Exprimental Football Rules

[The GAA]

I think the rules will adapt more to the spirit of the game and players will be given the benefit if a legitimate tackle was slightly late. But body checking, jersey pulling or dragging players down when they look like scoring is neither manly nor legal and should be punished properly.

The sactions and punishments are already in place for these things. the real target should have been the referees and their in ability to implement them properly.

[magpie seanie]

I think the rules will adapt more to the spirit of the game and players will be given the benefit if a legitimate tackle was slightly late. But body checking, jersey pulling or dragging players down when they look like scoring is neither manly nor legal and should be punished properly.

The sactions and punishments are already in place for these things. the real target should have been the referees and their in ability to implement them properly.

Nail on the head.

[corn02]

So what are we thinking lads.

Are they going through or not.

Not many of the Ulster counties will be giving a yes vote, Down maybe. Dublin look like they will vote yes.

[The GAA]

we can have no idea whether they will go through. Tose that decide are far more knowledgeable and emminent than us plebs.

[Zulu]

What were the scanctions GAA because whatever they were they weren't a deterrent and consistency of implementation is always going to be a problem? Under the old rules if you committed a yellow card offence and I carded you then it would be human nature that I'd not want to yellow card you again unless you really gave me no choice, under the new rules I can punish you and your team but the punishment to your team isn't overly harsh. However the punishment to you is harsh and is therefore a deterrent to you committing the same foul in the future. How many lads have played whole seasons without missing a minutes play despite being yellow carded and black booked repeatedly? In other words repeated fouling had no real meaningful scanction for many players, and as a result there was no real deterrent to fouling, there is now and that must be an improvement. Certainly one that is worth having a good look at rather than simply throwing out broad generalisations about the physicality being taken out of football.

[magpie seanie]

Zulu said:

Secondly where is this idea that a 'good fair clatter' is no longer allowed or indeed encouraged, the rules haven't changed it's just the sanctions for what were always fouls that has changed. A good fair shoulder is still allowed but now jersey pulling, tackling around the neck, body checking, tripping players etc. have a punishment that discourages players from making these type of 'tackles'.

Every game I go to I see frees awarded and even cards given to lads who execute perfect side to side shoulder charges. In the U-21 game last weekend a Mayo lad creamed one of our boys with a perfect shoulder and we got a free. Every Sligo supporter around me agreed that it was a fair challenge. I suspect I'm not alone in noticing this.

As for if they'll go through or not - my suspicion is that they will go through. If Croke Park decide they want them to go through they have enough compliant county boards (who will be looking for grants) to make sure they have the votes.

[The GAA]

If you think removing a player from a team isn't an overly harsh punishment you're in dream land.

lads don't go out to commit fouls but the natural physicality of the game means they happen. are we to get to a stage where any foul means dismissal?

Using the high tackle as an example: The "clothes line" is a terrible offence in the game in my view and if referees were doing their job properly, a deliberate perpetrator would be immediately red carded. instead, what we have now is players being ordered off for genuine attempts to make a tackle on the ball, either a) because momentum and the natural movement of the contact brings arms above the chest area, or worse b) because the ball carrier drops to the ground holding his head.

repeatedfouls of course had a sanction. first jersy pull - tick, second - yellw, third off. fair enough in my book. if a fella can't restrain himself after 2 warnings then he deserves to walk

[corn02]

repeatedfouls of course had a sanction. first jersy pull - tick, second - yellw, third off. fair enough in my book. if a fella can't restrain himself after 2 warnings then he deserves to walk

Bingo!

Yelow cards for caution, red card for dismissal.

The way it should be.

[longrunsthefox]

Lads lots of different things go into making a good game and I don't think anyone can reasonably say Dublin/Tyrone wasn't a good game, had it everything? No but thereas still much to admire in it and I don't recall too many saying otherwise at the time.

Secondly where is this idea that a 'good fair clatter' is no longer allowed or indeed encouraged, the rules haven't changed it's just the sanctions for what were always fouls that has changed. A good fair shoulder is still allowed but now jersey pulling, tackling around the neck, body checking, tripping players etc. have a punishment that discourages players from making these type of 'tackles'.

I've played every position on the field, including goalkeeper, and nobody likes good hard, manly football more than myself but most of the fouls I've mentioned are anything but manly. Like I've already said if given more time I think the rules will adapt more to the spirit of the game and players will be given the benefit if a legitimate tackle was slightly late. But body checking, jersey pulling or dragging players down when they look like scoring is neither manly nor legal and should be punished properly.

Absolutly-there wasn't a decent tackle put in all night and was a feel good event with lots of pretty points and no intensity.

Sorry now lads but that's nonsense, league games are always less intense than championship, especially early games because players aren't particularily fit and on a big pitch like CP that will always lead to a looser type of game but there was plenty of good defending in the game and even if there wasn't there have been games where there has so to pick out one as clear evidence that the rules lead to 'pansy' football is nonsense.

Always?! The so-called 'Battle of Omagh'... Dublin-Meath last year... Tyrone-Kerry...

[Tyrone Dreamer]

Haven't read the rest of the posts on this thread so my points already may be covered. However, I believe it is extremely important for the gaa that these rulse are not voted in. They will give referee's far to much power to influence a game. For some referee's they will be ok because they well referee games with common sense. For other refs though they will send of 6 or 7 players in a game were there is hardly a dirty foul in it. Some refs alreIt would be sad if an All Ireland final was ruined by 1 or 2 of the best players in the country getting sent of for a clumsy or mis timed tackle. At club level the rules would be an even bigger disaster. For smaller clubs and at under age level I'm not sure how the gaa expect teams to be able to cope with so many regular sending off's.

[corn02]

Haven't read the rest of the posts on this thread so my points already may be covered. However, I believe it is extremely important for the gaa that these rulse are not voted in. They will give referee's far to much power to influence a game. For some referee's they will be ok because they well referee games with common sense. For other refs though they will send of 6 or 7 players in a game were there is hardly a dirty foul in it. Some refs alreIt would be sad if an All Ireland final was ruined by 1 or 2 of the best players in the country getting sent of for a clumsy or mis timed tackle. At club level the rules would be an even bigger disaster. For smaller clubs and at under age level I'm not sure how the gaa expect teams to be able to cope with so many regular sending off's.

The referees applying common sense are generally not implementing the rules.

[Zulu]

Every game I go to I see frees awarded and even cards given to lads who execute perfect side to side shoulder charges. In the U-21 game last weekend a Mayo lad creamed one of our boys with a perfect shoulder and we got a free. Every Sligo supporter around me agreed that it was a fair challenge. I suspect I'm not alone in noticing this.

That has nothing to do with the rules MS, that game was played under the old rules so if you're complaining about that (and I agre with you there) then that is a different argument and has nothing to do with these new rules.

If you think removing a player from a team isn't an overly harsh punishment you're in dream land.

........and replacing him with another player is not overly harsh on the team, if an IC team hasn't got two or three lads on the bench of a similar standard to those on the pitch then they are in trouble, so no it isn't overly harsh on the team itself.

lads don't go out to commit fouls but the natural physicality of the game means they happen. are we to get to a stage where any foul means dismissal?

More nonsense I'n afraid, body checking, pulling guys down etc. are not part of the natural physicality of the games and should be punished harshly.

Using the high tackle as an example: The "clothes line" is a terrible offence in the game in my view and if referees were doing their job properly, a deliberate perpetrator would be immediately red carded. instead, what we have now is players being ordered off for genuine attempts to make a tackle on the ball, either a) because momentum and the natural movement of the contact brings arms above the chest area, or worse b) because the ball carrier drops to the ground holding his head.

I agree but a lot of these neck high tackles are simply poor tackling technique and lead to forwards rapping their hand around the tackling hand and dragging him down which drives me cracked. If these new rules force us all to teach better tackling techique and players to think more about when to tackle they will be well worth it.

repeatedfouls of course had a sanction. first jersy pull - tick, second - yellw, third off. fair enough in my book. if a fella can't restrain himself after 2 warnings then he deserves to walk

But this didn't happen and some counties supposedly had it down to a tee so that different fellas fouled, anyway it wasn't implemented and we had loads of lads repeatedly fouling and never getting sent off. Besides under those rules we could have 30 black book offences without one guy leaving the pitch so again no real deterrent, the new rules are and therefore need to be given at least one championship to see what way they'll work out.

Always?! The so-called 'Battle of Omagh'... Dublin-Meath last year... Tyrone-Kerry...

One or two incidents of pushing and shoving don't make games 'intense' anyway the Tyrone/Kerry game occured under the new rules and one of the best and hard hitting league games I've seen in a while was this years Kildare/Monaghan game, again under these new rules.

For other refs though they will send of 6 or 7 players in a game were there is hardly a dirty foul in it.

Ahh will you go away out of it, has this happened during the 3 months of the new rules at all? If anything the refs are slow to yellow card lads.

[magpie seanie]

Every game I go to I see frees awarded and even cards given to lads who execute perfect side to side shoulder charges. In the U-21 game last weekend a Mayo lad creamed one of our boys with a perfect shoulder and we got a free. Every Sligo supporter around me agreed that it was a fair challenge. I suspect I'm not alone in noticing this.

That has nothing to do with the rules MS, that game was played under the old rules so if you're complaining about that (and I agre with you there) then that is a different argument and has nothing to do with these new rules.



The point is that there is firstly that there is nothing wrong with the rules - it's the referees that are the major problem. Secondly, I think these rules will continue to discourage physicality as if you hit a lad a perfect shoulder some gimp could give you the line so it has everything to do with this debate.

[Zulu]

Not really MS, if you give a legitimate shoulder then you shouldn't be punished either way, now if you follow through and give a late hit you may get the line now rather than just a booking but if you do that you are still committing a foul and deserve a scanction. I'm not saying the new rules are perfect nor am I saying they should even be retained but they do need to be given a championship to see if they are good, bad or indifferent for the game. There simply isn't any evidence to say the rules are taking the physicality out of football and anyone who says they are is talking out his hat. Because unless that same man has perfected bi-location he hasn't seen anymore than 5 or 6 games under the new rules so he isn't in a position to make an educated decision.

IMO the sensible thing to do is to give these rules a good chance and see what transpires, if they don't work by all means bin them but only a fool makes final decisions before evaluating all the evidence and we simply haven't seen enough yet to figure out where the rules will take us.

[Zulu]

This is a good article from Sean Moran and pretty much sums up my own opinions of the new rules.

SEÁN MORANOn Gaelic Games : The experimental disciplinary rules worked well in the National Leagues and deserve support

THIS WEEKEND the GAA once more comes to grips with the most deeply-rooted problem facing the association: the culture of indiscipline within its games. This year's annual congress will debate the future of the experimental disciplinary rules, as trialled during the current National Leagues.

Critics of the Disciplinary Task Force's proposals will take issue with the phrase "culture of indiscipline" but how else can it be described?

Its intended meaning here is that many teams and managers fundamentally resist the notion of being accountable to rules and resist as stubbornly as they can attempts to enforce compliance.

At least the proposals down for debate at congress this week have, unlike their 2005 predecessors, had a proper trial. The results of that trial have been encouraging. Each week the task force has put out statistics showing that there are more scores from play, a greater proportion of playing time over the 70 minutes and crucially, fewer fouls.

So why is there such visceral opposition – regardless of whether it manages to derail the proposals – to accepting the experimental provisions as permanent rule changes? Why do players and managers seem to feel that a tougher approach to foul play will disadvantage them?

And not just any managers: Kilkenny's Brian Cody and Tyrone's Mickey Harte, of the respective current All-Ireland champions, have prominently opposed the proposals and have been joined by Kerry's Jack O'Connor, the next most successful current manager at All-Ireland level.

In the Gaelic Players' Association statement yesterday evening the principal reasons given for the overwhelming negativity towards the proposals actually had nothing to do with their merits but with their enforcement.

Inconsistency of application is a potential problem with any set of rules but why would these be less acceptable if unevenly applied than the current rules. Surely the parameters of any code of conduct have to be established before their consistency can be worked on?

Fear of "unwarranted dismissal" was also mentioned in the GPA statement but that is completely subjective. Players in general are often reticent about agreeing that any infraction merits dismissal so any rule changes that make such a sanction more likely was always unlikely to find favour.

For managers, opposition to the substance of the proposals are partly because the desire to play on the edge is seen as a valid approach, albeit that such passionate engagement makes overstepping the mark inevitable. But if a team goes out to play on the edge, they will also occasionally fall off it.

"Once a player is sent off on one of those yellows," said O'Connor this week, "he won't tackle to save his life in the next game. What the yellow card does is it effectively takes the tackle out of the game. It's as simple as that. They are taking the physicality out of the game."

But if a player can't tackle without committing one of the listed infractions he's breaking the rules. To oppose the task force proposals is to assert the right of a player effectively to get away with it.

What tends to be overlooked is that the argument is not about what constitutes foul play – all of the experimental yellow card infractions that require a player to leave the field but be replaced are already contrary to rule – but about the consequences of that indiscipline.

Remember the fouls that have been categorised as highly disruptive are: pulling down an opponent, tripping an opponent, deliberately body colliding, bringing an arm or hurley around the neck of an opponent and remonstrating aggressively with match officials. There is nothing ambiguous about any of these; they are all unacceptable. In other words no legitimate use of physicality is affected.

By requiring a player who commits such an infraction to leave the field the proposals are simply raising the stakes for acts of indiscipline.

"You might have an isolated incident," said Cody last week in stating his opposition, "but the rules are there to govern those things anyway. If it's a red-card offence then he's sent off. And that's fine. If he gets a yellow then that's a warning and if he's stupid enough after that then he'll go then.

"But to be gone for the match on a yellow card, I don't like it. It's a shame to see a player getting a yellow card maybe five minutes into the game. It could happen in a Leinster final, or an All-Ireland semi-final or final. For maybe a clumsy challenge, but certainly not something deliberate. I don't think players go out to deliberately do anything stupid. I don't think there is any problem in the game."

Firstly, this would have the effect of indulging unacceptable behaviour because cautioning effectively allows twice as many fouls before decisive action is taken.

Secondly, Cody's comments – and he isn't unique in this – typify an attitude within the games that the player committing the infraction is in some way a sympathetic figure, who accidentally gets into trouble.

Even if the actions aren't deliberate – and plenty of them are – they aren't allowed and unfairly disadvantage the opposition. The question is: how can they effectively be discouraged?

Harte in his Irish News column has argued the rules as they stand would be sufficiently effective if properly enforced but the evidence painstakingly assembled by O'Neill's task force is that the listed infractions aren't adequately dealt with under current rules and have therefore become more common than is acceptable and worth the penalty incurred.

Read again the above list of "highly disruptive fouls" and work out which of them is worth encouraging.

Other arguments have tried to create a distinction between football and hurling and maintain that the latter doesn't have the same problem with calculated fouling. All of the empirical evidence is on the other side. Not alone are there the infractions specific to hurling as listed above but those that are common to both codes are not in short supply in hurling.

If serious about eliminating unacceptable behaviour, the GAA have to tilt the balance of convenience against the perpetrator. Disruptive fouls that disadvantage skilful players operating within the rules have to be turned into liabilities for the transgressor.

Another argument asks how small clubs will cope with the universal adoption of these proposals, presumably on the grounds that they mightn't have sufficient numbers to support an extravagant fouling habit. The answer is that they must learn not to foul. Anyway, many such clubs because of demographic pressures have to field very young players. Which regime better protects their interests?

The comparison has been made before but parking in Dublin before clamping was introduced was impossible because motorists felt breaking the law worth the risk of a fine that might or might not be enforced. Clamping was greeted at the time as an infringement of human rights but parking spaces became available because breaking the law was no longer worth the penalty.

Where does the GAA want the balance of convenience to lie?

e-mail: smoran@irishtimes.com