Congress 2016

[Esmarelda]

I see that the championship revamp was taken off the table before congress.

I also see that Roscommon had a motion in regarding the restructuring of the championship. Was that also removed?

[AZOffaly]

No. Roscommon and Carlow both had motions defeated.

[Esmarelda]

No. Roscommon and Carlow both had motions defeated.

I think I heard one of them got quite close to being passed. Do you know which one it is and what it entailed?

[AZOffaly]

Roscommon got 20%, Carlow got 40%. Neither really within an asses roar.

[PAULD123]

I disagree with almost all the dissenters about the mark between 45's - I saw this in the National League in 2010. I thought it worked great. Then it was dropped without fair consideration. Personally I thought it speeded up games.

My theory/observations on the mark in 2010:
1. Currently if a player catches and is fouled it is a free and the game stops anyway (so no change there)
2. Currently if a player catches and is then swarmed the momentum is lost and the play is slowed down
3. With the mark if a catch is made the free is automatically awarded. The player can take it quick so no need to stop play at all. The net effect is really just making opposition players clear away (thus no swarming and slowing down play)
4. If the player is swarmed and prevented from taking it quick then the free is automatically brought forward to what will be then a likely point-scoring position.
5. The whole advantage of the mark is to have the ball in hand with a  a clear opportunity to kick pass fast into teh forwards

Perhaps to ensure its aim some supplemental rule could be added:
If the player accepts the free then he must only kick pass forward, not back

[Rossfan]

Perhaps to ensure its aim some supplemental rule could be added:
If the player accepts the free then he must only kick pass forward, not back

+1.

[BennyHarp]

I disagree with almost all the dissenters about the mark between 45's - I saw this in the National League in 2010. I thought it worked great. Then it was dropped without fair consideration. Personally I thought it speeded up games.

My theory/observations on the mark in 2010:
1. Currently if a player catches and is fouled it is a free and the game stops anyway (so no change there)
2. Currently if a player catches and is then swarmed the momentum is lost and the play is slowed down
3. With the mark if a catch is made the free is automatically awarded. The player can take it quick so no need to stop play at all. The net effect is really just making opposition players clear away (thus no swarming and slowing down play)
4. If the player is swarmed and prevented from taking it quick then the free is automatically brought forward to what will be then a likely point-scoring position.
5. The whole advantage of the mark is to have the ball in hand with a  a clear opportunity to kick pass fast into teh forwards

Perhaps to ensure its aim some supplemental rule could be added:
If the player accepts the free then he must only kick pass forward, not back

Yes but back in 2010 there wasn't as many teams taking short kick outs. What you are describing is irrelevant if the rule makes it even less likely that a team will kick the ball out as the risk is giving away a free kick within shooting distance!

[DuffleKing]

I disagree with almost all the dissenters about the mark between 45's - I saw this in the National League in 2010. I thought it worked great. Then it was dropped without fair consideration. Personally I thought it speeded up games.

My theory/observations on the mark in 2010:
1. Currently if a player catches and is fouled it is a free and the game stops anyway (so no change there)
2. Currently if a player catches and is then swarmed the momentum is lost and the play is slowed down
3. With the mark if a catch is made the free is automatically awarded. The player can take it quick so no need to stop play at all. The net effect is really just making opposition players clear away (thus no swarming and slowing down play)
4. If the player is swarmed and prevented from taking it quick then the free is automatically brought forward to what will be then a likely point-scoring position.
5. The whole advantage of the mark is to have the ball in hand with a  a clear opportunity to kick pass fast into teh forwards

Perhaps to ensure its aim some supplemental rule could be added:
If the player accepts the free then he must only kick pass forward, not back

You may not score from a marked free kick

[trileacman]

Large ball winning mf are far far from lads who are well capable of spraying it about usually. What the mark also ensures is that if a team loses possession at mf, they'll have an extra couple of seconds to draw their team from the break at mf into defensive formation in thier 45. 5 seconds of a break in play is ample time to drop from midfield to within your own 45.

[westbound]

Large ball winning mf are far far from lads who are well capable of spraying it about usually. What the mark also ensures is that if a team loses possession at mf, they'll have an extra couple of seconds to draw their team from the break at mf into defensive formation in thier 45. 5 seconds of a break in play is ample time to drop from midfield to within your own 45.

How in god's name will a team have EXTRA time to drop players back? If a player catches a mark, he has a MAXIMUM of 5 seconds to take the free. He also has the option of taking the kick straight away or of playing on with no-one allowed tackle him for 4 steps!

[johnneycool]

I disagree with almost all the dissenters about the mark between 45's - I saw this in the National League in 2010. I thought it worked great. Then it was dropped without fair consideration. Personally I thought it speeded up games.

My theory/observations on the mark in 2010:
1. Currently if a player catches and is fouled it is a free and the game stops anyway (so no change there)
2. Currently if a player catches and is then swarmed the momentum is lost and the play is slowed down
3. With the mark if a catch is made the free is automatically awarded. The player can take it quick so no need to stop play at all. The net effect is really just making opposition players clear away (thus no swarming and slowing down play)
4. If the player is swarmed and prevented from taking it quick then the free is automatically brought forward to what will be then a likely point-scoring position.
5. The whole advantage of the mark is to have the ball in hand with a  a clear opportunity to kick pass fast into teh forwards

Perhaps to ensure its aim some supplemental rule could be added:
If the player accepts the free then he must only kick pass forward, not back

You may not score from a marked free kick

Doesn't say that in the rule just voted on;

(a)   A Free Kick
The player shall signify to the Referee that he is availing of and then take the free kick himself from the hand from the point where he was awarded the 'Mark'.   
Once the player indicates he is taking the 'Mark' the Referee will allow up to five seconds for the player to take the kick.   If the player delays longer than five seconds the Referee will cancel the 'Mark' and throw in the ball between a player from each side.
Once the player indicates he is taking the 'Mark', the opposing players must retreat 10m to allow the player space to take the kick.   If an opposition player deliberately blocks or attempts to block the kick within 10m, or if an opposition player impedes the player while he is taking the kick, the Referee shall penalise the opposition by bringing the ball forward 13m.
If the Referee determines that the player who makes the 'Mark' has been injured in the process and is unable to take the kick, the Referee shall direct the Player's nearest team mate to take the kick but he may not score directly from the kick.

The only time you can't score from a mark is when the person who actually made the mark is injured and a team mate is designated to take it. I'd presume from that part of the rule that you are indeed able to score from a mark provided you're the one who made the mark in the first place.

[DuffleKing]

Confusion here as I heard Congress reporters say over the weekend that you cannot score,  but you're right looking at that wording. Maybe I dreamt it but I thought I heard Dara O'Se say the same.

[screenexile]

Confusion here as I heard Congress reporters say over the weekend that you cannot score,  but you're right looking at that wording. Maybe I dreamt it but I thought I heard Dara O'Se say the same.

Jesus lads you'd be doing well to score directly from a mark!!

[blewuporstuffed]

Confusion here as I heard Congress reporters say over the weekend that you cannot score,  but you're right looking at that wording. Maybe I dreamt it but I thought I heard Dara O'Se say the same.

The reality is though, there will be very few scores from marked free kicks.The will all be at least 45m out and the kicker will only have 5 seconds to take the kick

[PAULD123]

I disagree with almost all the dissenters about the mark between 45's - I saw this in the National League in 2010. I thought it worked great. Then it was dropped without fair consideration. Personally I thought it speeded up games.

My theory/observations on the mark in 2010:
1. Currently if a player catches and is fouled it is a free and the game stops anyway (so no change there)
2. Currently if a player catches and is then swarmed the momentum is lost and the play is slowed down
3. With the mark if a catch is made the free is automatically awarded. The player can take it quick so no need to stop play at all. The net effect is really just making opposition players clear away (thus no swarming and slowing down play)
4. If the player is swarmed and prevented from taking it quick then the free is automatically brought forward to what will be then a likely point-scoring position.
5. The whole advantage of the mark is to have the ball in hand with a  a clear opportunity to kick pass fast into teh forwards

Perhaps to ensure its aim some supplemental rule could be added:
If the player accepts the free then he must only kick pass forward, not back

You may not score from a marked free kick

You can score from a mark directly but only if the guy claiming the catch takes the kick. So basically there is one player in Ireland who with any regularity is capable of catching a ball clean in a crowded midfield and kicking it over the bar from beyond 45m. And even Bryan Sheehan isn't that great at clean catching.

The mark worked in the NFL in 2010, the game was better to watch, but as I said above, if teams simply use it to play the ball backwards it will become a horrible scourge.

But currently you have a crowded midfield: Lets say Dublin v Mayo. If a Dublin midfielder catches the ball his teammates in the area must remain there because he is being swarmed by Mayo players and may lose possession. So the other Dublin players must remain to tackle the Mayo player if he turns the ball over.

With the mark: The Dublin player catches clean. All other Dublin players in the midfield area can now move away instantly (hopefully forward), and forwards can start running because they know the possession is assured and can not be taken away and also that their player will have a free space to place a pass. In addition they know they have to sprint to their new positions because their midfielder has only 3-4 seconds to deliver the ball.

Surely this is better than midfield scrums that we see now, with referees guessing which way to award a free?