If You Could Change One Rule

[A Quinn Martin Production]

Allow six steps with the ball and enforce it rigidly?

Define a step ,please

Umm...putting one foot in front of the other or a member of a short lived pop band??

[AZOffaly]

I'd like to see a proper advantage rule. It's very frustrating to see a lad being swung around and the ref holding up his had to signify 'advantage'. If the player gives the ball away, or shoots wide immediately, I'd like to see the free being awarded. The player should get an 'advantage'.

[Fear ón Srath Bán]

In the very first instance I'd relieve the referee of all timekeeping duties (not strictly a rule, but would free him up to interpret the current rules better).

[we are blue... etc]

Why do we have to pick only one? Mark for kick outs is a good idea; advantage rule also makes sense.

I'd also like to see some definition about what happens after a fella goes to ground with the ball. If an attacking player is knocked over (for example), they're at a huge disadvantage because they firstly have to get to their feet (thus exposing the ball) and then pick it up with their toe while bending over (making them off-balance and more vulnerable to being knocked over again). The man should be allowed play the ball on the ground -- very Rugby League I hear you say but it's going that way anyway...

[ONeill]

In the very first instance I'd relieve the referee

Always wondered why refs gave Strabane some easy ones.

Uladh, it's hard to see teams willing to allow a ball to be kicked from a free/mark around the middle of a park into the danger zone each time there's a kick-out, by simply not contesting it. It'd be suicide.

[Uladh]

Obviously the uncontested kickout scenario would never happen at any serious level but just an extreme example of how the thinking would evolve. the mark would ruin the game as a spectacle uness both teams were equally as confident of winning the ball.

[Hardy]

In the very first instance I'd relieve the referee of all timekeeping duties (not strictly a rule, but would free him up to interpret the current rules better).

Yes and it would also limit (but not eliminate) the ability of refs to decide the outcome of games to their own preference or on the basis that a draw looks like a fair result, regardless of the scores at the end of the correct time. Automate timing for all championship matches, with an official (I know - now we'll have nine officials) to stop the clock for stoppages in play (no need for the referee to bother with this) and a hooter to indicate end of play. Play to continue after the hooter until the next stoppage. If the stoppage is a foul, free to be taken and play to continue to next stoppage.

I think we should copy the rugby advantage rule (but not preserve advantage for as long as the eggmen do). I like the mark for the kick-out, too, despite Uladh's point. (If teams adapt tactics to gain advantage from it, oppositions will also adapt to that adaptation. etc.). I'd make it up to the player to call the mark or not as he calculated to his best advantage. Or, simpler, make it illegal to tackle a player who has caught cleanly from the kickout, until he has played the ball once under the four steps rule.

[Fear ón Srath Bán]

In the very first instance I'd relieve the referee

Always wondered why refs gave Strabane some easy ones.

Wouldn't apply to Mick Hughes of course 

[Rick O Shea]

Why do we have to pick only one? Mark for kick outs is a good idea; advantage rule also makes sense.

I'd also like to see some definition about what happens after a fella goes to ground with the ball. If an attacking player is knocked over (for example), they're at a huge disadvantage because they firstly have to get to their feet (thus exposing the ball) and then pick it up with their toe while bending over (making them off-balance and more vulnerable to being knocked over again). The man should be allowed play the ball on the ground -- very Rugby League I hear you say but it's going that way anyway...

I haven't checked properly but i think the current rules cover this - if the attacking (any) player is knocked to the ground he is allowed to play the ball on the ground with his hand - unfortunatley most referees will blow a free against the attacker for this 

Edit:

Found the rule

1.2 When the ball is on the ground, it may be
played by any part of the body except the
hand(s). It may be lifted off the ground with
the feet.
EXCEPTIONS
(i) The goalkeeper may play the ball on the
ground with his hand(s) inside his own
small rectangle.
(ii) Any player who falls or is knocked to the
ground while in possession of the ball may
fist or palm the ball away on the ground,
and may score by so doing.
(iii) The ball may not be lifted off the ground
with the knees.

[Hardy]

Spot on Rick - rarely implemented, which is as good an illustration as any of the deep problems we have with refereeing. I can't think of one top level referee who actually knows this rule.

Also, I've never, as far as I remember, seen the rule about the goalie staying on his line for penalties implemented. Every penalty is taken with the goalie rushing forward from his line and always at least two yards off it as the kick is taken.

[Gnevin]

Allow six steps with the ball and enforce it rigidly?

Define a step ,please

Umm...putting one foot in front of the other or a member of a short lived pop band??

So for example you'd call traveling when a player is surrounded by player and is unable to bounce the ball but not going anywhere

[Stall the Bailer]

I would like to add the rule, the player fouled must take the resulting free (especially at underage). It would improve the quality of kicking and would mean that fewer low scoring games would be decided by who had best free taker.

[magpie seanie]

Only problem is then you'd continuosly foul a poor kicker.

[Stall the Bailer]

Only problem is then you'd continuosly foul a poor kicker.

County teams and large club sides would not select poor kickers if it was to weaken their teams. Underage sides and small clubs would not select poor kickers in their forwards. There are very few teams that will not allow one of their players to take a free out of defence.

I think this would speed the game up, as there would be no throwing ball between players waiting on a specfic kicker to take the free. It would also encourage more short frees for those not able/confident in taking frees far out from goals.

[A Quinn Martin Production]

Allow six steps with the ball and enforce it rigidly?

Define a step ,please

Umm...putting one foot in front of the other or a member of a short lived pop band??

So for example you'd call traveling when a player is surrounded by player and is unable to bounce the ball but not going anywhere

Well what else could you call it??  I don't think a player can stand still and not play the ball.  Don't want this to get inot a debate about the so called blanket defence but the general point I'm thinking of is that players are much fitter and faster than they used to be so, e.g. a player running onto a hopping ball at full tilt or who is off balance may require a few "steps" to bring himself into a position to be able to kick, fist, solo or hop etc.  So give him that leeway but don't let him take the piss.