Congress 2016

[westbound]

It strikes me that the risk/reward ratio is too weighted on the risk if that's the case. Giving someone like David Moran a 50 metre free kick at your goals if he wins the kickout, or even a chance to take a quick free, would not be a sustainable approach. If that is the rule, and the wording seems that it certainly can be interpreted that way, then I can't see many people taking the risk of the long kickout.

The counter to that is that if the mark was only available to the team taking the kick out, there would be ZERO incentive for the other team to try to catch the ball. The only thing any 'defending' team would do in this case is break the ball, resulting in even less high fielding than there is at the moment!
At least if two fellas are trying to catch the ball then there is a chance one of them might. If one fella is trying to catch it and the other fella is only trying to ensure that it's not caught then there is more chance of no mark being made.

To be honest, I can see flaws with any variation of the mark and IMO that is why it should have been properly trialled before being adopted by congress.

[blewuporstuffed]

Mickey Harte's take on it

https://vimeo.com/157031439

3:33 if you want to cut to the chase! Mickey hits the nail on the head!

Yeah, i agree with Mickey there.
I certainly dont think this rule change will have the effect that is intended.
To not properly trial it was crazy.

[BennyHarp]

The only feasible way this will work will be a mobile midfielder, running onto a directed kickout taking it chest high. No team is going to risk sticking the ball into the air and conceding a free kick 45m out.

Also, I'm genuinely a bit unclear about how this is going to work logistically. For example, if a player runs onto the kick out jumps outside the 45m but lands inside it.....is his possession measured by where he takes off? Is it where he catches the ball (so the ref will have to judge where possession is gained perhaps whilst the player is mid air), Is it where he lands? What if possession is fumbled on landing? At what point is it deemed a clean catch? Does the ref blow his whistle to indicated the mark is an option? Can a player score directly from the resulting free kick?

[blewuporstuffed]

If you do take it clean, 5 seconds isnt much to getup, set yourself and have a shot at goal (if within range)

[blewuporstuffed]

When do the changes take effect?

[donelli]

Don't understand the hysteria here regarding the mark. Don't think it'll be detrimental to the game.
I would consider the rejection to bring the AI finals forward by 2 weeks should have garnered more attention. I fail to see why anyone could argue against it. Would free up more time for club football.

[general_lee]

Mickey Harte's take on it

https://vimeo.com/157031439

3:33 if you want to cut to the chase! Mickey hits the nail on the head!

Yeah, i agree with Mickey there.
I certainly dont think this rule change will have the effect that is intended.
To not properly trial it was crazy.

Nail on the head from MH. An utter pile of shite.

[blewuporstuffed]

Don't understand the hysteria here regarding the mark. Don't think it'll be detrimental to the game.
I would consider the rejection to bring the AI finals forward by 2 weeks should have garnered more attention. I fail to see why anyone could argue against it. Would free up more time for club football.

I agree with you there.
What was the rationale for rejecting that one?

[Rossfan]

Mickey Harte's take on it

https://vimeo.com/157031439

3:33 if you want to cut to the chase! Mickey hits the nail on the head!

Yeah, i agree with Mickey there.
I certainly dont think this rule change will have the effect that is intended.
To not properly trial it was crazy.

Nail on the head from MH. An utter pile of shite.

And the dreary steeples people reject change........

[tc_manchester]

Mickey Harte's take on it

https://vimeo.com/157031439

3:33 if you want to cut to the chase! Mickey hits the nail on the head!

Yeah, i agree with Mickey there.
I certainly dont think this rule change will have the effect that is intended.
To not properly trial it was crazy.

Nail on the head from MH. An utter pile of shite.

And the dreary steeples people reject change........

No - trial it and then make a decision based on the trial instead of guessing that this will improve high catching

[general_lee]

Mickey Harte's take on it

https://vimeo.com/157031439

3:33 if you want to cut to the chase! Mickey hits the nail on the head!

Yeah, i agree with Mickey there.
I certainly dont think this rule change will have the effect that is intended.
To not properly trial it was crazy.

Nail on the head from MH. An utter pile of shite.

And the dreary steeples people reject change........

I reject stupid f**king baseless decisions that make absolutely no sense.

[blewuporstuffed]

When do the changes take effect?

does anyone know when the changes come in?

[mayo.mick]

When do the changes take effect?

does anyone know when the changes come in?

2016 Championship I think. Also, wasn't the mark trialled a few years ago, 2013 I think?

[blewuporstuffed]

When do the changes take effect?

does anyone know when the changes come in?

2016 Championship I think. Also, wasn't the mark trialled a few years ago, 2013 I think?

So when does it come in for clubs?
Just for the championship?
or from the start of this years club season?

[johnneycool]

When do the changes take effect?

does anyone know when the changes come in?

2016 Championship I think. Also, wasn't the mark trialled a few years ago, 2013 I think?

So when does it come in for clubs?
Just for the championship?
or from the start of this years club season?

All referees are to be called in and trained in the application of the new ruling...........

No wait,
     They're just going to wing it along as usual!