else are facing a 14 v 15 contest for possession i.e the free-taker has to kick the ball into a situation where the fouled team only have 14 players who can receive the ball from the free while the defending team has 15 players to challenge for possession. That's hardly seems fair to the team with the free.

[Milltown Row2]

The purpose of the solo and go was to speed up the game... now you are looking them to survey their options first before deciding, ah I'll do solo and go now!

Its fine as it is, the only time its brought back is if they have taken the solo and go from more than four steps away from free in a more advantageous position or if the ref has stopped play for a card  or injury, its a great addition to the rules as it cuts out the shite talk around the free being given in the first place 

I was thinking the time on the ball for the free taker may be the reason as I was typing. But the referee already has the option to overturn a free, if too much time is being taken, which would not change if a solo and go was an option. Therefore, in theory it would not slow the game down any further as you would still be at risk of losing the free.
In the example I gave McGuigan would have known he was in danger of getting blown up and taken off with a solo and go – saving the advantage to the fouled team and speeding up the game as it wouldn't have to be brought back followed by a messy throw in (or is the free turned over? Can't remember which happened)
When you don't have the choice of a solo and go it is usually as a result of a more serious foul – e.g. the ref has stopped play for a card or injury – making these less advantageous to the fouled teams seems unfair.
I don't think I have heard anyone say they are against the 'solo and go' which made me wonder why it is not used to it's full advantage / potential.

There has to be a situation where the free has to be taken as a normal free. Impossible to book someone without taking their name and explaining the reasons..

A injury requiring immediate attention is also a reason for stopping the game.

The team awarded the free will still get it but common sense is required, the solo and go main purpose was for non carded, non injury stoppage plays, which is about 90% of the time.

I'm not sure he can over turn a free unless (same as before) he's taking too long. After a booking of injury the ref ref restarts the game, I thought there was a tweak with the timing of taking the solo and go, but haven't seen this particular incident

[GTP]

I understand stoppages are required for bookings and injuries. What I would propose is that the ref blows for match to start and the fouled team can then take a solo and go or take the free as usual. Normal free becomes an either or situation as a restart.
I will move onto the punishment for a breach being more severe if it occurs when a team is attacking as opposed to defending after the next round of fixtures.

[Milltown Row2]

Anyone that's over 4 meters from halfway line needs shot though. Regardless of saying he's injured

The amount of breaches in games this week was strange considering they know the rule.

Yes the punishment is harsh but I'd keep it but they shouldn't be getting a free two pointer shot

[Armagh18]

The purpose of the solo and go was to speed up the game... now you are looking them to survey their options first before deciding, ah I'll do solo and go now!

Its fine as it is, the only time its brought back is if they have taken the solo and go from more than four steps away from free in a more advantageous position or if the ref has stopped play for a card  or injury, its a great addition to the rules as it cuts out the shite talk around the free being given in the first place 

I was thinking the time on the ball for the free taker may be the reason as I was typing. But the referee already has the option to overturn a free, if too much time is being taken, which would not change if a solo and go was an option. Therefore, in theory it would not slow the game down any further as you would still be at risk of losing the free.
In the example I gave McGuigan would have known he was in danger of getting blown up and taken off with a solo and go – saving the advantage to the fouled team and speeding up the game as it wouldn't have to be brought back followed by a messy throw in (or is the free turned over? Can't remember which happened)
When you don't have the choice of a solo and go it is usually as a result of a more serious foul – e.g. the ref has stopped play for a card or injury – making these less advantageous to the fouled teams seems unfair.
I don't think I have heard anyone say they are against the 'solo and go' which made me wonder why it is not used to it's full advantage / potential.

There has to be a situation where the free has to be taken as a normal free. Impossible to book someone without taking their name and explaining the reasons..

A injury requiring immediate attention is also a reason for stopping the game.

The team awarded the free will still get it but common sense is required, the solo and go main purpose was for non carded, non injury stoppage plays, which is about 90% of the time.

I'm not sure he can over turn a free unless (same as before) he's taking too long. After a booking of injury the ref ref restarts the game, I thought there was a tweak with the timing of taking the solo and go, but haven't seen this particular incident

But surely if play has stopped so the ref can book someone, they player taking the free should have an option to solo and go after the ref has done the booking or whatever it may be if theres no pass on. Simple tweak to make that would stop the attacking tram being disadvantaged

[Milltown Row2]

The purpose of the solo and go was to speed up the game... now you are looking them to survey their options first before deciding, ah I'll do solo and go now!

Its fine as it is, the only time its brought back is if they have taken the solo and go from more than four steps away from free in a more advantageous position or if the ref has stopped play for a card  or injury, its a great addition to the rules as it cuts out the shite talk around the free being given in the first place 

I was thinking the time on the ball for the free taker may be the reason as I was typing. But the referee already has the option to overturn a free, if too much time is being taken, which would not change if a solo and go was an option. Therefore, in theory it would not slow the game down any further as you would still be at risk of losing the free.
In the example I gave McGuigan would have known he was in danger of getting blown up and taken off with a solo and go – saving the advantage to the fouled team and speeding up the game as it wouldn't have to be brought back followed by a messy throw in (or is the free turned over? Can't remember which happened)
When you don't have the choice of a solo and go it is usually as a result of a more serious foul – e.g. the ref has stopped play for a card or injury – making these less advantageous to the fouled teams seems unfair.
I don't think I have heard anyone say they are against the 'solo and go' which made me wonder why it is not used to it's full advantage / potential.

There has to be a situation where the free has to be taken as a normal free. Impossible to book someone without taking their name and explaining the reasons..

A injury requiring immediate attention is also a reason for stopping the game.

The team awarded the free will still get it but common sense is required, the solo and go main purpose was for non carded, non injury stoppage plays, which is about 90% of the time.

I'm not sure he can over turn a free unless (same as before) he's taking too long. After a booking of injury the ref ref restarts the game, I thought there was a tweak with the timing of taking the solo and go, but haven't seen this particular incident

But surely if play has stopped so the ref can book someone, they player taking the free should have an option to solo and go after the ref has done the booking or whatever it may be if theres no pass on. Simple tweak to make that would stop the attacking tram being disadvantaged

The only disadvantage is he has to take a normal free, they still have it. If they tweak that defenders will just sit back 4 steps away and tackle him once he solos the ball as they will have time to set up.. not sure it's a biggie though

[Armagh18]

The purpose of the solo and go was to speed up the game... now you are looking them to survey their options first before deciding, ah I'll do solo and go now!

Its fine as it is, the only time its brought back is if they have taken the solo and go from more than four steps away from free in a more advantageous position or if the ref has stopped play for a card  or injury, its a great addition to the rules as it cuts out the shite talk around the free being given in the first place 

I was thinking the time on the ball for the free taker may be the reason as I was typing. But the referee already has the option to overturn a free, if too much time is being taken, which would not change if a solo and go was an option. Therefore, in theory it would not slow the game down any further as you would still be at risk of losing the free.
In the example I gave McGuigan would have known he was in danger of getting blown up and taken off with a solo and go – saving the advantage to the fouled team and speeding up the game as it wouldn't have to be brought back followed by a messy throw in (or is the free turned over? Can't remember which happened)
When you don't have the choice of a solo and go it is usually as a result of a more serious foul – e.g. the ref has stopped play for a card or injury – making these less advantageous to the fouled teams seems unfair.
I don't think I have heard anyone say they are against the 'solo and go' which made me wonder why it is not used to it's full advantage / potential.

There has to be a situation where the free has to be taken as a normal free. Impossible to book someone without taking their name and explaining the reasons..

A injury requiring immediate attention is also a reason for stopping the game.

The team awarded the free will still get it but common sense is required, the solo and go main purpose was for non carded, non injury stoppage plays, which is about 90% of the time.

I'm not sure he can over turn a free unless (same as before) he's taking too long. After a booking of injury the ref ref restarts the game, I thought there was a tweak with the timing of taking the solo and go, but haven't seen this particular incident

But surely if play has stopped so the ref can book someone, they player taking the free should have an option to solo and go after the ref has done the booking or whatever it may be if theres no pass on. Simple tweak to make that would stop the attacking tram being disadvantaged

The only disadvantage is he has to take a normal free, they still have it. If they tweak that defenders will just sit back 4 steps away and tackle him once he solos the ball as they will have time to set up.. not sure it's a biggie though

Well then there'll be a free man he can kick it to lol.

Not a big one but a simple change that would be an improvement.

[David McKeown]

Why can you not go backwards on a solo and go. Surely there are times when that would be advantageous to not have to try and go through a couple of groups of players or to make a better angle for a pass.

[Milltown Row2]

Why can you not go backwards on a solo and go. Surely there are times when that would be advantageous to not have to try and go through a couple of groups of players or to make a better angle for a pass.

It was to promote forward play, the minute you encourage players to take the safe route they'll take it, possession is key, and that's why we've had the changes. to come away from the safe option and provide excitement

[thewobbler]

Why can you not go backwards on a solo and go. Surely there are times when that would be advantageous to not have to try and go through a couple of groups of players or to make a better angle for a pass.

It was to promote forward play, the minute you encourage players to take the safe route they'll take it, possession is key, and that's why we've had the changes. to come away from the safe option and provide excitement

Summed up nicely.

The new rules were devise largely to restore the balance of territory vs possession. Any rule change that promotes possession would fly in the face of what's trying to be achieved.