Throwing this out there for the rules experts....
They brought it up on the evening show of the Sunday Game about the Peadar Gardener free, where he hopped the ball three times trying to get control of it and was blown for a free out. My understanding of this was that if you hadn't taken full control of the ball that you could essentially hop it as many times as you like, once you only used the same hand.
Am I wrong, what are the practicalities of the rule, have there been changes in recent times??
Quote from: Louth Exile on August 13, 2009, 04:39:33 PM
Throwing this out there for the rules experts....
They brought it up on the evening show of the Sunday Game about the Peadar Gardener free, where he hopped the ball three times trying to get control of it and was blown for a free out. My understanding of this was that if you hadn't taken full control of the ball that you could essentially hop it as many times as you like, once you only used the same hand.
Am I wrong, what are the practicalities of the rule, have there been changes in recent times??
The point they were making was that Gardener lost control of the ball.
The ball did seem to skid in front of him so to regain control he had to bounce it a few more times.
It was another harsh decision by the ref.
My understanding is that you were correct until last year or the year before when they changed the interpretation on the rule so that even if your attempting to control the ball referees are supposed to now award a free against
Quote from: David McKeown on August 13, 2009, 04:54:25 PM
My understanding is that you were correct until last year or the year before when they changed the interpretation on the rule so that even if your attempting to control the ball referees are supposed to now award a free against
If that is the case, then the rule is silly. I don't really see any point in it.
Does that mean then that under the "old rules" that you could bounce the ball basketball style the whole length of the pitch?
aye looked like three bounces to me...
that decision was a disgrace--he never had control of the ball
My understanding is that you can hop the ball as many times as you want to gain control of it initially. Up to ref then to decide when you deemed to have control
Wasn't there controversy about this before in the nineties. Ironically enough I think it was Liam McHale in a Connacht match against Galway in either '96 or '97. He hopped the ball several times before gaining control of it - Mayo ended up getting a crucial score further on in the play if I remember correctly.
Quote from: Donnellys Hollow on August 13, 2009, 06:09:42 PM
Wasn't there controversy about this before in the nineties. Ironically enough I think it was Liam McHale in a Connacht match against Galway in either '96 or '97. He hopped the ball several times before gaining control of it - Mayo ended up getting a crucial score further on in the play if I remember correctly.
I remember that.
Then he threw it over the bar and shouted "Swish!" ;D
Quote from: Donnellys Hollow on August 13, 2009, 06:09:42 PM
Wasn't there controversy about this before in the nineties. Ironically enough I think it was Liam McHale in a Connacht match against Galway in either '96 or '97. He hopped the ball several times before gaining control of it - Mayo ended up getting a crucial score further on in the play if I remember correctly.
yes this was the 1996 connacht final and it led to the go ahead goal by ray dempsey.
so how then does david bray's goal fit into this argument
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxfCV7_JLEo
Quote from: tyroneman on August 13, 2009, 06:03:00 PM
My understanding is that you can hop the ball as many times as you want to gain control of it initially. Up to ref then to decide when you deemed to have control
'Possession' is the key here: once you're deemed to be in 'possession' of the ball then the hop-ball rule applies, but not until.
Didn't see the Gardner incident but Bray's goal wasn't a bounce first it was more a drop. He then got possession and bounced the ball and finished.
Tricky rule but I would agree if you've bounced a ball and it's slid away on you you should be allowed a bounce to get control without being penalised.
Quote from: David McKeown on August 13, 2009, 04:54:25 PM
My understanding is that you were correct until last year or the year before when they changed the interpretation on the rule so that even if your attempting to control the ball referees are supposed to now award a free against
Do you know, was it a foul "under the old rule" if you changed the bouncing hand?
Quote from: Smokin Joe on August 13, 2009, 05:43:25 PM
Does that mean then that under the "old rules" that you could bounce the ball basketball style the whole length of the pitch?
Technically yes, but you try doing that against 15 Meathmen!!
Quote from: Louth Exile on August 14, 2009, 12:06:03 AM
Quote from: Smokin Joe on August 13, 2009, 05:43:25 PM
Does that mean then that under the "old rules" that you could bounce the ball basketball style the whole length of the pitch?
Technically yes, but you try doing that against 15 Meathmen!!
Not really, you still couldn't be 'not in possession' for the whole length of the pitch, technically or otherwise. In practice, the ref will give you three bounces max (maybe four), and if you haven't managed to control it by then and have it in your
possession, you'll be whistled up for overcarrying. Unless you're playing in a snowstorm.
Quote from: David McKeown on August 13, 2009, 04:54:25 PM
My understanding is that you were correct until last year or the year before when they changed the interpretation on the rule so that even if your attempting to control the ball referees are supposed to now award a free against
I vaguely recall some rule change alright or talk of it, can you or anyone confirm this ?
up until then it was allowed to bounce the ball (I deem a 'hop' the action of a ball that is under control) was allowed a few times until the player brought the ball under control.
I actually recall thinkig about this some 20 years ago to see if I would actually use this to solo up the field a wee bit while feigning lack of control.
Realised this was stupid and thought better of it.
A decent ref would spot when its under control anyhow, but if that rule had not been applied as DMcKeown says, then the ref was incorrect awarding a free against gardiner on sunday.
This is all the Official Guide says abut it - interpret as you will:
Rule 1.5: When the ball has not been caught, it may be
bounced more than once in succession.
Rune 4.6 (under technical fouls): To bounce the ball
more than once consecutively after catching it.
It doesn't mention anything about control - only catching the ball. So I'd interpret that as allowing a basketball type dribble the length of the field if you fancy trying it. The Meathmen couldn't do a thing about it these days, Louth Exile without provoking a concerto of multicoloured card waving.
Quote from: Hardy on August 14, 2009, 10:18:11 AM
This is all the Official Guide says abut it - interpret as you will:
Rule 1.5: When the ball has not been caught, it may be
bounced more than once in succession.
Rune 4.6 (under technical fouls): To bounce the ball
more than once consecutively after catching it.
It doesn't mention anything about control - only catching the ball. So I'd interpret that as allowing a basketball type dribble the length of the field if you fancy trying it. The Meathmen couldn't do a thing about it these days, Louth Exile without provoking a concerto of multicoloured card waving.
Given that rule (which couldn't be clearer), why have we seen refs clamp down on the bounce (without catching it) this year?
Any chance of Croke Park clearing this up?
Quote from: Hardy on August 14, 2009, 10:18:11 AM
This is all the Official Guide says abut it - interpret as you will:
Rule 1.5: When the ball has not been caught, it may be
bounced more than once in succession.
Rune 4.6 (under technical fouls): To bounce the ball
more than once consecutively after catching it.
It doesn't mention anything about control - only catching the ball. So I'd interpret that as allowing a basketball type dribble the length of the field if you fancy trying it. The Meathmen couldn't do a thing about it these days, Louth Exile without provoking a concerto of multicoloured card waving.
Just to clarify, with reference to David McKeown's post above about a change of interpretation last year. The above is from the version of the Official Guide current on gaa.ie, dated April 2008. It's not clear whether it's pre- or post- Congress 2008, if there was a rule change at that congress, but it would seem unlikely that they'd publish an updated OG just prior to a congress.
I think directives on interpretation are also issued, without reference to Congress, as far as I know. I don't know who defines and agrees and issues them. However, it would seem strange to re-interpret the rule to outlaw a bounce if the ball is not caught, when the rule so specifically designates catching as the criterion.
Sorry to clarify I dont think the rule was changed per se but I remember either reading in refereeing matters in the back of a program or in one of the papers that referees were now being told to interpret the rule in effect as a player having caught the ball from they first touch it which I agree makes the rules nonsense but it wouldnt be the first time
Unless you have control of the ball, you cannot "foul the ball". The Gardiner decision was wrong. As far as I know, this rule hasnt been changes over the last 20 years or more....