The Mark? The game yesterday on TG4 between Louth and Kildare had some good fielding and the mark seemed to work well But in other games there was a lot of breaking the ball rather than catching. Debateable.
13 meter kickout? Neither here nor there really. I suppose it would lead to a consistancy in kickouts where players knew where about the ball the ball was going to land. No real reason to keep.
Penalty spot closer to goal? Not really a help as GAA goal posts are narrow. What would really help would be stricter enforcing of existing rules i.e. goalkeeper CANNOT advance from the line until ball is kicked. There are 3 referees on the pitch so why can't the linesmen (referees) make sure the goalie doesn't advance.
Closed fist pass? I think this should be kept as it seemed to work. No debate about wherther it was a throw/shovelling out bal/or just ball recycling like rugby.
In hurling, Ger Healion got a pushover try for Offaly against Kilkenny yesterday, which helped Offaly to a 3 point win, so the square ball experiment was a roaring success in my eyes :D
Forgot about square ball but as an ex goalie, get out of my square.
Ger Healion might be a hard man to persuade to leave the square. Think Bomber Liston, only with a bigger arse, carrying a hurl.
Quote from: Denn Forever on February 01, 2010, 10:05:26 AM
The Mark? The game yesterday on TG4 between Louth and Kildare had some good fielding and the mark seemed to work well But in other games there was a lot of breaking the ball rather than catching. Debateable.
13 meter kickout? Neither here nor there really. I suppose it would lead to a consistancy in kickouts where players knew where about the ball the ball was going to land. No real reason to keep.
Penalty spot closer to goal? Not really a help as GAA goal posts are narrow. What would really help would be stricter enforcing of existing rules i.e. goalkeeper CANNOT advance from the line until ball is kicked. There are 3 referees on the pitch so why can't the linesmen (referees) make sure the goalie doesn't advance.
Closed fist pass? I think this should be kept as it seemed to work. No debate about wherther it was a throw/shovelling out bal/or just ball recycling like rugby.
This one was a complete disaster IMO and an un-needed rule change.
it just leads to more inconsitancy in refereeing which should be what any new rulle change should try and get rid of.
unsure about the mark, but will be worth a further look in the league.
Just simply ban the fcukin handpass and the fist pass. The name of the game is FOOTBall not throwball.
As for the mar k....can't see it coming in, 13 m kick out ...whatever.
Square ball ...good idea . Penalty spot also a good idea.
As for the ball out of play before the game ends ...how does anyone know it's over time ?
New rules? What new rules? Watched Tyrone and Donegal on tv and little changed. Of course I m one of a few that does nt want the present game messed with. I believe the the challenge is for the coaches - not the lawmen. Its an evolving game naturally. There was never a mark when fellas caught high ball. No use trying to artificially recreate that. That does nt work. People dont go to games to see high fielding. They go to see their team play/win.
Quote from: Rossfan on February 01, 2010, 06:04:13 PM
Just simply ban the fcukin handpass and the fist pass. The name of the game is FOOTBall not throwball.
As for the mar k....can't see it coming in, 13 m kick out ...whatever.
Square ball ...good idea . Penalty spot also a good idea.
As for the ball out of play before the game ends ...how does anyone know it's over time ?
total farce, donegal keeper kicked the ball out of play on saturday night as he though the time was up. The ref still played on and tyrone got a point from the line ball, imagine if they had got a goal and won the game with it.
Surely that was just a mistake by the goalie? There's no suggestion that the players need to know the game is over the next time the ball goes dead. It's just a proposal to improve the farcical situation where referees were deciding when to blow the whistle based on where the play was on the pitch and the nonsense that went on about it being unfair to blow when a team was attacking.
I don't have an opinion yet on the other rules (it is an experiment after all - shouldn't we evaluate it when we have enough data). But this one I'm for, at least as an interim measure until we get independent time-keeping.
Thought the fist pass rule was bit of a disaster. Some refs like Pat McEnaney made a point of enforcing it, while other refs let it slide. Enforcing it broke down the rhythm of the game, caused a lot of frustration where a team on the attack was suddenly overturned by the ref for a rule that I see little merit in.
Mark rule was good.
End of match rule is fine.
Fist pass rule was awful.
Others neither here nor there.
Quote from: sandwiches_in_the_boot on February 02, 2010, 10:53:50 AM
Thought the fist pass rule was bit of a disaster. Some refs like Pat McEnaney made a point of enforcing it, while other refs let it slide. Enforcing it broke down the rhythm of the game, caused a lot of frustration where a team on the attack was suddenly overturned by the ref for a rule that I see little merit in.
You use the same reasoning to argue for the rule. In past years countless frees have been given against players who are judged to have passed the ball with their open hand without proper striking action.
"Enforcing it broke down the rhythm of the game, caused a lot of frustration where a team on the attack was suddenly overturned by the ref for a rule that I see little merit in"
The new rule will eventually nullify this issue and the current problems with the rule are only temporary until it is fully adopted and we all become use to it.
Quote from: Homer on February 02, 2010, 11:02:25 AM
You use the same reasoning to argue for the rule. In past years countless frees have been given against players who are judged to have passed the ball with their open hand without proper striking action.
If the ball isn't struck then it's a throw ball, I don't see how closing the fist improves Gaelic Football.
Quote from: Homer on February 02, 2010, 11:02:25 AM
The new rule will eventually nullify this issue and the current problems with the rule are only temporary until it is fully adopted and we all become use to it.
That's some assumption. There has been inconsistancy on its enforcement so far by referees. Enforcing it fully would require a referee to be extremely close to every movement of play to judge whether a player's fingers were closed sufficiently enough. This would require referee fitness to equate that of the players. Can you really see this happening at all levels of football? It would leave more inconsistancy and heap more pressure on referees to make such calls.
If the GAA adopts this 'rule' what's next? You can't flick a ball down from a kickout with fingers?
The Mark isn't worth bringing in because it won't lead to any more high catches in the middle of the field. Mid-fielders will be going out (more than at present) with the sole instruction of stopping the other team from having any marks in the game. Breaking ball will become more important around the middle so could we see a more crowd middle third of the pitch in the contest for breaks?? It's hardly that big of a leap...
The handpass one is stupid, I really don't see the difference in letting a fella use his fist to strike the ball and not letting him use an open hand to do the same. It also makes the game hard to referee, imagine losing a game because the referee thought you gave a hand pass instead of a fist pass and the referee disallows a score or gives a winning free kick...
Quote from: sandwiches_in_the_boot on February 02, 2010, 03:04:02 PM
Quote from: Homer on February 02, 2010, 11:02:25 AM
You use the same reasoning to argue for the rule. In past years countless frees have been given against players who are judged to have passed the ball with their open hand without proper striking action.
If the ball isn't struck then it's a throw ball, I don't see how closing the fist improves Gaelic Football.
I'm with this. Why does it matter what part of your hand you hit the ball with? Stupid rule, akin to banning toe pokes because you perfer the ball to be kicked with a different area of the foot.
With a closed fist you have to effect a more deliberate motion/stricking action. Easier to spot if you don't do it.
Try it with a ball.
Place the ball on your hand. Can you move the ball off the stationary hand without clearly striking it? The closed fist makes it more obvious that the ball is struck.
From what I saw people were pulled up when there wasn't a clear striking of the ball.
I don't like this logic. Lets ban something, not because we're particularly opposed to it, but because it'll help us spot other indiscretions. Seems like a lazy option.
So lets for example in the case of picking the ball off the ground decide that players must retract the leg so the knee bends to at least a 90 degree angle with the upper leg just to make sure we can clearly see the toe going under it.
The hard part of the palm can strike the ball well whether the fingers are closed or not.