Can't see a seperate thread for this but does anyone think that these proposals might actually carry through. In recent weeks there have been countless examples highlighted of niggly tactical fouling which has become a blight on the game. In todays Irish News Paddy Heaney stated that of the Ulster counties Tyrone, Down, Antrim and Fermanagh (i think?) have all indicated that they intend to vote against the proposals. Does this mean that the remaining counties are in favour of the new proposals? Does the 2/3rds majority rule apply to get them through?
Apparently the 3 issues are:
1) The introduction of black cards
2) Introduction of the mark
3) Introduction of a 30m penalty (ball brought forward) for dissent
For potential rule changes that could drastically alter the landscape of gaelic football, there has been surprisingly very little debate in the media about these issues in the last week.
Presumably the issues are to be voted for seperately and not as part of a package?
Would definitely be in favour of the black cards and the dissent rules, not too sure about the mark, would like to see how it would work first.
Another rule which should have been a no brainer is the issue of time keeping. It needs to operated on a hooter system much like in ladies football. I watched the AI club final on Sunday and the McRory cup final on Monday and how they gave 1 and 2 minutes injury time respectively in these 2 games was mystifying.
Surely this whole matter should be dealt with at a Special Congress not just lumped into the middle of the regular Congress along with everything else.
Seeing that Micky Harte is against any attempt to stop cynical fouling I'm edging towards acceptance of the black card idea but it ahould be strengthened by
Every Black card offence = free from 13 metre line except in last 10 minutes.
Last 10 = A Penalty.
Of course most of Ulster is against any new proposals ::)
NEVER
NEVER
NEVER
Having seen fermanagh in action last Saturday I doubt they would have any players left if these rules were brought in.
The 30m seems a bit extreme but it'd soon cut out the backchat.
Similar to Rossfan's idea, in basketball there are "team fouls" and when a team amasses a certain amount, every additional foul carries a two free throw penalty. That type of idea, while technically would take a bit of working out, means that the team is collectively responsible for not fouling no matter who or where it is on the field, as it would give away a 30m free.
No, no, no.
There's very little wrong with Gaelic Football, except obviously the whinging whining hoors that are allowed to commentate on it in the public sphere. They don't do this kind of shite with Hurling, and rightly so. The best policy would be to leave Football alone, at least until we're sure a change would benefit the game. That cannot be said of these proposed changes. Black cards are obviously useless for a range of reasons (I think we've discussed this before). The mark rewards a skill but at the expense of several other. Why, for example, should a back not be given a free for a block? It's as least as difficult a skill as the high catch. And finally, 30m is obviously ridiculous when you just consider the varying lengths of Gaelic Football pitches around the country ... it could easily have a greater negative impact on some teams than others. I get the strong feeling that these changes are proposed by people with an extremely limited grasp of how football is played.
As for "cynical fouls", couldn't you just award the score where there was a significant chance of it being taken prior to the foul?
If we enforce the rules we have, that would be a start. "Cynical" fouls can be dealt with under the existing rules if we want - Cadogan hauled down Murphy with a rugby tackle in the last minute of their game at the weekend when he was odds on for a goal and only got a yellow, should have been straight red and a ban imo
Quote from: Ard-Rí on March 19, 2013, 10:09:45 PM
No, no, no.
There's very little wrong with Gaelic Football, except obviously the whinging whining hoors that are allowed to commentate on it in the public sphere. They don't do this kind of shite with Hurling, and rightly so. The best policy would be to leave Football alone, at least until we're sure a change would benefit the game. That cannot be said of these proposed changes. Black cards are obviously useless for a range of reasons (I think we've discussed this before). The mark rewards a skill but at the expense of several other. Why, for example, should a back not be given a free for a block? It's as least as difficult a skill as the high catch. And finally, 30m is obviously ridiculous when you just consider the varying lengths of Gaelic Football pitches around the country ... it could easily have a greater negative impact on some teams than others. I get the strong feeling that these changes are proposed by people with an extremely limited grasp of how football is played.
As for "cynical fouls", couldn't you just award the score where there was a significant chance of it being taken prior to the foul?
Say what? 30m is 30m. Don't slabber at the ref and no team has anything to fear.
As cynical as Tyrone are, the lowest tackle of the weekend was Eoin Cadogan on Michael Murphy.
Ridiculous stuff.
If nothing is passed we will get more of the same which is more pulling, dragging, tactical fouling particularly in latter stages of games where the team that is ahead can benefit by fouling and having the referee stop play to issue yellow cards etc. To be honest Mickey Harte amongst others are looking after their own self interest and you can't really blame him. However purely for the game as a spectacle the free kick count has to be brought down closer to a hurling match. The discrepancy between the 2 codes in terms of free kicks per match is much too big. I don't know if black cards are the solution but it has to be better than what we are currently watching.
Quote from: Jinxy on March 19, 2013, 10:39:29 PM
As cynical as Tyrone are, the lowest tackle of the weekend was Eoin Cadogan on Michael Murphy.
Ridiculous stuff.
Have no great love for Tyrone but I don't think they are any more or less cynical than a lot of counties. The perception is that they are the pioneers of this tactic because their manager has publicly lambasted anyone who questions the idea of rule change. I think by doing this he will probably do his side no favours in the longer term.
Stronger refs.
On a basic level there are two types of fouls - the honest clumsy foul (Bellew) and then there's the intentional (Ger Brennan).
A yellow for the first intentional foul would soon cut out the crap, even if it's from the throw-in. You rarely see yellows in the first 10 minutes.
Quote from: ONeill on March 19, 2013, 10:49:47 PM
Stronger refs.
On a basic level there are two types of fouls - the honest clumsy foul (Bellew) and then there's the intentional (Ger Brennan).
A yellow for the first intentional foul would soon cut out the crap, even if it's from the throw-in. You rarely see yellows in the first 10 minutes.
Must introduce you to Michael Duffy sometime!
Mickey Harte may not be backing the new rules, but I don't think Tyrone will suffer to any great extent if they do get a pass at Congress. They are very good at adapting to whatever is thrown at them. The mark, for example, is to encourage high fielding but I have no doubt that Tyrone players will be winning marks just outside the 45, out on the wing, with a catch in the stomach rather than soaring through the clouds at full stretch in the middle. Think they will quickly discipline themselves in relation to the dissent punishment of 30m- players will soon realise that they will be hauled off for this offence. Black cards could be a problem because of the reputation they now have has cynical wee men, which the likes if Brolly continues to promote & also because of the way they quickly surround a player in possession. Overall, I don't see why Harte should be that annoyed with these potential changes.
Quote from: Ard-Rí on March 19, 2013, 10:09:45 PM
No, no, no.
There's very little wrong with Gaelic Football, except obviously the whinging whining hoors that are allowed to commentate on it in the public sphere. They don't do this kind of shite with Hurling, and rightly so. The best policy would be to leave Football alone, at least until we're sure a change would benefit the game. That cannot be said of these proposed changes. Black cards are obviously useless for a range of reasons (I think we've discussed this before). The mark rewards a skill but at the expense of several other. Why, for example, should a back not be given a free for a block? It's as least as difficult a skill as the high catch. And finally, 30m is obviously ridiculous when you just consider the varying lengths of Gaelic Football pitches around the country ... it could easily have a greater negative impact on some teams than others. I get the strong feeling that these changes are proposed by people with an extremely limited grasp of how football is played.
As for "cynical fouls", couldn't you just award the score where there was a significant chance of it being taken prior to the foul?
Jesus man did you even think that through before posting? If a 30m penalty for back chat is ridiculous because of the varying lengths of GAA pitches then so is the 13m penalty for the same offence, likewise a sideline ball close to goal on a narrow pitch as opposed to a wider pitch. Of all the recommendations the 30m is indisputably sensible as it is a real deterrent to the shite hawkery we see after many frees have been awarded. And if brought in we would see an end to this stuff pretty quickly. How anyone can be opposed to that one is beyond me.
As for your own suggestion about predicting the future and awarding a score, do you watch any football, you've seen great scoring opportunities missed before right, or players getting goals sometimes and points others? You arrogantly dismiss the FRC's proposals as if submitted by a slow child yet come up with one that would mean a ref would have to decide whether a fouled player would have scored and if so whether he would have got a goal or a point. Wow!!
QuoteIf we enforce the rules we have, that would be a start. "Cynical" fouls can be dealt with under the existing rules if we want - Cadogan hauled down Murphy with a rugby tackle in the last minute of their game at the weekend when he was odds on for a goal and only got a yellow, should have been straight red and a ban imo
But that's the point, Cadogan couldn't have been sent off for that foul under the current rules. Unlike soccer where it is a good deal easier to issue a red card for such an offence as it is generally much clearer that a goal scoring chance was prevented by the foul in football a ref would usually be in a lose lose situation as cynical fouling close to goal designed to prevent goal scoring opportunities may not necessarily have actually prevented one as other defenders would be close by. Both Colm Boyle and Alan Dillion cynically fouled Dublin players in last years semi to prevent Dublin creating a potential goal chance but I'm sure you wouldn't agree with them both being sent off and banned for the All Ireland?
A sin bin is the way to go IMO but since that's not on the table then I'd be willing to give the black cards a go. The bottom line is there is too much fouling in the game so something must be done. I do think though that any new rule should be trialled first and at lower levels first to see how it works away from the media glare and the self motivated moanings of IC managers.
Quote from: Zulu on March 19, 2013, 11:19:54 PM
Quote from: Ard-Rí on March 19, 2013, 10:09:45 PM
No, no, no.
There's very little wrong with Gaelic Football, except obviously the whinging whining hoors that are allowed to commentate on it in the public sphere. They don't do this kind of shite with Hurling, and rightly so. The best policy would be to leave Football alone, at least until we're sure a change would benefit the game. That cannot be said of these proposed changes. Black cards are obviously useless for a range of reasons (I think we've discussed this before). The mark rewards a skill but at the expense of several other. Why, for example, should a back not be given a free for a block? It's as least as difficult a skill as the high catch. And finally, 30m is obviously ridiculous when you just consider the varying lengths of Gaelic Football pitches around the country ... it could easily have a greater negative impact on some teams than others. I get the strong feeling that these changes are proposed by people with an extremely limited grasp of how football is played.
As for "cynical fouls", couldn't you just award the score where there was a significant chance of it being taken prior to the foul?
Jesus man did you even think that through before posting? If a 30m penalty for back chat is ridiculous because of the varying lengths of GAA pitches then so is the 13m penalty for the same offence, likewise a sideline ball close to goal on a narrow pitch as opposed to a wider pitch. Of all the recommendations the 30m is indisputably sensible as it is a real deterrent to the shite hawkery we see after many frees have been awarded. And if brought in we would see an end to this stuff pretty quickly. How anyone can be opposed to that one is beyond me.
As for your own suggestion about predicting the future and awarding a score, do you watch any football, you've seen great scoring opportunities missed before right, or players getting goals sometimes and points others? You arrogantly dismiss the FRC's proposals as if submitted by a slow child yet come up with one that would mean a ref would have to decide whether a fouled player would have scored and if so whether he would have got a goal or a point. Wow!!
QuoteIf we enforce the rules we have, that would be a start. "Cynical" fouls can be dealt with under the existing rules if we want - Cadogan hauled down Murphy with a rugby tackle in the last minute of their game at the weekend when he was odds on for a goal and only got a yellow, should have been straight red and a ban imo
But that's the point, Cadogan couldn't have been sent off for that foul under the current rules. Unlike soccer where it is a good deal easier to issue a red card for such an offence as it is generally much clearer that a goal scoring chance was prevented by the foul in football a ref would usually be in a lose lose situation as cynical fouling close to goal designed to prevent goal scoring opportunities may not necessarily have actually prevented one as other defenders would be close by. Both Colm Boyle and Alan Dillion cynically fouled Dublin players in last years semi to prevent Dublin creating a potential goal chance but I'm sure you wouldn't agree with them both being sent off and banned for the All Ireland?
A sin bin is the way to go IMO but since that's not on the table then I'd be willing to give the black cards a go. The bottom line is there is too much fouling in the game so something must be done. I do think though that any new rule should be trialled first and at lower levels first to see how it works away from the media glare and the self motivated moanings of IC managers.
Agree with a lot of that, particularly the sin bin in preference to the black card and also the trialling of these rules in smaller competitions/ lower levels.
Quote from: Zulu link=topic=22916.msg1212496#msg121
Both Colm Boyle and Alan Dillion cynically fouled Dublin players in last years semi to prevent Dublin creating a potential goal chance but I'm sure you wouldn't agree with them both being sent off and banned for the All Ireland
Why are you sure of that? Because they're from Mayo? I think if a player makes no attempt to play the ball then it should be a red card regardless of where the foul happens? You can be sure teams wouldn't be long cutting it out if that were the case.
So do you believe they should have been sent off and suspended for the final? I don't necessarily disagree that players who clearly make no attempt to play the ball should be sent off but I feel that players would just get a little smarter about that type of foul and if two players do it then it would be up to the ref to interpret if a genuine attempt was made to play the ball and he might get one wrong thus leading to uproar. I think we need a halfway house, the sin bin, which punishes players and teams but isn't so harsh that refs getting wrong would be a disaster for teams.
Honestly I don't remember the incidents you're referring to but yes with the caveat that such a policy would need to come in at the start of the year rather than at the business end of the championship.
Personally I think the sin bin would be good but it's unlikely to ht tried again
Both players pulled Dublin lads back/down when they were trying to work a goal near the end, now neither time was the Dublin player through on goal like Murphy would have been last Saturday but neither Mayo man was attempting to tackle the ball and both were obviously trying to prevent a goal scoring opportunity as the resultant frees would have been gimmies for points.
As I said I wouldn't necessarily disagree that those types of fouls should be red cards but I think a sin bin is the more appropriate punishment. Don't really understand why the FRC didn't propose the sin bin when they also consider it the best option, I don't see why it couldn't be introduced at club level, and I do think it will eventually come in. I don't see the black cards getting through so the sin bin will come back up again in a few years.
QuoteJesus man did you even think that through before posting? If a 30m penalty for back chat is ridiculous because of the varying lengths of GAA pitches then so is the 13m penalty for the same offence, likewise a sideline ball close to goal on a narrow pitch as opposed to a wider pitch. Of all the recommendations the 30m is indisputably sensible as it is a real deterrent to the shite hawkery we see after many frees have been awarded. And if brought in we would see an end to this stuff pretty quickly. How anyone can be opposed to that one is beyond me.
Are you seriously suggesting that 13 metres is as damaging on a short pitch as 30 metres? Really? That the referee could move a ball forward at worst (for the defending team) 1/10 of the pitch to at best 1/4 of the pitch under the new rule. For dissent? As if the standard of refereeing is high enough to award them such ridiculous powers. Talk about throwing fuel on the fire!
QuoteAs for your own suggestion about predicting the future and awarding a score, do you watch any football, you've seen great scoring opportunities missed before right, or players getting goals sometimes and points others? You arrogantly dismiss the FRC's proposals as if submitted by a slow child yet come up with one that would mean a ref would have to decide whether a fouled player would have scored and if so whether he would have got a goal or a point. Wow!!
Sure we've seen a similar system in operation in the rugby, your objections could be dealt with simply by giving the benefit of the doubt to the attacking team. If there was a reasonable chance the player would have scored a point, award it, likewise for a goal.
QuoteAre you seriously suggesting that 13 metres is as damaging on a short pitch as 30 metres? Really? That the referee could move a ball forward at worst (for the defending team) 1/10 of the pitch to at best 1/4 of the pitch under the new rule. For dissent? As if the standard of refereeing is high enough to award them such ridiculous powers. Talk about throwing fuel on the fire!
Of course it's not but the principle is the same and the reason we have dissent and lads throwing the ball away or standing in front of the free taker is because they usually don't care about giving away 13m so it's a deterrent that doesn't deter. We need a deterrent that does deter and as someone else pointed out once a few frees that were well out of scoring range are brought forward into imminently scorable range all that messing would stop. Football improved in one simple stroke as we no longer have messing going after a free being awarded.
QuoteSure we've seen a similar system in operation in the rugby, your objections could be dealt with simply by giving the benefit of the doubt to the attacking team. If there was a reasonable chance the player would have scored a point, award it, likewise for a goal.
Rugby is a totally different game and that rule is there because you could foul all day rather than concede a try when your try line is under threat. In football there is no way you could know whether a point or goal would be scored in 99% of situations and with a goal keeper trying to stop it there is no reason you couldn't argue any goal bound shot wouldn't have been stopped. Picture this, Meath 2 points down in the All Ireland final with time almost up and a Meath man is fouled as he breaks through on goal, ref decides (somehow) that the forward would only have put it over the bar rather than in the net so Meath lose by a point. Do you think anyone would think that fair or that any refs would like to be put in a position that they have to decide what a team scores without anyone taking a shot? A crazy suggestion.
QuoteOf course it's not but the principle is the same and the reason we have dissent and lads throwing the ball away or standing in front of the free taker is because they usually don't care about giving away 13m so it's a deterrent that doesn't deter. We need a deterrent that does deter and as someone else pointed out once a few frees that were well out of scoring range are brought forward into imminently scorable range all that messing would stop. Football improved in one simple stroke as we no longer have messing going after a free being awarded.
Firstly, the assumption here is that players have nothing to complain about when a referee awards a free. When the reality is bad referees (very common) get it wrong so often that some dissent is inevitable, regardless of rule changes. I've played matches with referees well known for giving straight red cards for dissent. Lads still gave them back-chat when they made a bad decision, from both sides. So I don't think 30 metres will change much.
Secondly, there's a huge discrepancy in the 13 metres awarded by one referee compared to the next one. Could be anything from 6 metres to 20. I could only expect that a 30 metre penalty would compound that problem.
Thirdly, there's not a huge problem with dissent in the game. Good referees can get through a game without incurring much talk back from players, and you rarely see players refusing to move away from a free taker before he kicks the ball. The penalty of 30 metres is punishment beyond the offence, in my opinion.
QuoteRugby is a totally different game and that rule is there because you could foul all day rather than concede a try when your try line is under threat. In football there is no way you could know whether a point or goal would be scored in 99% of situations and with a goal keeper trying to stop it there is no reason you couldn't argue any goal bound shot wouldn't have been stopped. Picture this, Meath 2 points down in the All Ireland final with time almost up and a Meath man is fouled as he breaks through on goal, ref decides (somehow) that the forward would only have put it over the bar rather than in the net so Meath lose by a point. Do you think anyone would think that fair or that any refs would like to be put in a position that they have to decide what a team scores without anyone taking a shot? A crazy suggestion.
I don't think you quite understood me when I said give the benefit of the doubt to the attacking side. If there was (a) an imminent shot on goal, or (b) a strong possibility of a shot on goal prior to a "cynical" foul then award the goal, regardless of goalkeeper. You're looking for a deterrent, there it is. The defender will now prefer to give his keeper the chance to save the ball than to drag an opponent down.
If a sinbin were to be introduced at club level, who would be the timekeeper? It can't possibly be left to the ref as they're proving more and more that they shouldn't even be the timekeeper for the match itself. Would it be easy to bring an extra neutral official? I'd assume clubs wouldn't be happy with an individual from a club involved in any given match taking up the role
The media push for the new rules is obvious even to the point of having a go at managers who dare to differ. This will get passed. The GAA is heavily influenced by the media agenda as are you guys.
Quote from: rrhf on March 20, 2013, 08:36:46 AM
The media push for the new rules is obvious even to the point of having a go at managers who dare to differ. This will get passed. The GAA is heavily influenced by the media agenda as are you guys.
The FRC did a serious amount of consultation and surveying of players at all levels. To say their proposals from were influenced by the media is a nonsense.
Just as Mickey Harte is is entitled to disagree with any potential rule change, equally journalists can disagree with him. He doesn't own the GAA.
I can only repeat what I said the last time we debated this:
I couldn't agree more, Ard-Rí. The Mary Poppins movement within the game, and especially within the media, has chipped away at the ethos of the game for decades, until it has reached the point where it is accepted without question that the game needs to be made more "attractive", that the only legitimate footballers are forwards, that defenders are some sort of criminal underclass whose excesses need to be curbed and that physical clashes are to be eliminated completely.
There is a widespread assumption that the biggest problem in the game is "cynical" fouling. You can't listen to a sports bulletin or read any news report on gaelic football without coming across the awful "cynical" cliché. This rules-revision circus has now institutionalised this nonsensical concept, with proposals emerging to penalise "deliberate and cynical" fouling with a different set of sanctions to those applied to other fouls.
A foul is a foul. The penalty is a free. Repeated fouling attracts a series of heavier sanctions. That's how it stands now. What, exactly, is wrong with that? Only two things, in my opinion – the failure or refusal of referees to apply the rules as written and their failure to recognise or punish the real cynicism - the cynical diving and cheating that seeks to mislead them. The solution to that is not to rewrite the rules, it is to fix the refereeing problem.
What is a cynical foul? Does the definition depend on the attitude of the fouler? How is this to be determined? Or is it to be based on the position on the pitch, or the time of the game, or the reaction of the player fouled (and we all know how that influences referees)? To illustrate the nonsense of this – try to define a non-cynical foul.
The biggest problem with this is not that it's addressing the wrong problem, but that it will worsen the biggest problem in the game – diving, cheating and injury-feigning. It is a diver's charter.
Not only that, but a proposal is now emerging to penalise the famous, imaginary "third man tackle", which, as we have shown here before, does not exist in the rules. There is nothing in the rules that says I must move out of the path of any player, whether he is in possession or not. (There is also nothing that says I may not move into his path, as long as I don't charge him, even though referees have been penalising this in a freelance capacity for decades now). And that's for good reason in (what was) a physical contact game.
If this proposal is approved, we will not only see misinterpretation, as players are penalised for standing their ground, but we'll see players altering course to ensure they are "fouled" (see players chasing the garryowen in rugby) and, of course, more diving.
These people are going to ruin our game. We need to fix the real problems of the game – diving, cheating and the growing namby-pambification of it – not make them worse in some sort of misguided, media-appeasing, hotch-potch of populist claptrap disguised as serious analysis and reform.
I would add two things:
1. My solution to the problem of the score-preventing rugby tackle in the last minute is a refinement of Ard-Rí's, that eliminates the need for the referee to judge the likelihood of a score. I'd penalise that type of foul (which is easily definable - two arms/hands on the opponent or a deliberate trip) with a 13m free in front of the posts or, if it happens anywhere inside the 13m line, with a penalty. This to apply no matter where on the field the foul occurs and, of course, no matter what stage of the game. I am always conscious of the danger of further encouraging diving (the biggest problem in the game - did I mention that?) but I think if you put two arms on the opponent, knowing the penalty, you deserve to be penalised, dive or not. The simulated-trip type of dive is more of a problem but, ultimately, referees have to referee.
2. I do think dissent and disrespect for referees is a problem. Of course, many referees richly earn that disrespect. Nevertheless, the games can't function without a culture of acceptance of refereeing decisions and this problem won't just persist – it will continually worsen if it's not tackled. We've learned that from observing soccer – the level of abuse and backchat to referees has escalated from zero thirty years ago to what we see now. We have to learn the solution from rugby.
What Hardy said...Post Of The Year 2013.
Yeah a lot of sense in that post Hardy and some interesting suggestions.
I've probably got more of a forward than a defender mindset when it comes to these things but I too (despite being from Tyrone ;)) hate the whole pulling a man down to stop the chance of a score or even just to stop the momentum of a break away attack.
I don't always succeed but when I'm at matches and a foul is given (or not given) I try to ask myself how would I feel if that was against my team instead?
When Canavan pulled down Gooch near the end of 2005 final my very first reaction was "Ah God that's terrible" as I would have went mad had Gooch done it to Peter.
I am also a believer that if the punishments are spelled out clearly and severe enough and of course executed properly then players & management will change their mindset.
The fact is that players, even in an AI semi final are still willing to drag a man down to give away a 50 yard free as they believe they won't get sent off and miss the final nor will the other team get a score. If the free is taken up to the 13m line then players will change their behaviour.
The whole diving thing is indeed a blight and I know over the years we've done our fair share of it.
IMHO the only way to deal with it at intercounty level is via TV cameras. It's hard for refs to make a call there and then.
Of course there will be loads of matches where there will be no cameras but if players knew that if they are caught doing obvious dives, that they could miss the next game or two then again attitudes would change.
+2
Tyrone have been accused of being divers for years. You would imagine a team so well versed in this tactic would be all in favour of a rule which would give them further advantage. ::)
Another change I would not be in favour of is the mark. It will not encourage of improve the "art" of high fielding but will instead reduce the number of contested kick-outs in the game. Mid-fielders will be encouraged to break the ball down rather than risk their opposite number getting a free kick. From the more tactically savvy Managers it will lead to a series of Stephen Cluxton clones (Morgan!) spraying kick-outs to fast mobile players who will be taking the ball unchallenged at head height and lead to more stop-start realigning of players into tactical formations as the mark is called and taken.
Quote from: Ard-Rí on March 19, 2013, 10:09:45 PM
No, no, no.
There's very little wrong with Gaelic Football, except obviously the whinging whining hoors that are allowed to commentate on it in the public sphere. They don't do this kind of shite with Hurling, and rightly so. The best policy would be to leave Football alone, at least until we're sure a change would benefit the game. That cannot be said of these proposed changes. Black cards are obviously useless for a range of reasons (I think we've discussed this before). The mark rewards a skill but at the expense of several other. Why, for example, should a back not be given a free for a block? It's as least as difficult a skill as the high catch. And finally, 30m is obviously ridiculous when you just consider the varying lengths of Gaelic Football pitches around the country ... it could easily have a greater negative impact on some teams than others. I get the strong feeling that these changes are proposed by people with an extremely limited grasp of how football is played.
As for "cynical fouls", couldn't you just award the score where there was a significant chance of it being taken prior to the foul?
Hurling is different, and cannot be compared to football, but it does have its problems which for the most part aren't commented on by hurling pundits on RTE as they're constantly in promotional mode for the sport.
The football pundits to a man are negative and will go out of their way to tell you what is wrong with a team rather than Ger Lock lying back in the chair gushing with praise of the great exhibition we have before us. There needs to be a bit of balance in both sets of pundits.
There is a negativity creeping into hurling where the spare arm is used to halt the progress of an opponent and only Donal O'G Cusack has brought it up, but with his history its only Cork sour grapes, but he has a point. Also any dirty pulls are almost dismissed without comment unless big Duignan is on the mic at the game.
You get the feeling sometimes that Cody, great manager and all that he is, sets the agenda for the referees especially when his team are involved, he'd sometimes make Alex Ferguson blush.
Hurling rules are fine the way they are, it's just that referee's need to have the confidence and backing of Croke park to enforce them with a bit of common sense thrown in.
Black card vote too close to call
The black card proposal is expected to split delegates at Congress.
The Football Review Committee's black card proposal is expected to split delegates at this weekend's GAA Congress in Derry.
The motion requires a two-thirds majority to be passed, and with 330 delegates expected to attend, 110 votes are all that are needed to defeat it.
Several counties will be opposing the motion, including Cork, Tipperary, Limerick, Down, Tyrone, Westmeath, Fermanagh, Armagh and Antrim. It is also thought that Kilkenny, Donegal and Waterford will reject its introduction to Gaelic football.
Among the counties in the 'yes' camp are Dublin, Galway, Kildare, Wexford, Kerry, Longford and Cavan. Laois, Meath, Offaly and Monaghan are also expected to give the motion its backing.
If accepted, the black card will punish players who pull down, trip or collide with an opponent. The first three players in a team who receive a black card can be replaced, but no replacement is permitted after that.
Westmeath are gone very cynical altogether.
Quote from: Hardy on March 20, 2013, 10:05:48 AM
I can only repeat what I said the last time we debated this:
I couldn't agree more, Ard-Rí. The Mary Poppins movement within the game, and especially within the media, has chipped away at the ethos of the game for decades, until it has reached the point where it is accepted without question that the game needs to be made more "attractive", that the only legitimate footballers are forwards, that defenders are some sort of criminal underclass whose excesses need to be curbed and that physical clashes are to be eliminated completely.
There is a widespread assumption that the biggest problem in the game is "cynical" fouling. You can't listen to a sports bulletin or read any news report on gaelic football without coming across the awful "cynical" cliché. This rules-revision circus has now institutionalised this nonsensical concept, with proposals emerging to penalise "deliberate and cynical" fouling with a different set of sanctions to those applied to other fouls.
A foul is a foul. The penalty is a free. Repeated fouling attracts a series of heavier sanctions. That's how it stands now. What, exactly, is wrong with that? Only two things, in my opinion – the failure or refusal of referees to apply the rules as written and their failure to recognise or punish the real cynicism - the cynical diving and cheating that seeks to mislead them. The solution to that is not to rewrite the rules, it is to fix the refereeing problem.
What is a cynical foul? Does the definition depend on the attitude of the fouler? How is this to be determined? Or is it to be based on the position on the pitch, or the time of the game, or the reaction of the player fouled (and we all know how that influences referees)? To illustrate the nonsense of this – try to define a non-cynical foul.
The biggest problem with this is not that it's addressing the wrong problem, but that it will worsen the biggest problem in the game – diving, cheating and injury-feigning. It is a diver's charter.
Not only that, but a proposal is now emerging to penalise the famous, imaginary "third man tackle", which, as we have shown here before, does not exist in the rules. There is nothing in the rules that says I must move out of the path of any player, whether he is in possession or not. (There is also nothing that says I may not move into his path, as long as I don't charge him, even though referees have been penalising this in a freelance capacity for decades now). And that's for good reason in (what was) a physical contact game.
If this proposal is approved, we will not only see misinterpretation, as players are penalised for standing their ground, but we'll see players altering course to ensure they are "fouled" (see players chasing the garryowen in rugby) and, of course, more diving.
These people are going to ruin our game. We need to fix the real problems of the game – diving, cheating and the growing namby-pambification of it – not make them worse in some sort of misguided, media-appeasing, hotch-potch of populist claptrap disguised as serious analysis and reform.
I would add two things:
1. My solution to the problem of the score-preventing rugby tackle in the last minute is a refinement of Ard-Rí's, that eliminates the need for the referee to judge the likelihood of a score. I'd penalise that type of foul (which is easily definable - two arms/hands on the opponent or a deliberate trip) with a 13m free in front of the posts or, if it happens anywhere inside the 13m line, with a penalty. This to apply no matter where on the field the foul occurs and, of course, no matter what stage of the game. I am always conscious of the danger of further encouraging diving (the biggest problem in the game - did I mention that?) but I think if you put two arms on the opponent, knowing the penalty, you deserve to be penalised, dive or not. The simulated-trip type of dive is more of a problem but, ultimately, referees have to referee.
2. I do think dissent and disrespect for referees is a problem. Of course, many referees richly earn that disrespect. Nevertheless, the games can't function without a culture of acceptance of refereeing decisions and this problem won't just persist – it will continually worsen if it's not tackled. We've learned that from observing soccer – the level of abuse and backchat to referees has escalated from zero thirty years ago to what we see now. We have to learn the solution from rugby.
Great post, Hardy
Quote from: heffo on March 20, 2013, 08:46:39 AM
Quote from: rrhf on March 20, 2013, 08:36:46 AM
The media push for the new rules is obvious even to the point of having a go at managers who dare to differ. This will get passed. The GAA is heavily influenced by the media agenda as are you guys.
The FRC did a serious amount of consultation and surveying of players at all levels. To say their proposals from were influenced by the media is a nonsense.
Just as Mickey Harte is is entitled to disagree with any potential rule change, equally journalists can disagree with him. He doesn't own the GAA.
What players?
In my experience the overwhelming (by far) majority of players do not want any part of these proposals except for the 30m addition.
This review committee was an ill conceived attempt to change the game in ways that some badly positioned big wigs thought was what the "public" wanted to see. The consultation largely ignored the people who play the game and went with the predetermined outcome that the taskmasters had set.
That this whole process was deliberately and stealthily positioned in the press - even to the point of enlisting a journalist as the chair - is not up for debate. The pressure that the odd journo who takes a differing opinion is subjected to is evidence enough for me on that fact.
Serious levels of paranoia out there ::)
Quote from: Hardy on March 20, 2013, 10:05:48 AM
I can only repeat what I said the last time we debated this:
I couldn't agree more, Ard-Rí. The Mary Poppins movement within the game, and especially within the media, has chipped away at the ethos of the game for decades, until it has reached the point where it is accepted without question that the game needs to be made more "attractive", that the only legitimate footballers are forwards, that defenders are some sort of criminal underclass whose excesses need to be curbed and that physical clashes are to be eliminated completely.
There is a widespread assumption that the biggest problem in the game is "cynical" fouling. You can't listen to a sports bulletin or read any news report on gaelic football without coming across the awful "cynical" cliché. This rules-revision circus has now institutionalised this nonsensical concept, with proposals emerging to penalise "deliberate and cynical" fouling with a different set of sanctions to those applied to other fouls.
A foul is a foul. The penalty is a free. Repeated fouling attracts a series of heavier sanctions. That's how it stands now. What, exactly, is wrong with that? Only two things, in my opinion – the failure or refusal of referees to apply the rules as written and their failure to recognise or punish the real cynicism - the cynical diving and cheating that seeks to mislead them. The solution to that is not to rewrite the rules, it is to fix the refereeing problem.
What is a cynical foul? Does the definition depend on the attitude of the fouler? How is this to be determined? Or is it to be based on the position on the pitch, or the time of the game, or the reaction of the player fouled (and we all know how that influences referees)? To illustrate the nonsense of this – try to define a non-cynical foul.
The biggest problem with this is not that it's addressing the wrong problem, but that it will worsen the biggest problem in the game – diving, cheating and injury-feigning. It is a diver's charter.
Not only that, but a proposal is now emerging to penalise the famous, imaginary "third man tackle", which, as we have shown here before, does not exist in the rules. There is nothing in the rules that says I must move out of the path of any player, whether he is in possession or not. (There is also nothing that says I may not move into his path, as long as I don't charge him, even though referees have been penalising this in a freelance capacity for decades now). And that's for good reason in (what was) a physical contact game.
If this proposal is approved, we will not only see misinterpretation, as players are penalised for standing their ground, but we'll see players altering course to ensure they are "fouled" (see players chasing the garryowen in rugby) and, of course, more diving.
These people are going to ruin our game. We need to fix the real problems of the game – diving, cheating and the growing namby-pambification of it – not make them worse in some sort of misguided, media-appeasing, hotch-potch of populist claptrap disguised as serious analysis and reform.
I would add two things:
1. My solution to the problem of the score-preventing rugby tackle in the last minute is a refinement of Ard-Rí's, that eliminates the need for the referee to judge the likelihood of a score. I'd penalise that type of foul (which is easily definable - two arms/hands on the opponent or a deliberate trip) with a 13m free in front of the posts or, if it happens anywhere inside the 13m line, with a penalty. This to apply no matter where on the field the foul occurs and, of course, no matter what stage of the game. I am always conscious of the danger of further encouraging diving (the biggest problem in the game - did I mention that?) but I think if you put two arms on the opponent, knowing the penalty, you deserve to be penalised, dive or not. The simulated-trip type of dive is more of a problem but, ultimately, referees have to referee.
2. I do think dissent and disrespect for referees is a problem. Of course, many referees richly earn that disrespect. Nevertheless, the games can't function without a culture of acceptance of refereeing decisions and this problem won't just persist – it will continually worsen if it's not tackled. We've learned that from observing soccer – the level of abuse and backchat to referees has escalated from zero thirty years ago to what we see now. We have to learn the solution from rugby.
You might want to check that again hardy, you say it's impossible to define a cynical foul yet you make a decent attempt at it in a subsequent point.
Agreed though that diving is a huge problem and is very difficult to.address
Quote from: macdanger2 on March 21, 2013, 12:17:59 AM
Quote from: Hardy on March 20, 2013, 10:05:48 AM
I can only repeat what I said the last time we debated this:
I couldn't agree more, Ard-Rí. The Mary Poppins movement within the game, and especially within the media, has chipped away at the ethos of the game for decades, until it has reached the point where it is accepted without question that the game needs to be made more "attractive", that the only legitimate footballers are forwards, that defenders are some sort of criminal underclass whose excesses need to be curbed and that physical clashes are to be eliminated completely.
There is a widespread assumption that the biggest problem in the game is "cynical" fouling. You can't listen to a sports bulletin or read any news report on gaelic football without coming across the awful "cynical" cliché. This rules-revision circus has now institutionalised this nonsensical concept, with proposals emerging to penalise "deliberate and cynical" fouling with a different set of sanctions to those applied to other fouls.
A foul is a foul. The penalty is a free. Repeated fouling attracts a series of heavier sanctions. That's how it stands now. What, exactly, is wrong with that? Only two things, in my opinion – the failure or refusal of referees to apply the rules as written and their failure to recognise or punish the real cynicism - the cynical diving and cheating that seeks to mislead them. The solution to that is not to rewrite the rules, it is to fix the refereeing problem.
What is a cynical foul? Does the definition depend on the attitude of the fouler? How is this to be determined? Or is it to be based on the position on the pitch, or the time of the game, or the reaction of the player fouled (and we all know how that influences referees)? To illustrate the nonsense of this – try to define a non-cynical foul.
The biggest problem with this is not that it's addressing the wrong problem, but that it will worsen the biggest problem in the game – diving, cheating and injury-feigning. It is a diver's charter.
Not only that, but a proposal is now emerging to penalise the famous, imaginary "third man tackle", which, as we have shown here before, does not exist in the rules. There is nothing in the rules that says I must move out of the path of any player, whether he is in possession or not. (There is also nothing that says I may not move into his path, as long as I don't charge him, even though referees have been penalising this in a freelance capacity for decades now). And that's for good reason in (what was) a physical contact game.
If this proposal is approved, we will not only see misinterpretation, as players are penalised for standing their ground, but we'll see players altering course to ensure they are "fouled" (see players chasing the garryowen in rugby) and, of course, more diving.
These people are going to ruin our game. We need to fix the real problems of the game – diving, cheating and the growing namby-pambification of it – not make them worse in some sort of misguided, media-appeasing, hotch-potch of populist claptrap disguised as serious analysis and reform.
I would add two things:
1. My solution to the problem of the score-preventing rugby tackle in the last minute is a refinement of Ard-Rí's, that eliminates the need for the referee to judge the likelihood of a score. I'd penalise that type of foul (which is easily definable - two arms/hands on the opponent or a deliberate trip) with a 13m free in front of the posts or, if it happens anywhere inside the 13m line, with a penalty. This to apply no matter where on the field the foul occurs and, of course, no matter what stage of the game. I am always conscious of the danger of further encouraging diving (the biggest problem in the game - did I mention that?) but I think if you put two arms on the opponent, knowing the penalty, you deserve to be penalised, dive or not. The simulated-trip type of dive is more of a problem but, ultimately, referees have to referee.
2. I do think dissent and disrespect for referees is a problem. Of course, many referees richly earn that disrespect. Nevertheless, the games can't function without a culture of acceptance of refereeing decisions and this problem won't just persist – it will continually worsen if it's not tackled. We've learned that from observing soccer – the level of abuse and backchat to referees has escalated from zero thirty years ago to what we see now. We have to learn the solution from rugby.
You might want to check that again hardy, you say it's impossible to define a cynical foul yet you make a decent attempt at it in a subsequent point.
Agreed though that diving is a huge problem and is very difficult to.address
The rugby-tackle and tripping fouls I mentioned, that can be used with impunity at present to prevent match-winning scores and need to be dealt with, are no more cynical than any other foul and less cynical than diving and cheating.
I don't accept the concept of a "cynical" foul. If any intentional foul is cynical, all are cynical. You might as well call it a foul foul. The "cynical foul" is just another mindless catchphrase that has grown up in recent times and I'd bet if you asked ten people using it to define it, you'd get ten different answers. People seem to use it to mean various types of behaviour, including the "third man tackle" (also non-existent and not mentioned anywhere in the Official Guide), time-wasting, blocking the quick free, tripping, the rugby tackle, etc. That is, almost every type of foul there is.
Strangely, the one type of foul that I would class as truly cynical is hardly ever mentioned in this context. That's the cheating that seeks (cynically) to have people punished for doing nothing. And even more strangely, fouls in hurling are never deemed to be cynical. Why is that?
Decision time for the FRC proposals
Carried so far:
Motion 3 - sees number of teams competing in Liam MacCarthy Cup reduced to 13 by 2016. The number of teams guaranteed their place in competition reduced to 10
Motion 4 - Croke Park and other GAA stadia opened for one-off events such as RWC 2023 and 2027
Motion 60 - Hurlers will be required to remove helmets during National Anthem, Amhrán na bhFiann
Paul Earley has made a presentation to Congress on the issue of cynical fouling and calls for support of the motion to introduce a 'black card' to punish infringements in that category. Dublin chairman Andy Kettle is the first delegate from the floor to back the new proposals and urges the hurling fraternity not be concerned that these rules will be impinged on them. He describes cynicism as "a cancer on the game."
Fraternity?
Who will be giving the "presentation" in opposition to the black card proposal?
Sounds like the proper use of the word Fraternity.
fra·ter·ni·ty (fr-tûrn-t)
n. pl. fra·ter·ni·ties
1. A body of people associated for a common purpose or interest, such as a guild.
2. A group of people joined by similar backgrounds, occupations, interests, or tastes: the fraternity of bird watchers.
3. A chiefly social organization of men students at a college or university, usually designated by Greek letters.
4. Roman Catholic Church A sodality.
5. The quality or condition of being brothers; brotherliness.
I picture complicated handshakes.
Christy Ring Og speaking against it.
Shouting match between Ulster men apparently.
Passed!
71% nearly.
Black cards or everything the FRC proposed?
Black cards.
Quote from: ONeill on March 23, 2013, 12:40:57 PM
Black cards.
Can't believe this. Mickey Harte will be up in arms. It's too early to say what impact they will have but I'd imagine that referees everywhere will be muttering a big 'ah for f**k sake'.
30m punishment fails
Would have thought it would be the other way around as I think the 30m would have had an immediate positive effect and wouldn't have lead to much controversy. The black cards will inevitably result in much complaining and questionable decisions. I wouldn't have proposed the black cards as the best solution but I'm glad they didn't simply do nothing, if it doesn't work it can be binned again or modified so I think it needs to be given a chance to bed in and honestly assess its impact. Cynical fouling is a problem as is the lack of a deterrent to fouling so something had to be done and now that this has been passed lets give it an honest go.
No mark. Lost narrowly.
Its the death of reserve football - most clubs are struggling for numbers, picture the scene..........you scrape 15 players for a game and 2 get black cards with no subs to bring on, game ends up a disaster, players dont come as they are fed up.........this will happen unless........ref shows a bit of common sense (unlikely as reserve refs are usually completely by the book aka no common sense types).........when does this disaster begin?
Quote from: Zulu on March 23, 2013, 12:54:55 PM
Would have thought it would be the other way around as I think the 30m would have had an immediate positive effect and wouldn't have lead to much controversy. The black cards will inevitably result in much complaining and questionable decisions. I wouldn't have proposed the black cards as the best solution but I'm glad they didn't simply do nothing, if it doesn't work it can be binned again or modified so I think it needs to be given a chance to bed in and honestly assess its impact. Cynical fouling is a problem as is the lack of a deterrent to fouling so something had to be done and now that this has been passed lets give it an honest go.
Would agree with that, would have preferred to see a sin bin being honest but it still has to be given a chance to assess its impact. Surprised and disappointed the 30 m ruling didn't get through. When do these changes begin?
1st Jan.
Public clock passed!!
Keep em coming O Neill. Smartphone/digital technology at its finest.
Passed by 70% call
Quote from: The Trap on March 23, 2013, 12:56:59 PM
Its the death of reserve football - most clubs are struggling for numbers, picture the scene..........you scrape 15 players for a game and 2 get black cards with no subs to bring on, game ends up a disaster, players dont come as they are fed up.........this will happen unless........ref shows a bit of common sense (unlikely as reserve refs are usually completely by the book aka no common sense types).........when does this disaster begin?
Well at least you're keeping an open mind about it which is the main thing ::)
Pick up off the ground fails.
Advantage rule for 5 secs is passed.
If the 30m rule passed I'd be happy enough. Didn't have any real preference re the mark or pick up proposals.
"A public Time Clock shall be used in Croke Park and in all Grounds used for Provincial and All Ireland Series Senior Football Championship Games. The clock shall be stopped for injuries and other deliberate or incidental delays on the instructions of the Referee, which shall be conveyed visible (and audibly if wired) to the official in charge of the clock. The end of the game shall be signalled by a hooter, but a ball in flight shall be allowed to complete its journey and if that results in a score, the score shall stand."
What was passed and what wasn't http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=gaa%20twitter&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CCsQFjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fofficialgaa&ei=KaxNUfKPCOWO7Qaul4GgBw&usg=AFQjCNEsEhG2T7yXzWwJtf7dM0rDadwRIQ
Quote from: yellowcard on March 23, 2013, 12:44:24 PM
Quote from: ONeill on March 23, 2013, 12:40:57 PM
Black cards.
Can't believe this. Mickey Harte will be up in arms. It's too early to say what impact they will have but I'd imagine that referees everywhere will be muttering a big 'ah for f**k sake'.
Delegates changed their minds of had their minds changed for them ??
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/northern-ireland/21902516
Disappointed to see that 30m penalty was not passed. Have mixed thoughts on mark. If advantage was given to player making catch in all areas of field it would not be needed. Clock should be a good idea. For me the idea behind the black card is laudable. However, will the referees be good enough to operate it properly, will it make diving more likely and will it favour those with stronger panels. I also feel it will only stop the last ditch tackle which is nowhere near as prevalent as the deliberate fouls around the midfield area which is the real blight on the game.
Review of action so far
http://www.gaa.ie/gaa-news-and-videos/match-day-tracker/2303130831-annual-congress-2013-day-2-live/
when will these changes come into effect?
Quote from: Throw ball on March 23, 2013, 01:38:45 PM
Disappointed to see that 30m penalty was not passed. Have mixed thoughts on mark. If advantage was given to player making catch in all areas of field it would not be needed. Clock should be a good idea. For me the idea behind the black card is laudable. However, will the referees be good enough to operate it properly, will it make diving more likely and will it favour those with stronger panels. I also feel it will only stop the last ditch tackle which is nowhere near as prevalent as the deliberate fouls around the midfield area which is the real blight on the game.
my big hope is that it stops forwards deliberately dragging players down to stop teams attacking quickly......imagine Brogan/Gooch/Murphy etc getting subbed off early in a big game....I'd say that managers will demand that they behave...
Quote from: Throw ball on March 23, 2013, 01:38:45 PM
Disappointed to see that 30m penalty was not passed. Have mixed thoughts on mark. If advantage was given to player making catch in all areas of field it would not be needed. Clock should be a good idea. For me the idea behind the black card is laudable. However, will the referees be good enough to operate it properly, will it make diving more likely and will it favour those with stronger panels. I also feel it will only stop the last ditch tackle which is nowhere near as prevalent as the deliberate fouls around the midfield area which is the real blight on the game.
Sean Cavanagh will be down more times than a hoors knickers.
Did Hawkeye get through?
Quote from: ONeill on March 23, 2013, 01:05:04 PM
1st Jan.
Public clock passed!!
What will we have to talk about in the Pub now? No ref playing for a draw now.
There'll be a fella behind the clock hanging onto the little hand for dear life.
Quote from: Denn Forever on March 23, 2013, 02:15:02 PM
Quote from: ONeill on March 23, 2013, 01:05:04 PM
1st Jan.
Public clock passed!!
What will we have to talk about in the Pub now? No ref playing for a draw now.
They can still favour the team that is behind on the marginal calls when the clock is running out. The amount of injury time is already decided for by the 4th official at the minute anyway. However this doesn't always tally with the amount of substitutions/injuries in a game, the clock is much more transparent. Bringing in this rule was a no brainer. Has been a proven success in ladies football.
Interestingly the sin bin has worked in ladies football and this would have been more preferable to the black card imo
Should have gone for the mark!!
Injury time is not decided by the fourth official the linesman is told by the ref,with about 3 mins of ordinary time left. He then tells the fourth offical.
Quote from: JUst retired on March 23, 2013, 03:10:32 PM
Injury time is not decided by the fourth official the linesman is told by the ref,with about 3 mins of ordinary time left. He then tells the fourth offical.
Never knew that, always presumed it was the 4th official. That was pure madness, even more reason to alleviate the burden on the ref by taking time keeping out of his hands.
People talking about cycnical fouling ruining the end of games and that other sports dont have this problem.......but they have other problems e.g. does aybody think going to the corner flag to keep possession is attractive in soccer? Is the "put the ball up your jumper" rugby (end of Munster v Biarritz Heineken Cup final) attractive? Does anybody think a black card would have stopped Eoin Cadogan taking down Michael Murphy last week? What would happen if Tyrone had of lost 2 players against Dublin in the last couple of minutes last week? They could walk of slowly waiting for the sub to come on and get everybody behind the ball. Will referees be consistent using black cards as opposed to yellow cards? Will referees be consistent using black cards as opposed to red cards? If you have a yellow card are you better off getting a black card as opposed to a second yellow (to avoid possible suspension if you have been sent off for 2 yellows already that season)?
If the GAA really want to improve the game they should improve the standard of refereeing and get them to apply the rules as consistently as possible. Make it more attractive to become a referee. But its done now.........
Quotethey have other problems e.g. does aybody think going to the corner flag to keep possession is attractive in soccer?
No but that's still playing the ball. It isn't attractive watching teams hand pass the ball around to kill out the last few minutes of a game but it also happens now and I wouldn't support a rule change to stop this as it's not fouling.
QuoteIs the "put the ball up your jumper" rugby (end of Munster v Biarritz Heineken Cup final) attractive?
No, but rugby brought in a rule that you had to play/use the ball to prevent teams seeing out games by simply keeping it at the bottom of a ruck as nauseum.
QuoteDoes anybody think a black card would have stopped Eoin Cadogan taking down Michael Murphy last week?
Maybe not but life sentences or execution don't stop some people committing serious crimes but that doesn't mean they are pointless. The black card is at least a decent deterrent to such fouls, currently we don't have any.
QuoteWhat would happen if Tyrone had of lost 2 players against Dublin in the last couple of minutes last week? They could walk of slowly waiting for the sub to come on and get everybody behind the ball.
That's simply looking at it in the worst case scenario, the ref can take into account time wasting so he could add time for that and when two players are off it is easier for the other team to get scores.
The bottom line is any deterrent would have it's drawbacks, there is no perfect solution but we have to try something as the reality is you can foul without any real threat of a punishment that would make you think twice about fouling.
On the point of refs, yes they can be very poor but players also have a responsibility and if we tackle that then maybe it will be easier for people to ref and this might encourage more suitable people to try it.
Quote from: The Trap on March 23, 2013, 03:26:38 PM
People talking about cycnical fouling ruining the end of games and that other sports dont have this problem.......but they have other problems e.g. does aybody think going to the corner flag to keep possession is attractive in soccer? Is the "put the ball up your jumper" rugby (end of Munster v Biarritz Heineken Cup final) attractive? Does anybody think a black card would have stopped Eoin Cadogan taking down Michael Murphy last week? What would happen if Tyrone had of lost 2 players against Dublin in the last couple of minutes last week? They could walk of slowly waiting for the sub to come on and get everybody behind the ball. Will referees be consistent using black cards as opposed to yellow cards? Will referees be consistent using black cards as opposed to red cards? If you have a yellow card are you better off getting a black card as opposed to a second yellow (to avoid possible suspension if you have been sent off for 2 yellows already that season)?
If the GAA really want to improve the game they should improve the standard of refereeing and get them to apply the rules as consistently as possible. Make it more attractive to become a referee. But its done now.........
Trap = the black card isn't to just stop things in the last couple of minutes....it's to stop the likes of McCaffrey getting dragged back 10 mins into the game and if you do that enough you won't have subs available at the end of games....
Two sponsors on jersey passed.
The only sensible deterrent to the score-preventing foul is to give the score or a free resulting in an almost certain score. All the black card will do is worsen the diving problem by providing even more of an incentive for it. Even defenders will be flopping all over the place now.
Hardy, if your suggestion was up instead of the black card I would have supported that too even though I see a number of issues and I fail to see how your solution would be less likely to encourage diving.
Hawkeye passed.
Zulu - do you play or coach the game? The black card is pandering to the press and the fair weather supporter who want attractive games but have no idea about the game!
Quote from: The Trap on March 23, 2013, 04:10:35 PM
Zulu - do you play or coach the game? The black card is pandering to the press and the fair weather supporter who want attractive games but have no idea about the game!
Currently play, coach, ref and administer and have done at least one for over 30 years. It's nonsense to claim it is pandering to anyone and many staunch GAA folk support it.
ML, all sports regularly review their sports and the rules.
Quote from: Zulu on March 23, 2013, 04:00:41 PM
Hardy, if your suggestion was up instead of the black card I would have supported that too even though I see a number of issues and I fail to see how your solution would be less likely to encourage diving.
Hawkeye passed.
My solution would apply only to rugby tackles and trips, which are hard to simulate by diving.
I predict two weeks of ridiculous amounts of black cards, a crisis, and a return to normal. I see a lot of opposition to the black card just talking to lads from my own club and clubs in the surrounding area. It's far from popular. Can't see it working in practice.
Again, if that was the up for decision at congress I would have supported it but lads could still question if there is a difference between a blatant trip and one performed by a cuter player who hides what he is doing better. There will always be a bit of interpretation involved and there will always be a bit of leeway for a ref to screw a player or team so there is no perfect solution. My position was always that there is an issue and if this was the solution then I'm willing to give it a go as the alternative is to stick with something that hasn't worked.
Quote from: Ard-Rí on March 23, 2013, 04:25:42 PM
I predict two weeks of ridiculous amounts of black cards, a crisis, and a return to normal. I see a lot of opposition to the black card just talking to lads from my own club and clubs in the surrounding area. It's far from popular. Can't see it working in practice.
It passed so there must be some level of support. The best thing the GAA can do is ignore anyone moaning and give it a good go. Of course it isn't going to work smoothly at first but once it settles down I see no reason why this can't improve things.
Eh, are you serious? There is no comparison with the old black card and this one, you clearly applied an Irish solution to it already.
Mid Louth - a black card wouldnt have helped you win your Leinster title a couple of years ago - a better refereeing decision would! The problems that crop up are not in the current rules but in how they are administered. And i believe the game is great at the moment - last weeks club final was excellent!
So?? Nobody is claiming the back card, or any other proposal, will solve every situation.
I agree, the game is largely excellent but there are issues and they shouldn't be ignored whether games are good to watch or not. By the way there are many people out there who are turning away from football, including life long GAA men, didn't Benny Coulter say he thought football was a poor spectacle a year or two ago? The reality is football can turn into very poor viewing if two teams take to the field with the wrong attitude and under current rules they can get away with it. It's a great game but it can be even better.
ML you make it sound like the whole bloody rule book was reorganised. There are clear fouls for black cards so I see no reason why the games should become more stop start. Have you even considered the possibility that players might be discouraged from engaging in the type of foul play that is punishable by a black card as a result of today? Too many people in the GAA default set to a doomsday scenario when changes are proposed. In an ideal world a black card will never be issued and once players realise they can't get away with certain fouls with a tick or even a yellow, with refs reluctant to give them a second one unless absolutely necessary, they'll soon cop on.
They're in now so I'll wait to see the effect in due course.
Again you are ignoring the possibility that this may eradicate the type of fouls the black card is designed to deal with. Why would lads constantly get sent off for the same foul?? Surely we recognise the possibility that players may adapt so black cards become something of a rarity in games and hence cynical fouling is reduced.
Besides I'm sure most refs will account for lower level games where teams maybe short numbers and can adjust. In saying that, if a team is short and engages is cynical fouling then it's tough if they end up short. We should always consider the effects rule changes have on various levels of the game but we shouldn't be dictated by the 'worst case scenario', i.e. if it helps the vast majority it should be brought in.
Will this make good referees better and make bad refs even worse ?
I think, in principle, the black card idea is a good one. I'm sorry, but I don't see pulling, tripping or shite hawking by dragging a lad down or blocking his run off the ball as adding anything to our games. This will not reduce the manliness in our games, if anything it will encourage people to tackle and hit fairly and eliminate the 'lazy' foul which is a pain in the arse.
I agree with Zulu that if people think there will be games ending in a farce because there'll be loads of teams reduced to 12 a side, then that highlights the fact that this is a real problem. I suspect this rule will force coaches to coach the tackle again, and eliminate the negative behaviour which had basically no consequence up to now. Players will adapt and this will be fine and long term a good thing, as long as the likes of Mickey Harte don't go over the top when they lose two or three lads to black cards.
I am worried that it might become a divers' charter which would piss me off, but I'm willing to see how it pans out. I would have added diving to the list of cynical actions that warrant a black card.
I say all the above as an ex-player, and current club and county underage coach. (Just in case I get the old 'You obviously don't know the game' )
Quote
If you honestly think adding another card with a bunch rules attached to it is going to solve more problems than it is going to create you are mad. There was nothing much wrong with the game but a bunch of busy bodies in Croke Park looking to leave a legacy. There should have been one motion on the Clar this year, that no rules are to be changed for 100 years, maybe then these people who come up with such motions would go away and do something productive rather than complicate what should be a simple game.
+1, Great post. Pity common sense is in short supply with top brass.
Quote from: Zulu on March 23, 2013, 04:28:03 PM
Quote from: Ard-Rí on March 23, 2013, 04:25:42 PM
I predict two weeks of ridiculous amounts of black cards, a crisis, and a return to normal. I see a lot of opposition to the black card just talking to lads from my own club and clubs in the surrounding area. It's far from popular. Can't see it working in practice.
It passed so there must be some level of support. The best thing the GAA can do is ignore anyone moaning and give it a good go. Of course it isn't going to work smoothly at first but once it settles down I see no reason why this can't improve things.
You don't happen to be at congress, do you? Because that's exactly their attitude, ignore the ordinary members of the GAA and plough ahead with whatever ill-conceived plans they had in the first place. Anybody who voices opposition to these absurd new rules is 'moaning', presumably as if they had no reason to complain.
Who are 'they' ?
Like every other rule in the book this will be destroyed by referees and their inability to be consistent and croke parks absolute intention to remove common sense from refereeing. Wait till Michael Duffy gets at these matches and the legion of blind umpires. No FRC proposals around refs even though it was one of the biggest problems identified in their survey.
Quote from: Ard-Rí on March 23, 2013, 06:50:11 PM
Quote from: Zulu on March 23, 2013, 04:28:03 PM
Quote from: Ard-Rí on March 23, 2013, 04:25:42 PM
I predict two weeks of ridiculous amounts of black cards, a crisis, and a return to normal. I see a lot of opposition to the black card just talking to lads from my own club and clubs in the surrounding area. It's far from popular. Can't see it working in practice.
It passed so there must be some level of support. The best thing the GAA can do is ignore anyone moaning and give it a good go. Of course it isn't going to work smoothly at first but once it settles down I see no reason why this can't improve things.
You don't happen to be at congress, do you? Because that's exactly their attitude, ignore the ordinary members of the GAA and plough ahead with whatever ill-conceived plans they had in the first place. Anybody who voices opposition to these absurd new rules is 'moaning', presumably as if they had no reason to complain.
Ah yes, the infamous suits. You do realise you could have sent your thoughts to the FRC, like I and thousands of others did, don't you? How in the name of Jaysus they could be accused of ignoring the common GAA person I don't know, they went out of their way to get their views!!!
They're not absurd, no more so than your own proposal anyway, and yes you don't have any reason to complain as the damn things haven't even been given a good yet. If they prove to be useless over a period of time then I'll be first to seek their removal but none of us know how they'll go yet.
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on March 23, 2013, 06:43:54 PM
AZ, my concerns lie in that while such a rule can work at county and perhaps senior club level, at other levels it is going to cause imbalances. Take for example a Junior B club game, Team A has the bare 15 players to field, Team B has 19. During the course of the game no red cards are issued, Team A has one player shown a black card while Team B has three players shown the black card. Team B end up winning the game with 15 players on the field compared to 14 for Team A. That's not scaremongering, it's actually quite a realistic prospect and one that I'm sure at some point will lead to uproar, not to mention that the application of a black card is down to the referee's interpretation. Referees already get enough shit thrown at them as it is without more levels of on-the-spot judgement being made.
And I say that as an ex-player, coach, former county team assistant, ex-club chairperson, ex-club PRO, ex-club registrar and McNamee award winner </bragging> :P :P
were ye not any good at these jobs? lol
i agree with the black card. our game is rewarding fouls; hopefully this will stop this.
the tyrone game and the cadogan/murphy foul last week may have happened at a good time for the pro-black card movement however.
i can predict what mickey harte is going to be writing about in his piece in the irish news on friday!!!!!!
How would the black card have stopped the Cadogan/Murphy incident ticklemister? I might even read Hartes column for once!
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on March 23, 2013, 07:54:16 PM
Quote from: Zulu on March 23, 2013, 06:51:58 PMThe main reason I'm defending these proposals is because there is no perfect solution but something being tried is better than nothing being tried. If they don't work we can always bin them but they need to be given a go and not just shunted at the first bit of criticism.
I'd argue though that trying something that has some notable unintended consequences pointed out which aren't a simple pie-in-the-sky scenario can end up with a worse result than just sticking to the status quo.
We'll have to agree to disagree on that. I don't think we can be sure of any unintended consequences and therefore we shouldn't reject something on the speculative basis that something negative might occur. If it does and it it is a real problem then we can always go back to the status quo.
Quote from: The Trap on March 23, 2013, 08:15:31 PM
How would the black card have stopped the Cadogan/Murphy incident ticklemister? I might even read Hartes column for once!
That's not even an argument anymore. The punishment could be castration and players would still (probably) commit that foul under certain circumstances but at least there now is a deterrent. I'm amazed you can't het that by now.
you love contradicting yourself zulu........first you say not even castration would stop that type of foul......then you say there is a deterrant!!!!
Quote from: The Trap on March 23, 2013, 08:15:31 PM
How would the black card have stopped the Cadogan/Murphy incident ticklemister? I might even read Hartes column for once!
that was in the last minute or two of the game. however would the same player do it after 40 minutes knowing that his team will be going down to 14 men or worse 13 men?
So it wouldnt have stopped Cadogan? Thats all i asked.........as you had used that as an argument to support the black card.
That's not a contradiction. If a man was going through on goal in the last seconds of an All Ireland final any defender would pull him down if his team was leading, and any other time I suppose, but under the current rules he may well do it in the 10th minute as well. With the black cards he probably won't and we certainly should see less of forwards pulling down players to allow their teammates get back and form a defensive screen. That has to be a good thing and I'm amazed you are unable to see that.
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on March 23, 2013, 08:28:03 PM
Quote from: theticklemister on March 23, 2013, 07:58:39 PM
were ye not any good at these jobs? lol
For someone who was a fairly useless player, to have been involved with teams involved in winning and/or reaching county, provincial and All-Ireland finals, I'd say I haven't done that badly for myself.
Remember, those that can, can. Those that can't, teach. ;)
fair play to ye
Quote from: The Trap on March 23, 2013, 08:28:36 PM
So it wouldnt have stopped Cadogan? Thats all i asked.........as you had used that as an argument to support the black card.
I think the black card is a step in the right direction to eradicate fouls like that in the future. Hopefully after a few years with this new system in tow when the players get this kind of fouling out of their heads then it will pat dividends to stop fouls like that.
but in any sport a player can do what cadogan did in the final minutes and likely it will be to the benefit of the team. what congress hopes is that these fouls will stop throughout the whole 70 minutes.
Instead of wasting a pile of man hours in 'thinking' up new rules surely it would have been more suitable that a 'rules education' group be established and each county have officers who go to clubs and basically educate the 'experts' running the different teams. The rules are there to deal with all acts of cynical play and it would be better to properly enforce the and make the bans more appropriate. I would much prefer that they introduce a game based suspension system than a time based one and enforce it harder.
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on March 23, 2013, 08:43:49 PM
Quote from: Zulu on March 23, 2013, 08:17:28 PM
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on March 23, 2013, 07:54:16 PM
Quote from: Zulu on March 23, 2013, 06:51:58 PMThe main reason I'm defending these proposals is because there is no perfect solution but something being tried is better than nothing being tried. If they don't work we can always bin them but they need to be given a go and not just shunted at the first bit of criticism.
I'd argue though that trying something that has some notable unintended consequences pointed out which aren't a simple pie-in-the-sky scenario can end up with a worse result than just sticking to the status quo.
We'll have to agree to disagree on that. I don't think we can be sure of any unintended consequences and therefore we shouldn't reject something on the speculative basis that something negative might occur. If it does and it it is a real problem then we can always go back to the status quo.
Ironically I reckon we both agree that the method for introducing this rule should ideally take a different path.
In my opinion, and I may as well throw it out as plenty of others have given their thoughts, would have been to introduce a sin-bin. It's worked well in ladies football where it applies even down to juvenile club level and it isn't that much of a hassle for referees to implement. I'd have an amendment however to take into account the physicality of the mens game compared to that in the ladies code where all deliberate physical contact is forbidden - the first two yellow cards picked up by a team in a game would not be subject to a sin-bin (of course if one player picks up both cards they are sent off). A third and subsequent yellow card issued to any player on that team for the remainder of that game, if the awarding of the card does not result in a player being sent-off, would be subject to a 10 minute penalty.
Again, I agree with the trialling and like you the sin bin was my preferred option and it's what I think will eventually come in but I'm willing to give the black card a go. It's too easy to shoot down things but the reality is what we have isn't working. I'm watching Setanta here and they've shown 3 examples of cynical fouling in the Dublin/Down game and this in a league game. We need to get rid of these fouls as the game can already be too stop start, the black card would remove all 3 of the fouls Setanta highlighted tonight as none of them were necessary.
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 23, 2013, 08:41:53 PM
Instead of wasting a pile of man hours in 'thinking' up new rules surely it would have been more suitable that a 'rules education' group be established and each county have officers who go to clubs and basically educate the 'experts' running the different teams. The rules are there to deal with all acts of cynical play and it would be better to properly enforce the and make the bans more appropriate. I would much prefer that they introduce a game based suspension system than a time based one and enforce it harder.
Not sure what your first point is meant to mean but most players and coaches know the black card offences are illegal, do you think players and coaches need to be told pulling a guy down by the waist is a foul?
The rules aren't there to deal with cynical play and that's the point.
[quote
Not sure what your first point is meant to mean but most players and coaches know the black card offences are illegal, do you think players and coaches need to be told pulling a guy down by the waist is a foul?
The rules aren't there to deal with cynical play and that's the point.
[/quote]
What do you mean by cynical play?
Like if you soloed past me and I just grabbed you around the waist. This happened tonight and has happened in many games, players stopping the man in possession while never attempting to play the ball. That is often simply a free and even if a ref gives a yellow that isn't strong enough as football isn't a player tackling sport it is a ball tackling sport. In the past you might dismiss it as a 'forward tackling' but now it is done purposefully to allow players get back and set up a defensive screen, it needs a greater punishment than a yellow card, which it rarely gets anyway.
Quote from: Zulu on March 23, 2013, 09:14:05 PM
Like if you soloed past me and I just grabbed you around the waist. This happened tonight and has happened in many games, players stopping the man in possession while never attempting to play the ball. That is often simply a free and even if a ref gives a yellow that isn't strong enough as football isn't a player tackling sport it is a ball tackling sport. In the past you might dismiss it as a 'forward tackling' but now it is done purposefully to allow players get back and set up a defensive screen, it needs a greater punishment than a yellow card, which it rarely gets anyway.
I agree that this 'tactical' fouling has become a greater part of the game. Simply yellow card the man and enforce it, we don't need to bring in another 'card' to further complicate things. If they want to cut out cynical fouling how about follow something similar ot basketball and every team that accrues x amount of fouls per half give away a 21 yard free in front of the goals for every foul thereafter. That would be a better way to punish teams that foul in my book.
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on March 23, 2013, 09:09:35 PM
Quote from: Zulu on March 23, 2013, 09:02:05 PM
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on March 23, 2013, 08:43:49 PM
Quote from: Zulu on March 23, 2013, 08:17:28 PM
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on March 23, 2013, 07:54:16 PM
Quote from: Zulu on March 23, 2013, 06:51:58 PMThe main reason I'm defending these proposals is because there is no perfect solution but something being tried is better than nothing being tried. If they don't work we can always bin them but they need to be given a go and not just shunted at the first bit of criticism.
I'd argue though that trying something that has some notable unintended consequences pointed out which aren't a simple pie-in-the-sky scenario can end up with a worse result than just sticking to the status quo.
We'll have to agree to disagree on that. I don't think we can be sure of any unintended consequences and therefore we shouldn't reject something on the speculative basis that something negative might occur. If it does and it it is a real problem then we can always go back to the status quo.
Ironically I reckon we both agree that the method for introducing this rule should ideally take a different path.
In my opinion, and I may as well throw it out as plenty of others have given their thoughts, would have been to introduce a sin-bin. It's worked well in ladies football where it applies even down to juvenile club level and it isn't that much of a hassle for referees to implement. I'd have an amendment however to take into account the physicality of the mens game compared to that in the ladies code where all deliberate physical contact is forbidden - the first two yellow cards picked up by a team in a game would not be subject to a sin-bin (of course if one player picks up both cards they are sent off). A third and subsequent yellow card issued to any player on that team for the remainder of that game, if the awarding of the card does not result in a player being sent-off, would be subject to a 10 minute penalty.
Again, I agree with the trialling and like you the sin bin was my preferred option and it's what I think will eventually come in but I'm willing to give the black card a go. It's too easy to shoot down things but the reality is what we have isn't working. I'm watching Setanta here and they've shown 3 examples of cynical fouling in the Dublin/Down game and this in a league game. We need to get rid of these fouls as the game can already be too stop start, the black card would remove all 3 of the fouls Setanta highlighted tonight as none of them were necessary.
Would it? One temptation might be for a manager to start a burly defender who is told to "take out" a major opposing forward very early in the game in a manner not enough to be a straight sending off, but enough to be given a black card. Defender makes a big hefty challenge on the opponent who either comes off injured or plays on not being 100%. Defender gets black card, usual starting defender goes on in place, job done.
Of course it's a hypothetical, but no less one than assuming the fouls you point out would definitely not happen in a game next year.
I'm not saying those fouls would never happen but over time they would become very rare as no player would want to be sent off for dragging down a player at midfield like McKernan did or a defender coming out as McMenemon did so I think it is fair to say those fouls would become very rare.
I don't accept any manager would do that or at least that it would be very rare, sure it's easy to say but if we were joint managers of a team and we put on some lug to take out Bernard Brogan in a big game and he was taken for 2 goals in the first 6 minutes and then he tried to do a black card offence that hurt Brogan but didn't veer into red card territory but got it wrong we would be hung. Besides if I was on a team and my manager said to me go out commit a black card offence but make sure it hurts the star opposition forward I would be but bemused and offended. I don't train to act as some kind of thuggish fall guy and I'd doubt I could manage it anyway. Look at Lar Corbett as an example of someone who got ridiculed for trying to do something similar.
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 23, 2013, 09:18:35 PM
Quote from: Zulu on March 23, 2013, 09:14:05 PM
Like if you soloed past me and I just grabbed you around the waist. This happened tonight and has happened in many games, players stopping the man in possession while never attempting to play the ball. That is often simply a free and even if a ref gives a yellow that isn't strong enough as football isn't a player tackling sport it is a ball tackling sport. In the past you might dismiss it as a 'forward tackling' but now it is done purposefully to allow players get back and set up a defensive screen, it needs a greater punishment than a yellow card, which it rarely gets anyway.
I agree that this 'tactical' fouling has become a greater part of the game. Simply yellow card the man and enforce it, we don't need to bring in another 'card' to further complicate things. If they want to cut out cynical fouling how about follow something similar ot basketball and every team that accrues x amount of fouls per half give away a 21 yard free in front of the goals for every foul thereafter. That would be a better way to punish teams that foul in my book.
Again I don't disagree. My support for the blackcard is not based on the fact tat it is the best solution, the sin bin is IMO, but on the fact that it was the only solution on the table. The alternative is to keep what we have and that wasn't acceptable to me. If your solution was on the table you can be sure there would have been opposition and there are weaknesses in your solution too but there isn't a perfect one so lets give this a try.
I think there's an upgrade for Hawkeye that allows it to zap players that are having cynical thoughts.
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 23, 2013, 08:41:53 PM
Instead of wasting a pile of man hours in 'thinking' up new rules surely it would have been more suitable that a 'rules education' group be established and each county have officers who go to clubs and basically educate the 'experts' running the different teams. The rules are there to deal with all acts of cynical play and it would be better to properly enforce the and make the bans more appropriate. I would much prefer that they introduce a game based suspension system than a time based one and enforce it harder.
God forbid if people taking up a sport should take responsibility for educating themselves about what the rules of the game are before taking to the field.
When I see the posters who are against this now adopted proposal the more I think the FRC/GAA have got it absolutely right ;D ;D
To suggest that these new rules will somehow be the ruination of football is a nonsense which sadly is being articulated by too many supporters and players. The 3 non-verbal justifications for a black card all relate to incidents where an opposing player is brought to the ground illegally and with no attempt made to play the ball (or at least that's my interpretation). Anybody who has the best interests of GAA at heart will laud attempts to reduce the instances of this type of tackling.
That said, I think there are better and more equitable ways to achieve that objective. As mentioned elsewhere in the thread, I'd have preferred to see a sin bin rather than a black card or perhaps even better, the punishment of such fouls with the award of a scorable free.
Dessie Dolan today on RTE radio said he thought there already was an advantage rule.
I refuse to listen to criticism of new rules from people who don't even understand the old rules.
Quote from: Jinxy on March 23, 2013, 09:30:17 PM
I think there's an upgrade for Hawkeye that allows it to zap players that are having cynical thoughts.
LOL
I asume youre a Meathman judging by your profiler, so dat would frighten you. LOL
Is the black card that much of a deterrent? Most of the so-called cynicism occurs in the last 5-10 mins. I can't see players or managers being that perturbed to be putting on fresh legs for offenders at that stage of the game. Do the subs for this offence count as part of your sub quota?
You'd have had a few lads off in the first half tonight and you usually have a few of these types of offences in the first 40 min so I think I think it is a reasonable deterrent. It's better than current no deterrent policy anyway.
Quote from: ONeill on March 23, 2013, 10:51:24 PM
Is the black card that much of a deterrent? Most of the so-called cynicism occurs in the last 5-10 mins. I can't see players or managers being that perturbed to be putting on fresh legs for offenders at that stage of the game. Do the subs for this offence count as part of your sub quota?
Don't think cynicism peaks in last 10 or 15 mins. The types of fouls mentioned in this rule are systemic and occur throughout the game.
Quote from: ONeill on March 23, 2013, 10:51:24 PM
Is the black card that much of a deterrent? Most of the so-called cynicism occurs in the last 5-10 mins. I can't see players or managers being that perturbed to be putting on fresh legs for offenders at that stage of the game. Do the subs for this offence count as part of your sub quota?
;D
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 23, 2013, 11:04:04 PM
Quote from: ONeill on March 23, 2013, 10:51:24 PM
Is the black card that much of a deterrent? Most of the so-called cynicism occurs in the last 5-10 mins. I can't see players or managers being that perturbed to be putting on fresh legs for offenders at that stage of the game. Do the subs for this offence count as part of your sub quota?
Don't think cynicism peaks in last 10 or 15 mins. The types of fouls mentioned in this rule are systemic and occur throughout the game.
Really? We were always taught to haul and drag in the last 10 if ahead by less than 4.
When were a Tyrone team ever ahead by 4 in the last 10 in your time O'Neill?
It grew out of the 1986 final. If Tyrone had pulled and hauled after McCabe's penalty the GAA landscape would've changed. 40 mins was a bit early but Art slipped up there.
"To deliberately pull down an opponent"
"To deliberately trip an opponent with the hand(s), arm, leg or foot."
"To deliberately body collide with an opponent after he has played the ball away or for the purpose of taking him out of a movement of play"
" To threaten or to use abusive or provocative language or gestures to an opponent or a teammate"
"To remonstrate in an aggressive manner with a Match Official"
What about pulling a jersey back?
If it isn't a black card it should be!!
Why isn't it a lime green card?
At least make it a colour that'll stand out, like. Use the Jelly Babies' colouring scheme or something.
Next up: the sky blue card. You lose two players but you get a 500k funding bonus.
The GAA is on course to be the first sporting organisation in the world to have a card for every colour of the visible spectrum (only 5 more to go).
Up until the 2000's we just had red cards and everyone was happy.
Men were men and if you were the cause of a lad missing work on the farm/site/docks on Monday morning you got a red card.
I blame the Nordies for the introduction of the yellow card, which was primarily brought in to stop Tyrone defenders 'annoying opposition forwards'.
Now we have the black card because of them.
They won't be happy till they've destroyed the association altogether. >:(
Shut it you Meadie git and take your oil! :P ;)
Quote from: Jinxy on March 24, 2013, 12:48:58 AM
Up until the 2000's we just had red cards and everyone was happy.
Men were men and if you were the cause of a lad missing work on the farm/site/docks on Monday morning you got a red card.
I blame the Nordies for the introduction of the yellow card, which was primarily brought in to stop Tyrone defenders 'annoying opposition forwards'.
Now we have the black card because of them.
They won't be happy till they've destroyed the association altogether. >:(
We will not be stopped...
Quote from: Zulu on March 23, 2013, 10:55:38 PM
You'd have had a few lads off in the first half tonight and you usually have a few of these types of offences in the first 40 min so I think I think it is a reasonable deterrent. It's better than current no deterrent policy anyway.
Agreed. Was the rule approved allowing refs to move a free forward 30 metres. I think this is the most important rule change needed. Teams cynically give away a free in their own half or around midfield and then get men around the free taker to delay it so they can get players back and organise their defence. They also try to provoke the free taker and very often the ref ends up throwing up the ball. Tyrone have used this as a tactic very effectively for years but other teams have followed suit and it is now endemic. If refs have the power to move the free forward 30 metres then the tactic of delaying free kicks will be eradicated.
The cynic in me has got very cynical.
Quote from: lenny on March 24, 2013, 08:37:49 AM
Quote from: Zulu on March 23, 2013, 10:55:38 PM
You'd have had a few lads off in the first half tonight and you usually have a few of these types of offences in the first 40 min so I think I think it is a reasonable deterrent. It's better than current no deterrent policy anyway.
Agreed. Was the rule approved allowing refs to move a free forward 30 metres. I think this is the most important rule change needed. Teams cynically give away a free in their own half or around midfield and then get men around the free taker to delay it so they can get players back and organise their defence. They also try to provoke the free taker and very often the ref ends up throwing up the ball. Tyrone have used this as a tactic very effectively for years but other teams have followed suit and it is now endemic. If refs have the power to move the free forward 30 metres then the tactic of delaying free kicks will be eradicated.
It wasnt passed.
Go to gaa.ie and it tells ye everything that did and did not get passed.
Do we call this black card, the 'Tyrone card'?
By the way, I presume it's a 'black' card so that there is no need for another card. Ref will just use his notebook like the old 'tick' gesture they did for a while.
Will the black card be a spade or a club?
Quote from: Main Street on March 24, 2013, 09:27:03 AM
Do we call this black card, the 'Tyrone card'?
These are thr proposed names of the black card
Card 1: The ' Brian Dooher' card. This will mainly be giving for diving or playacting.
Card 2: The ' Conor Gormley' card. This will be awarded for pulling and dragging.
Card 3: The ' Ryan McMenamin' card. This black card will be given out if yer continually acting the bollix.
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 24, 2013, 09:44:58 AM
By the way, I presume it's a 'black' card so that there is no need for another card. Ref will just use his notebook like the old 'tick' gesture they did for a while.
Completely wrong shade of black. FFS.
When the pink card comes in for diving next year Tyrone will be completely screwed!
What about the Tyrone choke tackle? it's gathered a tactical momentum with being adopted as standard in the Irish rugby game, albeit a modified milder form - without the sly digs.
Surely we can't take away the Tyrone choke tackle from them?
Quote from: Main Street on March 24, 2013, 12:52:06 PM
What about the Tyrone choke tackle? it's gathered a tactical momentum with being adopted as standard in the Irish rugby game, albeit a modified milder form - without the sly digs.
Surely we can't take away the Tyrone choke tackle from them?
They took away free-flowing football. f**k them.
Is this just in Football?
Let's replace the Railway Cup with a Red Hand Rules series. Sure to ignite this board's interest, anyways.
I'm sure Mickey and co. are already working on a new stealth tackling system that uses pressure points to disable any opponent that crosses the halfway line.
Will the Black card reduce tactical substitutions as will have to hold a few back in case someone gets Black carded?
Quote from: Jinxy on March 24, 2013, 01:47:16 PM
I'm sure Mickey and co. are already working on a new stealth tackling system that uses pressure points to disable any opponent that crosses the halfway line.
Correcto, Mickey has proposed that anyone who gets a yellow against tyrone costs his team two points, naturally the green card gets you a three point defecit and deported from the USA and the brown means you are shite and Tyrone benefit to the tune of four points, you get the picture.
Basically Mickey has Tyrone winning the next 17 AIF's by an average of Tyrone 0-6 the udders minus 1-8.
Are people more stupid than they used to be?
In general?
The amount of lads that watch a match like Mayo vs. Donegal today and think that because there would have been a heap of black cards, the game will descend into farce when the new rule comes in.
Complete inability to join the dots.
Quote from: Jinxy on March 24, 2013, 04:32:35 PM
Are people more stupid than they used to be?
In general?
The amount of lads that watch a match like Mayo vs. Donegal today and think that because there would have been a heap of black cards, the game will descend into farce when the new rule comes in.
Complete inability to join the dots.
hopefully the black card introduction will see an end to the shite that was in castlebar today.
The refs don't know when to hand out a red or yellow card. Black is pointless to be honest and it just makes referees even more indecisive.
I found it very interesting that the video used to back the FRC proposals featured footage mainly from Cork v Kerry games! Not a Tyrone man in sight (apart from Stevie O'Neill getting tripped)! I guess we can all blame those bad Munster Men 8)!!!!https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QBhikkHoNcg
Quote from: Armaghgeddon on March 24, 2013, 08:18:15 PM
The refs don't know when to hand out a red or yellow card. Black is pointless to be honest and it just makes referees even more indecisive.
Yes - what happens to yellow cards now?
Seems to me that yellows will be dished out for unintentional fouls (clumsy, bad tackling)
Black cards for intentional fouls (trips, rugby tackles)
Again, the jersey pull is not covered. Also those blocks are going to be impossible to manage. Going to be easy for the man laying off to deliberately time it so he runs into a defender just after release.
Quote from: Hardy on March 24, 2013, 08:45:23 PM
Quote from: Armaghgeddon on March 24, 2013, 08:18:15 PM
The refs don't know when to hand out a red or yellow card. Black is pointless to be honest and it just makes referees even more indecisive.
Yes - what happens to yellow cards now?
I can see it being used in some instances - to keep players behaviour in check or for lazy defending. Like I said, even if it is a rugby tackle challenge, it should be a yellow card. I would have preferred the introduction of a sin bin system.
Quote from: ONeill on March 24, 2013, 08:49:52 PM
Seems to me that yellows will be dished out for unintentional fouls (clumsy, bad tackling)
Black cards for intentional fouls (trips, rugby tackles)
Again, the jersey pull is not covered. Also those blocks are going to be impossible to manage. Going to be easy for the man laying off to deliberately time it so he runs into a defender just after release.
How is it not covered?
Quote from: ONeill on March 24, 2013, 08:49:52 PM
Seems to me that yellows will be dished out for unintentional fouls (clumsy, bad tackling)
Black cards for intentional fouls (trips, rugby tackles)
Again, the jersey pull is not covered. Also those blocks are going to be impossible to manage. Going to be easy for the man laying off to deliberately time it so he runs into a defender just after release.
It is hard enough for refs to decide what a foul is, never mind trying to classify fouls. All in the heat of the action.
Quote from: Jinxy on March 24, 2013, 09:01:28 PM
Quote from: ONeill on March 24, 2013, 08:49:52 PM
Seems to me that yellows will be dished out for unintentional fouls (clumsy, bad tackling)
Black cards for intentional fouls (trips, rugby tackles)
Again, the jersey pull is not covered. Also those blocks are going to be impossible to manage. Going to be easy for the man laying off to deliberately time it so he runs into a defender just after release.
How is it not covered?
Did you read their definition of a cynical foul?
"To deliberately pull down an opponent"
"To deliberately trip an opponent with the hand(s), arm, leg or foot."
"To deliberately body collide with an opponent after he has played the ball away or for the purpose of taking him out of a movement of play"
" To threaten or to use abusive or provocative language or gestures to an opponent or a teammate"
"To remonstrate in an aggressive manner with a Match Official"
It's pulling an opponent.
Pulling 'down' an opponent is the ruling and the clips all show rugby tackles. Unless they redefine that there'll be CCCCing all over the shop.
What if the ref doesn't see it?
Quote from: Farrandeelin on March 24, 2013, 09:12:29 PM
What if the ref doesn't see it?
You can't act on what you (or officials) don't see.
You have a season started! I mean we are mid season! And the authorities decide to change the rules! Why were these rules not implemented before the regional Cups (McKeena, McGrath, FBD and O'Byrne) have started let alone the League! It would give managers, players and most importantly referees the chance to get their bearings. We are now left with Referees to make big decisions on Big championship days, without prior experience of the rules in a (should we say) more comfortable environment. The last big rule change was at the begining of the championship in 1999. A Leinster tie between Westmeath and Carlow. With the introduction of new rules, ref Niall Barrett of Cork dished out 14 yellow cards and sent off six players, four from Carlow. Westmeath won by four points. The rules changed back the next day! :-[
Most don't come in til January 2014.
Call me a cynic. But I've been involved in the game too long to think that a measure like the black card will change the way games are played.
There's quite a few hatchet men in this world who've now been given a defined role.
They can now start the game, and line up key opponents for heavy tackles, and their team will actually improve for this action, when they're replaced with a better player.
Quote from: Jinxy on March 24, 2013, 04:32:35 PM
Are people more stupid than they used to be?
In general?
The amount of lads that watch a match like Mayo vs. Donegal today and think that because there would have been a heap of black cards, the game will descend into farce when the new rule comes in.
Complete inability to join the dots.
I've noticed that myself. The concept that tougher sanctions might actually lead to a decrease in this type of tactical fouling seems entirely alien.
Quote from: Farrandeelin on March 24, 2013, 09:12:29 PM
What if the ref doesn't see it?
Then it never happened. ;)
Quote from: thewobbler on March 24, 2013, 09:44:58 PM
Call me a cynic. But I've been involved in the game too long to think that a measure like the black card will change the way games are played.
There's quite a few hatchet men in this world who've now been given a defined role.
They can now start the game, and line up key opponents for heavy tackles, and their team will actually improve for this action, when they're replaced with a better player.
You're a cynic.
Quote from: ONeill on March 24, 2013, 09:13:17 PM
Quote from: Farrandeelin on March 24, 2013, 09:12:29 PM
What if the ref doesn't see it?
You can't act on what you (or officials) don't see.
That's the problem - we all know that referees act on stuff they don't see or think they see. Most referees give frees for fouls that (a) never happened - they see a player fall, therefore he must have been fouled or (b) were the other way around - for instance, the famous "grabbing the defender's arm" trick. As you said in your post above, it will be child's play for players to play the ball and then run into the man - black card for the victim about 50% of the time, I predict. We see it all the time in rugby, where it's standard practice to look for somebody to run into after you kick ahead, in the hope of getting a penalty. Do we really expect referees who fall 80% of the time for the arm-grabbing trick to be wise to this one?
The real problems in the game - bad refereeing and diving - have been not only ignored but potentially worsened by these new rules. They will make bad refereeing worse because referees now have even more to misinterpret than they had and, as I say, they are also a diver's charter.
I have no problem with stiffening the rules against pulling down and tripping, but two things are wrong with this approach to it - (1) this is the wrong solution - a more severe playing penalty (a 13-metre free) would be better and (2) including the block in these sanctions is going to be disastrous because it's so easy to simulate a foul - i.e. cheat. You will have lads seeking out opportunities to crash into the Gooches, Laceys and Murphys of the game as early as possible.
Another dimension to the debate that has gone completely unremarked is that we have not just changed the penalties for existing fouls but defined a new foul - "To deliberately body collide with an opponent after he has played the ball away or for the purpose of taking him out of a movement of play". This was never in the rule book before and it's now an offence simply to move into a player's line of run, without charging him. Is this restriction desirable in a physical contact game?
We already have rules against charging without the ball and against the frontal charge. This is going a step further and, to me, will see even more basketball-type pirouetting to avoid making any physical contact with randomly passing players. Not to mention the problems of interpretation now presented to referees who have to decide not only whether a challenge was a frontal charge or a charge without the ball but whether it was a player standing his ground or moving to get in the way of another player.
This accumulation of restrictions on physical contact is inexorably moving the game in the direction of basketball. I can't believe football people, who really appreciate and love the essence of the game really want this, but we're being sleep-walked into it and you can be sure the next step is some other set of half-arsed nonsense designed to take even more contact out of the game in the name of "attractive" and "attacking" play.
If we fitted players with spinal braces that gave them an electrical jolt when they tried to pass a ball backwards we could really sort this game out.
Quote from: thewobbler on March 24, 2013, 09:44:58 PM
Call me a cynic. But I've been involved in the game too long to think that a measure like the black card will change the way games are played.
There's quite a few hatchet men in this world who've now been given a defined role.
They can now start the game, and line up key opponents for heavy tackles, and their team will actually improve for this action, when they're replaced with a better player.
It's short-sighted. And the hacks afraid to assess it in cold light (away from the mass back-slapping of Congress day) are equally as culpable. What blights our game when it's at its most extreme is the tactic of cramming defences. Excellent fitness levels at county level means players can move en masse from defence to attack only to be faced with the same from the opposition. The Dublin-Donegal game of 2011 showed how poor it can look (even though I thought it was intriguing).
If they want to market the game in that respect (which I think is their big issue), this is not the answer. We'll still get packed, disciplined defences.
So what do you do -
Rule of 4 forwards at any given time must be in the opposition's half?
One man tackles?
13-a-side?
30m advances for dissent?
2 points for score outside the 30?
Lads these rules have come in to improve the game and stop fouling.
I cant believe more people are not in support of this. If ye want to drag a player to the ground well this is the wrong sport for you. If anyone took in the Mayo v Dun na ngall game today ye would see the problem. A terrible spectacle with constant dragging and pulling. If the player realised there are ramifications then they would not do it. If the black book was in play today then it eould be thirteen a side; and ye know then maybe after a few lessons like these then county managers would realise that fouling does not pa like it does now.
Quote from: ONeill on March 24, 2013, 09:57:53 PM
Quote from: thewobbler on March 24, 2013, 09:44:58 PM
Call me a cynic. But I've been involved in the game too long to think that a measure like the black card will change the way games are played.
There's quite a few hatchet men in this world who've now been given a defined role.
They can now start the game, and line up key opponents for heavy tackles, and their team will actually improve for this action, when they're replaced with a better player.
It's short-sighted. And the hacks afraid to assess it in cold light (away from the mass back-slapping of Congress day) are equally as culpable. What blights our game when it's at its most extreme is the tactic of cramming defences. Excellent fitness levels at county level means players can move en masse from defence to attack only to be faced with the same from the opposition. The Dublin-Donegal game of 2011 showed how poor it can look (even though I thought it was intriguing).
If they want to market the game in that respect (which I think is their big issue), this is not the answer. We'll still get packed, disciplined defences.
So what do you do -
Rule of 4 forwards at any given time must be in the opposition's half?
One man tackles?
13-a-side?
30m advances for dissent?
2 points for score outside the 30?
I'd give the tactics and tacticians of the game a chance to resolve this before changing the rules. (That is if we really think good defending is a bad thing). Shooting from distance will overcome any defence, no matter how tightly massed, so in the natural order of things, strong defending (OK - packed, blanket defending, whatever) will improve the scoring skills of our forwards.
Will this make good referees better and make bad refs even worse ?
Will it make the 28 outfield players better or worse is more the point?.....why the one man in the middle again?
Quote from: theticklemister on March 24, 2013, 10:00:50 PM
Lads these rules have come in to improve the game and stop fouling.
I cant believe more people are not in support of this. If ye want to drag a player to the ground well this is the wrong sport for you. If anyone took in the Mayo v Dun na ngall game today ye would see the problem. A terrible spectacle with constant dragging and pulling. If the player realised there are ramifications then they would not do it. If the black book was in play today then it eould be thirteen a side; and ye know then maybe after a few lessons like these then county managers would realise that fouling does not pa like it does now.
Who has posted against more severe penalties for dragging down?
Quote from: ONeill on March 24, 2013, 09:57:53 PM
Quote from: thewobbler on March 24, 2013, 09:44:58 PM
Call me a cynic. But I've been involved in the game too long to think that a measure like the black card will change the way games are played.
There's quite a few hatchet men in this world who've now been given a defined role.
They can now start the game, and line up key opponents for heavy tackles, and their team will actually improve for this action, when they're replaced with a better player.
It's short-sighted. And the hacks afraid to assess it in cold light (away from the mass back-slapping of Congress day) are equally as culpable. What blights our game when it's at its most extreme is the tactic of cramming defences. Excellent fitness levels at county level means players can move en masse from defence to attack only to be faced with the same from the opposition. The Dublin-Donegal game of 2011 showed how poor it can look (even though I thought it was intriguing).
If they want to market the game in that respect (which I think is their big issue), this is not the answer. We'll still get packed, disciplined defences.
So what do you do -
Rule of 4 forwards at any given time must be in the opposition's half?
One man tackles?
13-a-side?
30m advances for dissent?
2 points for score outside the 30?
Do the new rules make it harder or easier for a wing back to move up the field?
If they make it easier, then surely that's less time for forwards to funnel back and block up space.
Taking defenders down early and removing momentum gives teams time to get numbers back and set up their defensive screen.
Quote from: ONeill on March 24, 2013, 09:57:53 PM
Quote from: thewobbler on March 24, 2013, 09:44:58 PM
Call me a cynic. But I've been involved in the game too long to think that a measure like the black card will change the way games are played.
There's quite a few hatchet men in this world who've now been given a defined role.
They can now start the game, and line up key opponents for heavy tackles, and their team will actually improve for this action, when they're replaced with a better player.
It's short-sighted. And the hacks afraid to assess it in cold light (away from the mass back-slapping of Congress day) are equally as culpable. What blights our game when it's at its most extreme is the tactic of cramming defences. Excellent fitness levels at county level means players can move en masse from defence to attack only to be faced with the same from the opposition. The Dublin-Donegal game of 2011 showed how poor it can look (even though I thought it was intriguing).
If they want to market the game in that respect (which I think is their big issue), this is not the answer. We'll still get packed, disciplined defences.
So what do you do -
Rule of 4 forwards at any given time must be in the opposition's half?
One man tackles?
13-a-side?
30m advances for dissent?
2 points for score outside the 30?
How do teams get so many men back to flood the defence??? By slowing down the movement of the ball from defence to attack; the greatest way of doing ths is fouling.
It's easy to clumsy foul which isn't a black card offence. The onus on the ref to read intentions is disastrous. The amount of current players against this cannot be ignored. The reason they are is that a ref's judgement cannot be trusted whereas a yellow allowed for error of judgement.
But that's the disadvantages of an amateur game. The Yanks have on-pitch video reviews and multiple officials.
Quote from: Hardy on March 24, 2013, 09:51:49 PM
Quote from: ONeill on March 24, 2013, 09:13:17 PM
Quote from: Farrandeelin on March 24, 2013, 09:12:29 PM
What if the ref doesn't see it?
You can't act on what you (or officials) don't see.
That's the problem - we all know that referees act on stuff they don't see or think they see. Most referees give frees for fouls that (a) never happened - they see a player fall, therefore he must have been fouled or (b) were the other way around - for instance, the famous "grabbing the defender's arm" trick. As you said in your post above, it will be child's play for players to play the ball and then run into the man - black card for the victim about 50% of the time, I predict. We see it all the time in rugby, where it's standard practice to look for somebody to run into after you kick ahead, in the hope of getting a penalty. Do we really expect referees who fall 80% of the time for the arm-grabbing trick to be wise to this one?
The real problems in the game - bad refereeing and diving - have been not only ignored but potentially worsened by these new rules. They will make bad refereeing worse because referees now have even more to misinterpret than they had and, as I say, they are also a diver's charter.
I have no problem with stiffening the rules against pulling down and tripping, but two things are wrong with this approach to it - (1) this is the wrong solution - a more severe playing penalty (a 13-metre free) would be better and (2) including the block in these sanctions is going to be disastrous because it's so easy to simulate a foul - i.e. cheat. You will have lads seeking out opportunities to crash into the Gooches, Laceys and Murphys of the game as early as possible.
Another dimension to the debate that has gone completely unremarked is that we have not just changed the penalties for existing fouls but defined a new foul - "To deliberately body collide with an opponent after he has played the ball away or for the purpose of taking him out of a movement of play". This was never in the rule book before and it's now an offence simply to move into a player's line of run, without charging him. Is this restriction desirable in a physical contact game?
We already have rules against charging without the ball and against the frontal charge. This is going a step further and, to me, will see even more basketball-type pirouetting to avoid making any physical contact with randomly passing players. Not to mention the problems of interpretation now presented to referees who have to decide not only whether a challenge was a frontal charge or a charge without the ball but whether it was a player standing his ground or moving to get in the way of another player.
This accumulation of restrictions on physical contact is inexorably moving the game in the direction of basketball. I can't believe football people, who really appreciate and love the essence of the game really want this, but we're being sleep-walked into it and you can be sure the next step is some other set of half-arsed nonsense designed to take even more contact out of the game in the name of "attractive" and "attacking" play.
100% agree hardy
These emotional speeches and footage before the Black Card vote at Congress, reminds me of the Lisbon Treaty malarky...
Ireland says No. Ah, but we're gonna vote again. Didn't you f**kin hear us, we said No! So they roll out the big guns to make sure it goes through. The rock stars, sportsmen, politicians, TV celebs etc. Voting yes is the way to go people, blah blah blah. And of course it was pushed through.
Only the FRC were clever to make sure it (black card) went through first time. I'm sure if it failed, it would've been brought up again next year (like the Lisbon Treaty was). There's talk already about bringing the Mark rule up again next year.
Happy enough to see the Black Card introduced, will be interesting to see how it works - the application of it in practice is crucial to it being successful. Hopefully it will encourage coaches & teams to cut out the non-tackles you see in so many games these days. Would have preferred a sin-bin though.
Glad that the mark wasn't introduced, can't see what benefit it would bring to the game. Would see some merit in allowing a player who catches a kickout an extra 2-3 seconds before he's pulled for carrying.
Hawkeye & the clock were no-brainers.
Good to see the advantage rule being brought in and the changing of the length of club games being rejected.
I thought the 30m rule would have been beneficial, need to see more respect for refs, doesn't matter whether they're right or wrong (although there should be something brought in (not sure what) to improve the standard of reffing)
Motion 49 - what a waste of time:
This motion relates to the naming of county teams. It proposes that for all Senior Championship games, the teams should be given to the media four days before the game (e.g. Wednesday 12 noon for a Sunday game)
Anyone know whether Motion 53 was passed or not?? It appears to relate to the structure of the qualifiers.
Heard Eugene McGee on the radio afterwards, always thought he was a complete gobsh*te and my opinion remains unchanged.
Fair play to him for what he achieved with Offaly but I would have preferred if they had gotten someone with half a notion about football to chair the FRC e.g. Gilroy / JO'C / Kernan.
Quote from: macdanger2 on March 26, 2013, 12:32:47 AM
Heard Eugene McGee on the radio afterwards, always thought he was a complete gobsh*te and my opinion remains unchanged.
Fair play to him for what he achieved with Offaly but I would have preferred if they had gotten someone with half a notion about football to chair the FRC e.g. Gilroy / JO'C / Kernan.
arrah whisht.
Another point here, Democracy is dead.
a full county board meeting representing the people of that county mandates their representative to vote. He spends 2 hours getting lobbied at Congress to and decides to do his own thing in keeping with the spirit of the weekend that is in it. Sheep would have more shame.
So McGee and his pals got their way. I read on Sunday's paper that he was in tears with the joy of this. I don't know the guy but I never liked the aul attitude in his articles and in his opinions. Always quick to knock the smaller teams and wants to come across as some kind of GAA wizard all the time.
This black card rule is a complete and utter cod, for the following obvious reasons.
1-it spells the end of any weaker teams getting through the back door (they won't have strong enough panels to keep coming on as strong enough sub replacements),
2-it won't stop the tactical fouling late on in games, how will it? A free sub comes on so it's worth fouling to maintain a lead late in a game. Does the man getting sidelined get any further sanction?
3-costs - it will now require teams to have an extra guy on the line for the team to control substitutes and record who is on black cards, blood etc etc,
4-confusion - per above at 3 plus the farce that will apply for refs trying to distinguish between black, yellow and straight red cards,
5- club level - some teams barely can get 18 /19 players at a inter or jnr match, shur if the opposition spot this and have say 22 then it will only encourage them to be more cynical rather than detract from it,
It was the refs that required improving and not the rules. This is an awful step backwards for the GAA and will not last.
I haven't really read the full rule change, but if a player gets a black card and his team have used all their allocated normal substitutes, are they allowed to replace him?
Quote from: rrhf on March 26, 2013, 09:03:09 AM
Another point here, Democracy is dead.
a full county board meeting representing the people of that county mandates their representative to vote. He spends 2 hours getting lobbied at Congress to and decides to do his own thing in keeping with the spirit of the weekend that is in it. Sheep would have more shame.
Indeed. We keep congratulating ourselves on our democratic structures and that's grand, but we don't take a blind bit of notice when they're trampled all over. As you say, delegates are supposed to be mandated by their counties as to how to vote on each motion. What, then, is the purpose of "presentations" by the like of Paul Earley for particular motions? And what sort of democracy accommodates "presentations" lobbying for proposals favoured by the executive without even the pretence of providing an equivalent platform for the opposing view?
4. The Black Card:
If a player is deemed guilty of "Cynical behaviour", a black card may be issued. The player will be sent off but a substitution will be allowed. Substitutions are permitted up to the third black card, however if a team receives a fourth, the player sent off cannot be replaced.
'Cynical behaviour' includes these infractions:
(1) 'to deliberately pull down an opponent'
(2) 'to deliberately trip an opponent'
(3) 'to deliberately body collide with an opponent after he has played the ball away''
(4) 'to threaten or use abusive language or gestures to an opponent'
(5) 'to remonstrate in an aggressive manner with a match official'
12. Under the 'Black Card' system, a player who issued with 3 black cards is subsequently banned from playing his next game.
The motion to introduce the Black Card was passed on a majority of 70% to 30%. The motion was spoken in favour of by an overwhelming majority of those who put their views across on the matter, which keen opponents to the change Armagh conspicuous in their lack of contribution to the debate.
Those who spoke in favour of the motion included representatives of the FRC, along with referee chief Pat McEneaney, former Munster Council Chairman Sean Walsh and former GAA president Joe McDonagh. The only dissenting voices were Cork delegate Christy Ring Jr who cited diving as a more important issue, and Tyrone chairman Ciaran McLaughlin who agreed with the definition of cynical fouls, but felt that the current rules were adequate to punish them.
Rule posted above.
Shur what's to stop a team with a five or six point lead with 10 minutes to go chancing been reduced to 13 players? Hardly much of a sanction when you have 3 fresh players on the park.
I presume the subs are separate from the normal substitutions on the game or the rule would have said otherwise?
basically allows you 8 subs as far as I see. Stick yer thugs on early would be the best bet, Soften up the wee corner forward twice and make it yellow cards only after that. It would be crazy to start your best team.
The gameplan of champions.
I don't see anywhere that says the number of subs is to be increased form 5 to 8. Surely you're penalised a substitution every time a Black Card is issued.
A lot of crying on here about it but good to see that at least some in Tyrone are capable of not pandering to Mickey Harte and try to do something for the good of the game.
Personally I would have preferred a Sin Bin rule for these type of offences with the 3rd sin bin resulting in a sending off but Mickey Harte and Joe Kernan were able to kick that one out a few years ago. I think something needed to be done to stop the cancer of cynicism in our game.
Lads are forgetting that coming up to the end of a game generally the subs bench has been emptied so a team taking a black card at that stage could be very costly!!
Quote from: rrhf on March 26, 2013, 10:41:35 AM
basically allows you 8 subs as far as I see. Stick yer thugs on early would be the best bet, Soften up the wee corner forward twice and make it yellow cards only after that. It would be crazy to start your best team.
The gameplan of champions.
I agree with your sentiments here rrhf, however, the only aspect of foul play that could 'soften' up a corner forward would be the third man tackle/body check. Still, nothing stopping a manager sending out a few lads with instructions to stick the hardest shoulder into Gooch/Brogan/O'Neill as they can knowing they can replace him with a potentially better player.
The anti black card crowd here are something else for thickness altogether :-[
70% vote for it ... but it's not democracy
McGee is a gobshite
It's the Lisbon traeaty all over again
All the top crowd were for it
Emotional speeches
blah blah blah
Those people think the GAA should only make decisions they agree with and obviously should not be allowed to change anything.
Why are there so many of these on this forum as they are not representative of GAA people as a whole.
Is there some organised orchestrated bunch of stick in the muds/past lurking here???
Reading some of the sh1te here I have to say I'm delighted this was introduced. Pity they didn't go further and make all frees for these fouls be taken from the 13 metre line or indeed a penalty for any inside the 45.
Quote from: Hardy on March 26, 2013, 10:12:19 AM
Quote from: rrhf on March 26, 2013, 09:03:09 AM
Another point here, Democracy is dead.
a full county board meeting representing the people of that county mandates their representative to vote. He spends 2 hours getting lobbied at Congress to and decides to do his own thing in keeping with the spirit of the weekend that is in it. Sheep would have more shame.
Indeed. We keep congratulating ourselves on our democratic structures and that's grand, but we don't take a blind bit of notice when they're trampled all over. As you say, delegates are supposed to be mandated by their counties as to how to vote on each motion. What, then, is the purpose of "presentations" by the like of Paul Earley for particular motions? And what sort of democracy accommodates "presentations" lobbying for proposals favoured by the executive without even the pretence of providing an equivalent platform for the opposing view?
Are ye new to the GAA lads? This type of stuff has been going on for years at both congress and county board level.
Quote from: macdanger2 on March 26, 2013, 12:27:49 AM
Happy enough to see the Black Card introduced, will be interesting to see how it works - the application of it in practice is crucial to it being successful. Hopefully it will encourage coaches & teams to cut out the non-tackles you see in so many games these days. Would have preferred a sin-bin though.
Glad that the mark wasn't introduced, can't see what benefit it would bring to the game. Would see some merit in allowing a player who catches a kickout an extra 2-3 seconds before he's pulled for carrying.
Hawkeye & the clock were no-brainers.
Good to see the advantage rule being brought in and the changing of the length of club games being rejected.
I thought the 30m rule would have been beneficial, need to see more respect for refs, doesn't matter whether they're right or wrong (although there should be something brought in (not sure what) to improve the standard of reffing)
Motion 49 - what a waste of time:
This motion relates to the naming of county teams. It proposes that for all Senior Championship games, the teams should be given to the media four days before the game (e.g. Wednesday 12 noon for a Sunday game)
Anyone know whether Motion 53 was passed or not?? It appears to relate to the structure of the qualifiers.
If Motion 53 was in relation to the 6 day turn around for provincial runners-up playing a qualifier, then it has been passed.
I'm actually surprised that there were people who voted against the motion regarding punishment for racist and sectarian abuse.
Also, I would have liked to see the 30m rule brought in, cry all you want about it but punishments/deterrents are there for a reason - do the crime do the time.
What happens now if a player keeps their helmet on during the anthem? Surely if a player is kitted out and ready to go and doesn't want to take his helmet off that is his own choice.
Also, think it is crazy that we have a game that has different playing times for different standards. The game should be the same length no matter if its a junior club game or senior inter-county. Another 10 minutes is hardly something that would drastically affect players, something wrong with them if it did.
A lot of these fouls are coming from the way the game is played nowadays.
I mean we are seeing a lot of teams get like 13 men behind the ball so its almost impossible to kick pass any more without the ball being intercepted.
This in turn means everyone now has to run with the ball almost rugby style and "offload" to a man on their shoulder often as its the safest way to keep possession.
Often the play has to go across the pitch as there are so many men back defending so more often or not a pass goes astray or someone turns the ball over and suddenly the break is on.
So the team that had been defending are suddenly on the back foot away up the pitch and so its often best to foul there and stop a quick free rather than get caught out of position with often half backs or even full backs far up the pitch to support the attack.
A lot of teams play like this now including Cork & Kerry.
I presume the thinking of the black card system means that should you continue to foul like this now then you, as the individual, will be replaced. So this will leave teams short of their best defenders you would expect but those teams with strength in depth can risk this punishment.
However, it still doesn't solve the problem that if a team is leading by 4 or 5 points, then they can still use cynical fouling to stop the other team getting up the pitch to get a goal.
I was also thinking could we make a list of the things we used to love about our game and compare that to what we currently have now.
For me even back when Tyrone weren't winning things we always played with 6 forwards (as far as I can recall) and we often had fast passing moves from our half back line up the fields into our FF line. You would enjoy seeing a forward get out in front of his man, make a quick turn or dummy and kick a great score or hit a defence splitting pass.
In today's game we don't see too many defence spitting passes as there are so many bodies in there to intercept any sort of passes.
What other things do you miss seeing from your teams play?
Quote from: highorlow on March 26, 2013, 09:29:18 AM
So McGee and his pals got their way. I read on Sunday's paper that he was in tears with the joy of this. I don't know the guy but I never liked the aul attitude in his articles and in his opinions. Always quick to knock the smaller teams and wants to come across as some kind of GAA wizard all the time.
This black card rule is a complete and utter cod, for the following obvious reasons.
1-it spells the end of any weaker teams getting through the back door (they won't have strong enough panels to keep coming on as strong enough sub replacements) - no it doesn't and to state so categorically it does is ridiculous. If teams don't commit black card offences then the strength of panels won't be tested. The whole idea is the black card will deter lads from making these fouls not that every game will have 110 to 12 black cards
2-it won't stop the tactical fouling late on in games, how will it? A free sub comes on so it's worth fouling to maintain a lead late in a game. Does the man getting sidelined get any further sanction?- no it won't but neither will any other sanction so why do people bring this up?
3-costs - it will now require teams to have an extra guy on the line for the team to control substitutes and record who is on black cards, blood etc etc,Eh? Grabbing at straws comes to mind here, a total non-argument
4-confusion - per above at 3 plus the farce that will apply for refs trying to distinguish between black, yellow and straight red cards,- as above, I'm not sure you've any point here
5- club level - some teams barely can get 18 /19 players at a inter or jnr match, shur if the opposition spot this and have say 22 then it will only encourage them to be more cynical rather than detract from it,- the type of doomsday scenario argument that GAA folk opposed to something all to readily fall back on, how can a team be more cynical? You mean a team with more players will start diving around left right and centre to get lads black carded? I've never played with a team that would go out with that type of attitude and besides, there are clear black card fouls which teams simply need to avoid
It was the refs that required improving and not the rules. This is an awful step backwards for the GAA and will not last. - refs do need to improve but this will help make their job easier and nobody can say for sure what the effect will be so to say it's an awful step backward is clearly incorrect
With today's fitness levels it's no problem for most players to flit between offence and defence througout the 70, bunging up the back-lines before breaking forward at speed.
(Long past) Time to seriously consider 13-a-side, which would seriously test the manager's tactical mettle too, in addition to signifcantly reducing the all routes blocked scenario that so often confronts an attacker in the final third these days.
Former Dublin midfielder and current international rules selector Ciarán Whelan has warned footballers that they must adapt to the new black card system rather than complain over its introduction into the sport.
Whelan told RTÉ Sport: "I think there is a grey area around the black card.
"I think the reason a lot of the players have come out against this is because they don't have trust in the interpretation.
"We're going to need a very clear interpretation of what is a deliberate foul and what is an accidental foul – a genuine attempt to play the ball.
However Whelan did warn that players have not always had faith in the system and the consistency of referees.
"We've seen in the past when a yellow card in February is not a yellow card in August.
"I know congress has tried hard to define what a cynical foul is and what accidental fouls are and define what the tackle is and that's all fine, definitions are fine, but in practice it's all very, very different.
"They [the players] don't have the trust that the referees will be able to implement it.
"We are where we are. The rule changes have been made so there's going to have to be a change in the mindset from the players' perspective; they've no choice in this matter, whether we agree with it or disagree with it.
"It's going to be a challenging period for the GAA to communicate this change and players are going to have to buy into it unfortunately."
Whelan also admitted that there is a problem with cynical play in the sport, but that the black card is possibly not the best way to combat it.
He admitted cynical play is becoming systematic. "If you sit down and watch games every weekend there is a problem there.
"The black card wouldn't have been my preference. I probably would have preferred a punishment on the scoreboard – a free from 21 yards."
The former Dublin midfielder also feels that the black card could be extremely hard to implement at club level.
"I think there would have been easier ways to administrate it at club and county level," he said.
"But we are where we are, so it's educating the players to deal with this going forward. There's no going back at this stage. It's a democratic congress – over two-thirds voted it in.
"I think at club level it's going to be particularly difficult. I think it's going to create awful problems.
"We will adapt and change at county level, but at club level is going to be significantly more difficult.
"We have to be able to separate the county game from the club game, and if there is small rules that you can adapt to the county game that are workable at the county situation, but won't work at club levels, we have to be open to doing that."
We must remember that all those in favour of the black card on here have never ever seen it in operation - no not even a little bit, so by claiming its a great day for the GAA etc should render their opinions as the most ridiculous statements ever made since Mc Stay claimed the removal of rule 42 was the highlight of his year. I could claim something that has yet to happen is great for the GAA but I would expect a backlash of ridicule and accusations of numptiness from you guys keeping me right.
I guarantee that within 2 months of these rules implemented ye will all be crying for the old rules and egms etc. A completer collection of eejits you couldnt put together. Tyrone by the way will clean up under the new rules so deep down we are happy enough, but we cannot be accused of messing up the game.
And we must remember 10% of the delegates voted for no punishment for sectarianism and racism and we are claiming that these guys know what they were doing and should be entrusted with changing the rules?
QuoteThe anti black card crowd here are something else for thickness altogether
70% vote for it ... but it's not democracy
McGee is a gobshite
It's the Lisbon traeaty all over again
All the top crowd were for it
Emotional speeches
blah blah blah
Those people think the GAA should only make decisions they agree with and obviously should not be allowed to change anything.
Why are there so many of these on this forum as they are not representative of GAA people as a whole.
Is there some organised orchestrated bunch of stick in the muds/past lurking here???
Reading some of the sh1te here I have to say I'm delighted this was introduced. Pity they didn't go further and make all frees for these fouls be taken from the 13 metre line or indeed a penalty for any inside the 45.
Rossfan, read the posts again. Most on here never said they were against it. I'm all for change and taking the cynicism out of the game but this black card rule is a load of shite in its current guise and won't work.
QuoteWe must remember that all those in favour of the black card on here have never ever seen it in operation - no not even a little bit, so by claiming its a great day for the GAA etc should render their opinions as the most ridiculous statements ever made since Mc Stay claimed the removal of rule 42 was the highlight of his year. I could claim something that has yet to happen is great for the GAA but I would expect a backlash of ridicule and accusations of numptiness from you guys keeping me right.
I guarantee that within 2 months of these rules implemented ye will all be crying for the old rules and egms etc. A completer collection of eejits you couldnt put together. Tyrone by the way will clean up under the new rules so deep down we are happy enough, but we cannot be accused of messing up the game.
And we must remember 10% of the delegates voted for no punishment for sectarianism and racism and we are claiming that these guys know what they were doing and should be entrusted with changing the rules?
Well said. Ciaran Whealan probably best sums up what I've also been trying to articulate.
QuoteReading some of the sh1te here I have to say I'm delighted this was introduced. Pity they didn't go further and make all frees for these fouls be taken from the 13 metre line or indeed a penalty for any inside the 45.
Rossfan - you have also contradicted yourself.
Quote from: rrhf on March 26, 2013, 12:25:24 PM
We must remember that all those in favour of the black card on here have never ever seen it in operation - no not even a little bit, so by claiming its a great day for the GAA etc should render their opinions as the most ridiculous statements ever made since Mc Stay claimed the removal of rule 42 was the highlight of his year. I could claim something that has yet to happen is great for the GAA but I would expect a backlash of ridicule and accusations of numptiness from you guys keeping me right.
I guarantee that within 2 months of these rules implemented ye will all be crying for the old rules and egms etc. A completer collection of eejits you couldnt put together. Tyrone by the way will clean up under the new rules so deep down we are happy enough, but we cannot be accused of messing up the game.
And we must remember 10% of the delegates voted for no punishment for sectarianism and racism and we are claiming that these guys know what they were doing and should be entrusted with changing the rules?
Those of us supporting it never claimed it was a great day for the GAA, in fact to a man I think, we have all said it isn't perfect and would have preferred a sin bin or some other punishment. It is only the anti-black card crew who are predicting the future by claiming something they've never seen in action to be a disaster. You then bizarrely claim that those who say it will be great " should render their opinions as the most ridiculous statements ever made since Mc Stay claimed the removal of rule 42 was the highlight of his year. I could claim something that has yet to happen is great for the GAA but I would expect a backlash of ridicule and accusations of numptiness from you guys keeping me right." Before going on to
guarantee something you've never seen in action will be such a disaster that supporters of it will be "within 2 months of these rules implemented ye will all be crying for the old rules and egms etc."
I hope you've been drinking all morning as that is the only justification for posting such a contradictory load of old rubbish.
I'm in a state of shock. I feared some yearthat something ridiculous would slip through congress and unfortunately this is the year. Honestly never thought the black card would go through - I thought it was the one the FRC were willing to lose to get the other stuff in. I'm just baffled. Hardy is right - the prize for diving and cheating has now been made even greater. Forget Hawkeye - the CCCC should retrospectively review ALL intercounty games, certainly in championship, and penalise diving with an 8 week ban. That would have been a good rule change.
As we all know the major problem in gaelic football is refereeing. Again nothing has been done to tackle the problem or even atempt to assist referees. I accept it's not the easiest game in the world to referee but the emphasis is all wrong. How many cards will a ref end up carrying? We've a few more colours to go. Wonder what a blue card could be for?
http://www.rte.ie/sport/gaa/football/2013/0325/378385-whelan-players-must-adapt-to-black-card-system/
Interesting view from Ciaran Whelan who I am sure is glad his career is over.
Can anybody tell me what the difference is between a yellow and a black card ?
And can you pick up as many black cards in the year without any further punishment ?
As far as I know yes but you can also still do so with yellow cards can't you?
MS, any increased punishment for fouling will also have the effect of increasing the temptation for diving so you can't have one without the other. Refereeing standards are definitely an issue but this makes their job easier and I can't see how anyone can suggest otherwise. The game is difficult to ref, especially in contact situations but the black card fouls are fairly clear cut.
Quote from: orangeman on March 26, 2013, 01:48:35 PM
And can you pick up as many black cards in the year without any further punishment ?
Pick up 3 and you miss the next game.
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on March 26, 2013, 01:55:02 PM
Quote from: orangeman on March 26, 2013, 01:48:35 PM
And can you pick up as many black cards in the year without any further punishment ?
Pick up 3 and you miss the next game.
And is the clock reset to zero then and if you pick up another 3, you get another game suspension ?
So pull 3 jersies and you get a game ban ?
Pull 6 jersies and get 2 game ban ?
Or does the punishment increase time after time ?
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 26, 2013, 01:31:08 PM
I'm in a state of shock. I feared some yearthat something ridiculous would slip through congress and unfortunately this is the year. Honestly never thought the black card would go through - I thought it was the one the FRC were willing to lose to get the other stuff in. I'm just baffled. Hardy is right - the prize for diving and cheating has now been made even greater. Forget Hawkeye - the CCCC should retrospectively review ALL intercounty games, certainly in championship, and penalise diving with an 8 week ban. That would have been a good rule change.
As we all know the major problem in gaelic football is refereeing. Again nothing has been done to tackle the problem or even atempt to assist referees. I accept it's not the easiest game in the world to referee but the emphasis is all wrong. How many cards will a ref end up carrying? We've a few more colours to go. Wonder what a blue card could be for?
The video shown at congress before this motion was passed highlighted the negative tactics. They were very selective though as they didnt show the resultant decision from the referee! The Armagh one alone was a red never mind the tap on diarmuid Connelly! Yet in todays Irish News they claim that there was only 1 yellow card issued for the examples shown. This highlights the problem perfectly. Its easy to blame players and managers, but they just find where the boundary is and see how far they can push it. If our rules were clearer and administered better on and off the field (refs, CCC, DRA) tackles like those shown at congress wouldnt be an issue and we wouldnt need Black cards! Referee training and assessment in our games needs a complete overhaul. It needs to be a sought after position with enough financial reward to make it worthwhile for those doing it. Bonus structures should be in place for a ref that gets above a set score for his performance in a game, if he gets a score below a certain level he shouldn't get anything! Lets help these guys become better, just like we do with investments in coaching players and coaches and then our game can flourish as it should.
It clearly defines what a black card is for both refs and players this will make it easier for refs to administer the black card and all players will know it they do commit these fouls they'll get sent off so this will reduce the number of such fouls. These offences already exist in the game so I don't see how giving a black card rather than a red or yellow will increase the burden on refs.
To answer a question posed earlier, the max number of substitutions has been increased to six, and black card enforced subs count as part of that six.
Quote from: highorlow on March 26, 2013, 10:20:55 AM
4. The Black Card:
If a player is deemed guilty of "Cynical behaviour", a black card may be issued. The player will be sent off but a substitution will be allowed. Substitutions are permitted up to the third black card, however if a team receives a fourth, the player sent off cannot be replaced.
'Cynical behaviour' includes these infractions:
(1) 'to deliberately pull down an opponent'
(2) 'to deliberately trip an opponent'
(3) 'to deliberately body collide with an opponent after he has played the ball away''
(4) 'to threaten or use abusive language or gestures to an opponent'
(5) 'to remonstrate in an aggressive manner with a match official'
12. Under the 'Black Card' system, a player who issued with 3 black cards is subsequently banned from playing his next game.
The motion to introduce the Black Card was passed on a majority of 70% to 30%. The motion was spoken in favour of by an overwhelming majority of those who put their views across on the matter, which keen opponents to the change Armagh conspicuous in their lack of contribution to the debate.
Those who spoke in favour of the motion included representatives of the FRC, along with referee chief Pat McEneaney, former Munster Council Chairman Sean Walsh and former GAA president Joe McDonagh. The only dissenting voices were Cork delegate Christy Ring Jr who cited diving as a more important issue, and Tyrone chairman Ciaran McLaughlin who agreed with the definition of cynical fouls, but felt that the current rules were adequate to punish them.
Source:
http://www.livegaelic.com/features/gaa-congress-passes-majority-of-frc-proposals/
Quote from: rrhf on March 26, 2013, 09:03:09 AM
Another point here, Democracy is dead.
a full county board meeting representing the people of that county mandates their representative to vote. He spends 2 hours getting lobbied at Congress to and decides to do his own thing in keeping with the spirit of the weekend that is in it. Sheep would have more shame.
This has been going on for years. Connacht would have a Provincial ground if this didn't happen.
Don't agree with the black card rule as I can see it leading to more pulling and dragging by the guy in possession. Look at how many times a player in possession grabs the tacklers arm and drags him to the ground with the referee giving the free to the man with the ball. You take a man running at speed at the oppositions best player, the ball carrier grabs the tackling arm and pulls the tackler to the ground. It is so difficult to determine what has actually happened but more times than not the foul is called against the tackler and under this new rule the black card for the tackler will mean they are sent off.
What will happen is some referees will apply the rule to the letter of the rule and others will not.
Quote from: phpearse on March 26, 2013, 02:24:14 PM
Don't agree with the black card rule as I can see it leading to more pulling and dragging by the guy in possession. Look at how many times a player in possession grabs the tacklers arm and drags him to the ground with the referee giving the free to the man with the ball. You take a man running at speed at the oppositions best player, the ball carrier grabs the tackling arm and pulls the tackler to the ground. It is so difficult to determine what has actually happened but more times than not the foul is called against the tackler and under this new rule the black card for the tackler will mean they are sent off.
What will happen is some referees will apply the rule to the letter of the rule and others will not.
And that in a nutshell is the problem that needs fixing, not the rules.
Quote from: Zulu on March 26, 2013, 02:14:13 PM
It clearly defines what a black card is for both refs and players this will make it easier for refs to administer the black card and all players will know it they do commit these fouls they'll get sent off so this will reduce the number of such fouls. These offences already exist in the game so I don't see how giving a black card rather than a red or yellow will increase the burden on refs.
Is there a clear definition of what a yellow and red card is? As RFRP said a few posts ago there was 1 yellow card shown for all those offences in the video - do you think more than one of them should have been a yellow?
I think there should have been a few yellows (and I could be wrong of course) and that shows that the refs don't understand the clear definition of what a yellow card is and this just introduces further complexity to the current misunderstanding of the sanctions available (even worse, they are the refs of intercounty games and should be the best refs in the country!!). The ref must now educate themselves on what constitutes a black, yellow and red card offence - but from the examples in the video they don't even understand what a yellow is and they've been about for years now.
I can't understand this being passed without at least being trialled at a lower level. I'm not comparing GAA to other sports, but can you think of a rule change in another sport that was introduced directly to the highest level in that sport without a trial at a lower level? It may well end up being a great rule* but introducing it in this manner is totally wrong
* I don't think it will - the refs don't currently implement the sanctions available consistently and this is going to lead to more inconsistency from refs and more frustration from county/club managers and players.
(http://www.absurdintellectual.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/jasper.jpg)
"Trippin an opponent? That's a black card."
"Making fun of the opposition sponsor? That's a black card."
"Pulling your socks all the way up? That's a black card."
"Asking an opponent how much he paid for his boots? That's a black card."
Quote from: Zulu on March 26, 2013, 01:53:14 PM
As far as I know yes but you can also still do so with yellow cards can't you?
MS, any increased punishment for fouling will also have the effect of increasing the temptation for diving so you can't have one without the other. Refereeing standards are definitely an issue but this makes their job easier and I can't see how anyone can suggest otherwise. The game is difficult to ref, especially in contact situations but the black card fouls are fairly clear cut.
So punish diving - that's the more pressing issue! Punish diving and apply the current rules correctly or at least much better than presently and you would be almost perfect. Diving and bad refereeing is the blight on the game. The "Deliberate" fouls in the FRC video should all be yellow cards anyway so rather than having a guy one step from having his team down a man his team are forced to substitute him. A lot of teams would do this anyway.
Quote from: take_yer_points on March 26, 2013, 02:31:40 PM
Quote from: Zulu on March 26, 2013, 02:14:13 PM
It clearly defines what a black card is for both refs and players this will make it easier for refs to administer the black card and all players will know it they do commit these fouls they'll get sent off so this will reduce the number of such fouls. These offences already exist in the game so I don't see how giving a black card rather than a red or yellow will increase the burden on refs.
Is there a clear definition of what a yellow and red card is? As RFRP said a few posts ago there was 1 yellow card shown for all those offences in the video - do you think more than one of them should have been a yellow?
I think there should have been a few yellows (and I could be wrong of course) and that shows that the refs don't understand the clear definition of what a yellow card is and this just introduces further complexity to the current misunderstanding of the sanctions available (even worse, they are the refs of intercounty games and should be the best refs in the country!!). The ref must now educate themselves on what constitutes a black, yellow and red card offence - but from the examples in the video they don't even understand what a yellow is and they've been about for years now.
I can't understand this being passed without at least being trialled at a lower level. I'm not comparing GAA to other sports, but can you think of a rule change in another sport that was introduced directly to the highest level in that sport without a trial at a lower level? It may well end up being a great rule* but introducing it in this manner is totally wrong
* I don't think it will - the refs don't currently implement the sanctions available consistently and this is going to lead to more inconsistency from refs and more frustration from county/club managers and players.
Agree re the trial but to be fair to the GAA they probably didn't want these things to fail not because they weren't working but because certain IC managers would spend all their time undercutting them as they did the sin bin.
The rule book in the GAA isn't great as it leaves too much to interpretation but it isn't fair to simply hammer refs all the time as players don't make it easy at all. There are weaknesses with the black card but it does address some issues we have and a number of fouls we saw over the weekend should largely disappear. The problem with these types of things is too many GAA folk focus on what it doesn't address rather than what it does. No rule will solve everything and cynical play will continue to be a part of football, as it is, all other sports bt the black card is a step in the right direction.
So only one yellow issued for those fouls on the video - that clearly shows that the problem is refereeing.
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 26, 2013, 03:02:45 PM
Quote from: Zulu on March 26, 2013, 01:53:14 PM
As far as I know yes but you can also still do so with yellow cards can't you?
MS, any increased punishment for fouling will also have the effect of increasing the temptation for diving so you can't have one without the other. Refereeing standards are definitely an issue but this makes their job easier and I can't see how anyone can suggest otherwise. The game is difficult to ref, especially in contact situations but the black card fouls are fairly clear cut.
So punish diving - that's the more pressing issue! Punish diving and apply the current rules correctly or at least much better than presently and you would be almost perfect. Diving and bad refereeing is the blight on the game. The "Deliberate" fouls in the FRC video should all be yellow cards anyway so rather than having a guy one step from having his team down a man his team are forced to substitute him. A lot of teams would do this anyway.
The yellow card has shown itself to be no deterrent and those of you concerned about the pressure referees will now be under would be among the first to cry holy war your star man was sent off for two innocuous yellows.
I agree diving should be punished but that could only be done retrospectively and I've been in enough online arguments about whether there was 'contact' or if there was a leg in or a hand to the face to know deciding whether a 'dive' was actually a dive would have GAA disciplinary committees fully engaged all year round with appeals and what not.
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 26, 2013, 03:06:38 PM
So only one yellow issued for those fouls on the video - that clearly shows that the problem is refereeing.
It's part of the problem, not all of it.
Quote from: Zulu on March 26, 2013, 03:04:00 PM
Quote from: take_yer_points on March 26, 2013, 02:31:40 PM
Quote from: Zulu on March 26, 2013, 02:14:13 PM
It clearly defines what a black card is for both refs and players this will make it easier for refs to administer the black card and all players will know it they do commit these fouls they'll get sent off so this will reduce the number of such fouls. These offences already exist in the game so I don't see how giving a black card rather than a red or yellow will increase the burden on refs.
Is there a clear definition of what a yellow and red card is? As RFRP said a few posts ago there was 1 yellow card shown for all those offences in the video - do you think more than one of them should have been a yellow?
I think there should have been a few yellows (and I could be wrong of course) and that shows that the refs don't understand the clear definition of what a yellow card is and this just introduces further complexity to the current misunderstanding of the sanctions available (even worse, they are the refs of intercounty games and should be the best refs in the country!!). The ref must now educate themselves on what constitutes a black, yellow and red card offence - but from the examples in the video they don't even understand what a yellow is and they've been about for years now.
I can't understand this being passed without at least being trialled at a lower level. I'm not comparing GAA to other sports, but can you think of a rule change in another sport that was introduced directly to the highest level in that sport without a trial at a lower level? It may well end up being a great rule* but introducing it in this manner is totally wrong
* I don't think it will - the refs don't currently implement the sanctions available consistently and this is going to lead to more inconsistency from refs and more frustration from county/club managers and players.
Agree re the trial but to be fair to the GAA they probably didn't want these things to fail not because they weren't working but because certain IC managers would spend all their time undercutting them as they did the sin bin.
The rule book in the GAA isn't great as it leaves too much to interpretation but it isn't fair to simply hammer refs all the time as players don't make it easy at all. There are weaknesses with the black card but it does address some issues we have and a number of fouls we saw over the weekend should largely disappear. The problem with these types of things is too many GAA folk focus on what it doesn't address rather than what it does. No rule will solve everything and cynical play will continue to be a part of football, as it is, all other sports bt the black card is a step in the right direction.
The main thing that stands out for me in this is the ref though. The FRC's own video shows that the refs don't currently implement the correct sanctions when a cardable foul occurs. I can't see how adding in another rule and another card is going to help them - I can only see it leading to less consistency and more frustration. The Sunday Game lads are going to love it and we'll see even less coverage of matches and even more of them tools.
I see where you're coming from but I can't see it as a step in the right direction. In an ideal world with perfect refs who implement the rules as they should be then I could see it as a step in the right direction (though in that scenario I think the current rules implemented correctly would cater for the type of play the black card is being brought in to deal with).
Well I guess we'll just have to see how it pans out. I don't dismiss the possibility that it will lead to some terrible decisions but I think we need to encourage better people to get involved in refereeing, support them more but also hold them to higher standards and engrain in them to not give a foul if they aren't 100% sure of what happened. Still think the black card will have a positive effect in time.
Quote from: Zulu on March 26, 2013, 03:31:01 PM
Well I guess we'll just have to see how it pans out. I don't dismiss the possibility that it will lead to some terrible decisions but I think we need to encourage better people to get involved in refereeing, support them more but also hold them to higher standards and engrain in them to not give a foul if they aren't 100% sure of what happened. Still think the black card will have a positive effect in time.
You'd hope the existence of the black card in itself will be a deterrent, but as already said managers will find the boundary of every referee and push it.
I think the issuing of black cards will need to be for very obvious cynical fouls, if there's any doubt that it was just mistimed or whatever, then it needs to be a yellow. Here's hoping it doesn't become a charter for divers to thrive as that's as cynical a play as any off the ball blocking!
Quote from: Zulu on March 26, 2013, 03:09:32 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 26, 2013, 03:06:38 PM
So only one yellow issued for those fouls on the video - that clearly shows that the problem is refereeing.
It's part of the problem, not all of it.
If they can't get easy decisions like those right then it's a gigantic problem.
Quote from: Zulu on March 26, 2013, 03:09:04 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 26, 2013, 03:02:45 PM
Quote from: Zulu on March 26, 2013, 01:53:14 PM
As far as I know yes but you can also still do so with yellow cards can't you?
MS, any increased punishment for fouling will also have the effect of increasing the temptation for diving so you can't have one without the other. Refereeing standards are definitely an issue but this makes their job easier and I can't see how anyone can suggest otherwise. The game is difficult to ref, especially in contact situations but the black card fouls are fairly clear cut.
So punish diving - that's the more pressing issue! Punish diving and apply the current rules correctly or at least much better than presently and you would be almost perfect. Diving and bad refereeing is the blight on the game. The "Deliberate" fouls in the FRC video should all be yellow cards anyway so rather than having a guy one step from having his team down a man his team are forced to substitute him. A lot of teams would do this anyway.
The yellow card has shown itself to be no deterrent and those of you concerned about the pressure referees will now be under would be among the first to cry holy war your star man was sent off for two innocuous yellows.
I agree diving should be punished but that could only be done retrospectively and I've been in enough online arguments about whether there was 'contact' or if there was a leg in or a hand to the face to know deciding whether a 'dive' was actually a dive would have GAA disciplinary committees fully engaged all year round with appeals and what not.
"Two innocuous yellows" - there should be no such thing, yellow cards are clearly defined in the playing rules. If the refs were doing their jobs correctly then any yellow would be deserved and if a guy got a second good luck to him - off you go. The team pays.
Under this new scheme the team doesn't pay. In fact it could be said that it rewards tactical fouling for teams with adequate resources. I can also see loads of off the ball histrionics for alleged 3rd man tackles - even worse than some of the acting in that FDC video.
The prophets of doom are having a field day ::)
We'll all be ruined says Hanrahan .
I'm still waiting for the "end of the GAA as we know it" line.
Jasus I never heard so much whinging in all me days as there is from SOME people on this subject.
And now we're back to Rule 42 :-\ :'(
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 26, 2013, 03:06:38 PM
So only one yellow issued for those fouls on the video - that clearly shows that the problem is refereeing.
Is there a link to this video please?
Quote from: Main Street on March 26, 2013, 04:24:08 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 26, 2013, 03:06:38 PM
So only one yellow issued for those fouls on the video - that clearly shows that the problem is refereeing.
Is there a link to this video please?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBhikkHoNcg&sns=tw
Quote from: take_yer_points on March 26, 2013, 04:43:31 PM
Quote from: Main Street on March 26, 2013, 04:24:08 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 26, 2013, 03:06:38 PM
So only one yellow issued for those fouls on the video - that clearly shows that the problem is refereeing.
Is there a link to this video please?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBhikkHoNcg&sns=tw
Thanks TYP.
I'm getting the impression that the people against it will go out of their way to make sure it doesn't work, rather than just give it a chance.
Interesting that 94.7% of the fouls in that clip involve fouling close to the penalty area. The real cynicism usually occurs when the defending team win possession and attempt to start a counter. They're body-checked by Michael Murphy, McFadden, Penrose, O'Neill, Brogan etc before they can exploit the opposition. But thon committee either couldn't find a clip or didn't have the balls to highlight one.
I think to reduce the cynicism in the game I would have introduced a green card. Instead of always concentrating on the negatives we should concentrate on the positives. Good solo - a green card, nice catch - a green card, lovely tackle - green card. Lets get rid of the cynicism by rewarding the good things of the game.
With you guys the glass is always half empty with me it is always half full!!
I reckon the FRC got their idea from this...
http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=GB#/watch?v=kZIt7Blx7zQ (http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=GB#/watch?v=kZIt7Blx7zQ)
I'm noticing high profile managers incl Harte and Canavan coming out against the black card. Critics do what most critics do, criticise but offer no alternative. Give the black card a chance, it offers something that didnt exist before and it will at least make players think twice before they 'stop' their opponent.
Was there not a similar incarnation of this a number of years ago when a player had to be substituted after receiving a yellow card. I seem to remember Armagh playing Laois in the Athletic Grounds and McKeever getting a yellow a few minutes into the game from Pat Fox and having to miss the rest of it. Am I right in this? Anyone know?
Quote from: ck on March 26, 2013, 11:04:13 PM
I'm noticing high profile managers incl Harte and Canavan coming out against the black card. Critics do what most critics do, criticise but offer no alternative. Give the black card a chance, it offers something that didnt exist before and it will at least make players think twice before they 'stop' their opponent.
I'm sorry but that's rubbish. Most people who are against the black card do offer an alternative - apply the existing rules properly. As has been pointed out the FRC's own video highlights the problem. Someone said that only one yellow card was applied for all those instances. I cannot verify this but no-one disputes it either and I find it strange that the FRC wouldn't mention what the ref gave or didn't give.
If the existing rules were applied properly one of these fouls would have you on a razors edge of leaving your team at a numerical disadvantage. Refereeing, or what passes for it, is nothing short of scandalous. True they get an unacceptable level of abuse but that could be easily dealt with and again, should be if the current rules were adhered to.
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 27, 2013, 09:40:02 AM
Quote from: ck on March 26, 2013, 11:04:13 PM
I'm noticing high profile managers incl Harte and Canavan coming out against the black card. Critics do what most critics do, criticise but offer no alternative. Give the black card a chance, it offers something that didnt exist before and it will at least make players think twice before they 'stop' their opponent.
I'm sorry but that's rubbish. Most people who are against the black card do offer an alternative - apply the existing rules properly. As has been pointed out the FRC's own video highlights the problem. Someone said that only one yellow card was applied for all those instances. I cannot verify this but no-one disputes it either and I find it strange that the FRC wouldn't mention what the ref gave or didn't give.
If the existing rules were applied properly one of these fouls would have you on a razors edge of leaving your team at a numerical disadvantage. Refereeing, or what passes for it, is nothing short of scandalous. True they get an unacceptable level of abuse but that could be easily dealt with and again, should be if the current rules were adhered to.
only one yellow card was NOT applied for all those instances
I'm not looking forward to the extra work in refereeing games this year, but it's very simple, if a referee sees anyone of those infractions then the referee will show a black card and the player will be asked to leave the field, if a team/manager/player is dumb enough to continue/allow this to happen then they deserve all they get, If club panel only have 17/18 in their squad then tough, not the referee's fault again.
The referee does not commit the foul nor does he care who wins, the sooner players understand this the better, the referee has to make possibly 30/40 judgements during a game, ranging for scores, sidelines (club level), fouls, the timekeeping, marking of scores and so on, a player just has to win ball and play ball, if the referee gets one or two things wrong during a game he's lambasted, if a player brings an opponent down (depending on your view) and gets sent off the referee is being too strict!! Can't win, I agree especially at club level, not all referee's are consistant/fit and give a professional approach to the game but give it a chance, if it stops cynical play then great
Quote from: sheamy on March 27, 2013, 09:42:44 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 27, 2013, 09:40:02 AM
Quote from: ck on March 26, 2013, 11:04:13 PM
I'm noticing high profile managers incl Harte and Canavan coming out against the black card. Critics do what most critics do, criticise but offer no alternative. Give the black card a chance, it offers something that didnt exist before and it will at least make players think twice before they 'stop' their opponent.
I'm sorry but that's rubbish. Most people who are against the black card do offer an alternative - apply the existing rules properly. As has been pointed out the FRC's own video highlights the problem. Someone said that only one yellow card was applied for all those instances. I cannot verify this but no-one disputes it either and I find it strange that the FRC wouldn't mention what the ref gave or didn't give.
If the existing rules were applied properly one of these fouls would have you on a razors edge of leaving your team at a numerical disadvantage. Refereeing, or what passes for it, is nothing short of scandalous. True they get an unacceptable level of abuse but that could be easily dealt with and again, should be if the current rules were adhered to.
only one yellow card was NOT applied for all those instances
Fair enough if that's the case. Don't understand how a ref could miss a yellow card out of that selection and there should be a couple of possible reds in there too (the Armagh & Kildare rugby tackles - "behave in a way which is dangerous to an opponent", Mark McHugh's - "to kick or attempt to kick an opponent"). The point remains. The rules as they are are strong enough if implemented correctly. This will cause mayhem.
Quote from: ck on March 26, 2013, 11:04:13 PM
I'm noticing high profile managers incl Harte and Canavan coming out against the black card. Critics do what most critics do, criticise but offer no alternative. Give the black card a chance, it offers something that didnt exist before and it will at least make players think twice before they 'stop' their opponent.
I wouldn't label these two men as critics. They are much more involved in the modern football arena than Eugene McGee. I'd call McGe a critic of the moden game before i'd call current managers critics. I'd stand by my view that there are enough rules in the game already to deal with all the instances that occur, we just need the refs to implement them correctly. This black card rule is a balls and won't make it to the 2014 championship. By the way, that video that they showed at congress was a collection if fouls that are all covered in the current rules. These are not new fouls that need new rules!
I'm not sure if this has been seen before -
http://tv.gaa.ie/#/65569/976/The-Black-Card-explained
I love the way Pat says that "all the delegates here today felt that it's in our game and that we need to erradicate it and they've now given my people, the people I represent, the referees association the power to deal with it."
http://tv.gaa.ie/#/65574/976/gaa-congress-2013-liam-o-neill-and-paraic-duffy-share-their-views
There is a smugness and a high brow attitude about those backing the new proposals that is quite irritating!
http://www.hoganstand.com/ArticleForm.aspx?ID=188721
Quote from: BennyHarp on March 27, 2013, 12:16:34 PM
There is a smugness and a high brow attitude about those backing the new proposals that is quite irritating!
http://www.hoganstand.com/ArticleForm.aspx?ID=188721
Knowing Tony, he has never come across as smug or arrogant - quite the opposite in fact - as down to earth as you'll meet and VERY passionate.
I'd say this doesn't represent his whole attitude to the change in rule to be fair.
I'm not sure how the black card will work out but I'm willing to give it a chance. It will all really depend on the referees. If it is applied properly though it should favour teams that run the ball as opposed to a long passing team. If you run the ball then the opposition are far more likely to receive black cards as it's now standard to block a runner for a return pass or take out a colleague who is available for a pass. Mind you there are some referees who never spot runners being taken out
The black card sure is going to add a good few more minutes to every game. Players walking off slowly, new players coming on etc..
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 27, 2013, 10:20:30 AM
Quote from: sheamy on March 27, 2013, 09:42:44 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 27, 2013, 09:40:02 AM
Quote from: ck on March 26, 2013, 11:04:13 PM
I'm noticing high profile managers incl Harte and Canavan coming out against the black card. Critics do what most critics do, criticise but offer no alternative. Give the black card a chance, it offers something that didnt exist before and it will at least make players think twice before they 'stop' their opponent.
I'm sorry but that's rubbish. Most people who are against the black card do offer an alternative - apply the existing rules properly. As has been pointed out the FRC's own video highlights the problem. Someone said that only one yellow card was applied for all those instances. I cannot verify this but no-one disputes it either and I find it strange that the FRC wouldn't mention what the ref gave or didn't give.
If the existing rules were applied properly one of these fouls would have you on a razors edge of leaving your team at a numerical disadvantage. Refereeing, or what passes for it, is nothing short of scandalous. True they get an unacceptable level of abuse but that could be easily dealt with and again, should be if the current rules were adhered to.
only one yellow card was NOT applied for all those instances
Fair enough if that's the case. Don't understand how a ref could miss a yellow card out of that selection and there should be a couple of possible reds in there too (the Armagh & Kildare rugby tackles - "behave in a way which is dangerous to an opponent", Mark McHugh's - "to kick or attempt to kick an opponent"). The point remains. The rules as they are are strong enough if implemented correctly. This will cause mayhem.
but they were implemented correctly(?). Or at least McEnaney claimed that. That was the point of the video I thought i.e. that the present sanctions were no deterrent. However, as O'Neill pointed out, the fouls which are having the biggest effect on the entire tactical implementation of the game are the ones done around or behind midfield to stall the counter attack for a vital 4-5 seconds once possession is lost. If these are punished then we will see change in the game. The more dramatic ones where goals are on such as shown in the video will still happen as Peter Canavan pointed out. If the minor arm and shirt pulls on a breaking player aren't punished with black, then it's a waste of time. If they are punished, then it's not. Imagine Peter Harte or Sean Cavanagh not subject to tactical fouling.
Quote from: sheamy on March 27, 2013, 01:47:06 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 27, 2013, 10:20:30 AM
Quote from: sheamy on March 27, 2013, 09:42:44 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 27, 2013, 09:40:02 AM
Quote from: ck on March 26, 2013, 11:04:13 PM
I'm noticing high profile managers incl Harte and Canavan coming out against the black card. Critics do what most critics do, criticise but offer no alternative. Give the black card a chance, it offers something that didnt exist before and it will at least make players think twice before they 'stop' their opponent.
I'm sorry but that's rubbish. Most people who are against the black card do offer an alternative - apply the existing rules properly. As has been pointed out the FRC's own video highlights the problem. Someone said that only one yellow card was applied for all those instances. I cannot verify this but no-one disputes it either and I find it strange that the FRC wouldn't mention what the ref gave or didn't give.
If the existing rules were applied properly one of these fouls would have you on a razors edge of leaving your team at a numerical disadvantage. Refereeing, or what passes for it, is nothing short of scandalous. True they get an unacceptable level of abuse but that could be easily dealt with and again, should be if the current rules were adhered to.
only one yellow card was NOT applied for all those instances
Fair enough if that's the case. Don't understand how a ref could miss a yellow card out of that selection and there should be a couple of possible reds in there too (the Armagh & Kildare rugby tackles - "behave in a way which is dangerous to an opponent", Mark McHugh's - "to kick or attempt to kick an opponent"). The point remains. The rules as they are are strong enough if implemented correctly. This will cause mayhem.
but they were implemented correctly(?). Or at least McEnaney claimed that. That was the point of the video I thought i.e. that the present sanctions were no deterrent. However, as O'Neill pointed out, the fouls which are having the biggest effect on the entire tactical implementation of the game are the ones done around or behind midfield to stall the counter attack for a vital 4-5 seconds once possession is lost. If these are punished then we will see change in the game. The more dramatic ones where goals are on such as shown in the video will still happen as Peter Canavan pointed out. If the minor arm and shirt pulls on a breaking player aren't punished with black, then it's a waste of time. If they are punished, then it's not. Imagine Peter Harte or Sean Cavanagh not subject to tactical fouling.
If in the view of the referee that (in bold) has 'pulled him down' then it will be a free and a black card, if the player throws himself down to gain a player a black card he should be punished also, is there a rule for diving? I'd gladly show a card for that
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 27, 2013, 02:11:32 PM
Quote from: sheamy on March 27, 2013, 01:47:06 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 27, 2013, 10:20:30 AM
Quote from: sheamy on March 27, 2013, 09:42:44 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 27, 2013, 09:40:02 AM
Quote from: ck on March 26, 2013, 11:04:13 PM
I'm noticing high profile managers incl Harte and Canavan coming out against the black card. Critics do what most critics do, criticise but offer no alternative. Give the black card a chance, it offers something that didnt exist before and it will at least make players think twice before they 'stop' their opponent.
I'm sorry but that's rubbish. Most people who are against the black card do offer an alternative - apply the existing rules properly. As has been pointed out the FRC's own video highlights the problem. Someone said that only one yellow card was applied for all those instances. I cannot verify this but no-one disputes it either and I find it strange that the FRC wouldn't mention what the ref gave or didn't give.
If the existing rules were applied properly one of these fouls would have you on a razors edge of leaving your team at a numerical disadvantage. Refereeing, or what passes for it, is nothing short of scandalous. True they get an unacceptable level of abuse but that could be easily dealt with and again, should be if the current rules were adhered to.
only one yellow card was NOT applied for all those instances
Fair enough if that's the case. Don't understand how a ref could miss a yellow card out of that selection and there should be a couple of possible reds in there too (the Armagh & Kildare rugby tackles - "behave in a way which is dangerous to an opponent", Mark McHugh's - "to kick or attempt to kick an opponent"). The point remains. The rules as they are are strong enough if implemented correctly. This will cause mayhem.
but they were implemented correctly(?). Or at least McEnaney claimed that. That was the point of the video I thought i.e. that the present sanctions were no deterrent. However, as O'Neill pointed out, the fouls which are having the biggest effect on the entire tactical implementation of the game are the ones done around or behind midfield to stall the counter attack for a vital 4-5 seconds once possession is lost. If these are punished then we will see change in the game. The more dramatic ones where goals are on such as shown in the video will still happen as Peter Canavan pointed out. If the minor arm and shirt pulls on a breaking player aren't punished with black, then it's a waste of time. If they are punished, then it's not. Imagine Peter Harte or Sean Cavanagh not subject to tactical fouling.
If in the view of the referee that (in bold) has 'pulled him down' then it will be a free and a black card, if the player throws himself down to gain a player a black card he should be punished also, is there a rule for diving? I'd gladly show a card for that
It would take some balls to show a black card for diving or even a yellow. When did you last see a ref showing a yellow for diving ?
Why do we try and imitate soccer, rugby etc all the time ?. It's not soccer we're playing - It's gaelic football.
Maybe because, in the case of diving, soccer has it right and are worth imitating?
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 27, 2013, 02:11:32 PM
If in the view of the referee that (in bold) has 'pulled him down' then it will be a free and a black card, if the player throws himself down to gain a player a black card he should be punished also, is there a rule for diving? I'd gladly show a card for that
Yes, yellow card for diving is part of the rules.
Diving is another hard one to define. In soccer 90%+ of the bookings handed out for diving are for when there is no contact made, its not often they are given for going down too easily when contact is made.
Its rare in GAA for someone to take a blatant dive when no contact has been made. There's plenty of going down easy when physcial contact is made.
Quote from: Hound on March 27, 2013, 02:27:50 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 27, 2013, 02:11:32 PM
If in the view of the referee that (in bold) has 'pulled him down' then it will be a free and a black card, if the player throws himself down to gain a player a black card he should be punished also, is there a rule for diving? I'd gladly show a card for that
Yes, yellow card for diving is part of the rules.
Diving is another hard one to define. In soccer 90%+ of the bookings handed out for diving are for when there is no contact made, its not often they are given for going down too easily when contact is made.
Its rare in GAA for someone to take a blatant dive when no contact has been made. There's plenty of going down easy when physcial contact is made.
So just wave play on and get the abuse of the supporters/manager that that was a pull down/collision? Minefield for referees
Quote from: DennistheMenace on March 27, 2013, 01:45:41 PM
The black card sure is going to add a good few more minutes to every game. Players walking off slowly, new players coming on etc..
Much to my astonishment I recently learned that bookings, sendinf offs, etc and the time they take are not taken into account within the added time at the end of a half
Quote from: BennyHarp on March 27, 2013, 12:16:34 PM
There is a smugness and a high brow attitude about those backing the new proposals that is quite irritating!
http://www.hoganstand.com/ArticleForm.aspx?ID=188721
Surely not
http://www.hoganstand.com/ArticleForm.aspx?ID=188772
Quote from: DuffleKing on March 27, 2013, 02:49:15 PM
Quote from: DennistheMenace on March 27, 2013, 01:45:41 PM
The black card sure is going to add a good few more minutes to every game. Players walking off slowly, new players coming on etc..
Much to my astonishment I recently learned that bookings, sendinf offs, etc and the time they take are not taken into account within the added time at the end of a half
That's correct and I'm surprised so few are aware of this. It is an area that needs to be looked at again though as it is common place now to use these as time wasting tactics.
People are forgetting that the advantage rule is also implemented.
What then happens if say in the last 5 minutes of a match Player X pulls down opposition Player Y rugby style and Y is the 4th potential black card and the ref waves play on (the ref must hold his hand in the air to indicate advantage), the advantage team in the same move then go down the field and kick the ball wide? The fouling team go on to win the match by a point which is scored by Player Y in the last minute.
I wouldn't fancy been a ref this time next year that's for sure or can one of Pat's people go back and subsequently send off Player Y, i.e. how long does advantage accrue?
Quote from: DuffleKing on March 27, 2013, 03:01:22 PM
Quote from: BennyHarp on March 27, 2013, 12:16:34 PM
There is a smugness and a high brow attitude about those backing the new proposals that is quite irritating!
http://www.hoganstand.com/ArticleForm.aspx?ID=188721
Surely not
http://www.hoganstand.com/ArticleForm.aspx?ID=188772
Fair enough comment to my mind. The decision has been made now and the effect on the game is all speculation so there is little point in giving out about it until we've seen it in action over a period of time and different levels. Once there is something to judge the debate can start up agin but to give out about it now is simply to blow hot air as nobody has evidence either way.
Quote from: highorlow on March 27, 2013, 03:16:41 PM
People are forgetting that the advantage rule is also implemented.
What then happens if say in the last 5 minutes of a match Player X pulls down opposition Player Y rugby style and Y is the 4th potential black card and the ref waves play on (the ref must hold his hand in the air to indicate advantage), the advantage team in the same move then go down the field and kick the ball wide? The fouling team go on to win the match by a point which is scored by Player Y in the last minute.
I wouldn't fancy been a ref this time next year that's for sure or can one of Pat's people go back and subsequently send off Player Y, i.e. how long does advantage accrue?
Why can't the ref go back and send him off? Sure he can do that now.
Quote from: orangeman on March 27, 2013, 02:20:58 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 27, 2013, 02:11:32 PM
Quote from: sheamy on March 27, 2013, 01:47:06 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 27, 2013, 10:20:30 AM
Quote from: sheamy on March 27, 2013, 09:42:44 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 27, 2013, 09:40:02 AM
Quote from: ck on March 26, 2013, 11:04:13 PM
I'm noticing high profile managers incl Harte and Canavan coming out against the black card. Critics do what most critics do, criticise but offer no alternative. Give the black card a chance, it offers something that didnt exist before and it will at least make players think twice before they 'stop' their opponent.
I'm sorry but that's rubbish. Most people who are against the black card do offer an alternative - apply the existing rules properly. As has been pointed out the FRC's own video highlights the problem. Someone said that only one yellow card was applied for all those instances. I cannot verify this but no-one disputes it either and I find it strange that the FRC wouldn't mention what the ref gave or didn't give.
If the existing rules were applied properly one of these fouls would have you on a razors edge of leaving your team at a numerical disadvantage. Refereeing, or what passes for it, is nothing short of scandalous. True they get an unacceptable level of abuse but that could be easily dealt with and again, should be if the current rules were adhered to.
only one yellow card was NOT applied for all those instances
Fair enough if that's the case. Don't understand how a ref could miss a yellow card out of that selection and there should be a couple of possible reds in there too (the Armagh & Kildare rugby tackles - "behave in a way which is dangerous to an opponent", Mark McHugh's - "to kick or attempt to kick an opponent"). The point remains. The rules as they are are strong enough if implemented correctly. This will cause mayhem.
but they were implemented correctly(?). Or at least McEnaney claimed that. That was the point of the video I thought i.e. that the present sanctions were no deterrent. However, as O'Neill pointed out, the fouls which are having the biggest effect on the entire tactical implementation of the game are the ones done around or behind midfield to stall the counter attack for a vital 4-5 seconds once possession is lost. If these are punished then we will see change in the game. The more dramatic ones where goals are on such as shown in the video will still happen as Peter Canavan pointed out. If the minor arm and shirt pulls on a breaking player aren't punished with black, then it's a waste of time. If they are punished, then it's not. Imagine Peter Harte or Sean Cavanagh not subject to tactical fouling.
If in the view of the referee that (in bold) has 'pulled him down' then it will be a free and a black card, if the player throws himself down to gain a player a black card he should be punished also, is there a rule for diving? I'd gladly show a card for that
It would take some balls to show a black card for diving or even a yellow. When did you last see a ref showing a yellow for diving ?
Why do we try and imitate soccer, rugby etc all the time ?. It's not soccer we're playing - It's gaelic football.
rule 5.25 To attempt to achieve an advantage by feigning a foul or injury
Penalty for aboveCaution offender, order off for second cautionable foul
I can only remember seeing that rule applied on one occasion ever in inter-county football and never in club football. This would seem to indicate something wrong with the state of refereeing - here is a rule that is not being applied while football people everywhere decry the cheating and diving that have infested the game. Likewise, about 80% of members and players point to the standard of refereeing as the biggest problem in the game.
Yet the FRC, supposedly set up to analyse and resolve the problems of football managed to ignore both of these glaring issues. How can that be? Surely there's not some other agenda at work?
Hardy, those problems are hard to solve to be fair. The game is hard to referee so being sure a player dived is difficult to judge at times particularly as Hound pointed out when it rarely happens after no contact. See the debate I had here on whether Peter Canavan dived or not after running into a stationary player to see the fun and games we'd have agreeing if there was enough contact to knock a player. I don't disagree with the point about refereeing quality and it infuriates me when I see the difference in hurling ands football refs. But it easy to say standards need to be improved but not easy to achieve.
Quote from: Zulu on March 27, 2013, 05:42:24 PM
Hardy, those problems are hard to solve to be fair. The game is hard to referee so being sure a player dived is difficult to judge at times particularly as Hound pointed out when it rarely happens after no contact. See the debate I had here on whether Peter Canavan dived or not after running into a stationary player to see the fun and games we'd have agreeing if there was enough contact to knock a player. I don't disagree with the point about refereeing quality and it infuriates me when I see the difference in hurling ands football refs. But it easy to say standards need to be improved but not easy to achieve.
Well, they can't have it both ways.
Either the referees are simply ignoring the rule, (it wouldn't be the only one - see goalkeepers advancing off their line for penalties, the game being over when time is up, no matter where the play is, etc.), in which case this is about as major a problem with the administration of football as you can imagine and you'd have thought a football review committee would be interested in having a look at it.
OR
The rule is too hard to referee, as you suggest, (a suggestion I don't accept - so hard to detect that it happened only once in eight-odd years?) in which case it's a major rule problem and you'd have thought a football review committee would be interested in having a look at it.
The truth is that the FRC was set up by a president with a particular agenda, based on a complete failure to understand the nature of the game, to remove the physical content of the game in a misbegotten belief that this will improve its marketability. It's not a surprise, then, to discover that the committee chosen will not include people likely to have a different view of the game, but will comprise people with the set of attitudes likely to deliver the desired result.
I don't know how you can come out with your last statement, it is a healthy mixture of speculation and gross inaccuracies.
Refs ignore other fouls than the ones you mention but yes there is an issue with refereeing standards however the difficulty of refereeing a football match is a reality and you've come up with no suggestions to change that, all you've done is declare they were hand picked to deliver the solutions Liam O'Neill wants without any supporting evidence.
There are plenty of problems in the GAA and the black card won't solve any of them but it is worth looking at as it clearly states what a black card is and refs will be more inclined to implement it. I think it will undoubtedly improve things though not the perfect solution by any means. UI don't recall you,or anyone else, bemoaning that yellow cards aren't dished out left right and centre before.
1. It's not my job to reform the rules of football. That was supposed to be the what the FRC would do. Nevertheless, I've presented many suggestions here as to how things could/should have been done.
2. It's not my job either to reform refereeing standards. That's something the FRC should have addressed itself to, but ignored. They had months to consider it, but didn't even recognise the problem, yet you criticise me for failing to come up with the solution when I've already gone a step further than the FRC. If I had nine months to work on it, I'm sure I could come up with some sensible proposals. How about you?
3. I have hardly stopped for years now bemoaning the wholesale dishing out of yellow cards. The yellow card, as currently employed, is not the solution to anything either.
4. My comments on the FRC's and the president's agenda are more than speculation, they are based on the statements of the parties themselves about "attacking" play, "cleaning up" the game, "attractive" football etc.
5. Do you have any position on this wider context to the debate? Do you think it's good for football to minimise the amount of physical content? Do you agree that football needs to be more "attractive". What does that mean? Why is there such an emphasis on the physical aspects of football while hurling seems immune from any tampering with its physical nature?
Quote1. It's not my job to reform the rules of football. That was supposed to be the what the FRC would do. Nevertheless, I've presented many suggestions here as to how things could/should have been done.
It's nobody's job and this committee did so voluntarily and consulted you and me if you wanted to be. I sent them an email anyway, did you?
QuoteIt's not my job either to reform refereeing standards. That's something the FRC should have addressed itself to, but ignored. They had months to consider it, but didn't even recognise the problem, yet you criticise me for failing to come up with the solution when I've already gone a step further than the FRC. If I had nine months to work on it, I'm sure I could come up with some sensible proposals. How about you?
I'm not criticising you but it's easy to knock others solutions, harder to come up with good ones of your own. The committee certainly recognised the issue with refs and said so but I'm sure they wanted to propose solutions that would have an immediate effect and could get through. I've already posted changes that could be tried to help refs but I'm sure they'd be knocked by those who seem to want a perfect solution.
QuoteMy comments on the FRC's and the president's agenda are more than speculation, they are based on the statements of the parties themselves about "attacking" play, "cleaning up" the game, "attractive" football etc.
Adding 2 + 2 and getting 100, or at least anyone could view their statements and read in anything they want.
QuoteDo you have any position on this wider context to the debate? Do you think it's good for football to minimise the amount of physical content? Do you agree that football needs to be more "attractive". What does that mean? Why is there such an emphasis on the physical aspects of football while hurling seems immune from any tampering with its physical nature?
I suspect we enjoy the same kind of football. I want to see physical football that isn't stop start due to lazy cynical fouling or a whistle happy ref that doesn't allow lads get stuck in.
Quote from: Zulu on March 27, 2013, 08:09:42 PM
Quote1. It's not my job to reform the rules of football. That was supposed to be the what the FRC would do. Nevertheless, I've presented many suggestions here as to how things could/should have been done.
It's nobody's job and this committee did so voluntarily and consulted you and me if you wanted to be. I sent them an email anyway, did you?
No. (Does this mean you win?)
Depends, is this a discussion or a competition?
Quote from: DennistheMenace on March 27, 2013, 01:45:41 PM
The black card sure is going to add a good few more minutes to every game. Players walking off slowly, new players coming on etc..
Jesus.
Brand New Proposal and this will get mass support - even in Sligo I'd say...
Get rid of the two Duffy's refereeing!!
It will improve the standard no end!! Imagine what these two boyos would do with black cards!!
Quote from: Celt_Man on July 13, 2013, 10:12:34 PM
Brand New Proposal and this will get mass support - even in Sligo I'd say...
Get rid of the two Duffy's refereeing!!
It will improve the standard no end!! Imagine what these two boyos would do with black cards!!
2 of the best in the business apparently and both getting the big games.
Eugene McGee: Black card potent weapon in fight against cynicism
Eugene McGee is chairman of the Football Review Committee.
EUGENE MCGEE – 06 AUGUST 2013
THE black card... remember it? In my innocence, I was trying to forget it myself once the 71pc of GAA Congress delegates in Derry last March voted to implement it from January 2014.
But then came the Sean Cavanagh rugby-style tackle on Conor McManus and all hell broke loose in the stadium, in the media and with rank and file football supporters.
Naturally, Monaghan supporters – and it seems many neutrals – were demanding further sanction for such offences other than a free and yellow card.
But that demand for instant justice, depending on the particular situation, is not sustainable – which is why the black card is being brought in to provide uniformity in enforcing rule-breaking of this cynical type.
So, to spell it out once again, the FRC decided to designate five types of foul, generally described as cynical because it is the intention of the fouler to deliberately stop the play, that would be punishable with a black card.
Enshrined
That word deliberate is enshrined in the new rule because of course there can be fouls like those listed which are genuinely accidental – not many, but some.
The five fouls are: to pull down an opponent; to trip an opponent by hand or foot; to bodily collide with an opponent in order to take him out of the play (otherwise known as a third-man tackle); to remonstrate aggressively with a match official; to verbally abuse a player. The penalty for any of these offences is being sent off via a black card, with a replacement being allowed.
But there are restrictions, notably that if a team has conceded three black cards, a player who commits any further black card offence will be sent off but will not be replaced.
So if a team had four sent off for black cards, they would end up with 14 players and would only have three subs available for the rest of the game as the number of subs is to be increased from five to six in 2013.
The black cards will apply from January 1, 2014 in all football games run by the GAA. There will be no trial period and this rule cannot be changed except by a two-thirds majority at a future Congress.
So the inevitable whinging by some managers and players is a waste of time.
Some people have said that the black-card penalty in the closing stages of a game is no real punishment. Well, tell that to Monaghan. Cavanagh's yellow card was issued in the 49th minute and the subsequent free closed the gap to one point, 0-11 to 0-10.
In the final 20 minutes, Tyrone closed out the game to win by two points, with the final and crucial score kicked by Cavanagh.
Now supposing, under the new regime, it was a black card instead of a yellow Cavanagh got. He would have been sent off, with a replacement coming on.
But at that point Tyrone were hanging on for dear life and Cavanagh was the best player on the field by a mile.
Already Martin Penrose had been sent off and Joe McMahon was off injured while, five minutes after the Cavanagh incident, Stephen O'Neill was withdrawn.
With 20 minutes to go, Sean Cavanagh was absolutely fundamental to the Tyrone team, so imagine if he had been sent off with 20 minutes to play? Black cards no punishment?
And by the way, Cavanagh has always been a strong proponent of the use of the black card, as he has often been the victim of cynical fouling.
Only after this incident are the majority of football people realising what the black cards will really mean.
Players and managers will simply have to change their ways to avoid incurring black cards.
These are the first steps in controlling, and eventually eliminating, blatant cynical play, which has been part and parcel of football with all county teams over the decades.
If further changes are required, I am sure the GAA will legislate for that at a future time.
* Eugene McGee is chairman of the Football Review Committee.
http://www.independent.ie/sport/gaelic-football/eugene-mcgee-black-card-potent-weapon-in-fight-against-cynicism-29474622.html
Notice how Eugene never mentions how Sean Cavanagh would have gotten Darren Hughes 'sent off' on a black card by sneakily faking a dragging down.
The black card will get kicked out again for the 3rd time. Let's hope there aren't too many serious injustices caused by it along the way though.
Why did they not include the fouls that pull or drag a player back, but do not actually throw him to the ground. That was a stupid oversight.
Although Cavanagh kicked the last score he was largely anonymous for those last twenty minutes. He put in epic performances for three weekends running and it was showing. If he had been black carded Plunkett Kane or Aiden Cassidy would have filled the gap, both of whom contributed more in the closing stages than Sean as they were coming on 'fresh.'
Quote from: omagh_gael on August 06, 2013, 12:24:46 PM
Although Cavanagh kicked the last score he was largely anonymous for those last twenty minutes. He put in epic performances for three weekends running and it was showing. If he had been black carded Plunkett Kane or Aiden Cassidy would have filled the gap, both of whom contributed more in the closing stages than Sean as they were coming on 'fresh.'
The black card isnt the answer. It wont deter players from being cynical. The only deterrent is to hit teams on the scoreboard. If a team commits a cynical foul anywhere on the pitch (ie a drag down/rugby tackle like the one cavanagh did) then award a 20m free in front of the posts. If the cynical foul is committed close to goals and denies a clear goalscoring opportunity a penalty kick should be awarded. The rationale being if a chance to score a goal has been prevented by cynical means then the team should be given the chance to score the goalEven in soccer players will still commit a foul to prevent a goal being scored when they know they will receive a red card. The card in itself is not enough of a deterrent. If a penalty is going to be awarded the potential transgressor will think twice. If monaghan were going to be given a penalty for the foul on mcmanus then cavanagh might have thought twice and made more of an effort to get back and get a block in.
John Fogarty had a tweet about 20 minutes into the Mayo game that Mayo had out fouled Donegal by 13 fouls to 3 in that period. It was Brolly raising that issue of tactical fouling (as opposed to cynical fouling) that riled the Mayo folk up last year. The picture on the Mayo Tyrone thread of Niall Morgan getting hauled down in the league game kind of sums it up. They wouldn't need to foul that close to goal because they've all their men back having fouled up the field. Donegal were masters at it.
The black card might have the best of intentions but to be honest it's success depend as always on how referees implement it and to be honest based on what I've see this summer I've got absolutely no faith in the current referees finding any sort of consistency.
Why something as radical as it was introduced without a trial is bizarre. Not another sporting organisation in the world would have introduced such a proposal without testing it out somewhere first.
Quote from: barelegs on August 06, 2013, 08:47:11 PM
John Fogarty had a tweet about 20 minutes into the Mayo game that Mayo had out fouled Donegal by 13 fouls to 3 in that period. It was Brolly raising that issue of tactical fouling (as opposed to cynical fouling) that riled the Mayo folk up last year. The picture on the Mayo Tyrone thread of Niall Morgan getting hauled down in the league game kind of sums it up. They wouldn't need to foul that close to goal because they've all their men back having fouled up the field. Donegal were masters at it.
The black card might have the best of intentions but to be honest it's success depend as always on how referees implement it and to be honest based on what I've see this summer I've got absolutely no faith in the current referees finding any sort of consistency.
Why something as radical as it was introduced without a trial is bizarre. Not another sporting organisation in the world would have introduced such a proposal without testing it out somewhere first.
completely agree with this.
i think intercounty referees will struggle to implement it consistently , so i dread to think how it will play out down the levels
Surely black cards are going to promote diving and conning the ref. If you are up against a team with a dominant midfielder and are getting wiped, it will just be a case of lets see who can get a black card off him.
We will return to the "hold the face" attitude anytime you get a shoulder or the slightest bit of contact around the chest.
The stricter rules you bring in, the more space for play acting. Look at soccer. I think if we are to bring in a black card there also needs to be a heavy deterrent in for diving. There's no point in us waiting for it to become a massive problem over the next 5 years before seeing how we can stop it.
Quote from: DJGaliv on August 07, 2013, 11:59:14 AM
Surely black cards are going to promote diving and conning the ref. If you are up against a team with a dominant midfielder and are getting wiped, it will just be a case of lets see who can get a black card off him.
We will return to the "hold the face" attitude anytime you get a shoulder or the slightest bit of contact around the chest.
The stricter rules you bring in, the more space for play acting. Look at soccer. I think if we are to bring in a black card there also needs to be a heavy deterrent in for diving. There's no point in us waiting for it to become a massive problem over the next 5 years before seeing how we can stop it.
i agree completly with this and posted something similar on one of the other threads.
diving is as cynical activity as any of them and should be punished accordingly.
If the black card is to come in, diving should be one of the balck card offenses as well
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on August 07, 2013, 12:03:45 PM
Quote from: DJGaliv on August 07, 2013, 11:59:14 AM
Surely black cards are going to promote diving and conning the ref. If you are up against a team with a dominant midfielder and are getting wiped, it will just be a case of lets see who can get a black card off him.
We will return to the "hold the face" attitude anytime you get a shoulder or the slightest bit of contact around the chest.
The stricter rules you bring in, the more space for play acting. Look at soccer. I think if we are to bring in a black card there also needs to be a heavy deterrent in for diving. There's no point in us waiting for it to become a massive problem over the next 5 years before seeing how we can stop it.
i agree completly with this and posted something similar on one of the other threads.
diving is as cynical activity as any of them and should be punished accordingly.
If the black card is to come in, diving should be one of the balck card offenses as well
Spot on, both posts. I'd make a slight modification - diving and injury feigning are by far the most cynical activities of any of them. The black card is a charter for both.
I think this was mentioned by another poster (possibly AZOffaly?) but one development I can see happening is the appearance of the rugby "choke tackle" where 2/3 defenders tightly surround a player in possession and more or less stand him up preventing him from hitting the deck until he overcarries?? Might be within the rules but isn't going to look good.
Quote from: Hardy on August 07, 2013, 12:51:43 PM
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on August 07, 2013, 12:03:45 PM
Quote from: DJGaliv on August 07, 2013, 11:59:14 AM
Surely black cards are going to promote diving and conning the ref. If you are up against a team with a dominant midfielder and are getting wiped, it will just be a case of lets see who can get a black card off him.
We will return to the "hold the face" attitude anytime you get a shoulder or the slightest bit of contact around the chest.
The stricter rules you bring in, the more space for play acting. Look at soccer. I think if we are to bring in a black card there also needs to be a heavy deterrent in for diving. There's no point in us waiting for it to become a massive problem over the next 5 years before seeing how we can stop it.
i agree completly with this and posted something similar on one of the other threads.
diving is as cynical activity as any of them and should be punished accordingly.
If the black card is to come in, diving should be one of the balck card offenses as well
Spot on, both posts. I'd make a slight modification - diving and injury feigning are by far the most cynical activities of any of them. The black card is a charter for both.
I agree but it comes down to the ability of the ref to assess that there was a dive and not genuine contact, it isn't always easy to do. We've all probably shouted at the TV or at a game to 'get up outta that, there's nothin wrong with ya' only to see a replay showing the contact. We don't have to make the on the spot decision to black card a guy for diving and I'm not sure adding to a referees burden is the correct way to go. Perhaps a better idea would be to allow a committee to review games and suspend players for 3 games diving or exaggerating injury. It obviously wouldn't prevent it happening on the day but should prove such a deterrent that few players would attempt it.
Would you look at the rugby idea of a citing comissioner to look at games afterwards or perhaps the basketball idea of a team reaching a cumulative no. of frees getting say a 21 yard free once this "allowance" is exceeded.
Mind you with all the craic that football is little better than rugby or basketball......
This black card thing could lead to a basketball style scenario with players getting 'fouled out' of the game tactically, to keep the scoreboard down. For example why not have your goalkeeper pull the man down (esp if it is outside the area) and then you get your sub keeper on? You stop the goal that might make all of the difference.
Stopping the professional foul in Gaa would be really tough. Look at the same foul in soccer (last man etc.) and the recent offside interpretations (not interfering with play). Defining such a rule for Gaa would be very difficult (e.g a last man rule wouldn't stop much).
Someone mentioned team fouls, that would lead to tactical fouling again a lá basketball. This might work better than the professional foul or black card rules, but you could see refs getting slaughtered for putting one team on team fouls and not the other.
I saw the penalty try in rugby also mentioned here. There would be war if officials in Gaa started awarding goals and imagine trying to define the requirements, when we still can't define the tackle, or at least we can't agree on interpretation.
Maybe the way to go is a general unsportsmanlike conduct or a bringing the game into disrepute rule, but again try finding a definition that would be agreeable and universally interpreted.
Be careful what you ask for.
I've read all the proposals here and considered the sensible ones and I'm convinced that the black card will be a disaster and that the only reasonable solution is the 21 metre free for pulling down offences only. Perhaps a penalty for pulling down inside the 20 metre line. I think the existing deterrents for other fouls are adequate.
- It's simple to define the score-preventing or momentum-stopping tackle - say two hands around the player (whether he falls or not) or a deliberate trip.
- The 21-metre free/penalty would be an effective deterrent.
- It doesn't require a sideline army of accountants and timekeepers and is easily applicable at every level of the game.
- It wouldn't encourage diving as it's hard to simulate.
Quote from: Hardy on August 08, 2013, 10:02:51 AM
I've read all the proposals here and considered the sensible ones and I'm convinced that the black card will be a disaster and that the only reasonable solution is the 21 metre free for pulling down offences only. Perhaps a penalty for pulling down inside the 20 metre line. I think the existing deterrents for other fouls are adequate.
- It's simple to define the score-preventing or momentum-stopping tackle - say two hands around the player (whether he falls or not) or a deliberate trip.
- The 21-metre free/penalty would be an effective deterrent.
- It doesn't require a sideline army of accountants and timekeepers and is easily applicable at every level of the game.
- It wouldn't encourage diving as it's hard to simulate.
i think this would have been a better solution than the black card alright.
At least the team is almost certainly punished on the scoreboard, whereas with the black card, having to replace a player in the last 5 or 10 minutes of a game with a fresh player might be no punishment whatsoever
i still think for any of these proposals to work correctly, a sanction for diving needs to be implemented alongside them.
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on August 08, 2013, 10:06:43 AM
Quote from: Hardy on August 08, 2013, 10:02:51 AM
I've read all the proposals here and considered the sensible ones and I'm convinced that the black card will be a disaster and that the only reasonable solution is the 21 metre free for pulling down offences only. Perhaps a penalty for pulling down inside the 20 metre line. I think the existing deterrents for other fouls are adequate.
- It's simple to define the score-preventing or momentum-stopping tackle - say two hands around the player (whether he falls or not) or a deliberate trip.
- The 21-metre free/penalty would be an effective deterrent.
- It doesn't require a sideline army of accountants and timekeepers and is easily applicable at every level of the game.
- It wouldn't encourage diving as it's hard to simulate.
i still think for any of these proposals to work correctly, a sanction for diving needs to be implemented alongside them.
Absolutely. I forgot to mention that but it goes without saying. That is the real cynical behaviour.
By the way, most people don't even know there is already a yellow card sanction in the rules for diving and injury feigning. That's probably because it's only been used once, that I know of, in the half-dozen or so years it's been on the books. What does that say about refereeing standards and about the standard of referee supervision?
Quote from: Hardy on August 08, 2013, 10:11:39 AM
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on August 08, 2013, 10:06:43 AM
Quote from: Hardy on August 08, 2013, 10:02:51 AM
I've read all the proposals here and considered the sensible ones and I'm convinced that the black card will be a disaster and that the only reasonable solution is the 21 metre free for pulling down offences only. Perhaps a penalty for pulling down inside the 20 metre line. I think the existing deterrents for other fouls are adequate.
- It's simple to define the score-preventing or momentum-stopping tackle - say two hands around the player (whether he falls or not) or a deliberate trip.
- The 21-metre free/penalty would be an effective deterrent.
- It doesn't require a sideline army of accountants and timekeepers and is easily applicable at every level of the game.
- It wouldn't encourage diving as it's hard to simulate.
i still think for any of these proposals to work correctly, a sanction for diving needs to be implemented alongside them.
Absolutely. I forgot to mention that but it goes without saying. That is the real cynical behaviour.
By the way, most people don't even know there is already a yellow card sanction in the rules for diving and injury feigning. That's probably because it's only been used once, that I know of, in the half-dozen or so years it's been on the books. What does that say about refereeing standards and about the standard of referee supervision?
Spot on there - varying interpretation and application of the rules and an absolute lack of consistency is a major issue. What's the solution I hear you ask??? Make it more complicated by introducing yet another card without trialing it anywhere else first. Genius!!
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on August 08, 2013, 10:06:43 AM
Quote from: Hardy on August 08, 2013, 10:02:51 AM
I've read all the proposals here and considered the sensible ones and I'm convinced that the black card will be a disaster and that the only reasonable solution is the 21 metre free for pulling down offences only. Perhaps a penalty for pulling down inside the 20 metre line. I think the existing deterrents for other fouls are adequate.
- It's simple to define the score-preventing or momentum-stopping tackle - say two hands around the player (whether he falls or not) or a deliberate trip.
- The 21-metre free/penalty would be an effective deterrent.
- It doesn't require a sideline army of accountants and timekeepers and is easily applicable at every level of the game.
- It wouldn't encourage diving as it's hard to simulate.
i think this would have been a better solution than the black card alright.
At least the team is almost certainly punished on the scoreboard, whereas with the black card, having to replace a player in the last 5 or 10 minutes of a game with a fresh player might be no punishment whatsoever
i still think for any of these proposals to work correctly, a sanction for diving needs to be implemented alongside them.
The black card will be ineffective because the drag down tackles to prevent goals tend to occur late in games that are poised on a knife edge. A forced substitution with 5 to go, doesn't make up for a lost goal.
On the other hand, 5 minutes into a game and you're presented with chance to make a meal out of a challenge by a Colm Cooper, you'll do so, because it will have him off the field for 65 minutes. This is a far bigger game changer.
The problem will still be that serious offences late on aren't adequately punished, whereas more trivial earlier offences can result in a game losingl punishment.
There will be carnage at club level in 2014 unless all referees are retrained by their CBs or at least given practical guidelines .
Will iimpact hugely on the smaller clubs/ junior teams which regularly tog out with the bare 15.
Is a Jersey pull enough for a black card???
Going to put alot of club referees under alot of (even more) pressure ( no neutral linesmen or umpires to help them like at intercounty level).
Quote from: Canalman on August 08, 2013, 11:47:10 AM
There will be carnage at club level in 2014 unless all referees are retrained by their CBs or at least given practical guidelines .
Will iimpact hugely on the smaller clubs/ junior teams which regularly tog out with the bare 15.
Is a Jersey pull enough for a black card???
Going to put alot of club referees under alot of (even more) pressure ( no neutral linesmen or umpires to help them like at intercounty level).
Good point, that I think needs to be considered. It'll mean clubs struggling to put teams out will be pumished more than teams with larger numbers (As in they won't have the numbers to put on a replacement). I know in Tyrone this year for the first time in Div 3 the requirement is 13 a side unless agreed at 15 by the two clubs. Might not be a massive impact in the grand scheme of things for the GAA but could have a huge baring on the clubs who are struggling to be competitive already.
Quote from: Bord na Mona man on August 08, 2013, 11:34:33 AM
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on August 08, 2013, 10:06:43 AM
Quote from: Hardy on August 08, 2013, 10:02:51 AM
I've read all the proposals here and considered the sensible ones and I'm convinced that the black card will be a disaster and that the only reasonable solution is the 21 metre free for pulling down offences only. Perhaps a penalty for pulling down inside the 20 metre line. I think the existing deterrents for other fouls are adequate.
- It's simple to define the score-preventing or momentum-stopping tackle - say two hands around the player (whether he falls or not) or a deliberate trip.
- The 21-metre free/penalty would be an effective deterrent.
- It doesn't require a sideline army of accountants and timekeepers and is easily applicable at every level of the game.
- It wouldn't encourage diving as it's hard to simulate.
i think this would have been a better solution than the black card alright.
At least the team is almost certainly punished on the scoreboard, whereas with the black card, having to replace a player in the last 5 or 10 minutes of a game with a fresh player might be no punishment whatsoever
i still think for any of these proposals to work correctly, a sanction for diving needs to be implemented alongside them.
The black card will be ineffective because the drag down tackles to prevent goals tend to occur late in games that are poised on a knife edge. A forced substitution with 5 to go, doesn't make up for a lost goal.
On the other hand, 5 minutes into a game and you're presented with chance to make a meal out of a challenge by a Colm Cooper, you'll do so, because it will have him off the field for 65 minutes. This is a far bigger game changer.
The problem will still be that serious offences late on aren't adequately punished, whereas more trivial earlier offences can result in a game losingl punishment.
I'm afraid I disagree with you completely here in your definition of 'serious' versus 'trivial'. What you call trivial, especially when viewed in isolation, I call the really cynical and calculated fouls. And while one might be trivial - 8, 10 or 12 of them bring the game to a disjointed, broken up mess.
I do agree that diving is as big a cancer, and I would worry that the black card might be a charter for cheats to dive to get players in trouble. I also think we are optimistic in the extreme if we think our refs will be cute enough to know the difference in all cases. (Darren Hughes would have been off the pitch for a brilliant piece of defending last week). I'm not sure how we can do this at club level, but I'd love to see a review panel handing out suspensions for diving retrospectively if it led to a black card for an opponent.
I would also add diving to the list of black card offenses for those incidents where the referee does see it.
It's not ideal, but it's something. Although I do like the idea that these niggly little shitehawk fouls get penalised with a 20 metre free no matter where they happen out the pitch, and if inside 20 that they mean a penalty. I think Hardy mentioned something like that somewhere else.
Maybe its been mentioned already but I heard it suggested on the radio at the weekend and thought it was a sensible idea. Why don't yellow cards carry from match to match.
Quotet least the team is almost certainly punished on the scoreboard, whereas with the black card, having to replace a player in the last 5 or 10 minutes of a game with a fresh player might be no punishment whatsoever
How about, if you are sent off in the second half that you cannot then play in the first half of the next game.
Quote from: armaghniac on August 09, 2013, 08:57:51 PM
Quotet least the team is almost certainly punished on the scoreboard, whereas with the black card, having to replace a player in the last 5 or 10 minutes of a game with a fresh player might be no punishment whatsoever
How about, if you are sent off in the second half that you cannot then play in the first half of the next game.
While we're at it, how about not letting you back on in extra time if you were sent off in the 70?
Kerry clubs see red over black card rule
Tuesday, November 19, 2013
The chairmen of two rural Kerry GAA clubs have blasted the introduction of the new black card rule, which, they fear, will be detrimental to sides struggling for players.
By JP McCarthy
The clubs, Valentia Young Islanders and Tuosist, have tabled motions to deal with dwindling numbers ahead of the Kerry GAA annual convention on December 9.
The motions request the option of playing 13-a-side games in 2014, however, it is the new black card rule — to come into effect from January 1 — that has really angered John O'Sullivan, chairman of Valentia, and his counterpart at Tuosist, Michael O'Sullivan.
"What are we going to do with the new black card rule?" asked John O'Sullivan. "We have often had the bare 15 for games, what will we do when one of our players is black-carded?
"We will be down a man. I think this rule should have been trialled at inter-county level first — the GAA weren't thinking of small clubs when they brought this rule in."
Michael O'Sullivan added: "This rule has been brought in from the top down unlike most rule changes in the GAA coming from club level. There has been no consideration for the smaller club — we will be decimated."
Tuosist, O'Sullivan admitted, have been struggling in recent years to field at 15-a-side, hence the club's motion to ask the CCC of Kerry GAA to examine the possibility of teams in Division 5 of the County League to have the option of playing 13-a-side. Tuosist were relegated to Division 5 this year after pulling out of Division 4 with three rounds left.
He explained: "Our problems started pre-Celtic Tiger so it's not emigration that is hitting us — we just don't have the numbers right now. We will in a few years, so this motion is all about giving our players the opportunity to play some games."
Valentia's John O'Sullivan was forthright in the reasoning behind his club's motion asking for clubs to play 13-a-side if there is prior agreement between the two clubs and the county board. Valentia also play in Division 5 of the Kerry County League.
"We have maybe 16 or 17 players. It's all about competing, so just let us compete. Give us the option of 13-a-side. There will be no surrender from us, we'll keep competing but all we're asking for is a little help."
Valentia also have a motion asking: 'That the County Board help small rural clubs to survive in these challenging economic times.'
O'Sullivan said: "I'm blue in the face from bringing this issue up. I want the GAA to show some leadership. We are just asking for some help from the GAA to try and bring some industry into our area: to get some work for players. Pat Spillane is heading up a committee at the moment and we want to see something positive coming out of that."
Eleven Kerry clubs have brought forward 22 motions dealing with club competitions. These motions will be decided at the County Committee meeting on Monday, November 25.
Other motions include one from the Skellig Rangers club in Portmagee asking that minor league games be played as 11-a-side and that the pitch be shortened to allow same.
An Ghaeltacht have submitted three separate motions aimed at the earlier release of minor and senior inter-county players for county league and championship games.
The Rathmore club have proposed that "U17 players not be allowed play in any senior competition."
© Irish Examiner Ltd. All rights reserved
The black card is a top down rule change that has given little thought to game as played by the majority. I fear it may ruin small clubs and make a farce out of lower league games, reserve games and matches played outside of Ireland where players can be short in supply and many refs are clueless.
Ah sure let's stop sendin lads off altogether and while we're at it stop giving frees for fouls.
Let foul play flourish :(
Quote from: Rossfan on November 24, 2013, 10:18:18 PM
Ah sure let's stop sendin lads off altogether and while we're at it stop giving frees for fouls.
Let foul play flourish :(
If the rules as they stand were implemented correctly there's feck all wrong with them. Is cynical play a major problem in junior football in Roscommon?
Quote from: BennyHarp on November 24, 2013, 10:03:28 PM
The black card is a top down rule change that has given little thought to game as played by the majority. I fear it may ruin small clubs and make a farce out of lower league games, reserve games and matches played outside of Ireland where players can be short in supply and many refs are clueless.
One size doesn't fit all.
That will become abundantly clear shortly.
Quote from: BennyHarp on November 24, 2013, 10:44:10 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on November 24, 2013, 10:18:18 PM
Ah sure let's stop sendin lads off altogether and while we're at it stop giving frees for fouls.
Let foul play flourish :(
If the rules as they stand were implemented correctly there's feck all wrong with them. Is cynical play a major problem in junior football in Roscommon?
You've your head in the sand a bit here. The current rules are the foremost reason behind the ongoing tactics of mass defences, third man tackles, deliberate fouls and diving/feigning injury. It might have taken managers and players 60 years to learn how to exploit them, but that they've done.
I think I've mentioned this on the the thread before, but there's two ways to look at stopping the deliberate foul/deliberate diving issue (which ultimately is the one issue).
- One is to keep trying to find a way to maintain the traditional spirit of forward play in Gaelic football, by continually tweaking the rules to reward attacking play as and when it is getting obstructed.
- The other is to draw a line in the sand and accept that human beings are both duplicitous and clumsy, and to devise rules with this in mind.
We are currently going down the first route. This concerns me greatly as the game becomes less about football and more about rules. Inevitably a) the rules will get so complicated that they drive everyone insane, and b) the referee will become judge, jury and executioner in any tightly-matched game (both things are happening already).
The latter route requires a sea change to GAA mentality. It would basically change the game to align it with Aussie Rules, whereby anyone caught in possession is guilty of a foul (and with it, comes the mark to reward attacking play). No it's not our game. But this one swoop would remove ambiguity from the tackle, and after a short period of adjustment we could then get back to watching a game we can all enjoy and understand.
On other rules threads I've argued strongly to leave our games alone. But these days I just don't enjoy football enough to watch any games other than those in which I've a native interests. And it's only a few years since I was a GAA nut, and would have driven 50 miles to watch a friendly. If that's me, who has spent 30 years in the GAA system, it's really no wonder that "outsiders" don't enjoy our game at all.
I agree that the game has become diffcult to watch and tweaking the rules is important to maintain the spirit of the game but introducing a black card and the impact it can have on the game is not a tweak. Perhaps they could have tried maintaining a yellow card for these offences and actually having the balls to send off repeat offenders and also suspending those who accumulate yellow cards as a competition progresses. The black card is a half way house solution to a problem that isnt a huge problem outside the top end of the game. The biggest problem facing many clubs is getting players on the pitch and im including reserve games, junior games and games overseas here as being the most impacted upon as they have the least number of players and the worst referees. A few clumsy tackles and its 12 v 12. Its not all about the product as seen during the summer months in Croke Park, we are in danger of once again forgetting about the clubs.
Quote from: BennyHarp on November 25, 2013, 10:11:32 AM
I agree that the game has become diffcult to watch and tweaking the rules is important to maintain the spirit of the game but introducing a black card and the impact it can have on the game is not a tweak. Perhaps they could have tried maintaining a yellow card for these offences and actually having the balls to send off repeat offenders and also suspending those who accumulate yellow cards as a competition progresses. The black card is a half way house solution to a problem that isnt a huge problem outside the top end of the game. The biggest problem facing many clubs is getting players on the pitch and im including reserve games, junior games and games overseas here as being the most impacted upon as they have the least number of players and the worst referees. A few clumsy tackles and its 12 v 12. Its not all about the product as seen during the summer months in Croke Park, we are in danger of once again forgetting about the clubs.
Spot on. They don't give yellows for yellow card offences and now the powers that be are bringing in an extra card to add to the confusion. If yellow cards were given for yellow card offences it would go a long way to fixing the perceived problems with the game. Wasn't there a video on here a while back showing scenarios where a black card would be given - it turned out only one yellow was given for the five or six offences shown when all of them should've been yellows.
Quote from: BennyHarp on November 25, 2013, 10:11:32 AM
I agree that the game has become diffcult to watch and tweaking the rules is important to maintain the spirit of the game but introducing a black card and the impact it can have on the game is not a tweak. Perhaps they could have tried maintaining a yellow card for these offences and actually having the balls to send off repeat offenders and also suspending those who accumulate yellow cards as a competition progresses. The black card is a half way house solution to a problem that isnt a huge problem outside the top end of the game. The biggest problem facing many clubs is getting players on the pitch and im including reserve games, junior games and games overseas here as being the most impacted upon as they have the least number of players and the worst referees. A few clumsy tackles and its 12 v 12. Its not all about the product as seen during the summer months in Croke Park, we are in danger of once again forgetting about the clubs.
Let it ride lads, give the rules a chance to bed in, if players continually pull down after a while then we will get into that farce you speak of, I'm going to use the common sense approach at the start and if they make it 'really' deliberate then it's a no brainer and the player will get black carded, he should have no excuses.
The advantage rule will be the best rule out of these (from a referees perspective) as it will give that attacker to progress that wee bit further to see if the goal is on. We are talking about the reduction of fouling, surely that should be a good thing, stopping the cynical foul and getting to the point were defenders win the primary possesion instead of hauling down the player or blocking off the runner. Defenders need to adopt their game forwards will also need to learn how to tackle also as at present they can't.
Interesting times, as said before I'd have preferred to have seen this at National level first before coming to the clubs...
http://www.gaa.ie/gaa-news-and-videos/news-archive/0411132129-football-rule-changes/
With the exception of the advantage rule I'm really not convinced by these rule changes at all. I think back to the Ireland match on Sunday, Owens cautioned O'Brein 3 times for cynical play, threatening a yellow card, that's not really combating cynicism though is it? The same scenario will now develop in GAA, instead of dishing out reds, refs will go with the less controversial option of dishing out black cards. Instead of just dragging a man down, players will now just appear to clumsily fall or come together with the attacker and simply earn a yellow because "we're not sure if he really meant it".
We've again diluted the rules and moved the goalposts, we haven't made the job of the refs any easier. Everyone, I mean everyone on here, complains about the quality of referring despite the fact almost none of us could do a superior job to the top level incumbents.
You want the quality of referring to improve then make his job easier. Allow bans for simulation in the same way we allow bans for striking. Allow video review for goals the same way there are for tries in rugby. On average a rugby match would have move tries in a game than goals in GAA so if they can make time for it then so can we. Think of all the recent injustices that could have been righted by such a move, Louth in the Leinster final etc.
Quote from: trileacman on November 27, 2013, 02:16:06 PM
http://www.gaa.ie/gaa-news-and-videos/news-archive/0411132129-football-rule-changes/
With the exception of the advantage rule I'm really not convinced by these rule changes at all. I think back to the Ireland match on Sunday, Owens cautioned O'Brein 3 times for cynical play, threatening a yellow card, that's not really combating cynicism though is it? The same scenario will now develop in GAA, instead of dishing out reds, refs will go with the less controversial option of dishing out black cards. Instead of just dragging a man down, players will now just appear to clumsily fall or come together with the attacker and simply earn a yellow because "we're not sure if he really meant it".
We've again diluted the rules and moved the goalposts, we haven't made the job of the refs any easier. Everyone, I mean everyone on here, complains about the quality of referring despite the fact almost none of us could do a superior job to the top level incumbents.
You want the quality of referring to improve then make his job easier. Allow bans for simulation in the same way we allow bans for striking. Allow video review for goals the same way there are for tries in rugby. On average a rugby match would have move tries in a game than goals in GAA so if they can make time for it then so can we. Think of all the recent injustices that could have been righted by such a move, Louth in the Leinster final etc.
The referee will judge whether he was being clumsy or deliberate. Be a shock to his system when he gets the black card for being clumsy ;) and if its accidental then that does not warrant a yellow card anyway. Players will eventually avoid the chance of being 'clumsy' after a few players have been given the black card
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 27, 2013, 03:48:53 PM
Quote from: trileacman on November 27, 2013, 02:16:06 PM
http://www.gaa.ie/gaa-news-and-videos/news-archive/0411132129-football-rule-changes/
With the exception of the advantage rule I'm really not convinced by these rule changes at all. I think back to the Ireland match on Sunday, Owens cautioned O'Brein 3 times for cynical play, threatening a yellow card, that's not really combating cynicism though is it? The same scenario will now develop in GAA, instead of dishing out reds, refs will go with the less controversial option of dishing out black cards. Instead of just dragging a man down, players will now just appear to clumsily fall or come together with the attacker and simply earn a yellow because "we're not sure if he really meant it".
We've again diluted the rules and moved the goalposts, we haven't made the job of the refs any easier. Everyone, I mean everyone on here, complains about the quality of referring despite the fact almost none of us could do a superior job to the top level incumbents.
You want the quality of referring to improve then make his job easier. Allow bans for simulation in the same way we allow bans for striking. Allow video review for goals the same way there are for tries in rugby. On average a rugby match would have move tries in a game than goals in GAA so if they can make time for it then so can we. Think of all the recent injustices that could have been righted by such a move, Louth in the Leinster final etc.
The referee will judge whether he was being clumsy or deliberate. Be a shock to his system when he gets the black card for being clumsy ;) and if its accidental then that does not warrant a yellow card anyway. Players will eventually avoid the chance of being 'clumsy' after a few players have been given the black card
The whole idea of sport is that players play within the rules and there need to be sanctions to prevent foul play getting teams/players advantages.
As Milltown says a good scatter of lads getting the "black" might just concentrate peoples' minds on the whole principle of sport i.e trying to win but within the rules, whether you're Tyrone or Dublin Seniors or the worst Junior B outfit in Roscommon -- it's the same T.O.
Hopefully the GAA and Refs will have the courage to stick with their rules and ignore the inevitable Breheny/Harte whinging and moaning that will start around mid March.
Quote from: Rossfan on November 28, 2013, 11:04:42 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 27, 2013, 03:48:53 PM
Quote from: trileacman on November 27, 2013, 02:16:06 PM
http://www.gaa.ie/gaa-news-and-videos/news-archive/0411132129-football-rule-changes/
With the exception of the advantage rule I'm really not convinced by these rule changes at all. I think back to the Ireland match on Sunday, Owens cautioned O'Brein 3 times for cynical play, threatening a yellow card, that's not really combating cynicism though is it? The same scenario will now develop in GAA, instead of dishing out reds, refs will go with the less controversial option of dishing out black cards. Instead of just dragging a man down, players will now just appear to clumsily fall or come together with the attacker and simply earn a yellow because "we're not sure if he really meant it".
We've again diluted the rules and moved the goalposts, we haven't made the job of the refs any easier. Everyone, I mean everyone on here, complains about the quality of referring despite the fact almost none of us could do a superior job to the top level incumbents.
You want the quality of referring to improve then make his job easier. Allow bans for simulation in the same way we allow bans for striking. Allow video review for goals the same way there are for tries in rugby. On average a rugby match would have move tries in a game than goals in GAA so if they can make time for it then so can we. Think of all the recent injustices that could have been righted by such a move, Louth in the Leinster final etc.
The referee will judge whether he was being clumsy or deliberate. Be a shock to his system when he gets the black card for being clumsy ;) and if its accidental then that does not warrant a yellow card anyway. Players will eventually avoid the chance of being 'clumsy' after a few players have been given the black card
The whole idea of sport is that players play within the rules and there need to be sanctions to prevent foul play getting teams/players advantages.
As Milltown says a good scatter of lads getting the "black" might just concentrate peoples' minds on the whole principle of sport i.e trying to win but within the rules, whether you're Tyrone or Dublin Seniors or the worst Junior B outfit in Roscommon -- it's the same T.O.
Hopefully the GAA and Refs will have the courage to stick with their rules and ignore the inevitable Breheny/Harte whinging and moaning that will start around mid March.
That's fair enough and I agree with the sentiment. The problem is that when players go ploughing in to honestly win a ball it could easily be construed as a deliberate foul. The game is fast, contact is part and parcel of the game and there is only one ref to cover the 60,000 square feet of grass. A lad being a split second late or overeager or simply clumsy will present a ref with a very difficult decision. I think there is a huge and unfair onus on our refs to get it right. There's also massive potential for refs to be on the receiving end of a lot of verbal abuse. I certainly don't envy them their job!
Quote from: Rossfan on November 28, 2013, 11:04:42 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 27, 2013, 03:48:53 PM
Quote from: trileacman on November 27, 2013, 02:16:06 PM
http://www.gaa.ie/gaa-news-and-videos/news-archive/0411132129-football-rule-changes/
With the exception of the advantage rule I'm really not convinced by these rule changes at all. I think back to the Ireland match on Sunday, Owens cautioned O'Brein 3 times for cynical play, threatening a yellow card, that's not really combating cynicism though is it? The same scenario will now develop in GAA, instead of dishing out reds, refs will go with the less controversial option of dishing out black cards. Instead of just dragging a man down, players will now just appear to clumsily fall or come together with the attacker and simply earn a yellow because "we're not sure if he really meant it".
We've again diluted the rules and moved the goalposts, we haven't made the job of the refs any easier. Everyone, I mean everyone on here, complains about the quality of referring despite the fact almost none of us could do a superior job to the top level incumbents.
You want the quality of referring to improve then make his job easier. Allow bans for simulation in the same way we allow bans for striking. Allow video review for goals the same way there are for tries in rugby. On average a rugby match would have move tries in a game than goals in GAA so if they can make time for it then so can we. Think of all the recent injustices that could have been righted by such a move, Louth in the Leinster final etc.
The referee will judge whether he was being clumsy or deliberate. Be a shock to his system when he gets the black card for being clumsy ;) and if its accidental then that does not warrant a yellow card anyway. Players will eventually avoid the chance of being 'clumsy' after a few players have been given the black card
The whole idea of sport is that players play within the rules and there need to be sanctions to prevent foul play getting teams/players advantages.
As Milltown says a good scatter of lads getting the "black" might just concentrate peoples' minds on the whole principle of sport i.e trying to win but within the rules, whether you're Tyrone or Dublin Seniors or the worst Junior B outfit in Roscommon -- it's the same T.O.
Hopefully the GAA and Refs will have the courage to stick with their rules and ignore the inevitable Breheny/Harte whinging and moaning that will start around mid March.
Yeah lets just ignore any criticism, that'll show them we were right!!! ::)
So Breheny and Harte are always right ???
FFS get a life buckeen.
You're the one talking about ignoring criticism before you even know if it's warrented or not. Nothing to do with Breheny or Harte always being right.
So a lot of GAA board posters criticise it -- are the GAA to abandon it???
Just asking like :-\
If they've genuine reasons and it's having a negative impact then yes. I would have thought that was obvious.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 27, 2013, 03:48:53 PM
Quote from: trileacman on November 27, 2013, 02:16:06 PM
http://www.gaa.ie/gaa-news-and-videos/news-archive/0411132129-football-rule-changes/
With the exception of the advantage rule I'm really not convinced by these rule changes at all. I think back to the Ireland match on Sunday, Owens cautioned O'Brein 3 times for cynical play, threatening a yellow card, that's not really combating cynicism though is it? The same scenario will now develop in GAA, instead of dishing out reds, refs will go with the less controversial option of dishing out black cards. Instead of just dragging a man down, players will now just appear to clumsily fall or come together with the attacker and simply earn a yellow because "we're not sure if he really meant it".
We've again diluted the rules and moved the goalposts, we haven't made the job of the refs any easier. Everyone, I mean everyone on here, complains about the quality of referring despite the fact almost none of us could do a superior job to the top level incumbents.
You want the quality of referring to improve then make his job easier. Allow bans for simulation in the same way we allow bans for striking. Allow video review for goals the same way there are for tries in rugby. On average a rugby match would have move tries in a game than goals in GAA so if they can make time for it then so can we. Think of all the recent injustices that could have been righted by such a move, Louth in the Leinster final etc.
The referee will judge whether he was being clumsy or deliberate. Be a shock to his system when he gets the black card for being clumsy ;) and if its accidental then that does not warrant a yellow card anyway. Players will eventually avoid the chance of being 'clumsy' after a few players have been given the black card
You lads are banking on refs dishing out black cards like it's Christmas, now when they currently won't hand out yellow cards for yellow card offences (do you argue any different?) then why are they suddenly going to start giving out black cards for "challenges/falls" where they can afford the defender the benefit of the doubt?
I think lads are trying to find issues where none exist. There is a clear distinction between black card offences and non-black card ones so if a ref is not issuing black cards where he should then I'm sure he'll stop getting games.
Adjudicating on whether a fouls is deliberate or not will be tricky and refs will get it wrong sometimes but since we can never get that 100% right should we keep the punishment for deliberate fouling lenient so some innocent players don't get punished too hard or have a stiffer punishment knowing that it will help reduce cynical fouling?
Quote from: Zulu on November 28, 2013, 02:49:36 PM
I think lads are trying to find issues where none exist. There is a clear distinction between black card offences and non-black card ones so if a ref is not issuing black cards where he should then I'm sure he'll stop getting games.
Adjudicating on whether a fouls is deliberate or not will be tricky and refs will get it wrong sometimes but since we can never get that 100% right should we keep the punishment for deliberate fouling lenient so some innocent players don't get punished too hard or have a stiffer punishment knowing that it will help reduce cynical fouling?
Yeah but sure what's the point of continually trying to tackle an issue by applying a rule that won't work properly? That's what the rugger lads have tried for 10 years to do with changes to the scrum laws but the situation continues to deteriorate to the point where a once integral part of the game is now openly vilified.
Just because you hope these laws will result in a sea change in the degree of cynicism doesn't mean it will. You open the door to new kinds of problems, namely feigning trips/injury to get a lad black carded or as I have stated a relaxing of the rules that currently warrant a red or yellow card.
You want a better game then you need to encourage it, not stifle it within the narrow confines of what you consider football to be with laws and punishment and rules. Play a better advantage, make better use of technology, make the referees job easier, change the points for a win draw etc.
The most successful rule changes that rugby have brought in have been the ones that focus on positive action, namely the advantage rule and the change in the points structure, bonus point for +4 tries or for being within a converted try.
You'll get nowhere trying to punish shite play, the GAA is full of it. Reward the teams doing stuff right and you'll get somewhere.
Quote from: trileacman on November 28, 2013, 03:24:50 PM
Quote from: Zulu on November 28, 2013, 02:49:36 PM
I think lads are trying to find issues where none exist. There is a clear distinction between black card offences and non-black card ones so if a ref is not issuing black cards where he should then I'm sure he'll stop getting games.
Adjudicating on whether a fouls is deliberate or not will be tricky and refs will get it wrong sometimes but since we can never get that 100% right should we keep the punishment for deliberate fouling lenient so some innocent players don't get punished too hard or have a stiffer punishment knowing that it will help reduce cynical fouling?
Yeah but sure what's the point of continually trying to tackle an issue by applying a rule that won't work properly? That's what the rugger lads have tried for 10 years to do with changes to the scrum laws but the situation continues to deteriorate to the point where a once integral part of the game is now openly vilified.
Just because you hope these laws will result in a sea change in the degree of cynicism doesn't mean it will. You open the door to new kinds of problems, namely feigning trips/injury to get a lad black carded or as I have stated a relaxing of the rules that currently warrant a red or yellow card.
You want a better game then you need to encourage it, not stifle it within the narrow confines of what you consider football to be with laws and punishment and rules. Play a better advantage, make better use of technology, make the referees job easier, change the points for a win draw etc.
The most successful rule changes that rugby have brought in have been the ones that focus on positive action, namely the advantage rule and the change in the points structure, bonus point for +4 tries or for being within a converted try.
You'll get nowhere trying to punish shite play, the GAA is full of it. Reward the teams doing stuff right and you'll get somewhere.
Not going to be easy and not looking forward to the first game but it's here and lets get on with it, the referee can issue a black card for abuse to the referee, I always issued a red card for this but you may get a referee who'll happily hand out a few black cards for this, this may also cause concern to players/managers/supporters. All good fun
Quote from: Zulu on November 28, 2013, 02:49:36 PM
I think lads are trying to find issues where none exist. There is a clear distinction between black card offences and non-black card ones so if a ref is not issuing black cards where he should then I'm sure he'll stop getting games.
Adjudicating on whether a fouls is deliberate or not will be tricky and refs will get it wrong sometimes but since we can never get that 100% right should we keep the punishment for deliberate fouling lenient so some innocent players don't get punished too hard or have a stiffer punishment knowing that it will help reduce cynical fouling?
There's a clear distinction between yellow card offences and non-yellow card ones as well - that hasn't stopped refs not applying the yellow card rule. There is often no consistency in the application of the yellow card rule within a game itself, never mind between the refs as a group. Something that's let go at the beginning of a game could earn a yellow later on in the game - we see it all the time.
So here's a good idea to try and solve it - they can't apply the current rules, so lets introduce more rules and cards striaght into the highest levels of the game without a trial in a less high profile setting.
You couldn't make it up.
I'm not opposed to rule changes but I think we need to focus on encouraging good play and making the rulebook simpler.
That's not quite true, rugby also introduced the penalty try and limited the time teams had to play a ball from a ruck (I think!) to deal with negative cynical play. We don't use groups or leagues so I don't think there is much scope for promoting positive play through bonus point systems. Feigning injury has come into our game already and the only way to eradicate this is through stiff suspensions that can be applied through video evidence post game.
Quote from: take_yer_points on November 28, 2013, 03:33:13 PM
Quote from: Zulu on November 28, 2013, 02:49:36 PM
I think lads are trying to find issues where none exist. There is a clear distinction between black card offences and non-black card ones so if a ref is not issuing black cards where he should then I'm sure he'll stop getting games.
Adjudicating on whether a fouls is deliberate or not will be tricky and refs will get it wrong sometimes but since we can never get that 100% right should we keep the punishment for deliberate fouling lenient so some innocent players don't get punished too hard or have a stiffer punishment knowing that it will help reduce cynical fouling?
There's a clear distinction between yellow card offences and non-yellow card ones as well - that hasn't stopped refs not applying the yellow card rule. There is often no consistency in the application of the yellow card rule within a game itself, never mind between the refs as a group. Something that's let go at the beginning of a game could earn a yellow later on in the game - we see it all the time.
So here's a good idea to try and solve it - they can't apply the current rules, so lets introduce more rules and cards striaght into the highest levels of the game without a trial in a less high profile setting.
You couldn't make it up.
I agree re the trialling but it's wrong to say there is a clear distinction between yellow and non-yellow offences, certainly compared to the black cards. Referees often display a bit of leniency or go in all guns blazing early in a game and it's perfectly reasonable that an offence in the first minute might be adjudged differently in the 60th minute.
Quote from: Zulu on November 28, 2013, 02:49:36 PM
I think lads are trying to find issues where none exist. There is a clear distinction between black card offences and non-black card ones so if a ref is not issuing black cards where he should then I'm sure he'll stop getting games.
Adjudicating on whether a fouls is deliberate or not will be tricky and refs will get it wrong sometimes but since we can never get that 100% right should we keep the punishment for deliberate fouling lenient so some innocent players don't get punished too hard or have a stiffer punishment knowing that it will help reduce cynical fouling?
This is the problem - it may work fine in big senior championship games, but the fella reffing the reserve game or the junior league game or the game overseas has massive potential to create mayhem with a black card. They generally are not the best refs at the best of times and there's no way they will stop getting games.
Quote from: BennyHarp on November 28, 2013, 03:56:12 PM
Quote from: Zulu on November 28, 2013, 02:49:36 PM
I think lads are trying to find issues where none exist. There is a clear distinction between black card offences and non-black card ones so if a ref is not issuing black cards where he should then I'm sure he'll stop getting games.
Adjudicating on whether a fouls is deliberate or not will be tricky and refs will get it wrong sometimes but since we can never get that 100% right should we keep the punishment for deliberate fouling lenient so some innocent players don't get punished too hard or have a stiffer punishment knowing that it will help reduce cynical fouling?
This is the problem - it may work fine in big senior championship games, but the fella reffing the reserve game or the junior league game or the game overseas has massive potential to create mayhem with a black card. They generally are not the best refs at the best of times and there's no way they will stop getting games.
This is a problem in most counties but I've definitely see more work being done with referee's in terms of courses, updates, seminars and fitness tests, rules test every year and ad visors in place to assess the referee a few times a year.
Whether you care to admit it the standard or at the very least the effort put in by CB's on this is a lot better than what went on before. Give it time, the thing I've notice is we have a lot more decent past players giving their time up to referee a match, this will eventually make it better also.
Quote from: Zulu on November 28, 2013, 03:50:03 PM
Quote from: take_yer_points on November 28, 2013, 03:33:13 PM
Quote from: Zulu on November 28, 2013, 02:49:36 PM
I think lads are trying to find issues where none exist. There is a clear distinction between black card offences and non-black card ones so if a ref is not issuing black cards where he should then I'm sure he'll stop getting games.
Adjudicating on whether a fouls is deliberate or not will be tricky and refs will get it wrong sometimes but since we can never get that 100% right should we keep the punishment for deliberate fouling lenient so some innocent players don't get punished too hard or have a stiffer punishment knowing that it will help reduce cynical fouling?
There's a clear distinction between yellow card offences and non-yellow card ones as well - that hasn't stopped refs not applying the yellow card rule. There is often no consistency in the application of the yellow card rule within a game itself, never mind between the refs as a group. Something that's let go at the beginning of a game could earn a yellow later on in the game - we see it all the time.
So here's a good idea to try and solve it - they can't apply the current rules, so lets introduce more rules and cards striaght into the highest levels of the game without a trial in a less high profile setting.
You couldn't make it up.
I agree re the trialling but it's wrong to say there is a clear distinction between yellow and non-yellow offences, certainly compared to the black cards. Referees often display a bit of leniency or go in all guns blazing early in a game and it's perfectly reasonable that an offence in the first minute might be adjudged differently in the 60th minute.
Ok, maybe they're all not as clear. Something like 5.24 (To engage in any other form of rough play) is a bit more subjective than the black card rules, but 5.25 (To attempt to achieve an advantage by feigning a foul or injury) is as clear as day and you won't see consistency within a game, never mind from the same ref in different games or from different refs.
I know what you're saying (highlighted) and I think it often makes for a better spectacle but I also think it's a huge part of the problem - they'll let something go in the early part of the game but then caution a player for a carbon copy later on. It's a huge source of frustration for players and supporters alike and when the current rules aren't being applied I find it surreal that additional rules and cards are being introduced without any sort of trial. Showing a few yellows earlier in the game will leave a few fellas in the position that they're not willing to take the second yellow later in the match and won't risk the second yellow.
Quote from: take_yer_points on November 28, 2013, 04:20:34 PM
Quote from: Zulu on November 28, 2013, 03:50:03 PM
Quote from: take_yer_points on November 28, 2013, 03:33:13 PM
Quote from: Zulu on November 28, 2013, 02:49:36 PM
I think lads are trying to find issues where none exist. There is a clear distinction between black card offences and non-black card ones so if a ref is not issuing black cards where he should then I'm sure he'll stop getting games.
Adjudicating on whether a fouls is deliberate or not will be tricky and refs will get it wrong sometimes but since we can never get that 100% right should we keep the punishment for deliberate fouling lenient so some innocent players don't get punished too hard or have a stiffer punishment knowing that it will help reduce cynical fouling?
There's a clear distinction between yellow card offences and non-yellow card ones as well - that hasn't stopped refs not applying the yellow card rule. There is often no consistency in the application of the yellow card rule within a game itself, never mind between the refs as a group. Something that's let go at the beginning of a game could earn a yellow later on in the game - we see it all the time.
So here's a good idea to try and solve it - they can't apply the current rules, so lets introduce more rules and cards striaght into the highest levels of the game without a trial in a less high profile setting.
You couldn't make it up.
I agree re the trialling but it's wrong to say there is a clear distinction between yellow and non-yellow offences, certainly compared to the black cards. Referees often display a bit of leniency or go in all guns blazing early in a game and it's perfectly reasonable that an offence in the first minute might be adjudged differently in the 60th minute.
Ok, maybe they're all not as clear. Something like 5.24 (To engage in any other form of rough play) is a bit more subjective than the black card rules, but 5.25 (To attempt to achieve an advantage by feigning a foul or injury) is as clear as day and you won't see consistency within a game, never mind from the same ref in different games or from different refs.
I know what you're saying (highlighted) and I think it often makes for a better spectacle but I also think it's a huge part of the problem - they'll let something go in the early part of the game but then caution a player for a carbon copy later on. It's a huge source of frustration for players and supporters alike and when the current rules aren't being applied I find it surreal that additional rules and cards are being introduced without any sort of trial. Showing a few yellows earlier in the game will leave a few fellas in the position that they're not willing to take the second yellow later in the match and won't risk the second yellow.
The referee a few years ago had no problem in an All Ireland semi final sending off the Portlaios lad in the 1st minute, which had a bearing on the game
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 28, 2013, 04:24:45 PM
Quote from: take_yer_points on November 28, 2013, 04:20:34 PM
Quote from: Zulu on November 28, 2013, 03:50:03 PM
Quote from: take_yer_points on November 28, 2013, 03:33:13 PM
Quote from: Zulu on November 28, 2013, 02:49:36 PM
I think lads are trying to find issues where none exist. There is a clear distinction between black card offences and non-black card ones so if a ref is not issuing black cards where he should then I'm sure he'll stop getting games.
Adjudicating on whether a fouls is deliberate or not will be tricky and refs will get it wrong sometimes but since we can never get that 100% right should we keep the punishment for deliberate fouling lenient so some innocent players don't get punished too hard or have a stiffer punishment knowing that it will help reduce cynical fouling?
There's a clear distinction between yellow card offences and non-yellow card ones as well - that hasn't stopped refs not applying the yellow card rule. There is often no consistency in the application of the yellow card rule within a game itself, never mind between the refs as a group. Something that's let go at the beginning of a game could earn a yellow later on in the game - we see it all the time.
So here's a good idea to try and solve it - they can't apply the current rules, so lets introduce more rules and cards striaght into the highest levels of the game without a trial in a less high profile setting.
You couldn't make it up.
I agree re the trialling but it's wrong to say there is a clear distinction between yellow and non-yellow offences, certainly compared to the black cards. Referees often display a bit of leniency or go in all guns blazing early in a game and it's perfectly reasonable that an offence in the first minute might be adjudged differently in the 60th minute.
Ok, maybe they're all not as clear. Something like 5.24 (To engage in any other form of rough play) is a bit more subjective than the black card rules, but 5.25 (To attempt to achieve an advantage by feigning a foul or injury) is as clear as day and you won't see consistency within a game, never mind from the same ref in different games or from different refs.
I know what you're saying (highlighted) and I think it often makes for a better spectacle but I also think it's a huge part of the problem - they'll let something go in the early part of the game but then caution a player for a carbon copy later on. It's a huge source of frustration for players and supporters alike and when the current rules aren't being applied I find it surreal that additional rules and cards are being introduced without any sort of trial. Showing a few yellows earlier in the game will leave a few fellas in the position that they're not willing to take the second yellow later in the match and won't risk the second yellow.
The referee a few years ago had no problem in an All Ireland semi final sending off the Portlaios lad in the 1st minute, which had a bearing on the game
That's grand, but how many examples of free kicks, yellow cards or sendings off don't happen - that's my point, there's no consistency to it. If yellows and reds were given in the first minute or whenever when they should be then there'd be no need for the new rules and card. And what do you do when the current rules aren't applied? Well the only sensible thing, you introduce new ones. As I said, you couldn't make it up.
Quote from: Zulu on November 28, 2013, 03:44:54 PM
That's not quite true, rugby also introduced the penalty try and limited the time teams had to play a ball from a ruck (I think!) to deal with negative cynical play. We don't use groups or leagues so I don't think there is much scope for promoting positive play through bonus point systems. Feigning injury has come into our game already and the only way to eradicate this is through stiff suspensions that can be applied through video evidence post game.
Every county in Ireland runs a league competition, 2/3rds of the format that Inter-county teams play incorporate a league format. What are you on about?
And all of those leagues are secondary competitions, so no 'bonus' point scenarios are going to work to eradicate cynical fouling in the competitions that matter. Every club league I ever played in (3 different counties) were farcical while the league at IC level has no impact on the public perception of how the game is played. No point introducing something that has no effect on the real action.
You said "We don't use groups or leagues". That was complete shite.
Every club in Tyrone played more league matches than championships matches this year. Over half the clubs would have played two championship matches to 14/15 league games. You must have played in some shite counties if every league season was "farcical".
The majority of county teams would have a league/championship match ratio of 2:1. Leagues format comprise the guts of a team's pre-season development, deciding tactics and first team line-up. At least one of the Division 1 league finalists have featured in the AI final for the last 10 years. 6 of the last 11 league champions have been AI champions.
What the fcuk has "public perception of how the game is played" got to do with it? Since when did Mick and Francie in the local pub decide the tactics and gamesmanship invovled in Gaelic football?
QuoteYou said "We don't use groups or leagues". That was complete shite.
No it wasn't, I said that in the context of this discussion, i.e. rule changes that could impact upon the game. Rugby primarily use groups (Heineken cup) or leagues (French & English leagues) as their main forms of competition, therefore 'bonus' points can make an impact on the way the game is played. We don't, our main competitions tend to use either knockout (All Ireland series) or formats that don't link games (provincial championships). I'm obviously aware of things like the national league or club leagues but having bonus points in these competitions will have no impact upon how the game is played overall. Now you can either debate that point or you can continue to try an start an argument about a turn of phrase when I've clearly explained what I meant, which will it be?
QuoteEvery club in Tyrone played more league matches than championships matches this year. Over half the clubs would have played two championship matches to 14/15 league games. You must have played in some shite counties if every league season was "farcical".
Is shite a word you learned recently or are you just a moron? I played in Cork, Limerick and Waterford and they were all poorly run when I played in them though some of the years were when it was straight knockout championship.
QuoteThe majority of county teams would have a league/championship match ratio of 2:1. Leagues format comprise the guts of a team's pre-season development, deciding tactics and first team line-up. At least one of the Division 1 league finalists have featured in the AI final for the last 10 years. 6 of the last 11 league champions have been AI champions.
And what does all that pointless information have to do with the effect bonus points will have on how the game is played? I'll help you out...nothing.
QuoteWhat the fcuk has "public perception of how the game is played" got to do with it? Since when did Mick and Francie in the local pub decide the tactics and gamesmanship invovled in Gaelic football?
Have you been drinking or are you always this unnecessarily and ignorantly aggressive when making a point? The rule changes that have been brought in are re;lated to the perception that football has become too negative and as a spectacle it has declined. Rugby and soccer brought in rules to help their sports become more spectator friendly so if football was only played at club level in front of small local crowds I doubt very much there'd be any debate on cynical fouling or blanket defences. Now if you can make your nonsensical points in a reasonable fashion we might be able to continue this discussion.
Shock horror !!
Liam O'Neill suggesting that hurling needsa black card to punish deliberate fouling etc but he's "not sure if hurling is ready for this".
Surely as Uachtarán he must know there's no fouling in hurling - only silly Referees who blow the whistle too often.
Quote from: Rossfan on December 03, 2013, 06:37:50 PM
Shock horror !!
Liam O'Neill suggesting that hurling needsa black card to punish deliberate fouling etc but he's "not sure if hurling is ready for this".
Surely as Uachtarán he must know there's no fouling in hurling - only silly Referees who blow the whistle too often.
Marty's the man to sort out reffing in hurling.
Quote from: Rossfan on December 03, 2013, 06:37:50 PM
Shock horror !!
Liam O'Neill suggesting that hurling needsa black card to punish deliberate fouling etc but he's "not sure if hurling is ready for this".
Surely as Uachtarán he must know there's no fouling in hurling - only silly Referees who blow the whistle too often.
What do you care about hurling? If it doesn't affect you as a footballer then no harm done? 99% of all fouls are deliberate. There is less of that type of fouling in hurling otherwise it would be brought in don't you think?
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 03, 2013, 07:08:36 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on December 03, 2013, 06:37:50 PM
Shock horror !!
Liam O'Neill suggesting that hurling needsa black card to punish deliberate fouling etc but he's "not sure if hurling is ready for this".
Surely as Uachtarán he must know there's no fouling in hurling - only silly Referees who blow the whistle too often.
What do you care about hurling? If it doesn't affect you as a footballer then no harm done? 99% of all fouls are deliberate. There is less of that type of fouling in hurling otherwise it would be brought in don't you think?
Come on now!
Quote from: CD on December 03, 2013, 07:13:21 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 03, 2013, 07:08:36 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on December 03, 2013, 06:37:50 PM
Shock horror !!
Liam O'Neill suggesting that hurling needsa black card to punish deliberate fouling etc but he's "not sure if hurling is ready for this".
Surely as Uachtarán he must know there's no fouling in hurling - only silly Referees who blow the whistle too often.
What do you care about hurling? If it doesn't affect you as a footballer then no harm done? 99% of all fouls are deliberate. There is less of that type of fouling in hurling otherwise it would be brought in don't you think?
Come on now!
Ok 100%
Ok I'm being realistic now Id say in a match I'll blow for possibly 2 or 3 accidental fouls and 3 or 4 technical fouls (which is a lot better than what it used to be)
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 28, 2013, 04:24:45 PM
Quote from: take_yer_points on November 28, 2013, 04:20:34 PM
Quote from: Zulu on November 28, 2013, 03:50:03 PM
Quote from: take_yer_points on November 28, 2013, 03:33:13 PM
Quote from: Zulu on November 28, 2013, 02:49:36 PM
I think lads are trying to find issues where none exist. There is a clear distinction between black card offences and non-black card ones so if a ref is not issuing black cards where he should then I'm sure he'll stop getting games.
Adjudicating on whether a fouls is deliberate or not will be tricky and refs will get it wrong sometimes but since we can never get that 100% right should we keep the punishment for deliberate fouling lenient so some innocent players don't get punished too hard or have a stiffer punishment knowing that it will help reduce cynical fouling?
There's a clear distinction between yellow card offences and non-yellow card ones as well - that hasn't stopped refs not applying the yellow card rule. There is often no consistency in the application of the yellow card rule within a game itself, never mind between the refs as a group. Something that's let go at the beginning of a game could earn a yellow later on in the game - we see it all the time.
So here's a good idea to try and solve it - they can't apply the current rules, so lets introduce more rules and cards striaght into the highest levels of the game without a trial in a less high profile setting.
You couldn't make it up.
I agree re the trialling but it's wrong to say there is a clear distinction between yellow and non-yellow offences, certainly compared to the black cards. Referees often display a bit of leniency or go in all guns blazing early in a game and it's perfectly reasonable that an offence in the first minute might be adjudged differently in the 60th minute.
Ok, maybe they're all not as clear. Something like 5.24 (To engage in any other form of rough play) is a bit more subjective than the black card rules, but 5.25 (To attempt to achieve an advantage by feigning a foul or injury) is as clear as day and you won't see consistency within a game, never mind from the same ref in different games or from different refs.
I know what you're saying (highlighted) and I think it often makes for a better spectacle but I also think it's a huge part of the problem - they'll let something go in the early part of the game but then caution a player for a carbon copy later on. It's a huge source of frustration for players and supporters alike and when the current rules aren't being applied I find it surreal that additional rules and cards are being introduced without any sort of trial. Showing a few yellows earlier in the game will leave a few fellas in the position that they're not willing to take the second yellow later in the match and won't risk the second yellow.
The referee a few years ago had no problem in an All Ireland semi final sending off the Portlaios lad in the 1st minute, which had a bearing on the game
I remember a couple of years ago assessing [yes, it was still assessing then] a guy in a championship semi-final in Casement. He caught 2 guys wrestling, on the ground, off the ball, in the 1st minute. He yellow carded both & set his stall out & had a class game after that. I gave him all due praise in his report for doing so, beacause he demonstrated total control & authority from the off. 1st minute / last minute - it doesn't matter: apply the rules. This crap about letting everything "settle down" in championship matches, i.e. tolerate nearly everything for the 1st 5-10 minutes, isn't really on. The black card thing will take a settling in period but if it takes out the cynical fouling such as a certain incident which was witnessed last year, so much the better.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 03, 2013, 07:17:17 PM
Quote from: CD on December 03, 2013, 07:13:21 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 03, 2013, 07:08:36 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on December 03, 2013, 06:37:50 PM
Shock horror !!
Liam O'Neill suggesting that hurling needsa black card to punish deliberate fouling etc but he's "not sure if hurling is ready for this".
Surely as Uachtarán he must know there's no fouling in hurling - only silly Referees who blow the whistle too often.
What do you care about hurling? If it doesn't affect you as a footballer then no harm done? 99% of all fouls are deliberate. There is less of that type of fouling in hurling otherwise it would be brought in don't you think?
Come on now!
Ok 100%
Ok I'm being realistic now Id say in a match I'll blow for possibly 2 or 3 accidental fouls and 3 or 4 technical fouls (which is a lot better than what it used to be)
you honestly believe that the percentage is that high?
I couldnt put a figure on it, but there are a lot of fouls blown in football for incidental contact where two palyers are both trying to fairly win the ball , were the ball is brought into contact and there is very little the defending player can do, but still seems to concede a free and for players just out and out 'buying' frees by going down easily, grabbing the arm & running across the defender to get a bit of contact and then going down.
Granted some of these incidents leave it very hard for the referee to differeniate but to say 99% of frees given are deliberate fouls is complete nonsense IMO
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on December 04, 2013, 09:03:45 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 03, 2013, 07:17:17 PM
Quote from: CD on December 03, 2013, 07:13:21 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 03, 2013, 07:08:36 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on December 03, 2013, 06:37:50 PM
Shock horror !!
Liam O'Neill suggesting that hurling needsa black card to punish deliberate fouling etc but he's "not sure if hurling is ready for this".
Surely as Uachtarán he must know there's no fouling in hurling - only silly Referees who blow the whistle too often.
What do you care about hurling? If it doesn't affect you as a footballer then no harm done? 99% of all fouls are deliberate. There is less of that type of fouling in hurling otherwise it would be brought in don't you think?
Come on now!
Ok 100%
Ok I'm being realistic now Id say in a match I'll blow for possibly 2 or 3 accidental fouls and 3 or 4 technical fouls (which is a lot better than what it used to be)
you honestly believe that the percentage is that high?
I couldn't put a figure on it, but there are a lot of fouls blown in football for incidental contact where two palyers are both trying to fairly win the ball , were the ball is brought into contact and there is very little the defending player can do, but still seems to concede a free and for players just out and out 'buying' frees by going down easily, grabbing the arm & running across the defender to get a bit of contact and then going down.
Granted some of these incidents leave it very hard for the referee to differeniate but to say 99% of frees given are deliberate fouls is complete nonsense IMO
I brought the figure down a bit, but the bit in bold I normally let play go on, accidental fouls are different in that
one player brings another down when running by him or into him there are other ones. I've been refereeing for a while so I'm only giving you my view on it. Some referees will blow a lot more and can be over officious I'm not, I'll get pulled now from playwiththewind1st ;)
As for players buying frees again difficult to call unless you are running at a angle to catch it, but players usually know your style and when they don't get the fouls usually change their tact. I hope that's what happens when the black card comes out and they adjust to the new rules
Yeah fair enough.
My view would be (granted i may be a bit bias from a defenders point of view) is that diving, buying frees,grabbing of the arm etc is every bit as cynical as anything else that goes on, but there is very little sanction for it and very little done to stamp it out.
The thing is , it can be very hard to spot and difficult for refferees to make the right call on.
My main worry about the black card, is that it is another incentive for this type of thing.
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on December 04, 2013, 10:05:19 AM
Yeah fair enough.
My view would be (granted i may be a bit bias from a defenders point of view) is that diving, buying frees,grabbing of the arm etc is every bit as cynical as anything else that goes on, but there is very little sanction for it and very little done to stamp it out.
The thing is , it can be very hard to spot and difficult for refferees to make the right call on.
My main worry about the black card, is that it is another incentive for this type of thing.
Yes and it puts that we bitta presure on the referee, I certainly will black card a player if I see him pull a player down as there is no difference in grabing a defenders arm and draging him to the ground as if hes being fould instead, again hard to call but all referees will blow for it if they see it.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 03, 2013, 07:08:36 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on December 03, 2013, 06:37:50 PM
Shock horror !!
Liam O'Neill suggesting that hurling needsa black card to punish deliberate fouling etc but he's "not sure if hurling is ready for this".
Surely as Uachtarán he must know there's no fouling in hurling - only silly Referees who blow the whistle too often.
What do you care about hurling?
There is less of that type of fouling in hurling otherwise it would be brought in don't you think?
I'm a follower of Gaelic games and I have some interest in hurling and therefore entitled to express my opinions (or shpuld that only be confined to people from the "real" hurling Counties).
I am regularly induced to puking by the general lawless attitude of "hurling men" and the head in the sand attitude that there is no cynicism in that game.
Contrast the series of unpunished assaults on Anthony Nash when he came up field to take a free v Clare to how footballers let opposing goalies up field ( as they should of course) to take 45s etc. If the footballers did interfere with the goalie they'd be yellow carded on the spot.
Then we had Davy complaining that people were complaining about the assaults on Nash ::)
And of course Squirrel praising Joe Canning for scoring a fantastic goal one time and saying that anyone complaining about him carrying the ball for 15 steps was only being "picky".
Quote from: Rossfan on December 04, 2013, 10:50:29 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 03, 2013, 07:08:36 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on December 03, 2013, 06:37:50 PM
Shock horror !!
Liam O'Neill suggesting that hurling needsa black card to punish deliberate fouling etc but he's "not sure if hurling is ready for this".
Surely as Uachtarán he must know there's no fouling in hurling - only silly Referees who blow the whistle too often.
What do you care about hurling?
There is less of that type of fouling in hurling otherwise it would be brought in don't you think?
I'm a follower of Gaelic games and I have some interest in hurling and therefore entitled to express my opinions (or shpuld that only be confined to people from the "real" hurling Counties).
I am regularly induced to puking by the general lawless attitude of "hurling men" and the head in the sand attitude that there is no cynicism in that game.
Contrast the series of unpunished assaults on Anthony Nash when he came up field to take a free v Clare to how footballers let opposing goalies up field ( as they should of course) to take 45s etc. If the footballers did interfere with the goalie they'd be yellow carded on the spot.
Then we had Davy complaining that people were complaining about the assaults on Nash ::)
And of course Squirrel praising Joe Canning for scoring a fantastic goal one time and saying that anyone complaining about him carrying the ball for 15 steps was only being "picky".
It is the referees call on the steps, if he feels (as it is in football) that he's being fouled as he's running in (as it is most occasions) he'll give him an extra few, now we can play advantage or pull it back to the original foul. You are talking about highly charged games a bitta common sense sometimes is the best thing.
If a lines man sees a player being struck (as in Nash) off the ball he'll inform the referee and if the referee sees it he'll book him also. This also happens in football. But there has been a clear distinction between football and hurling, they are they two separate sports , the only thing that is the same is steps taken, timing some challenges and the scoring.
It's like comparing hockey and soccer, why non hurling people are calling for changes in a game they don't play in is silly, I play both referee both I can see advantages in some of the rules for referees and teams that like to play the game without getting fouled.
I'm not knocking your interest in hurling I wish there was more interested in playing it but that's a different matter
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 04, 2013, 11:44:38 AM
It is the referees call on the steps, if he feels (as it is in football) that he's being fouled as he's running in (as it is most occasions) he'll give him an extra few, now we can play advantage or pull it back to the original foul. You are talking about highly charged games a bitta common sense sometimes is the best thing.
I know most referees do as you say, but surely there comes a point when the initial foul on a player can't be rewarded/playing of advantage to allow the offended to they themselves foul the ball as sometimes happens in both sports with up to 8 or 9 steps being taken?
Where do you draw the line?
I presume this advantage rule of allowing play to continue for 5 seconds or whatever and then bring it back is similar, say the advantage is being played and the player in possession then fouls the ball, do you go back and award them the original foul or do you give the opposition the free for the second technical foul during the advantage phase??
Get my drift?
Quote from: johnneycool on December 04, 2013, 12:03:05 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 04, 2013, 11:44:38 AM
It is the referees call on the steps, if he feels (as it is in football) that he's being fouled as he's running in (as it is most occasions) he'll give him an extra few, now we can play advantage or pull it back to the original foul. You are talking about highly charged games a bitta common sense sometimes is the best thing.
I know most referees do as you say, but surely there comes a point when the initial foul on a player can't be rewarded/playing of advantage to allow the offended to they themselves foul the ball as sometimes happens in both sports with up to 8 or 9 steps being taken?
Where do you draw the line?
I presume this advantage rule of allowing play to continue for 5 seconds or whatever and then bring it back is similar, say the advantage is being played and the player in possession then fouls the ball, do you go back and award them the original foul or do you give the opposition the free for the second technical foul during the advantage phase??
Get my drift?
That question was brought up, if he fouls the ball while you give him advantage then its a foul the other way, the player must not foul the ball.
With a player hanging off an attacker while he's running in its only natural to allow the attacker a few steps to see if he can break the tackle and get a shot on goal. Defenders need to not try and pull him back and still shout how many steps referee??? I normally respond with stop fouling him ffs. The advantage rule should help though
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 04, 2013, 12:09:02 PM
That question was brought up, if he fouls the ball while you give him advantage then its a foul the other way, the player must not foul the ball.
If I've been fouled, does the ref shout 'advantage' or whatever or how would I know? I may want to take the free as I'm shite at scoring and our free taker is deadly accurate. Can I let the referee know this?
In rugby if there's an advantage being played and I want to take the penalty, the scrum half or whoever would deliberately foul the ball and the penalty would be awarded, I presume there's no mechanism for this, is there?
Quote from: johnneycool on December 04, 2013, 12:14:53 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 04, 2013, 12:09:02 PM
That question was brought up, if he fouls the ball while you give him advantage then its a foul the other way, the player must not foul the ball.
If I've been fouled, does the ref shout 'advantage' or whatever or how would I know? I may want to take the free as I'm shite at scoring and our free taker is deadly accurate. Can I let the referee know this?
In rugby if there's an advantage being played and I want to take the penalty, the scrum half or whoever would deliberately foul the ball and the penalty would be awarded, I presume there's no mechanism for this, is there?
Again this was brought up and it's a bit of a grey area, you can't just say I'll take the free as the referee just needs to raise his arm to show he's playing advantage he doesn't need to say (shout it) it though Pat thought that it would be better if you did. If you stop and have the ball in hand longer than the 4 steps then it's over carrying (like your last post, fouling while being allowed advantage) so the common approach would be to play the ball and if there is no advantage the referee
should bring it back to the original spot lol!!!
For me I'll more or less only play the advantage rule once over the half way line, if a defender is getting fouled coming out of corner back then the best advantage is to blow and allow the defenders to clear their lines?
Don't bust my balls when I'm do your way this summer :P
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 04, 2013, 12:23:08 PM
Quote from: johnneycool on December 04, 2013, 12:14:53 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 04, 2013, 12:09:02 PM
That question was brought up, if he fouls the ball while you give him advantage then its a foul the other way, the player must not foul the ball.
If I've been fouled, does the ref shout 'advantage' or whatever or how would I know? I may want to take the free as I'm shite at scoring and our free taker is deadly accurate. Can I let the referee know this?
In rugby if there's an advantage being played and I want to take the penalty, the scrum half or whoever would deliberately foul the ball and the penalty would be awarded, I presume there's no mechanism for this, is there?
Again this was brought up and it's a bit of a grey area, you can't just say I'll take the free as the referee just needs to raise his arm to show he's playing advantage he doesn't need to say (shout it) it though Pat thought that it would be better if you did. If you stop and have the ball in hand longer than the 4 steps then it's over carrying (like your last post, fouling while being allowed advantage) so the common approach would be to play the ball and if there is no advantage the referee should bring it back to the original spot lol!!!
For me I'll more or less only play the advantage rule once over the half way line, if a defender is getting fouled coming out of corner back then the best advantage is to blow and allow the defenders to clear their lines?
Don't bust my balls when I'm do your way this summer :P
i would have thought the only time it is ever an advantage to wave play on is when the player is through on goal, or broken away from the defender altogether.
if he is still being tackled it is NEVER an advantage to be waved on as it would always be easier to have the free and kick the score under no pressure than try and continue while still being tackled or allowing another defender to come across
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on December 04, 2013, 12:37:03 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 04, 2013, 12:23:08 PM
Quote from: johnneycool on December 04, 2013, 12:14:53 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 04, 2013, 12:09:02 PM
That question was brought up, if he fouls the ball while you give him advantage then its a foul the other way, the player must not foul the ball.
If I've been fouled, does the ref shout 'advantage' or whatever or how would I know? I may want to take the free as I'm shite at scoring and our free taker is deadly accurate. Can I let the referee know this?
In rugby if there's an advantage being played and I want to take the penalty, the scrum half or whoever would deliberately foul the ball and the penalty would be awarded, I presume there's no mechanism for this, is there?
Again this was brought up and it's a bit of a grey area, you can't just say I'll take the free as the referee just needs to raise his arm to show he's playing advantage he doesn't need to say (shout it) it though Pat thought that it would be better if you did. If you stop and have the ball in hand longer than the 4 steps then it's over carrying (like your last post, fouling while being allowed advantage) so the common approach would be to play the ball and if there is no advantage the referee should bring it back to the original spot lol!!!
For me I'll more or less only play the advantage rule once over the half way line, if a defender is getting fouled coming out of corner back then the best advantage is to blow and allow the defenders to clear their lines?
Don't bust my balls when I'm do your way this summer :P
i would have thought the only time it is ever an advantage to wave play on is when the player is through on goal, or broken away from the defender altogether.
if he is still being tackled it is NEVER an advantage to be waved on as it would always be easier to have the free and kick the score under no pressure than try and continue while still being tackled or allowing another defender to come across
There is no advantage rule for one part of teh pitch, the original rule was to allow for a free flowing game and to put an end to the stop start nature of the game, if a defender breaks a tackle coming (while giving an advantage) out of defence and plays a ball to a forward that has moved early into a open space then the advantage rule is better because giving a foul will allow defenders to get tighter to their men when waiting on the free/kick to be taken. The referee will judge this I'm sure
Quote from: johnneycool on December 04, 2013, 12:14:53 PM
If I've been fouled, does the ref shout 'advantage' or whatever or how would I know? I may want to take the free as I'm shite at scoring and our free taker is deadly accurate. Can I let the referee know this?
In rugby if there's an advantage being played and I want to take the penalty, the scrum half or whoever would deliberately foul the ball and the penalty would be awarded, I presume there's no mechanism for this, is there?
An interesting one will be if you're fouled close to goal, the ref signals advantage and you shoot within the 5 seconds.
If the ball goes wide does the ref say, tough luck, you used your advantage and messed it up?
Or will it be like rugby, you got your shot off while advantage was being played so if its a miss, the ball is brought back and free awarded.
Surely it's brought back for the foul, isn't that the difference between the new rule and the old one? Before you couldn't give the free once you had given advantage, now you can within the 5 second period.
Quote from: Hound on December 04, 2013, 01:14:47 PM
Quote from: johnneycool on December 04, 2013, 12:14:53 PM
If I've been fouled, does the ref shout 'advantage' or whatever or how would I know? I may want to take the free as I'm shite at scoring and our free taker is deadly accurate. Can I let the referee know this?
In rugby if there's an advantage being played and I want to take the penalty, the scrum half or whoever would deliberately foul the ball and the penalty would be awarded, I presume there's no mechanism for this, is there?
An interesting one will be if you're fouled close to goal, the ref signals advantage and you shoot within the 5 seconds.
If the ball goes wide does the ref say, tough luck, you used your advantage and messed it up?
Or will it be like rugby, you got your shot off while advantage was being played so if its a miss, the ball is brought back and free awarded.
There is no adavantage, so bring it back
"Hurling Man"(real) fights back :D
Tony Considine has rubbished GAA President Liam O'Neill's suggestion that the black card should be introduced to hurling.
Writing in his column in today's Irish Examiner, former Clare manager Considine reacts angrily to O'Neill saying he would have no fear of the black card - which is aimed at reducing cynical fouling in gaelic football - being brought in to the small ball code.
"What is going on in Liam O'Neill's head," asks Considine. "He now wants to see the black card introduced to hurling - what next, blue cards, green cards? Any one of these days I expect the GAA to run out of colours. 'Twouldn't do to be colour-blind anyway would it, for either a referee or a player?
"It's becoming farcical, completely and utterly farcical. All the genuine issues in the GAA and we're down to this. I've said this before and I'll say it again, if the GAA wants to introduce something between a yellow and a red card then let them go back to the sin-bin.'
He continues: "I thought this was already decided, that it wasn't to be applied to hurling. We keep hearing Liam O'Neill is a hurling man, from a hurling club in Laois, grew up as a Kilkenny hurling supporter - if he's from such a small club, surely he should know better than anyone the effect this could have?
"If you want to get your discipline right on the field, look at rugby. There you have the sin-bin, no nonsense. A player is off the field for 10 minutes, no replacement; his team is put under additional pressure for that 10 minutes and even when he comes back on, they can still be under pressure, fellas having put in a lot more effort in that 10 minutes than they'd otherwise have done." -
Quote from: Rossfan on December 04, 2013, 02:45:17 PM
"Hurling Man"(real) fights back :D
Tony Considine has rubbished GAA President Liam O'Neill's suggestion that the black card should be introduced to hurling.
Writing in his column in today's Irish Examiner, former Clare manager Considine reacts angrily to O'Neill saying he would have no fear of the black card - which is aimed at reducing cynical fouling in gaelic football - being brought in to the small ball code.
"What is going on in Liam O'Neill's head," asks Considine. "He now wants to see the black card introduced to hurling - what next, blue cards, green cards? Any one of these days I expect the GAA to run out of colours. 'Twouldn't do to be colour-blind anyway would it, for either a referee or a player?
"It's becoming farcical, completely and utterly farcical. All the genuine issues in the GAA and we're down to this. I've said this before and I'll say it again, if the GAA wants to introduce something between a yellow and a red card then let them go back to the sin-bin.'
He continues: "I thought this was already decided, that it wasn't to be applied to hurling. We keep hearing Liam O'Neill is a hurling man, from a hurling club in Laois, grew up as a Kilkenny hurling supporter - if he's from such a small club, surely he should know better than anyone the effect this could have?
"If you want to get your discipline right on the field, look at rugby. There you have the sin-bin, no nonsense. A player is off the field for 10 minutes, no replacement; his team is put under additional pressure for that 10 minutes and even when he comes back on, they can still be under pressure, fellas having put in a lot more effort in that 10 minutes than they'd otherwise have done." -
If you actually read what Considine says in the original article then he's a very valid point, this black card is a pussy foot around the last failed introduction of the sin bin which is still the most obvious solution to the problem in hand. At no point does he mention that hurling doesn't have its own problems and the 'hurling man' and first few lines don't reflect the actual points he finally makes.
The black card will cause problems for teams struggling with numbers in either code irrespective if its introduced in hurling, something already highlighted on this thread.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 04, 2013, 11:44:38 AM
Contrast the series of unpunished assaults on Anthony Nash when he came up field to take a free v Clare to how footballers let opposing goalies up field ( as they should of course) to take 45s etc. If the footballers did interfere with the goalie they'd be yellow carded on the spot.
Then we had Davy complaining that people were complaining about the assaults on Nash ::)
And of course Squirrel praising Joe Canning for scoring a fantastic goal one time and saying that anyone complaining about him carrying the ball for 15 steps was only being "picky".
It is the referees call on the steps, if he feels (as it is in football) that he's being fouled as he's running in (as it is most occasions) he'll give him an extra few, now we can play advantage or pull it back to the original foul. You are talking about highly charged games a bitta common sense sometimes is the best thing.
If a lines man sees a player being struck (as in Nash) off the ball he'll inform the referee and if the referee sees it he'll book him also. [/quote]
As far as I recall the Canning overcarrying was where he ran very fast building up a head of steam and wasn't tackled as no one got near him.
The linesman and the Ref must have been the only three people in Croke Park that day who didn't see Nash being assaulted. 8)
Quote from: Rossfan on December 04, 2013, 03:25:33 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 04, 2013, 11:44:38 AM
Contrast the series of unpunished assaults on Anthony Nash when he came up field to take a free v Clare to how footballers let opposing goalies up field ( as they should of course) to take 45s etc. If the footballers did interfere with the goalie they'd be yellow carded on the spot.
Then we had Davy complaining that people were complaining about the assaults on Nash ::)
And of course Squirrel praising Joe Canning for scoring a fantastic goal one time and saying that anyone complaining about him carrying the ball for 15 steps was only being "picky".
It is the referees call on the steps, if he feels (as it is in football) that he's being fouled as he's running in (as it is most occasions) he'll give him an extra few, now we can play advantage or pull it back to the original foul. You are talking about highly charged games a bitta common sense sometimes is the best thing.
If a lines man sees a player being struck (as in Nash) off the ball he'll inform the referee and if the referee sees it he'll book him also.
As far as I recall the Canning overcarrying was where he ran very fast building up a head of steam and wasn't tackled as no one got near him.
The linesman and the Ref must have been the only three people in Croke Park that day who didn't see Nash being assaulted. 8)
[/quote]
It happens, sure Tommy Walsh assaulted a referee and he never seen it ;D ;D
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 04, 2013, 03:31:15 PM
It happens, sure Tommy Walsh assaulted a referee and he never seen it ;D ;D
:-X :-X
Probably the ref's fault , sure maybe he wasn't from a proper hurling County ;D
Quote from: Rossfan on December 04, 2013, 04:26:47 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 04, 2013, 03:31:15 PM
It happens, sure Tommy Walsh assaulted a referee and he never seen it ;D ;D
:-X :-X
Probably the ref's fault , sure maybe he wasn't from a proper hurling County ;D
Was poor positioning (never try and stop a handbag session) by Gavin I thought at the time, so yeah I'd say your right on the first point, but Gavin is from Offaly so not on second part
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTo0vvt1Ims
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 04, 2013, 04:34:13 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on December 04, 2013, 04:26:47 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 04, 2013, 03:31:15 PM
It happens, sure Tommy Walsh assaulted a referee and he never seen it ;D ;D
:-X :-X
Probably the ref's fault , sure maybe he wasn't from a proper hurling County ;D
Was poor positioning (never try and stop a handbag session) by Gavin I thought at the time, so yeah I'd say your right on the first point, but Gavin is from Offaly so not on second part
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTo0vvt1Ims
Ahhh come on Milltown - sure Offaly isn't a proper hurling County at all at all. Anyone I ever met from Tipp, Limerick, Cork etc etc have total disdain for Offaly.
One Tipp lad told me that they never won a proper All Ireland " Sure they bet no wan - never bet Cork or Tipp in a final". Seems that lad didn't rate the Cats as a hurling county either. ::)
They gave Limerick a beating at Croke one year. ;)
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 04, 2013, 05:51:42 PM
They gave Limerick a beating at Croke one year. ;)
Ah sure Limerick downed the tools too early and gave it to them...
Less than 3 hours til the black card. Big advantage for our lads shsssh
Quote from: highorlow on December 31, 2013, 09:19:32 PM
Less than 3 hours til the black card. Big advantage for our lads shsssh
Yer a biteen late:
http://www.irishnews.com%2Fgaa%2Fdonie-s-black-card-takes-the-shine-off-donegal-win-1313367196
N.B. Some hopped up buckeen praising Donie for getting us back into the match one second and calling him 'languid' the next. Haters.
My prediction for the year. We will see an explosion in the running game in 2014 with more hand passing than ever and even less kicking. Retreating full forward lines and packed defences will be even more evident as running with the ball becomes an even more viable tactic. Teams to pack their defences rather than tackle in their own half in fear of exposing a player to making a black card offence. Plenty of running from deep as we can't stop the player running off the ball and sideways handpassing along the 45 yard line as they meet the packed defences. Club players to get even more disillusioned as refs hand out black cards for everything. It's going to be an interesting year of arguments, chess matches, baffling decisions and plenty of work for the DRA - I can hardly wait. :D
Armagh manager Paul Grimley feels supporters will become "completely disillusioned" by the black card.
The Armagh boss said the decision to introduce the black card was a poor judgement on everyone's behalf following their Dr McKenna Cup win against Queen's.
He believes the black card is present in football because of a media-driven campaign.
Grimley told RTÉ: "The rule change was uncalled for because it was a disproportionate response to the amount of cynical tackling being done. It was driven by punditry and in the media I feel.
"If you look at the highlights of last year, there was maybe four or five challenges that were regarded as outright cynical. If that is why the rule was changed I think it is a fairly poor judgement on everybody's behalf.
"There was nobody that turned around and highlighted the four or five great tackles that might have been made to run parallel with that.
"I feel supporters in general will become completely disillusioned and a wee bit frustrated whenever they see some of the players getting the black card for whatever reason."
Over a dozen black cards were handed out over the 20 games during the weekend in what was the first time it was available to referees.
Grimley is convinced the black card is an unnecessary step.
"You can't blame the referees," he said.
"They are doing their best obviously. The rules are there. There was definitely no call of the rule change for the black card.
"I think it absolutely makes a cod of our game. People are on about cynical play. For the five or six instances there was, did it require a rule change? The answer is no in my mind anyway."
That didn't take long.
Having seen Armagh up close in the League last year I can see why Grim Grimley is agin them. Armagh will suffer most than most and this is to be welcomed.
One foul now and you're sent off. Is it the only sport in the world where this happens ?
They've used the 14 pound sledge to crack the nut again.
Quote from: Shamrock Shore on January 06, 2014, 10:34:40 AM
Having seen Armagh up close in the League last year I can see why Grim Grimley is agin them. Armagh will suffer most than most and this is to be welcomed.
While I agree with the black card rule and hope it works out, Armagh had a player black carded incorrectly yesterday and I suppose that this is the background to this.
How in under of Jaysus will Armagh suffer more than most under this rule? I know you will refer back to Brendan Donaghy's trip in our league game against ye in the league last year but this is a sweeping generalistaion if ever there was one. Armagh shipped a lot of heavy scores last year with a defence as open as anybody's in the country. Grimley is trying to make Armagh more attack minded (how well this has worked is subject to debate) but if you're going to spout crap on the board at least get your facts right!
The focus will be more and more on the poor referee who has a baying crowd shouting and roaring and encouraging for the ref to send players off and who has only a split second to decide whether or not a deliberate foul had taken place.
It was bad enough yesterday in smaller crowds, what is it going to be like for a ref with 30,000 spectators or even more roaring at him ?.
The principle of removing cynical fouls is grand - but the black card is an over reaction especially when refs on a few occasions yesterday actually black carded the wrong man.
Also, Paul, it's absolute horseshite to say there were 4 or 5 tackles which were cynical last year. I think I 'scouted' the Kerry Cavan quarter final and counted about 8 in that game alone. Cynical tackling does not simply mean dragging a lad down when he's through on goal. Dec O'Sullivan and Gooch carried out 2 of the most cynical fouls in that game, the fouls that stopped a counter attack at source.
Quote from: orangeman on January 06, 2014, 10:14:00 AM
Armagh manager Paul Grimley feels supporters will become "completely disillusioned" by the black card.
The "Nordie manager anti everything that might stop fouling campaign" in full swing.
Micky H must be taking a back seat this year.
Do these lads not realise that the point of sport is your supposed to play within the rules and suffer a punishment/sanction if you don't.
Quote from: Rossfan on January 06, 2014, 07:25:46 PM
Quote from: orangeman on January 06, 2014, 10:14:00 AM
Armagh manager Paul Grimley feels supporters will become "completely disillusioned" by the black card.
The "Nordie manager anti everything that might stop fouling campaign" in full swing.
Micky H must be taking a back seat this year.
Do these lads not realise that the point of sport is your supposed to play within the rules and suffer a punishment/sanction if you don't.
As a response to much of the sectarian mirth - black card to all- on here Armagh have played 5 games, including one extra time, under the new rules and have had three black cards. Only one was merited IMO. The problem most people have with the new cards is that we can not be sure they will be applied consistently. As much as the Sean Cavanagh tackle in the Monaghan game will be punished in all likelihood the Darren Hughes tackle in the same match for which he was given a yellow would have resulted in a black card. Which is the greater travesty.
I agree with the majority of posters that Armagh will probably suffer more than most with the black card rule. But why punish other counties as well? As one poster correctly pointed out if we make rules to deal with the Armagh and kerry.s of this world we are perhaps cracking a walnut with a hammer.
Rest up boys and keep yer powder dry until we see how it works out.
The Sean Cavanagh type tackle may be relatively rare in being the most blatant of the year but there are lots other less obvious fouls which still help to destroy good footballers. What will be necessary is that linesmen in particular will need to be much more proactive in bringing the refs attention to fouls taking place outside his line of vision. Many of these are the type which gets the player offended sent off for retaliation. Also it makes no sense to have a ref stop an attacking movement to administer a black card as happened in Saturdays Longford - Mayo Hastings Cup game. [Longford player seemed to have shouted something at the ref]. I think I also heard of a black card being issued for foot block which is completely outside the rules.
I am not sure whether the linesman can call a 'black card' yes they have been noted to call the referee afterwards and the referee has issued a yellow and a red based on what he has told them. As for the foot block he could have seen that as trying with intent to trip a player.
Interpretation, that's what us referees have to look for, think I'll mainly do hurling games this year lol
Quote from: nippycornerman on January 06, 2014, 11:17:05 PM
Rest up boys and keep yer powder dry until we see how it works out.
The Sean Cavanagh type tackle may be relatively rare in being the most blatant of the year but there are lots other less obvious fouls which still help to destroy good footballers. What will be necessary is that linesmen in particular will need to be much more proactive in bringing the refs attention to fouls taking place outside his line of vision. Many of these are the type which gets the player offended sent off for retaliation. Also it makes no sense to have a ref stop an attacking movement to administer a black card as happened in Saturdays Longford - Mayo Hastings Cup game. [Longford player seemed to have shouted something at the ref]. I think I also heard of a black card being issued for foot block which is completely outside the rules.
It was probably a cynical foot block.
Quote from: AFS on January 06, 2014, 07:17:00 PM
For the most part, Armagh have been painfully adherent to the rules this last couple of years. The defeat to Cavan last year is a case in point - there's no way Martin Dunne would've been free to hit 9000 points had our defenders been the big bold boys you paint them as. If anything, Armagh might stand to prosper from the new rules. In contrast to the team of the last decade, the current Armagh side is made up of relatively small, slight and inexperienced footballers. The type much more likely to be victims than perpetrators of cynical fouls. It might be interesting to keep a note of how many black cards Jamie Clarke elicits by the end of the year. If the type of tackling he's had to endure since emerging onto the scene persists, then he may well be responsible for more cards than some whole county sides put together.
I fully agree, rather than suffer more than most we may well benefit from the new rule more than most for the reasons you have listed. Any team that allowed Martin Dunne to score points from play ad nauseum and let Cian Mackey run fifty yards up the field untouched for a goal can not be accused of cynical play by any sane person. We were rightly accused of being naive in the extreme, the polar opposite of cynical.
SS, I wouldn't pass comment on Longford football based on one league match, probably best if you did the same for Armagh football.
Eoin Cadogan has articulated the big problem with this nonsense. He was on Radio One sports news this morning effectively calling the black card a diver's charter. I'm sure he's not the only defender looking forward with trepidation to being made a fool of by cheats and incompetent referees. Defending is increasingly seen as an evil in the game that must be stamped out so that the "attractive football" brigade can watch fancy forwards scoring without interference, with the help of the odd dive and roll when required to get rid of any defender pesky enough to try and do his job.
Quote from: Hardy on January 07, 2014, 11:55:55 AM
Eoin Cadogan has articulated the big problem with this nonsense. He was on Radio One sports news this morning effectively calling the black card a diver's charter. I'm sure he's not the only defender looking forward with trepidation to being made a fool of by cheats and incompetent referees. Defending is increasingly seen as an evil in the game that must be stamped out so that the "attractive football" brigade can watch fancy forwards scoring without interference, with the help of the odd dive and roll when required to get rid of any defender pesky enough to try and do his job.
exactly this
Quote from: Hardy on January 07, 2014, 11:55:55 AM
Eoin Cadogan has articulated the big problem with this nonsense. He was on Radio One sports news this morning effectively calling the black card a diver's charter. I'm sure he's not the only defender looking forward with trepidation to being made a fool of by cheats and incompetent referees. Defending is increasingly seen as an evil in the game that must be stamped out so that the "attractive football" brigade can watch fancy forwards scoring without interference, with the help of the odd dive and roll when required to get rid of any defender pesky enough to try and do his job.
For the amount of incompetent referees we have 3 to 4 times incompetent defending, a defender will also cheat just as much as a forward. If the players play within the rules we'd be grand. You can tackle the same as before as long as it's within the rules, difference being if you deliberately take a player down he'll be black carded and if the referee takes abuse from a player he'll black card him, I don't see the problem here.
Yes your and other supporters interpretation of the rules may differ (from referee) but here's a thought, get off your fat ass and take up the whistle ;)
I don't think it is the traditionally cynical teams that will suffer most. The players on these teams that have deliberately employed shirt pulls and off the ball tackles have also got good at them.
Firstly I would predict that these teams will still get away with a lot of cynical challenges because they have got skilled at carrying them out out of sight of the referee.
Secondly they will not seem to suffer significantly because these players have also a developed sense of exactly when is the most profitable time to do such an offence. Sean Cavanagh would still commit his tackle from last year because the cost/benefit analysis would say that it was a better outcome for his team. Remember Sean was only able to make that challenge and get away with a yellow because he had kept his nose clean for the rest of the game. He may be cynical but also sensible, he kept his cynicism for when it would have most benefit.
The worst affected teams will be the ones that do not practice cynicism as their bad tackles will be much more blatantly obvious to the referee, less skillfully concealed and probably done with little benefit to their teams overall attempt to finish victors
Quote from: PAULD123 on January 07, 2014, 12:03:40 PM
I don't think it is the traditionally cynical teams that will suffer most. The players on these teams that have deliberately employed shirt pulls and off the ball tackles have also got good at them.
Firstly I would predict that these teams will still get away with a lot of cynical challenges because they have got skilled at carrying them out out of sight of the referee.
Secondly they will not seem to suffer significantly because these players have also a developed sense of exactly when is the most profitable time to do such an offence. Sean Cavanagh would still commit his tackle from last year because the cost/benefit analysis would say that it was a better outcome for his team. Remember Sean was only able to make that challenge and get away with a yellow because he had kept his nose clean for the rest of the game. He may be cynical but also sensible, he kept his cynicism for when it would have most benefit.
The worst affected teams will be the ones that do not practice cynicism as their bad tackles will be much more blatantly obvious to the referee, less skillfully concealed and probably done with little benefit to their teams overall attempt to finish victors
Is testicle squeezing a black card offence? ;)
Quote from: johnneycool on January 07, 2014, 12:12:36 PM
Quote from: PAULD123 on January 07, 2014, 12:03:40 PM
I don't think it is the traditionally cynical teams that will suffer most. The players on these teams that have deliberately employed shirt pulls and off the ball tackles have also got good at them.
Firstly I would predict that these teams will still get away with a lot of cynical challenges because they have got skilled at carrying them out out of sight of the referee.
Secondly they will not seem to suffer significantly because these players have also a developed sense of exactly when is the most profitable time to do such an offence. Sean Cavanagh would still commit his tackle from last year because the cost/benefit analysis would say that it was a better outcome for his team. Remember Sean was only able to make that challenge and get away with a yellow because he had kept his nose clean for the rest of the game. He may be cynical but also sensible, he kept his cynicism for when it would have most benefit.
The worst affected teams will be the ones that do not practice cynicism as their bad tackles will be much more blatantly obvious to the referee, less skillfully concealed and probably done with little benefit to their teams overall attempt to finish victors
Is testicle squeezing a black card offence? ;)
Only if he means it and brings him down :P
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 07, 2014, 12:03:23 PM
Quote from: Hardy on January 07, 2014, 11:55:55 AM
Eoin Cadogan has articulated the big problem with this nonsense. He was on Radio One sports news this morning effectively calling the black card a diver's charter. I'm sure he's not the only defender looking forward with trepidation to being made a fool of by cheats and incompetent referees. Defending is increasingly seen as an evil in the game that must be stamped out so that the "attractive football" brigade can watch fancy forwards scoring without interference, with the help of the odd dive and roll when required to get rid of any defender pesky enough to try and do his job.
For the amount of incompetent referees we have 3 to 4 times incompetent defending, a defender will also cheat just as much as a forward. If the players play within the rules we'd be grand. You can tackle the same as before as long as it's within the rules, difference being if you deliberately take a player down he'll be black carded and if the referee takes abuse from a player he'll black card him, I don't see the problem here.
Yes your and other supporters interpretation of the rules may differ (from referee) but here's a thought, get off your fat ass and take up the whistle ;)
If i thought this was going to be the case, there wouldnt be a problem, but how often do referees even give frees for the holding the arm trick? Very rarely, yet it happens all the time (2-3 times a game i would say), The chances of referees showing black cards for it are very slim.
The same with diving and feigning injury. It generally goes unpunished, so the forward will see this as a risk worth taking if the chances of getting his man black carded are much much higher than him being the one punished.
Im not trying to say every defender is clean as a whistle,there will certainly be benefits too it where it will cut out the silly holding off the ball and the lazy tackling, however i dont think that it will stamp out cynicism at all. it will just make it easier for one group of players to carry it out than another group.
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on January 07, 2014, 12:16:17 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 07, 2014, 12:03:23 PM
Quote from: Hardy on January 07, 2014, 11:55:55 AM
Eoin Cadogan has articulated the big problem with this nonsense. He was on Radio One sports news this morning effectively calling the black card a diver's charter. I'm sure he's not the only defender looking forward with trepidation to being made a fool of by cheats and incompetent referees. Defending is increasingly seen as an evil in the game that must be stamped out so that the "attractive football" brigade can watch fancy forwards scoring without interference, with the help of the odd dive and roll when required to get rid of any defender pesky enough to try and do his job.
For the amount of incompetent referees we have 3 to 4 times incompetent defending, a defender will also cheat just as much as a forward. If the players play within the rules we'd be grand. You can tackle the same as before as long as it's within the rules, difference being if you deliberately take a player down he'll be black carded and if the referee takes abuse from a player he'll black card him, I don't see the problem here.
Yes your and other supporters interpretation of the rules may differ (from referee) but here's a thought, get off your fat ass and take up the whistle ;)
If i thought this was going to be the case, there wouldnt be a problem, but how often do referees even give frees for the holding the arm trick? Very rarely, yet it happens all the time (2-3 times a game i would say), The chances of referees showing black cards for it are very slim.
The same with diving and feigning injury. It generally goes unpunished, so the forward will see this as a risk worth taking if the chances of getting his man black carded are much much higher than him being the one punished.
Im not trying to say every defender is clean as a whistle,there will certainly be benefits too it where it will cut out the silly holding off the ball and the lazy tackling, however i dont think that it will stamp out cynicism at all. it will just make it easier for one group of players to carry it out than another group.
A referee can only call it if he sees it, it can't get any plainer than that surely?? If a player grabs a player as you described then he will get black card for pulling down a player. It's up to the referee to be in a position to see if a forward or defender is holding the arm and dragging the other player down. Diving and feigning injury isn't a big a problem, will not so much in club games.
So can an umpire or linesman bring a black card offence to the ref's attention or not ??
Quote from: orangeman on January 07, 2014, 12:44:37 PM
So can an umpire or linesman bring a black card offence to the ref's attention or not ??
They can for yellows and reds so I would imagine no problems with blacks.
I don't see how a player diving could get the tackler a black card.
Diving is more likely to yield a yellow card for the tackler I think.
The black card offences are quite specific.
I don't know how a player can fake being 'Cavanagh-ed'.
Kindly, it's not just the Cavanagh tackle though. If you are deemed to have dragged a player to the ground, you're gone. I was a forward, and I can definitely see how the old "hook the arm and pull him down on top of you" could easily be used to simulate a deliberate drag down.
Quote from: AZOffaly on January 07, 2014, 02:02:53 PM
Kindly, it's not just the Cavanagh tackle though. If you are deemed to have dragged a player to the ground, you're gone. I was a forward, and I can definitely see how the old "hook the arm and pull him down on top of you" could easily be used to simulate a deliberate drag down.
If they are both "hooked" in a lock and they go down the referee should let play develop and not blow a foul for either team? What ya think?
Should be a free out, but in most cases a free in is given, and therefore a black card now.
Also, players falling to the ground after deliberatley running into a defender off the ball (simulating a deliberate body collide) - this may only catch the peripheral view of the referee who may be looking elsewhere and he will need to decide quickly if he a black card should be issued. Next year we will have new rules to deal with the issues that arise from these new rules.
Quote from: BennyHarp on January 07, 2014, 02:26:43 PM
Also, players falling to the ground after deliberatley running into a defender off the ball (simulating a deliberate body collide) - this may only catch the peripheral view of the referee who may be looking elsewhere and he will need to decide quickly if he a black card should be issued. Next year we will have new rules to deal with the issues that arise from these new rules.
Again if he isn't sure he can't just give a black card on a whim ffs!! Don't see it then can't call it
I seen Murphy's goal yesterday and I must admit it was weird seeing him run at the Tyrone defence without a tackle coming in. Took the goal well but are defenders so inept now that they can't make a fair challenge?
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 07, 2014, 02:30:17 PM
Quote from: BennyHarp on January 07, 2014, 02:26:43 PM
Also, players falling to the ground after deliberatley running into a defender off the ball (simulating a deliberate body collide) - this may only catch the peripheral view of the referee who may be looking elsewhere and he will need to decide quickly if he a black card should be issued. Next year we will have new rules to deal with the issues that arise from these new rules.
Again if he isn't sure he can't just give a black card on a whim ffs!! Don't see it then can't call it
Its hardly a whim ffs!! He sees an incident with the corner of the eye - he blows the whistle. Now he has to make a big decision, in an instant he has to decide if the player ran into the defender or it was a deliberate body collide. I dont think thats an easy call to make. A yellow card would have been the easy option but now he must give black if he deemed it to be a foul. To me, this would be the easiest way for a cynical team to use the rule to their advantage.
Quote from: BennyHarp on January 07, 2014, 02:36:35 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 07, 2014, 02:30:17 PM
Quote from: BennyHarp on January 07, 2014, 02:26:43 PM
Also, players falling to the ground after deliberatley running into a defender off the ball (simulating a deliberate body collide) - this may only catch the peripheral view of the referee who may be looking elsewhere and he will need to decide quickly if he a black card should be issued. Next year we will have new rules to deal with the issues that arise from these new rules.
Again if he isn't sure he can't just give a black card on a whim ffs!! Don't see it then can't call it
Its hardly a whim ffs!! He sees an incident with the corner of the eye - he blows the whistle. Now he has to make a big decision, in an instant he has to decide if the player ran into the defender or it was a deliberate body collide. I dont think thats an easy call to make. A yellow card would have been the easy option but now he must give black if he deemed it to be a foul. To me, this would be the easiest way for a cynical team to use the rule to their advantage.
You said (in bold) MAY he also may not see it, if he blows his whistle then he has seen it and its a call for either someone to be carded for running into someone on purpose or a card for blocking someone
Quote from: AZOffaly on January 07, 2014, 02:02:53 PM
Kindly, it's not just the Cavanagh tackle though. If you are deemed to have dragged a player to the ground, you're gone. I was a forward, and I can definitely see how the old "hook the arm and pull him down on top of you" could easily be used to simulate a deliberate drag down.
Refs have copped on to that in recent years.
If it was that easy to win a free by hooking the defenders arm and falling over we'd be seeing it non-stop already in games.
Seriously lads, relax with the hypothetical scenarios and just see how it plays out over the next while.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 07, 2014, 02:33:34 PM
I seen Murphy's goal yesterday and I must admit it was weird seeing him run at the Tyrone defence without a tackle coming in. Took the goal well but are defenders so inept now that they can't make a fair challenge?
true about the tyrone defending, but the amount of steps he was allowed to take was ridiculous
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 07, 2014, 12:25:38 PM
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on January 07, 2014, 12:16:17 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 07, 2014, 12:03:23 PM
Quote from: Hardy on January 07, 2014, 11:55:55 AM
Eoin Cadogan has articulated the big problem with this nonsense. He was on Radio One sports news this morning effectively calling the black card a diver's charter. I'm sure he's not the only defender looking forward with trepidation to being made a fool of by cheats and incompetent referees. Defending is increasingly seen as an evil in the game that must be stamped out so that the "attractive football" brigade can watch fancy forwards scoring without interference, with the help of the odd dive and roll when required to get rid of any defender pesky enough to try and do his job.
For the amount of incompetent referees we have 3 to 4 times incompetent defending, a defender will also cheat just as much as a forward. If the players play within the rules we'd be grand. You can tackle the same as before as long as it's within the rules, difference being if you deliberately take a player down he'll be black carded and if the referee takes abuse from a player he'll black card him, I don't see the problem here.
Yes your and other supporters interpretation of the rules may differ (from referee) but here's a thought, get off your fat ass and take up the whistle ;)
If i thought this was going to be the case, there wouldnt be a problem, but how often do referees even give frees for the holding the arm trick? Very rarely, yet it happens all the time (2-3 times a game i would say), The chances of referees showing black cards for it are very slim.
The same with diving and feigning injury. It generally goes unpunished, so the forward will see this as a risk worth taking if the chances of getting his man black carded are much much higher than him being the one punished.
Im not trying to say every defender is clean as a whistle,there will certainly be benefits too it where it will cut out the silly holding off the ball and the lazy tackling, however i dont think that it will stamp out cynicism at all. it will just make it easier for one group of players to carry it out than another group.
A referee can only call it if he sees it, it can't get any plainer than that surely?? If a player grabs a player as you described then he will get black card for pulling down a player. It's up to the referee to be in a position to see if a forward or defender is holding the arm and dragging the other player down. Diving and feigning injury isn't a big a problem, will not so much in club games.
i would say its far more prevalent than the 'cavanagh type tackle' that these rules where brought in to counter
Quote from: the_daddy on January 07, 2014, 02:23:40 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on January 07, 2014, 02:22:27 PM
Should be a free out, but in most cases a free in is given, and therefore a black card now.
The forward is taking a greater chance now because if you're caught at it then it's also a black card offence
Benny Coulter will be in trouble then. If he concentrated on playing football instead of trying to fool the referee into giving him frees then he would score a lot more points. In one game last year he committed five offences against a defender by trying to pull him down to make it look like Benny had been fouled. At least three of them came when balls had been played in which Benny could actually easily have taken and passed to a supporting player to score.
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on January 07, 2014, 02:57:57 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 07, 2014, 12:25:38 PM
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on January 07, 2014, 12:16:17 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 07, 2014, 12:03:23 PM
Quote from: Hardy on January 07, 2014, 11:55:55 AM
Eoin Cadogan has articulated the big problem with this nonsense. He was on Radio One sports news this morning effectively calling the black card a diver's charter. I'm sure he's not the only defender looking forward with trepidation to being made a fool of by cheats and incompetent referees. Defending is increasingly seen as an evil in the game that must be stamped out so that the "attractive football" brigade can watch fancy forwards scoring without interference, with the help of the odd dive and roll when required to get rid of any defender pesky enough to try and do his job.
For the amount of incompetent referees we have 3 to 4 times incompetent defending, a defender will also cheat just as much as a forward. If the players play within the rules we'd be grand. You can tackle the same as before as long as it's within the rules, difference being if you deliberately take a player down he'll be black carded and if the referee takes abuse from a player he'll black card him, I don't see the problem here.
Yes your and other supporters interpretation of the rules may differ (from referee) but here's a thought, get off your fat ass and take up the whistle ;)
If i thought this was going to be the case, there wouldnt be a problem, but how often do referees even give frees for the holding the arm trick? Very rarely, yet it happens all the time (2-3 times a game i would say), The chances of referees showing black cards for it are very slim.
The same with diving and feigning injury. It generally goes unpunished, so the forward will see this as a risk worth taking if the chances of getting his man black carded are much much higher than him being the one punished.
Im not trying to say every defender is clean as a whistle,there will certainly be benefits too it where it will cut out the silly holding off the ball and the lazy tackling, however i dont think that it will stamp out cynicism at all. it will just make it easier for one group of players to carry it out than another group.
A referee can only call it if he sees it, it can't get any plainer than that surely?? If a player grabs a player as you described then he will get black card for pulling down a player. It's up to the referee to be in a position to see if a forward or defender is holding the arm and dragging the other player down. Diving and feigning injury isn't a big a problem, will not so much in club games.
i would say its far more prevalent than the 'cavanagh type tackle' that these rules where brought in to counter
I refereed 30 odd games last year, I seen one person feigning an injury and because he held on to the ball too long I blew him up for over carrying, he bounced up from the ground to give off (injury gone) and I gave him the yellow card. Never seen anyone dive though. But I was mainly doing hurling matches so maybe that should tell ya something.........
Quote from: Jinxy on January 07, 2014, 02:48:06 PM
Seriously lads, relax with the hypothetical scenarios and just see how it plays out over the next while.
Ahh Jasus Jinx that kind of sensible talk is not on here ;D
Don't ya know anything new has to be dooooom,glooooom and the end of civilisation " as we know it".
Whats everyones thoughts on the new gumsheild rule?
I personally think it is a bit unnecessary to make them compulsory.
There arnt that many dental injuries in gaelic football are there?
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on January 07, 2014, 04:25:41 PM
Whats everyones thoughts on the new gumsheild rule?
I personally think it is a bit unnecessary to make them compulsory.
There arnt that many dental injuries in gaelic football are there?
There is in Armagh :P
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on January 07, 2014, 04:25:41 PM
Whats everyones thoughts on the new gumsheild rule?
I personally think it is a bit unnecessary to make them compulsory.
There arnt that many dental injuries in gaelic football are there?
Have always worn one playing matches since I saw the damage a mistimed shoulder to the face resulted in. Never for training, yet.
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on January 07, 2014, 04:25:41 PM
Whats everyones thoughts on the new gumsheild rule?
I personally think it is a bit unnecessary to make them compulsory.
There arnt that many dental injuries in gaelic football are there?
Go to Flannery's and Coppers and you would change your tune.
In fact they should be compulsory in Coppers as well.
Quote from: Croí na hÉireann on January 07, 2014, 05:04:56 PM
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on January 07, 2014, 04:25:41 PM
Whats everyones thoughts on the new gumsheild rule?
I personally think it is a bit unnecessary to make them compulsory.
There arnt that many dental injuries in gaelic football are there?
Have always worn one playing matches since I saw the damage a mistimed shoulder to the face resulted in. Never for training, yet.
Why not for training?
The same risks apply.
Quote from: Stall the Bailer on January 09, 2014, 11:38:53 AM
Quote from: Croí na hÉireann on January 07, 2014, 05:04:56 PM
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on January 07, 2014, 04:25:41 PM
Whats everyones thoughts on the new gumsheild rule?
I personally think it is a bit unnecessary to make them compulsory.
There arnt that many dental injuries in gaelic football are there?
Have always worn one playing matches since I saw the damage a mistimed shoulder to the face resulted in. Never for training, yet.
Why not for training?
The same risks apply.
Same as helmets in hurling, club players not covered if they are injured in training without gumshields on (injury in mouth)
Quote from: Stall the Bailer on January 09, 2014, 11:38:53 AM
Quote from: Croí na hÉireann on January 07, 2014, 05:04:56 PM
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on January 07, 2014, 04:25:41 PM
Whats everyones thoughts on the new gumsheild rule?
I personally think it is a bit unnecessary to make them compulsory.
There arnt that many dental injuries in gaelic football are there?
Have always worn one playing matches since I saw the damage a mistimed shoulder to the face resulted in. Never for training, yet.
Why not for training?
The same risks apply.
Same risks would only apply if all training was contact based, i.e. not needed for shuttle runs, ball skills, etc.
Quote from: Croí na hÉireann on January 10, 2014, 11:59:06 AM
Quote from: Stall the Bailer on January 09, 2014, 11:38:53 AM
Quote from: Croí na hÉireann on January 07, 2014, 05:04:56 PM
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on January 07, 2014, 04:25:41 PM
Whats everyones thoughts on the new gumsheild rule?
I personally think it is a bit unnecessary to make them compulsory.
There arnt that many dental injuries in gaelic football are there?
Have always worn one playing matches since I saw the damage a mistimed shoulder to the face resulted in. Never for training, yet.
Why not for training?
The same risks apply.
Same risks would only apply if all training was contact based, i.e. not needed for shuttle runs, ball skills, etc.
That is ok if it is a complete session of running.
However, I would think that there would be contact for some part of the training session, so do take it out and put in each time?
Also if you are going to sprint with it in during matches, you should replicate this in training so that you are used to having it in.
It is also a good habit to wear everytime you tog out so that you never forget to wear it.
Started wearing a gumshield when I was 14, ah the abuse I was use to get, good times.
That's the rugby in you. You probably wore a scrum cap as well....
I'm finding it hard to get our young lads (u8s and down) to wear gumshields for football drills and games because they are used to helmets for hurling, and when the helmets come off, a lot of them forget about the gumshields.
I also think that gumshields are a help in concussions, especially where there's a collison with the jaw, because the gumshields tend to buffer the 'shock' of the impact. Is there any truth to that?
I wish I wore gumshields. I broke the same tooth in the front of my mouth 3 times from U14 through to minor. Each time I had it capped and then the cap was broken. In the end I just gave up and I still have a broken tooth :)
I see in today's Irish news Aiden o'Rourke reckons the a Dubs have found a loophole in the black card rule - the bear hug! As long as the player doesn't go to ground it's not a black card apparently!
sure it be covered the same as a body check will it not?
Quote from: Wildweasel74 on January 10, 2014, 08:04:18 PM
sure it be covered the same as a body check will it not?
Yeah, he is effectively obstructing a player which is the same thing as a body check, not that I'll be refereeing the Dubs but if I see it this year I'll be handing out a black card
I think that would be incorrect. Grabbing a lad in a bear hug is not the body check foul.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 11, 2014, 01:22:06 PM
Quote from: Wildweasel74 on January 10, 2014, 08:04:18 PM
sure it be covered the same as a body check will it not?
Yeah, he is effectively obstructing a player which is the same thing as a body check, not that I'll be refereeing the Dubs but if I see it this year I'll be handing out a black card
On the plus side celebrations will be more muted and traditional.
Here we go - people, including referees, making up their own interpretations of the new rules already. A bear hug is now apparently the same thing as to "deliberately body collide with an opponent after he has played the ball away or for the purpose of taking him out of a movement of play".
Would we not think if the FRC and Congress wanted to include a bear hug, obstruction or making faces at a passing player as offences they would have specifically mentioned them, given the detail they've included in the definitions for the actual rules they intended to frame?
Quote from: AZOffaly on January 11, 2014, 08:43:42 PM
I think that would be incorrect. Grabbing a lad in a bear hug is not the body check foul.
Given that the description of this specific type of foul uses the word 'collide' then I think it's open to interpretation by the ref.
One could easily argue that a bear hug comfortably fits the definition of the word 'collision' and if it is executed in such a way as to impede a man when he doesn't have the ball (but is moving forward in anticipation of receiving a pass), then I don't really see where the conflict is.
Quote from: Jinxy on January 12, 2014, 04:50:56 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on January 11, 2014, 08:43:42 PM
I think that would be incorrect. Grabbing a lad in a bear hug is not the body check foul.
Given that the description of this specific type of foul uses the word 'collide' then I think it's open to interpretation by the ref.
One could easily argue that a bear hug comfortably fits the definition of the word 'collision' and if it is executed in such a way as to impede a man when he doesn't have the ball (but is moving forward in anticipation of receiving a pass), then I don't really see where the conflict is.
Hardy would prefer to have teams bear hugging people now rather use a bit of common sense ffs, I seriously wonder about people
Kildare unveil their latest import.
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01004/polar-bear-ball_1004498i.jpg)
As to where they recruited him from, an unnamed squad member revealed, "He's from somewhere up North, I think."
In other news, a number of children and family pets are reported missing in the Straffan area.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 12, 2014, 04:54:47 PM
Quote from: Jinxy on January 12, 2014, 04:50:56 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on January 11, 2014, 08:43:42 PM
I think that would be incorrect. Grabbing a lad in a bear hug is not the body check foul.
Given that the description of this specific type of foul uses the word 'collide' then I think it's open to interpretation by the ref.
One could easily argue that a bear hug comfortably fits the definition of the word 'collision' and if it is executed in such a way as to impede a man when he doesn't have the ball (but is moving forward in anticipation of receiving a pass), then I don't really see where the conflict is.
Hardy would prefer to have teams bear hugging people now rather use a bit of common sense ffs, I seriously wonder about people
Meath's plan for an AI foiled.
Not many rugby moves left for them to try.
Quote from: Jinxy on January 12, 2014, 05:03:37 PM
Kildare unveil their latest import.
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01004/polar-bear-ball_1004498i.jpg)
As to where they recruited him from, an unnamed squad member revealed, "He's from somewhere up North, I think."
In other news, a number of children and family pets are reported missing in the Straffan area.
Great to see big Willie Heff back on the panel.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 12, 2014, 04:54:47 PM
Quote from: Jinxy on January 12, 2014, 04:50:56 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on January 11, 2014, 08:43:42 PM
I think that would be incorrect. Grabbing a lad in a bear hug is not the body check foul.
Given that the description of this specific type of foul uses the word 'collide' then I think it's open to interpretation by the ref.
One could easily argue that a bear hug comfortably fits the definition of the word 'collision' and if it is executed in such a way as to impede a man when he doesn't have the ball (but is moving forward in anticipation of receiving a pass), then I don't really see where the conflict is.
Hardy would prefer to have teams bear hugging people now rather use a bit of common sense ffs, I seriously wonder about people
You do seem have your problems interpreting the English language, MR2. First a bear hug is a deliberate collision. Then a statement that it's not is the expression of a wish "to have teams bear hugging people". It's not really fair to make things up that I didn't say so that you can ridicule them.
When I see "common sense" invoked as a substitute for application of the rules I despair. Why do we bother framing rules using precise language when referees claim the right to overrule them with the application of their own rules, in the guise of "common sense"? Who writes the rules of common sense
? And are they further overruled by some other version of sense?
Quote from: Hardy on January 12, 2014, 06:56:22 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 12, 2014, 04:54:47 PM
Quote from: Jinxy on January 12, 2014, 04:50:56 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on January 11, 2014, 08:43:42 PM
I think that would be incorrect. Grabbing a lad in a bear hug is not the body check foul.
Given that the description of this specific type of foul uses the word 'collide' then I think it's open to interpretation by the ref.
One could easily argue that a bear hug comfortably fits the definition of the word 'collision' and if it is executed in such a way as to impede a man when he doesn't have the ball (but is moving forward in anticipation of receiving a pass), then I don't really see where the conflict is.
Hardy would prefer to have teams bear hugging people now rather use a bit of common sense ffs, I seriously wonder about people
You do seem have your problems interpreting the English language, MR2. First a bear hug is a deliberate collision. Then a statement that it's not is the expression of a wish "to have teams bear hugging people". It's not really fair to make things up that I didn't say so that you can ridicule them.
When I see "common sense" invoked as a substitute for application of the rules I despair. Why do we bother framing rules using precise language when referees claim the right to overrule them with the application of their own rules, in the guise of "common sense"? Who writes the rules of common sense? And are they further overruled by some other version of sense?
You are a moan and whinge bag, is that plain enough to understand?
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQuihLb6nCNge6NV4UPjn2acj4NmK6tCXEe9ieAHjMufFvOKO6r7A)
The rules where brought in to stop cynicism in the game and to stop referees being abused. The black card will take a bit of time to settle down and the players will have to adapt, it's in the rules now so we, supporters/players/managers and referees.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 12, 2014, 07:15:21 PM
Quote from: Hardy on January 12, 2014, 06:56:22 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 12, 2014, 04:54:47 PM
Quote from: Jinxy on January 12, 2014, 04:50:56 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on January 11, 2014, 08:43:42 PM
I think that would be incorrect. Grabbing a lad in a bear hug is not the body check foul.
Given that the description of this specific type of foul uses the word 'collide' then I think it's open to interpretation by the ref.
One could easily argue that a bear hug comfortably fits the definition of the word 'collision' and if it is executed in such a way as to impede a man when he doesn't have the ball (but is moving forward in anticipation of receiving a pass), then I don't really see where the conflict is.
Hardy would prefer to have teams bear hugging people now rather use a bit of common sense ffs, I seriously wonder about people
You do seem have your problems interpreting the English language, MR2. First a bear hug is a deliberate collision. Then a statement that it's not is the expression of a wish "to have teams bear hugging people". It's not really fair to make things up that I didn't say so that you can ridicule them.
When I see "common sense" invoked as a substitute for application of the rules I despair. Why do we bother framing rules using precise language when referees claim the right to overrule them with the application of their own rules, in the guise of "common sense"? Who writes the rules of common sense? And are they further overruled by some other version of sense?
You are a moan and whinge bag, is that plain enough to understand?
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQuihLb6nCNge6NV4UPjn2acj4NmK6tCXEe9ieAHjMufFvOKO6r7A)
The rules where brought in to stop cynicism in the game and to stop referees being abused. The black card will take a bit of time to settle down and the players will have to adapt, it's in the rules now so we, supporters/players/managers and referees.
Just because it's now in the rules doesn't mean every person in the GAA has to agree that they are the correct way forward and just because you have reffed a few games doesn't make you the fountain of all knowledge on how this will pan out. The "bear hug" was plainly not dealt with during the game in question, now the rules may be adapted to incorporate this but surely you can see how certain scenarios may arise that may need a lot of thought and inconsistencies will arise which will annoy supporters/players/managers and refs. (eg. You would have shown a black card but the ref in that game didn't). One mans common sense is not necessarily that of another's and I too cringe when I hear that common sense will be applied to the rules.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 12, 2014, 07:15:21 PM
You are a moan and whinge bag, is that plain enough to understand?
Good man. That's helpful.
It does tend to reinforce my stereotype of referees but I'll try to overcome that.
Quote from: Hardy on January 12, 2014, 07:37:25 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 12, 2014, 07:15:21 PM
You are a moan and whinge bag, is that plain enough to understand?
Good man. That's helpful.
It does tend to reinforce my stereotype of referees but I'll try to overcome that.
Is it referees you don't like or the GAA?
Benny I've refereed 5 odd years so I've a good insight with refereeing thanks. I've managed all grades to so I can see it from all sides.
Why are there so many against the new rules?
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 12, 2014, 07:55:46 PM
Quote from: Hardy on January 12, 2014, 07:37:25 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 12, 2014, 07:15:21 PM
You are a moan and whinge bag, is that plain enough to understand?
Good man. That's helpful.
It does tend to reinforce my stereotype of referees but I'll try to overcome that.
Is it referees you don't like or the GAA?
Benny I've refereed 5 odd years so I've a good insight with refereeing thanks. I've managed all grades to so I can see it from all sides.
Why are there so many against the new rules?
And even with all that experience you still would call the bear hug differently from the ref in the Louth v Dublin game. I think the level of inconsistency is one of the big concerns.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 12, 2014, 07:55:46 PM
Quote from: Hardy on January 12, 2014, 07:37:25 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 12, 2014, 07:15:21 PM
You are a moan and whinge bag, is that plain enough to understand?
Good man. That's helpful.
It does tend to reinforce my stereotype of referees but I'll try to overcome that.
Is it referees you don't like or the GAA?
There you go again.
Quote from: BennyHarp on January 12, 2014, 08:25:49 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 12, 2014, 07:55:46 PM
Quote from: Hardy on January 12, 2014, 07:37:25 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 12, 2014, 07:15:21 PM
You are a moan and whinge bag, is that plain enough to understand?
Good man. That's helpful.
It does tend to reinforce my stereotype of referees but I'll try to overcome that.
Is it referees you don't like or the GAA?
Benny I've refereed 5 odd years so I've a good insight with refereeing thanks. I've managed all grades to so I can see it from all sides.
Why are there so many against the new rules?
And even with all that experience you still would call the bear hug differently from the ref in the Louth v Dublin game. I think the level of inconsistency is one of the big concerns.
Did the Bear hug in your view obstructed the player from moving?
Quote from: Hardy on January 12, 2014, 08:27:17 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 12, 2014, 07:55:46 PM
Quote from: Hardy on January 12, 2014, 07:37:25 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 12, 2014, 07:15:21 PM
You are a moan and whinge bag, is that plain enough to understand?
Good man. That's helpful.
It does tend to reinforce my stereotype of referees but I'll try to overcome that.
Is it referees you don't like or the GAA?
There you go again.
What's your stereotype referee ?
Quote from: BennyHarp on January 12, 2014, 08:25:49 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 12, 2014, 07:55:46 PM
Quote from: Hardy on January 12, 2014, 07:37:25 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 12, 2014, 07:15:21 PM
You are a moan and whinge bag, is that plain enough to understand?
Good man. That's helpful.
It does tend to reinforce my stereotype of referees but I'll try to overcome that.
Is it referees you don't like or the GAA?
Benny I've refereed 5 odd years so I've a good insight with refereeing thanks. I've managed all grades to so I can see it from all sides.
Why are there so many against the new rules?
And even with all that experience you still would call the bear hug differently from the ref in the Louth v Dublin game. I think the level of inconsistency is one of the big concerns.
Cynical Behaviour Fouls
1. Deliberately pull down an opponent.
2. Deliberately trip an opponent with the hand(s), arm, leg or foot.
3. Deliberately body collide with an opponent after he has played the ball away
or for the purpose of taking him out of a movement of play.This bit in bold would cover the bear hug in my opinion
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 12, 2014, 09:02:06 PM
Quote from: BennyHarp on January 12, 2014, 08:25:49 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 12, 2014, 07:55:46 PM
Quote from: Hardy on January 12, 2014, 07:37:25 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 12, 2014, 07:15:21 PM
You are a moan and whinge bag, is that plain enough to understand?
Good man. That's helpful.
It does tend to reinforce my stereotype of referees but I'll try to overcome that.
Is it referees you don't like or the GAA?
Benny I've refereed 5 odd years so I've a good insight with refereeing thanks. I've managed all grades to so I can see it from all sides.
Why are there so many against the new rules?
And even with all that experience you still would call the bear hug differently from the ref in the Louth v Dublin game. I think the level of inconsistency is one of the big concerns.
Did the Bear hug in your view obstructed the player from moving?
You don't seem to get the point - it wasn't the body check / deliberate collide rule that was in question. Paddy Keenan was in possession of the ball and was cynically being bear hugged, (I.e, held but not deliberately pulled down to the ground) when he won possession, therefore it was not deemed to be a black card offence. The level of confusion over one incident shows that you can't just call out 4 fouls and call them the only cynical fouls. Blindly following the FRC proposals without at least a National League trial was folly in my opinion. Maybe I'll be proved wrong, and I hope I am, but I am concerned that cynical play will just take another form and we will be back to square one only with a game that may have evolved even further into a short passing and packed defence running game.
Quote from: BennyHarp on January 12, 2014, 09:20:52 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 12, 2014, 09:02:06 PM
Quote from: BennyHarp on January 12, 2014, 08:25:49 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 12, 2014, 07:55:46 PM
Quote from: Hardy on January 12, 2014, 07:37:25 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 12, 2014, 07:15:21 PM
You are a moan and whinge bag, is that plain enough to understand?
Good man. That's helpful.
It does tend to reinforce my stereotype of referees but I'll try to overcome that.
Is it referees you don't like or the GAA?
Benny I've refereed 5 odd years so I've a good insight with refereeing thanks. I've managed all grades to so I can see it from all sides.
Why are there so many against the new rules?
And even with all that experience you still would call the bear hug differently from the ref in the Louth v Dublin game. I think the level of inconsistency is one of the big concerns.
Did the Bear hug in your view obstructed the player from moving?
You don't seem to get the point - it wasn't the body check / deliberate collide rule that was in question. Paddy Keenan was in possession of the ball and was cynically being bear hugged, (I.e, held but not deliberately pulled down to the ground) when he won possession, therefore it was not deemed to be a black card offence. The level of confusion over one incident shows that you can't just call out 4 fouls and call them the only cynical fouls. Blindly following the FRC proposals without at least a National League trial was folly in my opinion. Maybe I'll be proved wrong, and I hope I am, but I am concerned that cynical play will just take another form and we will be back to square one only with a game that may have evolved even further into a short passing and packed defence running game.
Well if he were in possesion and was bear hugged then it's a foul, will all referees show a black card for it? maybe not. I can't see the bear hugging taking off if truth be told, players will drop to the floor and the player who made the bear hug will be carded
For every rule out there, there will be managers/players looking to get around them
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 12, 2014, 09:35:35 PM
Quote from: BennyHarp on January 12, 2014, 09:20:52 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 12, 2014, 09:02:06 PM
Quote from: BennyHarp on January 12, 2014, 08:25:49 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 12, 2014, 07:55:46 PM
Quote from: Hardy on January 12, 2014, 07:37:25 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 12, 2014, 07:15:21 PM
You are a moan and whinge bag, is that plain enough to understand?
Good man. That's helpful.
It does tend to reinforce my stereotype of referees but I'll try to overcome that.
Is it referees you don't like or the GAA?
Benny I've refereed 5 odd years so I've a good insight with refereeing thanks. I've managed all grades to so I can see it from all sides.
Why are there so many against the new rules?
And even with all that experience you still would call the bear hug differently from the ref in the Louth v Dublin game. I think the level of inconsistency is one of the big concerns.
Did the Bear hug in your view obstructed the player from moving?
You don't seem to get the point - it wasn't the body check / deliberate collide rule that was in question. Paddy Keenan was in possession of the ball and was cynically being bear hugged, (I.e, held but not deliberately pulled down to the ground) when he won possession, therefore it was not deemed to be a black card offence. The level of confusion over one incident shows that you can't just call out 4 fouls and call them the only cynical fouls. Blindly following the FRC proposals without at least a National League trial was folly in my opinion. Maybe I'll be proved wrong, and I hope I am, but I am concerned that cynical play will just take another form and we will be back to square one only with a game that may have evolved even further into a short passing and packed defence running game.
Well if he were in possesion and was bear hugged then it's a foul, will all referees show a black card for it? maybe not. I can't see the bear hugging taking off if truth be told, players will drop to the floor and the player who made the bear hug will be carded
For every rule out there, there will be managers/players looking to get around them
I agree, it probably won't take off but it's concerning that so early on we are talking about teams actively working out ways to push the rules. Anyway - hopefully it's just early arse boxing and we will be treated to a season of open, attacking football.
Eugene's thoughts - more changes needed ?
Eugene McGee: Youngsters quitting GAA in droves -- who'd blame them?
Eugene McGee– 13 January 2014
Is there any fun left in Gaelic football for players any more? It may seem a silly question, bearing in mind the hundreds of thousands of young people who play and love the sport but, unfortunately, it is a question that does need to be addressed.
In recent months we have had a whole series of reports involving how football is organised, played, promoted and coached which certainly reflects a major culture change.
The abuse of players through over-training, inadequate rest periods , ridiculous match scheduling and lack of consideration for the needs of players' everyday lives are the main problems.
Why are there more serious injuries in football nowadays than ever before?
At this time of year we get horrific fixture making that would not be tolerated in any other major sport anywhere -- we have players being asked to play three times in eight days.
But even more serious is the irresponsible action of people in charge of teams who behave in a totally selfish manner regarding training and matches -- at the expense of players.
There are players who are asked to train for third-level teams because this is the lead-up time for the Sigerson and Fitzgibbon Cups. At the same time, county managers are insisting they have full use of their players. This is bad enough when the county players are senior grade only, but a huge number of players are also involved with their U-21s.
So we have plenty of examples of students taking part in training at one time of the day and senior or U-21 training later on. This of course involves travelling, often 100km-plus round trips and returning to base after midnight.
A more serious development in recent years has been the exploitation of secondary school students.
Firstly we began to see examples of star teenage players being actively recruited by some leading schools to 'transfer', in a bid to win trophies. Repeating the Leaving Certificate to enable this to take place is common these days.
On top of that, we have examples of school teams being brought in for training at 7.0 in the morning, which seems grossly unfair on young men who should be devoting their main activity to preparing for the Leaving Cert exams.
Which brings us to county minor teams and their managers/coaches, who in many cases are a law unto themselves.
Minor panels are being brought together as early as November, and training has started to include strength and conditioning work in gyms.
The GAA has a rule forbidding minor training until after March 1 but, as usual, this is totally ignored.
There was a useful example recently when we learned of a clash between a county minor manager and college trainers, and we can see examples of this all over the country.
I'm amazed at this bitter wrangling in the name of sport -- something that could affect the enjoyment of what should be the happiest sporting days of a player.
PROTEST
At long last, parents of teenage players seem to be waking up to the reality of what is taking place, and some voices are being raised in protest.
I heard of a minor manager last year who issued ultimatums to four young men five days before the start of their Leaving Cert -- either turn up for training tonight or you are off the county minor panel.
It is not nice to describe any GAA person as a lunatic, but is there any other description suitable for this manager?
Parents need to take a stand in these situations, but they need more support from strong GAA leaders around the country as well.
There is a proposal going forward this year to change the minor grade from U-18 to U-17, which would hugely reduce the numbers having to juggle inter-county football with their Leaving Cert.
It will be interesting to see if GAA delegates opt for this. Player welfare is at stake in this, so let's see what officials really think about welfare.
Playing the inter-county U-21 competition in the spring is heaping huge additional pressure on young players and, again, some U-21 managers started training last October or November, against GAA rules also.
Should U-21 players be asked to play on Wednesday nights and then play a National League the following Sunday, while at the same time being court-martialled by at least three different managers -- senior, U-21 and third-level -- if they do not turn up for all training sessions?
That's what I mean about the fun going out of the game. All players love to play matches above all, but there are ridiculous demands being made nowadays.
Dr Niall Moyna, an expert in fitness and sports medicine, regularly produces scary facts about the damage all of this madness is causing to footballers' bodies -- short-term and long-term -- but it seems those responsible -- managers, coaches etc -- mainly only pay lip-service in their thirst for more and more training.
There are of course notable exceptions from managers who study these things and take the necessary action, but they are rare enough.
County boards should have a duty of care in these matters to prevent this exploitation of young men who initially love Gaelic football.
No wonder there is a huge drop-out level among footballers in their late teens.
Would you blame them?
Moaners like Eugene McGee would drive people away from the GAA.
Aye - much better to have lads gettin' hip operations in their 20s - something which usually isn't required by anyone under 60.
Quote from: Premier Emperor on January 13, 2014, 11:13:49 AM
Moaners like Eugene McGee would drive people away from the GAA.
Given he has as much real power in the GAA as anyone right now he's no moaner. Very hard to disagree with his sentiment and hopefully his committee's recommendations are passed so we can ease the burden on players.
Surely moving minor to under 19 would be better than under 17. Moving it back would mean a year may never get the chance to play at that level. Also in the 6 county part of Ulster AS level exams are taken at 17. Then again those 6 don't count anyway!
Quote from: Throw ball on January 14, 2014, 12:07:28 AM
Surely moving minor to under 19 would be better than under 17. Moving it back would mean a year may never get the chance to play at that level. Also in the 6 county part of Ulster AS level exams are taken at 17. Then again those 6 don't count anyway!
The plan is to run two competitions in one year so no one would miss out. And come off the Ulster shite - you won't ever make everyone happy.
Quote from: Syferus on January 14, 2014, 12:46:06 AM
Quote from: Throw ball on January 14, 2014, 12:07:28 AM
Surely moving minor to under 19 would be better than under 17. Moving it back would mean a year may never get the chance to play at that level. Also in the 6 county part of Ulster AS level exams are taken at 17. Then again those 6 don't count anyway!
The plan is to run two competitions in one year so no one would miss out. And come off the Ulster shite - you won't ever make everyone happy.
Will the older group be just made up of 18 year olds from the cohort just out of minor then and is the plan to have 2 minor finals on All Ireland final day? Good chance for a county to pick up a unique 3 all irelands in one day then so? ;D
Quote from: BennyHarp on January 14, 2014, 08:20:39 AM
Quote from: Syferus on January 14, 2014, 12:46:06 AM
Quote from: Throw ball on January 14, 2014, 12:07:28 AM
Surely moving minor to under 19 would be better than under 17. Moving it back would mean a year may never get the chance to play at that level. Also in the 6 county part of Ulster AS level exams are taken at 17. Then again those 6 don't count anyway!
The plan is to run two competitions in one year so no one would miss out. And come off the Ulster shite - you won't ever make everyone happy.
Will the older group be just made up of 18 year olds from the cohort just out of minor then and is the plan to have 2 minor finals on All Ireland final day? Good chance for a county to pick up a unique 3 all irelands in one day then so? ;D
They were bandying about the idea of running one earlier in the year and one later in the year. Hard to know how little or how much support the idea overall has.
It's not really at minor where players are under the most in test pressure so the focus probably should be more about moving U21-centric competitions like the Sigerson around first and see the effects of the (hopefully) new schedule first before making drastic changes to the structure.
Good news :
Black card is working, according to GAA president Liam O'Neill
Referees have not been told to be cautious with the black card according to GAA president Liam O'Neill.
The head of the GAA told RTÉ Sport that he believes the black card is already working and predicted even fewer cards as the season progresses.
He said: "I think it has been a success. The reason not so many have been shown is people now know the offences clearly.
"They know if you pull someone down deliberately, if you deliberately trip someone or body-check someone, you are going to get a black card.
"So people are not doing those fouls and the referees are not having to show the cards because people know in advance. No player wants to leave the field of play.
"Players exist to play and they don't like leaving the field. The message will get through and you will see as the season goes on there will be fewer and fewer.
"There is certainly no diktat from me and there is nobody in Croke Park would issue such a diktat. It is down to the referees.
"They are well-briefed on the rules. They are well-briefed on the fact you show the black card for a deliberate foul.
"Players exist to play and they don't like leaving the field"
"The word 'deliberate' is very, very important in this. There can be accidental trips; nobody would like to see a player dismissed from the field, even though he is substituted, for an accidental trip. It must be deliberate.
"It must be deliberate if you pull down someone, it must be deliberate you body-check someone, not that the person runs into you. The player has to get the benefit of the doubt unless it is deliberate.
"I am quite confident that the referees have been really well briefed. If the foul committed and it is deliberate, I have no doubt the referees will show the black card."
Quote from: orangeman on January 15, 2014, 01:04:46 PM
Good news :
Black card is working, according to GAA president Liam O'Neill
Referees have not been told to be cautious with the black card according to GAA president Liam O'Neill.
The head of the GAA told RTÉ Sport that he believes the black card is already working and predicted even fewer cards as the season progresses.
He said: "I think it has been a success. The reason not so many have been shown is people now know the offences clearly.
"They know if you pull someone down deliberately, if you deliberately trip someone or body-check someone, you are going to get a black card.
"So people are not doing those fouls and the referees are not having to show the cards because people know in advance. No player wants to leave the field of play.
"Players exist to play and they don't like leaving the field. The message will get through and you will see as the season goes on there will be fewer and fewer.
"There is certainly no diktat from me and there is nobody in Croke Park would issue such a diktat. It is down to the referees.
"They are well-briefed on the rules. They are well-briefed on the fact you show the black card for a deliberate foul.
"Players exist to play and they don't like leaving the field"
"The word 'deliberate' is very, very important in this. There can be accidental trips; nobody would like to see a player dismissed from the field, even though he is substituted, for an accidental trip. It must be deliberate.
"It must be deliberate if you pull down someone, it must be deliberate you body-check someone, not that the person runs into you. The player has to get the benefit of the doubt unless it is deliberate.
"I am quite confident that the referees have been really well briefed. If the foul committed and it is deliberate, I have no doubt the referees will show the black card."
Thank God for that - i was worried for a while there.
Quote from: BennyHarp on January 15, 2014, 01:08:12 PM
Quote from: orangeman on January 15, 2014, 01:04:46 PM
Good news :
Black card is working, according to GAA president Liam O'Neill
Referees have not been told to be cautious with the black card according to GAA president Liam O'Neill.
The head of the GAA told RTÉ Sport that he believes the black card is already working and predicted even fewer cards as the season progresses.
He said: "I think it has been a success. The reason not so many have been shown is people now know the offences clearly.
"They know if you pull someone down deliberately, if you deliberately trip someone or body-check someone, you are going to get a black card.
"So people are not doing those fouls and the referees are not having to show the cards because people know in advance. No player wants to leave the field of play.
"Players exist to play and they don't like leaving the field. The message will get through and you will see as the season goes on there will be fewer and fewer.
"There is certainly no diktat from me and there is nobody in Croke Park would issue such a diktat. It is down to the referees.
"They are well-briefed on the rules. They are well-briefed on the fact you show the black card for a deliberate foul.
"Players exist to play and they don't like leaving the field"
"The word 'deliberate' is very, very important in this. There can be accidental trips; nobody would like to see a player dismissed from the field, even though he is substituted, for an accidental trip. It must be deliberate.
"It must be deliberate if you pull down someone, it must be deliberate you body-check someone, not that the person runs into you. The player has to get the benefit of the doubt unless it is deliberate.
"I am quite confident that the referees have been really well briefed. If the foul committed and it is deliberate, I have no doubt the referees will show the black card."
Thank God for that - i was worried for a while there.
Was talking to a referee who was at a match recently, he said that the referee did really well and if interpreting the rules there would have been a couple at least of black cards (though none given during the game). Going to be strange in the first match, can't wait to get it out of the way and see how the club players deal with it.
As said by some here, you will get the odd gobshite who'll go card crazy, but hopefully everyone else will apply them well
After tonight's result in the McKenna cup I've changed my mind. The new rules are deadly altogether. ;D
Quote from: BennyHarp on January 16, 2014, 12:28:52 AM
After tonight's result in the McKenna cup I've changed my mind. The new rules are deadly altogether. ;D
Yer man in Omagh was a bit light on the cards tonight.
How is the other rule going, the Advantage rule? Haven't heard a word said about it in fairness, which can only mean it's working well
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 15, 2014, 03:17:26 PM
As said by some here, you will get the odd gobshite who'll go card crazy
I'd be worried about 1 particular individual in our County...... :-[
Quote from: Throw ball on January 14, 2014, 12:07:28 AM
Surely moving minor to under 19 would be better than under 17. Moving it back would mean a year may never get the chance to play at that level. Also in the 6 county part of Ulster AS level exams are taken at 17. Then again those 6 don't count anyway!
Those six are the reason Hogan Cup is U18.5 and not the same as minor. IIRC they moved the date in the mid 1980s to align with the McRory Cup.
fúck ye, us hurlers don't need any cards at all (according to Eddie Keher)
http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/gaa/keher-lays-his-cards-on-the-table-255745.html (http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/gaa/keher-lays-his-cards-on-the-table-255745.html)
After canvassing opinion, Eddie Keher has delivered a document to the GAA calling for the end of yellow and red cards in hurling
Kilkenny's Henry Shefflin receives a second yellow card and then a red from referee Barry Kelly in last year's All-Ireland SHC quarter-final against Cork. Picture: Inpho
Kilkenny's Henry Shefflin receives a second yellow card and then a red from referee Barry Kelly in last year's All-Ireland SHC quarter-final against Cork. Picture: Inpho
By John Fogarty
What Eddie Keher wants to make clear is his document isn't a Kilkenny one. He wouldn't have put fingertip to keyboard were it not for first canvassing opinions of hurling people from other counties.
As most things do, it started with a conversation. Then another followed by another before someone convinced him that his views represented many within the game and he should do something about it. Keher is a long-time critic of how hurling is officiated, but the border-line sendings off of Henry Shefflin, Pa Horgan and Ryan O'Dwyer last year agitated him greatly.
Even if Kilkenny's three-in-a-row attempt stalled before the All-Ireland quarter-finals, he was absorbed by a thrilling Championship.
But the six-time All-Ireland winner couldn't help thinking the high entertainment value of the competition was provided in spite of a flawed disciplinary system.
"I should mention that I was never in favour of cards in the first place," he writes in the document, "and I contend that the 2013 season in particular has confirmed that they are not compatible with Gaelic games.
"This has been confirmed at top level by virtue of the fact that many of the 'sendings off' from yellow/red cards were later rescinded by the committee in charge.
"Unfortunately, the teams suffering from those injustices have been wrongly penalised, in that the result of the games cannot be reversed, or a replay called for. This was, of course, fully accepted by the teams involved in true sporting fashion."
Keher makes the point yellow and red cards were replicated from soccer, introduced to that sport for the 1970 World Cup to address the language barrier. "Totally at variance with the ethos, physicality and manliness of the game of hurling," he writes.
It is because of the cards, first introduced to the GAA in 1999, that he feels cynicism has crept into hurling.
"Players are now encouraged to feign injury, or duck in under the opposing player's hurley in order to have him issued with a card. This is a most unwelcome trend in our traditional and otherwise sporting games.
"Hurling was never a cynical game, but it is now starting to become one due to the unjust penalties imposed for fouls by players full of honest endeavour. With the introduction of all these restrictions and penalties, and now the proposed introduction of 'black cards' for hurlers, the players are appearing to be treated and regarded as the 'bad guys' of our games."
It's Keher's assessment players, or defenders, are confused about how to tackle without committing a foul and incurring a yellow card.
"What should a defender do when a forward is charging towards the goal with the ball? There have been several instances where the defender stood in front of him with his arms outstretched to be penalised when the forward ran into him and fell? Fair, manly tackles should always remain part of our game."
Keher's method of replacing the yellow and red card is a return to the system that existed before 1999.
A technical foul is penalised by the awarding of a free only. "99% of frees taken in hurling up to almost 100 yards (120 yards in the case of Anthony Nash!) are converted by scoring a point," he states. A player found to have committed an act of dangerous play, resulting in minor injury, would be warned, have his name taken as well as a free being called against him. A repeat offence and he would be sent off. A player who deliberately strikes an opponent with the intent to injure would be dismissed.
According to Keher, the withdrawal of cards would also reduce the role of referees to "facilitators" of matches and the potential for them to be involved in controversies.
Last month, he was at Kilkenny's challenge game against Wexford in aid of Tomás Waters. The game wasn't overly intense, but he was struck by how well former inter-county referee Dickie Murphy handled it.
"There was only one dangerous tackle from which a yellow card was shown. The card was shown quickly and just to the player involved, and not triumphantly for all the world to see, as we are now witnessing from referees. Dickie's performance was a breath of fresh air."
As an addendum, Keher supports the motion of 20-metre frees and penalties being struck on or before the 20m line. An expert free-taker himself, his reasoning is down to safety concerns. "With the present composition of the ball and the use of synthetic hurleys, a serious injury will result soon from a defender being struck with the ball from 13 to 15m."
He also believes the use of substitutes is abused. "I recommend no subs be allowed within 10 minutes of the end of a game. In the case of serious injury during that period, a sub could be allowed at the discretion of the referee."
Before Christmas, Keher delivered his document to GAA president Liam O'Neill who has asked him to speak to a couple of committees.
A move away from cards, he knows, would cut ties with football, already on another plateau with black cards. But few know better than him how unique hurling is. He just wants it treated as such.
© Irish Examiner Ltd. All rights reserved
You tell them Eddie, not looking forward to the football this year, will be some gurning from clubs/supporters/managers and players!!
Think the football referess should earn more expenses for all the grief they will get :P
Copied from GAA website
Disciplinary Procedure
The Gaelic Football Rule Changes which become operative on 1 January 2014 are as follows:
1. Introduction of a Black Card for Cynical Behaviour Fouls.
2. Change in the number of substitutes allowed.
3. Distinction between Deliberate and Accidental Fouls.
4. Definition of the Tackle.
5. Introduction of a clearer Advantage Rule.
6. A player in possession may score a point with an open-handed hand-pass.
Cynical Behaviour Fouls
1. Deliberately pull down an opponent.
2. Deliberately trip an opponent with the hand(s), arm, leg or foot.
3. Deliberately body collide with an opponent after he has played the ball away or for the purpose of taking him out of a movement of play.
4. Threaten or to use abusive or provocative language or gestures to an opponent or a teammate.
5. Remonstrate in an aggressive manner with a Match Official.
The penalty for the above fouls are:
i. Free Kick from where the foul occurred.
ii. Order Off offender by showing him a Black Card*.
iii. Allow a replacement from within the substitutions permitted*.
*Substitutes
• Increased to SIX per team.
• Maximum of THREE permitted for Black Card Offenders.
Immediate Ordering Off Infractions (Red Cards)
1. Striking or attempting to strike with arm, elbow, hand, knee or head.
2. Kicking or attempting to kick with minimal force or with force or causing injury.
3. Behaving in any way which is dangerous to an opponent.
4. Spitting at an opponent.
5. Contributing to a melee.
6. Stamping.
7. Inflicting injury recklessly.
8. Abusive language towards a Referee, Umpire, Linesman or Sideline Official.
These are unchanged.
Cautionable Infractions (Yellow Cards)
1. To block or attempt to block with the boot when an opponent is kicking the ball from the hand(s).
2. To prevent or attempt to prevent an opponent from lifting or kicking the ball off the ground by striking an opponent's hand, arm, foot or leg with the boot.
3. To engage in any other form of rough play.
4. To attempt to achieve an advantage by feigning a foul or injury.
The above are all currently existing Yellow Card Infractions.
Noting Infractions
1. To hold an opponent with the hand(s).
2. To use the fist on or around the body of an opponent for the purpose of dispossessing him of the ball.
3. To charge an opponent in the back or to the front.
4. To charge an opponent:
i. Who is not in possession of the ball, or
ii. Is in the act of kicking the ball, or
iii. If both players are not moving in the direction of the ball to play it.
5. To charge an opponent for the purpose of giving an advantage to a team-mate.
Noting Infractions remain unchanged – Two Notings result in a Caution (Yellow Card) with a third resulting in an Order Off (second Yellow, followed by Red).
Suspensions
At all levels a Black Card results in a player missing the remainder of the game.
Additionally at Senior Inter County Level:
3 x Black Cards = 1 Game suspension
3 x Double Yellow Cards = 1 Game suspension
OR
A Combination of both (totaling 3) = 1 Game suspension
Only in senior inter-county league and championship games within the same year.
At All Other Levels:
2 x Double Yellows within 48 weeks = 2 week suspension
2 x Yellow followed by a Black Card within 48 weeks = 2 week suspension
OR
A combination of both = 2 week suspension
At all levels except senior inter-county league and championship.
Deliberate v Accidental Fouls
A Card shall be issued only where the Infraction is deemed by the Referee to have been deliberate and not accidental.
The Tackle
The Tackle is re-defined as:
"The Tackle is a skill by which a player may dispossess an opponent or frustrate his objective within the Rules of Fair Play. The tackle is aimed at the ball, not the player. The tackler may use his body to confront the opponent but deliberate bodily contact (such as punching, slapping, arm holding, pushing, tripping, jersey pulling or a full frontal charge) is forbidden. The only deliberate physical contact can be a Fair Charge i.e. Shoulder-to-shoulder with at least one foot on the ground. More than one player can tackle the player in possession."
Advantage
Advantage Rule is defined as:
"When a foul is committed the referee may allow the play to continue if he considers it to be to the advantage of the offended team. He shall signal that advantage by raising an arm upright. If he deems no advantage to have occurred, he may subsequently award a free for that foul from where it occurred*. The referee shall allow the advantage to run by maintaining his arm in the upright position for up to five seconds after the initial foul or for less time if it becomes clear that no advantage has accrued. He shall apply any relevant disciplinary action."
All fairly straight forward. There should be no confusion now. 8)
A tackle has to be on the ball, the only physical contact is shoulder to shoulder when both players have one foot on the ground, and neither is in the act of kicking the ball. Bear hugs not allowed. So lets look forward to the national league which will be full of free flowing attacking football. Not everyone's idea of football but that's where this is headed.
Hopefully refs can keep up with this fast flowing football. Will we see the need for two or more refs? Perhaps they will have black and white jerseys and carry yellow dusters. :D
Was at a referees course last night, didn't get an answer to a question I asked, I'm near sure Pat answered back in November but can't remember.
If a player is fouled and referee allows advantage and that player moves forward 20 odd yards and is fouled again, will play be brought back to the original position or can the referee allow more adavantage or give the free from that position?
Surely you either give the free for the second foul or give an additional advantage?
I would hope the free kick would be given at the spot of the second foul if it is more advantageous.
Quote from: Zulu on January 21, 2014, 08:59:43 PM
Surely you either give the free for the second foul or give an additional advantage?
Quote from: Zulu on January 21, 2014, 08:59:43 PM
Surely you either give the free for the second foul or give an additional advantage?
Not sure still
In club football, does the accumulation of 3 black or yellow cards get you a 1 game suspension ?
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 21, 2014, 10:06:39 PM
Quote from: Zulu on January 21, 2014, 08:59:43 PM
Surely you either give the free for the second foul or give an additional advantage?
Quote from: Zulu on January 21, 2014, 08:59:43 PM
Surely you either give the free for the second foul or give an additional advantage?
Not sure still
I don't see why this needs clarification. The first foul resulted in advantage being played.
The player was fouled again - this is a successful advantage resulting in the player being in possession of the ball at the end of the play, whether that is in possession by way of another advantage or the ball in hand for a free kick.
The only reason you would go back is if he received no advantage - a free kick 20m on is an advantage.
Quote from: Never beat the deeler on January 22, 2014, 02:03:44 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 21, 2014, 10:06:39 PM
Quote from: Zulu on January 21, 2014, 08:59:43 PM
Surely you either give the free for the second foul or give an additional advantage?
Quote from: Zulu on January 21, 2014, 08:59:43 PM
Surely you either give the free for the second foul or give an additional advantage?
Not sure still
I don't see why this needs clarification. The first foul resulted in advantage being played.
The player was fouled again - this is a successful advantage resulting in the player being in possession of the ball at the end of the play, whether that is in possession by way of another advantage or the ball in hand for a free kick.
The only reason you would go back is if he received no advantage - a free kick 20m on is an advantage.
Absolutely. Once the second foul happens (further up the field), the first advantage is over, and a new advantage begins from the spot of the 2nd foul.
So the ref either plays on if advantage accrues or brings it back to the spot of the 2nd foul if no further advantage arises.
Quote from: orangeman on January 22, 2014, 12:50:13 AM
In club football, does the accumulation of 3 black or yellow cards get you a 1 game suspension ?
Quote from: Hound on January 22, 2014, 08:48:55 AM
Quote from: Never beat the deeler on January 22, 2014, 02:03:44 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 21, 2014, 10:06:39 PM
Quote from: Zulu on January 21, 2014, 08:59:43 PM
Surely you either give the free for the second foul or give an additional advantage?
Quote from: Zulu on January 21, 2014, 08:59:43 PM
Surely you either give the free for the second foul or give an additional advantage?
Not sure still
I don't see why this needs clarification. The first foul resulted in advantage being played.
The player was fouled again - this is a successful advantage resulting in the player being in possession of the ball at the end of the play, whether that is in possession by way of another advantage or the ball in hand for a free kick.
The only reason you would go back is if he received no advantage - a free kick 20m on is an advantage.
Absolutely. Once the second foul happens (further up the field), the first advantage is over, and a new advantage begins from the spot of the 2nd foul.
So the ref either plays on if advantage accrues or brings it back to the spot of the 2nd foul if no further advantage arises.
So any player can take advantage from one goal line to another providing the the referee has his hand in the air and the player is being fouled and advantage given!!
Quote from: orangeman on January 22, 2014, 12:50:13 AM
In club football, does the accumulation of 3 black or yellow cards get you a 1 game suspension ?
I believe it does Orangeman
The only issue i would have with the advantage rule is that already i have seen a couple of referees interpret it as , when the advantage is being given , the player in possession can take as many steps as he likes.
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on January 22, 2014, 09:45:16 AM
The only issue i would have with the advantage rule is that already i have seen a couple of referees interpret it as , when the advantage is being given , the player in possession can take as many steps as he likes.
The reason it may look like that is because the player has been allowed to shake off a player who's fouling him, so the referee allows 'advantage' old style and he can take the extra 4 steps each time he's been grappled at. Some referees blow for the foul and give nothing
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 22, 2014, 10:03:26 AM
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on January 22, 2014, 09:45:16 AM
The only issue i would have with the advantage rule is that already i have seen a couple of referees interpret it as , when the advantage is being given , the player in possession can take as many steps as he likes.
The reason it may look like that is because the player has been allowed to shake off a player who's fouling him, so the referee allows 'advantage' old style and he can take the extra 4 steps each time he's been grappled at. Some referees blow for the foul and give nothing
but this is exactly my point, the fact that he is being fouled and the referee is playing the advantage shouldn't mean he can gain that advantage by commiting a foul himself.
He should be allowed to play on within the normal rules of the game, if he overcarries or whatever due to the original foul, the play should be taken back and the original free given, not let him play on with a free reign to do what he wants!
But the foul prevents him from playing the ball legitimately so if you were to interpret as you are suggesting then every arm pull would result in a stoppage of play and a free. I think it is better to allow a player who is being fouled more steps within his advantage to keep the game flowing and prevent the fouler gaining an advantage by stopping play.
Quote from: Zulu on January 22, 2014, 02:26:38 PM
But the foul prevents him from playing the ball legitimately so if you were to interpret as you are suggesting then every arm pull would result in a stoppage of play and a free. I think it is better to allow a player who is being fouled more steps within his advantage to keep the game flowing and prevent the fouler gaining an advantage by stopping play.
players already get away with far to many steps, the last thing we need is to start allowing more!
That would leave it pretty much impossible to tackle a player once the advantage is given as he doesnt have to play the ball at all!
Surely the normal rules must still apply whether an advantage rule is being applied or not.
The problem is that its all very subjective and this will lead to referees having their own interpretation of it and yet more inconsistency in the application of the rules
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on January 22, 2014, 02:11:11 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 22, 2014, 10:03:26 AM
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on January 22, 2014, 09:45:16 AM
The only issue i would have with the advantage rule is that already i have seen a couple of referees interpret it as , when the advantage is being given , the player in possession can take as many steps as he likes.
The reason it may look like that is because the player has been allowed to shake off a player who's fouling him, so the referee allows 'advantage' old style and he can take the extra 4 steps each time he's been grappled at. Some referees blow for the foul and give nothing
but this is exactly my point, the fact that he is being fouled and the referee is playing the advantage shouldn't mean he can gain that advantage by commiting a foul himself.
He should be allowed to play on within the normal rules of the game, if he overcarries or whatever due to the original foul, the play should be taken back and the original free given, not let him play on with a free reign to do what he wants!
You are not reading my post, the bit in bold, many a time a player is given advantage if the he's being grappled at the referee in most cases were allowing the extra steps to break free of the tackle, now if he continues to do so the referee may blow or again allow more steps. Now no referee will allow a player to take more than 4/5 steps in a game on purpose. Or give him a free reign to do what he wants, what county are you from? The referees must be terrible ;)
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on January 22, 2014, 02:35:47 PM
Quote from: Zulu on January 22, 2014, 02:26:38 PM
But the foul prevents him from playing the ball legitimately so if you were to interpret as you are suggesting then every arm pull would result in a stoppage of play and a free. I think it is better to allow a player who is being fouled more steps within his advantage to keep the game flowing and prevent the fouler gaining an advantage by stopping play.
players already get away with far to many steps, the last thing we need is to start allowing more!
That would leave it pretty much impossible to tackle a player once the advantage is given as he doesnt have to play the ball at all!
Surely the normal rules must still apply whether an advantage rule is being applied or not.
The problem is that its all very subjective and this will lead to referees having their own interpretation of it and yet more inconsistency in the application of the rules
Is it fair to say you are a perfectionist and follow the rules religiously and never fall foul of them? When you watch a match you will have a view on it, someone standing on the otherside of the pitch supporting the other team will have a different view some parts will be the same, some incidents will be recalled differently, who's right?
But if you tackle properly you're fine. If you pull/hold my arm, which is often what tacklers do, then I'm both off balance and more limited in my ability to solo the ball as I've only one arm to control the ball. I think it is reasonable to allow the fouled player a bit of leeway to break free of the fouling player and play on. I agree though it is interpretative and will, as a result, be inconstantly applied but that is always going to be the case as long as we have humans reefing the games. I often hear people going on about how good rugby refs are but they interpret things differently too so consistency is beyond us.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 22, 2014, 02:44:25 PM
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on January 22, 2014, 02:11:11 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 22, 2014, 10:03:26 AM
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on January 22, 2014, 09:45:16 AM
The only issue i would have with the advantage rule is that already i have seen a couple of referees interpret it as , when the advantage is being given , the player in possession can take as many steps as he likes.
The reason it may look like that is because the player has been allowed to shake off a player who's fouling him, so the referee allows 'advantage' old style and he can take the extra 4 steps each time he's been grappled at. Some referees blow for the foul and give nothing
but this is exactly my point, the fact that he is being fouled and the referee is playing the advantage shouldn't mean he can gain that advantage by commiting a foul himself.
He should be allowed to play on within the normal rules of the game, if he overcarries or whatever due to the original foul, the play should be taken back and the original free given, not let him play on with a free reign to do what he wants!
You are not reading my post, the bit in bold, many a time a player is given advantage if the he's being grappled at the referee in most cases were allowing the extra steps to break free of the tackle, now if he continues to do so the referee may blow or again allow more steps. Now no referee will allow a player to take more than 4/5 steps in a game on purpose. Or give him a free reign to do what he wants, what county are you from? The referees must be terrible ;)
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on January 22, 2014, 02:35:47 PM
Quote from: Zulu on January 22, 2014, 02:26:38 PM
But the foul prevents him from playing the ball legitimately so if you were to interpret as you are suggesting then every arm pull would result in a stoppage of play and a free. I think it is better to allow a player who is being fouled more steps within his advantage to keep the game flowing and prevent the fouler gaining an advantage by stopping play.
players already get away with far to many steps, the last thing we need is to start allowing more!
That would leave it pretty much impossible to tackle a player once the advantage is given as he doesnt have to play the ball at all!
Surely the normal rules must still apply whether an advantage rule is being applied or not.
The problem is that its all very subjective and this will lead to referees having their own interpretation of it and yet more inconsistency in the application of the rules
Is it fair to say you are a perfectionist and follow the rules religiously and never fall foul of them? When you watch a match you will have a view on it, someone standing on the otherside of the pitch supporting the other team will have a different view some parts will be the same, some incidents will be recalled differently, who's right?
I completely agree with you, which is what makes refereeing our games so difficult.
Thats why i think any rule change should make things more clear cut if possible, not up to the referees discretion
which can vary wildly.
It has become almost common place that 5-6 steps are allowed and when a player is bearing down on goal even more 8-10 at times!I would rather this was the type of rule taht was tightened up rather that introducing new ones!
Quote from: Zulu on January 22, 2014, 02:48:03 PM
But if you tackle properly you're fine. If you pull/hold my arm, which is often what tacklers do, then I'm both off balance and more limited in my ability to solo the ball as I've only one arm to control the ball. I think it is reasonable to allow the fouled player a bit of leeway to break free of the fouling player and play on. I agree though it is interpretative and will, as a result, be inconstantly applied but that is always going to be the case as long as we have humans reefing the games. I often hear people going on about how good rugby refs are but they interpret things differently too so consistency is beyond us.
So thats why refs are inconsistent, they are reefing :P
I agree almost entirely with what you have said zulu, a player can be off balance in a tackle and should be allowed a bit of leeway in regards steps when breaking away from the tackle. I think that is how it has been anyway.
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on January 22, 2014, 02:51:13 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 22, 2014, 02:44:25 PM
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on January 22, 2014, 02:11:11 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 22, 2014, 10:03:26 AM
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on January 22, 2014, 09:45:16 AM
The only issue i would have with the advantage rule is that already i have seen a couple of referees interpret it as , when the advantage is being given , the player in possession can take as many steps as he likes.
The reason it may look like that is because the player has been allowed to shake off a player who's fouling him, so the referee allows 'advantage' old style and he can take the extra 4 steps each time he's been grappled at. Some referees blow for the foul and give nothing
but this is exactly my point, the fact that he is being fouled and the referee is playing the advantage shouldn't mean he can gain that advantage by commiting a foul himself.
He should be allowed to play on within the normal rules of the game, if he overcarries or whatever due to the original foul, the play should be taken back and the original free given, not let him play on with a free reign to do what he wants!
You are not reading my post, the bit in bold, many a time a player is given advantage if the he's being grappled at the referee in most cases were allowing the extra steps to break free of the tackle, now if he continues to do so the referee may blow or again allow more steps. Now no referee will allow a player to take more than 4/5 steps in a game on purpose. Or give him a free reign to do what he wants, what county are you from? The referees must be terrible ;)
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on January 22, 2014, 02:35:47 PM
Quote from: Zulu on January 22, 2014, 02:26:38 PM
But the foul prevents him from playing the ball legitimately so if you were to interpret as you are suggesting then every arm pull would result in a stoppage of play and a free. I think it is better to allow a player who is being fouled more steps within his advantage to keep the game flowing and prevent the fouler gaining an advantage by stopping play.
players already get away with far to many steps, the last thing we need is to start allowing more!
That would leave it pretty much impossible to tackle a player once the advantage is given as he doesnt have to play the ball at all!
Surely the normal rules must still apply whether an advantage rule is being applied or not.
The problem is that its all very subjective and this will lead to referees having their own interpretation of it and yet more inconsistency in the application of the rules
Is it fair to say you are a perfectionist and follow the rules religiously and never fall foul of them? When you watch a match you will have a view on it, someone standing on the otherside of the pitch supporting the other team will have a different view some parts will be the same, some incidents will be recalled differently, who's right?
I completely agree with you, which is what makes refereeing our games so difficult.
Thats why i think any rule change should make things more clear cut if possible, not up to the referees discretion
which can vary wildly.
It has become almost common place that 5-6 steps are allowed and when a player is bearing down on goal even more 8-10 at times!I would rather this was the type of rule taht was tightened up rather that introducing new ones!
As a player turned referee I fully understand the annoyance of being a defender and players taking (in your view) too many steps, I even went through the stage of shouting out the steps as he took them (was daft) but to no avail. I try and apply the rules as I would have liked them done when I was playing. The reality is that the rules/assessors/advisors all play a part in how it's done. If all referees rigidly stuck to the rules in every game I believe we would never have a game that would end up with 15 players each, there would be no managers on the line, as they would be serving bans all the time for abuse and eventually we'd have no games as people would play a different sport. It's not perfect It's Irish
Quote from: smort on January 22, 2014, 02:54:05 PM
Quote from: Zulu on January 22, 2014, 02:48:03 PM
But if you tackle properly you're fine. If you pull/hold my arm, which is often what tacklers do, then I'm both off balance and more limited in my ability to solo the ball as I've only one arm to control the ball. I think it is reasonable to allow the fouled player a bit of leeway to break free of the fouling player and play on. I agree though it is interpretative and will, as a result, be inconstantly applied but that is always going to be the case as long as we have humans reefing the games. I often hear people going on about how good rugby refs are but they interpret things differently too so consistency is beyond us.
So thats why refs are inconsistent, they are reefing :P
I agree almost entirely with what you have said zulu, a player can be off balance in a tackle and should be allowed a bit of leeway in regards steps when breaking away from the tackle. I think that is how it has been anyway.
Shagging predictive text!! Though having done a bit of reffing I'm considering starting reefing quite soon.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 22, 2014, 09:38:43 AM
Quote from: orangeman on January 22, 2014, 12:50:13 AM
In club football, does the accumulation of 3 black or yellow cards get you a 1 game suspension ?
Quote from: Hound on January 22, 2014, 08:48:55 AM
Quote from: Never beat the deeler on January 22, 2014, 02:03:44 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 21, 2014, 10:06:39 PM
Quote from: Zulu on January 21, 2014, 08:59:43 PM
Surely you either give the free for the second foul or give an additional advantage?
Quote from: Zulu on January 21, 2014, 08:59:43 PM
Surely you either give the free for the second foul or give an additional advantage?
Not sure still
I don't see why this needs clarification. The first foul resulted in advantage being played.
The player was fouled again - this is a successful advantage resulting in the player being in possession of the ball at the end of the play, whether that is in possession by way of another advantage or the ball in hand for a free kick.
The only reason you would go back is if he received no advantage - a free kick 20m on is an advantage.
Absolutely. Once the second foul happens (further up the field), the first advantage is over, and a new advantage begins from the spot of the 2nd foul.
So the ref either plays on if advantage accrues or brings it back to the spot of the 2nd foul if no further advantage arises.
So any player can take advantage from one goal line to another providing the the referee has his hand in the air and the player is being fouled and advantage given!!
Quote from: orangeman on January 22, 2014, 12:50:13 AM
In club football, does the accumulation of 3 black or yellow cards get you a 1 game suspension ?
I believe it does Orangeman
County football only
The key is now to break the foul and play on as there's always a fallback
Quote from: rrhf on January 23, 2014, 12:54:11 AM
The key is now to break the foul and play on as there's always a fallback
loses a little without context
Bit of a mix up down in Kerry, i think there could be a number of incidents like this during the early parts of the club and county seasons....
Gaelic football's new black card rule caused controversy in a schools games yesterday.
Dingle's Barra O Suilleabhain was issued with both a yellow and a black card during his side's extra-time defeat of Colaiste Chriost Ri in the Corn Ui Mhuiri quarter-final at Killarney yesterday.
Under the new rule, that equates to a red card but referee Kevin Walsh allowed the Kerry school to replace the midfielder.
Chriost Ri selector Ephie Fitzgerald - a former Cork minor football manager - explained to the Irish Daily Star: "Their midfielder got yellow-carded in the first half, maybe after 20 minutes.
"Then after ten or 12 minutes of the second half, he got a black card. We pointed it out to the linesman, but the referee was having none of it.
"I said to him at the time and I said it to him after the game. The referee's attitude to me was 'I'll send you to the stand if you don't go away'.
"And I wasn't being in any way aggressive, I was just asking the question, which I was disappointed in."
Just another Refeering "mistake" which will be explained away by " Ah sure everyone makes mistakes - players, managers, ....even referees".....
Quote from: Rossfan on January 23, 2014, 11:14:18 AM
Just another Refeering "mistake" which will be explained away by " Ah sure everyone makes mistakes - players, managers, ....even referees".....
Do you honestly think he wanted to make a mistake? It's a new set of rules and in some parts complicated, the best thing to do in those situations is to ask, very easy to sit behind a keyboard/screen and give off, try it some time
I think referees (wrongly) believe asking for help/advice is a sign of weakness. If they approached a situation where they are unsure of the decision in the correct way, I would actually have more respect for them. Some referees can be very stubborn, ploughing ahead with decisions and not listening to genuine advice or enquiries from players/managers/other officials
Quote from: orangeman on January 22, 2014, 12:50:13 AM
In club football, does the accumulation of 3 black or yellow cards get you a 1 game suspension ?
No see below.
Suspensions
At all levels a Black Card results in a player missing the remainder of the game.
Additionally at Senior Inter County Level:
3 x Black Cards = 1 Game suspension
3 x Double Yellow Cards = 1 Game suspension
OR
A Combination of both (totaling 3) = 1 Game suspension
Only in senior inter-county league and championship games within the same year.
At All Other Levels:
2 x Double Yellows within 48 weeks = 2 week suspension
2 x Yellow followed by a Black Card within 48 weeks = 2 week suspension
OR
A combination of both = 2 week suspension
At all levels except senior inter-county league and championship.
So in club football 2 double yellows or 2 yellow followed by a black card or combination of the above will be 2 WEEK SUSPENSION.
Quote from: smort on January 23, 2014, 11:53:32 AM
I think referees (wrongly) believe asking for help/advice is a sign of weakness. If they approached a situation where they are unsure of the decision in the correct way, I would actually have more respect for them. Some referees can be very stubborn, ploughing ahead with decisions and not listening to genuine advice or enquiries from players/managers/other officials
And players should also be a bit more honest in their game also ;)
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 23, 2014, 12:25:01 PM
Quote from: smort on January 23, 2014, 11:53:32 AM
I think referees (wrongly) believe asking for help/advice is a sign of weakness. If they approached a situation where they are unsure of the decision in the correct way, I would actually have more respect for them. Some referees can be very stubborn, ploughing ahead with decisions and not listening to genuine advice or enquiries from players/managers/other officials
And players should also be a bit more honest in their game also ;)
Agreed, it should work both ways.
I wonder could we implement what is used in rugby where only the captain can talk to the referee. I see one of the candidates, or potential candidate to be exact, in the running for the next FIFA presidency wants to bring this rule into soccer.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 23, 2014, 11:47:39 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 23, 2014, 11:14:18 AM
Just another Refeering "mistake" which will be explained away by " Ah sure everyone makes mistakes - players, managers, ....even referees".....
Do you honestly think he wanted to make a mistake? It's a new set of rules and in some parts complicated, the best thing to do in those situations is to ask, very easy to sit behind a keyboard/screen and give off, try it some time
I disagree with you here MR2. If he made the mistake and nobody cottoned on to it then fair enough but it was brought to the attention of both the linesman and the ref himself. At that point he should have checked that he had in fact issued both a yellow and black card admitted he made a mistake and sent the player off. Digging your heels in or being unaware a yellow and black equals a red is simply incompetence and shouldn't be defended.
Exactly my point zulu. Digging their heels in is the perfect way to describe it.
MR2 why are referees so reluctant to admit mistakes? I know this isn't necessarily a Gaelic problem, as we often hear calls for premiership referees to come out and say they had made an honest mistake, but it never happens.
Quote from: smort on January 23, 2014, 12:33:51 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 23, 2014, 12:25:01 PM
Quote from: smort on January 23, 2014, 11:53:32 AM
I think referees (wrongly) believe asking for help/advice is a sign of weakness. If they approached a situation where they are unsure of the decision in the correct way, I would actually have more respect for them. Some referees can be very stubborn, ploughing ahead with decisions and not listening to genuine advice or enquiries from players/managers/other officials
And players should also be a bit more honest in their game also ;)
Agreed, it should work both ways.
I wonder could we implement what is used in rugby where only the captain can talk to the referee. I see one of the candidates, or potential candidate to be exact, in the running for the next FIFA presidency wants to bring this rule into soccer.
Still imo doesn't deal with the main issue imo and that is the utter contempt many players/ fans and indeed posters on this forum have for referees. "Genuine advice or enquiries from players" ... have to be honest and say that I have seen very little of that.
Hope the referees flash the black cards with abandon in the Spring and cut the mouthing and abuse out of the game if at all possible.
Quote from: smort on January 23, 2014, 12:33:51 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 23, 2014, 12:25:01 PM
Quote from: smort on January 23, 2014, 11:53:32 AM
I think referees (wrongly) believe asking for help/advice is a sign of weakness. If they approached a situation where they are unsure of the decision in the correct way, I would actually have more respect for them. Some referees can be very stubborn, ploughing ahead with decisions and not listening to genuine advice or enquiries from players/managers/other officials
And players should also be a bit more honest in their game also ;)
Agreed, it should work both ways.
I wonder could we implement what is used in rugby where only the captain can talk to the referee. I see one of the candidates, or potential candidate to be exact, in the running for the next FIFA presidency wants to bring this rule into soccer.
Quote from: Zulu on January 23, 2014, 12:37:44 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 23, 2014, 11:47:39 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 23, 2014, 11:14:18 AM
Just another Refeering "mistake" which will be explained away by " Ah sure everyone makes mistakes - players, managers, ....even referees".....
Do you honestly think he wanted to make a mistake? It's a new set of rules and in some parts complicated, the best thing to do in those situations is to ask, very easy to sit behind a keyboard/screen and give off, try it some time
I disagree with you here MR2. If he made the mistake and nobody cottoned on to it then fair enough but it was brought to the attention of both the linesman and the ref himself. At that point he should have checked that he had in fact issued both a yellow and black card admitted he made a mistake and sent the player off. Digging your heels in or being unaware a yellow and black equals a red is simply incompetence and shouldn't be defended.
Quote from: Zulu on January 23, 2014, 12:37:44 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 23, 2014, 11:47:39 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 23, 2014, 11:14:18 AM
Just another Refeering "mistake" which will be explained away by " Ah sure everyone makes mistakes - players, managers, ....even referees".....
Do you honestly think he wanted to make a mistake? It's a new set of rules and in some parts complicated, the best thing to do in those situations is to ask, very easy to sit behind a keyboard/screen and give off, try it some time
I disagree with you here MR2. If he made the mistake and nobody cottoned on to it then fair enough but it was brought to the attention of both the linesman and the ref himself. At that point he should have checked that he had in fact issued both a yellow and black card admitted he made a mistake and sent the player off. Digging your heels in or being unaware a yellow and black equals a red is simply incompetence and shouldn't be defended.
I'm not defending it, I said he should have asked, read my post, in one 60 minute game he makes one mistake and he's incompetent!! Ffs thon English referee failed to send a man of in the World cup final and he'd been refereeing the same rules for years !! these things are only in less than a month and you're giving off!! You are also a perfectionist?
Quote from: smort on January 23, 2014, 12:46:10 PM
Exactly my point zulu. Digging their heels in is the perfect way to describe it.
MR2 why are referees so reluctant to admit mistakes? I know this isn't necessarily a Gaelic problem, as we often hear calls for premiership referees to come out and say they had made an honest mistake, but it never happens.
Hey we are all human, I've played senior for 25 years for my club, I've made plenty mistakes, not once during a game did I say to the referee oh hold on there ref I hooked his stick before he tried to play the ball, allowing it to fall into my hand!! That's a daft post in fairness, players never own up to mistakes either
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 23, 2014, 12:56:56 PM
Quote from: smort on January 23, 2014, 12:33:51 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 23, 2014, 12:25:01 PM
Quote from: smort on January 23, 2014, 11:53:32 AM
I think referees (wrongly) believe asking for help/advice is a sign of weakness. If they approached a situation where they are unsure of the decision in the correct way, I would actually have more respect for them. Some referees can be very stubborn, ploughing ahead with decisions and not listening to genuine advice or enquiries from players/managers/other officials
And players should also be a bit more honest in their game also ;)
Agreed, it should work both ways.
I wonder could we implement what is used in rugby where only the captain can talk to the referee. I see one of the candidates, or potential candidate to be exact, in the running for the next FIFA presidency wants to bring this rule into soccer.
Quote from: Zulu on January 23, 2014, 12:37:44 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 23, 2014, 11:47:39 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 23, 2014, 11:14:18 AM
Just another Refeering "mistake" which will be explained away by " Ah sure everyone makes mistakes - players, managers, ....even referees".....
Do you honestly think he wanted to make a mistake? It's a new set of rules and in some parts complicated, the best thing to do in those situations is to ask, very easy to sit behind a keyboard/screen and give off, try it some time
I disagree with you here MR2. If he made the mistake and nobody cottoned on to it then fair enough but it was brought to the attention of both the linesman and the ref himself. At that point he should have checked that he had in fact issued both a yellow and black card admitted he made a mistake and sent the player off. Digging your heels in or being unaware a yellow and black equals a red is simply incompetence and shouldn't be defended.
Quote from: Zulu on January 23, 2014, 12:37:44 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 23, 2014, 11:47:39 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 23, 2014, 11:14:18 AM
Just another Refeering "mistake" which will be explained away by " Ah sure everyone makes mistakes - players, managers, ....even referees".....
Do you honestly think he wanted to make a mistake? It's a new set of rules and in some parts complicated, the best thing to do in those situations is to ask, very easy to sit behind a keyboard/screen and give off, try it some time
I disagree with you here MR2. If he made the mistake and nobody cottoned on to it then fair enough but it was brought to the attention of both the linesman and the ref himself. At that point he should have checked that he had in fact issued both a yellow and black card admitted he made a mistake and sent the player off. Digging your heels in or being unaware a yellow and black equals a red is simply incompetence and shouldn't be defended.
I'm not defending it, I said he should have asked, read my post, in one 60 minute game he makes one mistake and he's incompetent!! Ffs thon English referee failed to send a man of in the World cup final and he'd been refereeing the same rules for years !! these things are only in less than a month and you're giving off!! You are also a perfectionist?
Asked who? He was told he made a mistake why didn't he simply check his own notes? Please read my post, I said his actions were incompetent not that he was. The same way that Sludden was incompetent in that infamous Leinster final when failing to use his umpires to help clarify the situation.
We all make mistakes but referees shouldn't make certain mistakes especially when they get to the point where they are being given high level matches like a senior A football quarter final.
I referee games too by the way but we'll never improve standards if we circle the wagons everytime a ref makes a glaring mistake. The way forward is to admit it address it.
I'm certainly not drawing the wagons round, I'm accountable for my own actions, no one else, I've said he should have asked. I've sometimes written a score down on the wrong page for the other team, it happens, If it happens I always ask both sets of teams managers what they had down for the score, those things are very easily done.
Without the referees we wont have the games, there aren't too many new referees, we had 5 at a course last week to supplement the existing referees, not a great return, and some would say (ex players) why da fcuk would you get involved with refereeing when all ya get is abuse??
Refereeing kids friendlies and wee tournaments doesn't make you a referee Zulu, doing a Junior/intermediate/senior semi final/final is a lot different ;)
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 23, 2014, 11:47:39 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 23, 2014, 11:14:18 AM
Just another Refeering "mistake" which will be explained away by " Ah sure everyone makes mistakes - players, managers, ....even referees".....
Do you honestly think he wanted to make a mistake? It's a new set of rules and in some parts complicated, the best thing to do in those situations is to ask, very easy to sit behind a keyboard/screen and give off, try it some time
I know it's a tough oul station alright.
However I would expect an official Ref to at least know the Rules. There was enough talk and Q/A thingys doing the rounds.
Anyway you hit the nail on the head that he should have asked when it was brought to his attention rather than the " I'm the Ref - I'll send you off too" type of thing.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 23, 2014, 03:00:45 PM
I'm certainly not drawing the wagons round, I'm accountable for my own actions, no one else, I've said he should have asked. I've sometimes written a score down on the wrong page for the other team, it happens, If it happens I always ask both sets of teams managers what they had down for the score, those things are very easily done.
Without the referees we wont have the games, there aren't too many new referees, we had 5 at a course last week to supplement the existing referees, not a great return, and some would say (ex players) why da fcuk would you get involved with refereeing when all ya get is abuse??
Refereeing kids friendlies and wee tournaments doesn't make you a referee Zulu, doing a Junior/intermediate/senior semi final/final is a lot different ;)
Can you please clarify who he should have asked and why he shouldn't have simply checked his own notes when the mistake was brought to his attention???
While I'd readily admit I don't ref at your level MR2 I do ref university, club senior league and championship matches here in Britain so I have a fair idea of what it's like to ref 'proper' games. They'd certainly match a lot of intermediate level games at home and are done without any help from linesmen or umpires, try doing that for a while!! ;D
You did circle the wagons and you did defend, or at least made excuses for, a guy who made a shocking mistake.
You're also completely missing the point. You said you written down the wrong score (fair enough) and he failed to send off someone he should have (fair enough) but you addressed you mistake and he didn't, that's the problem. Nobody expects them to be perfect but he did the equivalent of you saying 'no lads, I have the right score and you're both wrong'. Getting the score wrong is a mistake but not correcting it when you know you're wrong would be the indefensible incompetency.
We all know refs are hard to come by and I'm all in favour of the black cards for mouthing but refs need to be able to keep a cool head and address mistakes if they are made. The guy should have stopped play and spoken with his linesman and the manger, checked his notes and rectified his mistake and nobody would then be complaining. He didn't do that and that is unacceptable. Like I said if he was reffing that match he must have been an experienced official so he has no excuse IMO.
Maybe the mistake was that he didn't realise that a Yellow, followed by a Black, was a Red? Not that he had already yellowed the lad?
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 23, 2014, 11:47:39 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 23, 2014, 11:14:18 AM
Just another Refeering "mistake" which will be explained away by " Ah sure everyone makes mistakes - players, managers, ....even referees".....
Do you honestly think he wanted to make a mistake? It's a new set of rules and in some parts complicated, the best thing to do in those situations is to ask, very easy to sit behind a keyboard/screen and give off, try it some time
Zulu, here's my original post, I was replying to this post, and I stated that the best thing to do in those situations is ask, he can ask the lines men or umpires, though some of the umpires I've brought to games have trouble keeping the score nevermind understanding the new set of rules which are only out
3 weeks. All club games this year won't have neutral linesmen or umpires, the referee will be on his own and for most part will make these decisions on his own.
Yes we would all prefer to get it right first time, but if he doesn't he'll learn from it, no one died, you'd think after some of the posts here that it was as bad as that, maybe if the player had have played within the rules in the first place we'd have nothing to post about ;)
So in all your refereeing games you have not made any mistakes? I'm not talking about blowing for a foul and giving it the other direction before realising you were wrong (done) no when after the game you queried yourself on a call and felt hmmm that was maybe wrong when looking back?
MR2 I certainly have reflected on some decisions or looking back thought I might have missed something but I think these are within the accepted limits. I would be very disappointed with myself if I didn't know a rule or didn't take the time to correct a clear and serious error on my behalf. If, for example, I send someone off on a black card and allow him to be substituted and the opposing manager points out that I've made a mistake and he shouldn't be replaced and instead of checking if I made a mistake I tell him to go away or I'll send him off then I'd be extremely disappointed. That, for my money, would be an unacceptable mistake to make.
Controversy has arisen surrounding the new black card rule with a Cork college considering an appeal against a result following an alleged mistake by referee Kevin Walsh.
Colaiste Chriost Ri, who lost the Corn Ui Mhuiri quarter-final to Pobalscoil Chorca Dhuibhne of Dingle in extra time, are considering an appeal after the Kerry side's captain, Barra O Suilleabhain, was apparently issued with both a yellow and a black card during the match in Killarney.
Under new rules, O Suilleabhain should have been red-carded, but Pobalscoil Chorca Dhuibhne were allowed to replace the midfielder with substitute Gareth O Brosnachain.
Munster colleges serving officer John Brennan told the Irish Examiner: "The referee's report is expected tonight and if Colaiste Chriost Ri decide to put in an objection, there will be a hearing of the Munster Post Primary CCC committee.
"They have three days to lodge an objection and we will hold off on fixing a date for the semi-final until the three days have passed."
Chriost Ri manager Aidan Moynihan added: "If that man had not been replaced, the outcome after normal time could have been very different.
"I went on to the field to try and address the issue. I was dismissed quite abruptly by the referee. I was asked to leave the field and if I didn't, I would be put off.
"The linesman on our side was Eddie Walsh, who is from Kerry and part of Eamonn Fitzmaurice's Kerry backroom team. The other linesman was also from Kerry, Pat Sheehy.
"It was a bit of an ambush position to be putting us in having those officials. The new rules are laid out as plain as day on the GAA website
Quote from: orangeman on January 26, 2014, 02:50:45 PM
Controversy has arisen surrounding the new black card rule with a Cork college considering an appeal against a result following an alleged mistake by referee Kevin Walsh.
Colaiste Chriost Ri, who lost the Corn Ui Mhuiri quarter-final to Pobalscoil Chorca Dhuibhne of Dingle in extra time, are considering an appeal after the Kerry side's captain, Barra O Suilleabhain, was apparently issued with both a yellow and a black card during the match in Killarney.
Under new rules, O Suilleabhain should have been red-carded, but Pobalscoil Chorca Dhuibhne were allowed to replace the midfielder with substitute Gareth O Brosnachain.
Munster colleges serving officer John Brennan told the Irish Examiner: "The referee's report is expected tonight and if Colaiste Chriost Ri decide to put in an objection, there will be a hearing of the Munster Post Primary CCC committee.
"They have three days to lodge an objection and we will hold off on fixing a date for the semi-final until the three days have passed."
Chriost Ri manager Aidan Moynihan added: "If that man had not been replaced, the outcome after normal time could have been very different.
"I went on to the field to try and address the issue. I was dismissed quite abruptly by the referee. I was asked to leave the field and if I didn't, I would be put off.
"The linesman on our side was Eddie Walsh, who is from Kerry and part of Eamonn Fitzmaurice's Kerry backroom team. The other linesman was also from Kerry, Pat Sheehy.
"It was a bit of an ambush position to be putting us in having those officials. The new rules are laid out as plain as day on the GAA website
A ref's mistake is unfortunate but they will hardly change the result.
Quote from: muppet on January 26, 2014, 04:00:20 PM
Quote from: orangeman on January 26, 2014, 02:50:45 PM
Controversy has arisen surrounding the new black card rule with a Cork college considering an appeal against a result following an alleged mistake by referee Kevin Walsh.
Colaiste Chriost Ri, who lost the Corn Ui Mhuiri quarter-final to Pobalscoil Chorca Dhuibhne of Dingle in extra time, are considering an appeal after the Kerry side's captain, Barra O Suilleabhain, was apparently issued with both a yellow and a black card during the match in Killarney.
Under new rules, O Suilleabhain should have been red-carded, but Pobalscoil Chorca Dhuibhne were allowed to replace the midfielder with substitute Gareth O Brosnachain.
Munster colleges serving officer John Brennan told the Irish Examiner: "The referee's report is expected tonight and if Colaiste Chriost Ri decide to put in an objection, there will be a hearing of the Munster Post Primary CCC committee.
"They have three days to lodge an objection and we will hold off on fixing a date for the semi-final until the three days have passed."
Chriost Ri manager Aidan Moynihan added: "If that man had not been replaced, the outcome after normal time could have been very different.
"I went on to the field to try and address the issue. I was dismissed quite abruptly by the referee. I was asked to leave the field and if I didn't, I would be put off.
"The linesman on our side was Eddie Walsh, who is from Kerry and part of Eamonn Fitzmaurice's Kerry backroom team. The other linesman was also from Kerry, Pat Sheehy.
"It was a bit of an ambush position to be putting us in having those officials. The new rules are laid out as plain as day on the GAA website
A ref's mistake is unfortunate but they will hardly change the result.
Aye but it was a cute Kerry hoor set up on the poor Cork lads.
Quote from: orangeman on January 26, 2014, 04:15:40 PM
Aye but it was a cute Kerry hoor set up on the poor Cork lads.
Even Frank Murphy will do well to find a rule against that. :D
All-Ireland Minor Football Semi-Final (2000) Cork v Derry. Cork midfielder Kieran Murphy received two yellows but Roscommon referee Gerry Kinneavy neglected to send him off. Quick to notice the mistake the Cork bench substituted Murphy and proceeded to win the game. The miss was of course highlighted to the referee in the aftermath, Frank Murphy however arrived into the Cork dressing room and instructed them not to worry about anything and to prepare for the final as best they could, and he would 'sort it out.' The Cork minors went on the win the All-Ireland.
Quote from: cornerback on January 27, 2014, 12:27:48 AM
All-Ireland Minor Football Semi-Final (2000) Cork v Derry. Cork midfielder Kieran Murphy received two yellows but Roscommon referee Gerry Kinneavy neglected to send him off. Quick to notice the mistake the Cork bench substituted Murphy and proceeded to win the game. The miss was of course highlighted to the referee in the aftermath, Frank Murphy however arrived into the Cork dressing room and instructed them not to worry about anything and to prepare for the final as best they could, and he would 'sort it out.' The Cork minors went on the win the All-Ireland.
It the first time and probably not the last time that Frank sorted things out for his beloved Cork.
Quote from: orangeman on January 27, 2014, 12:56:24 AM
Quote from: cornerback on January 27, 2014, 12:27:48 AM
All-Ireland Minor Football Semi-Final (2000) Cork v Derry. Cork midfielder Kieran Murphy received two yellows but Roscommon referee Gerry Kinneavy neglected to send him off. Quick to notice the mistake the Cork bench substituted Murphy and proceeded to win the game. The miss was of course highlighted to the referee in the aftermath, Frank Murphy however arrived into the Cork dressing room and instructed them not to worry about anything and to prepare for the final as best they could, and he would 'sort it out.' The Cork minors went on the win the All-Ireland.
It the first time and probably not the last time that Frank sorted things out for his beloved Cork.
Frank has previous long before this minor game of getting players off on technicalities, Donal O'g and Co availed of his services a few times before going out on strike because of him..
Ever heard the term let sleeping dogs lie boys?
Guys, I have a questions that the rules aficionado might be able to help me with.
We are back training the club underage team this week and the handpass got an airing.
The new rules allows a player in possession to score a point with an openhanded hand-pass. What I have been unable to determine is if the close fist must still be used in hand-passing or if the GAA have one rule for scoring (open Hand allowed) and another rule for general play (close fist only). I feel it is the latter but I am not sure.
You can hand pass with an open hand during open play. There is no obligation to use the closed fist.
Quote from: Zulu on January 27, 2014, 06:37:30 PM
You can hand pass with an open hand during open play. There is no obligation to use the closed fist.
What he said. I would add there is supposed to be a clear striking motion, with one hand remaining stationary. None of you Pat Spillane circa 1979 pushing the ball.
Quote from: AZOffaly on January 27, 2014, 08:15:38 PM
Quote from: Zulu on January 27, 2014, 06:37:30 PM
You can hand pass with an open hand during open play. There is no obligation to use the closed fist.
What he said. I would add there is supposed to be a clear striking motion, with one hand remaining stationary. None of you Pat Spillane circa 1979 pushing the ball.
Correct
Quote from: AZOffaly on January 27, 2014, 08:15:38 PM
Quote from: Zulu on January 27, 2014, 06:37:30 PM
You can hand pass with an open hand during open play. There is no obligation to use the closed fist.
I would add there is supposed to be a clear striking motion, with one hand remaining stationary.
In Carrick last Sunday the one handed "pass" was all the vogue.
Michael Duffy was the ref though.
Quote from: Rossfan on January 28, 2014, 10:46:11 AM
Quote from: AZOffaly on January 27, 2014, 08:15:38 PM
Quote from: Zulu on January 27, 2014, 06:37:30 PM
You can hand pass with an open hand during open play. There is no obligation to use the closed fist.
I would add there is supposed to be a clear striking motion, with one hand remaining stationary.
In Carrick last Sunday the one handed "pass" was all the vogue.
Michael Duffy was the ref though.
You can pop the ball up with one hand and strike it I think, usually happens when a player a being grappled with and other hand is held.
Yes, my understanding is that if your striking hand is being held (which is a foul of course!) or pinned, you can then throw the ball up and strike it with the same hand like a hurling pass.
I'm not sure if you can throw it up as such.
I always thought your hand could move downward from the ball alright but if there was a significant upward 'throw' that was illegal.
Quote from: Jinxy on January 28, 2014, 12:13:44 PM
I'm not sure if you can throw it up as such.
I always thought your hand could move downward from the ball alright but if there was a significant upward 'throw' that was illegal.
Yes within reason, refs could blow for the hand being held but a quick release pass with the one hand could give a good advantage. Again a lot down to the referee which is the main problem for the armchair supporters ;)
I wouldn't be blowing up for a one handed pass in such circumstances
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 28, 2014, 12:32:19 PM
Quote from: Jinxy on January 28, 2014, 12:13:44 PM
I'm not sure if you can throw it up as such.
I always thought your hand could move downward from the ball alright but if there was a significant upward 'throw' that was illegal.
Yes within reason, refs could blow for the hand being held but a quick release pass with the one hand could give a good advantage. Again a lot down to the referee which is the main problem for the armchair supporters ;)
I wouldn't be blowing up for a one handed pass in such circumstances
Good man. Very frustrating for a player to have his arm held and then penalised for throwing. This can get the player's own supporters up in arms. In those circumstances the next time that player will go down looking for the free. This will drive the opposition supporters up in arms.
You can easily see how a ref can end up being criticised by both sets of supporters.
(I am thinking Connacht Club Final for example).
Quote from: muppet on January 28, 2014, 02:50:39 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 28, 2014, 12:32:19 PM
Quote from: Jinxy on January 28, 2014, 12:13:44 PM
I'm not sure if you can throw it up as such.
I always thought your hand could move downward from the ball alright but if there was a significant upward 'throw' that was illegal.
Yes within reason, refs could blow for the hand being held but a quick release pass with the one hand could give a good advantage. Again a lot down to the referee which is the main problem for the armchair supporters ;)
I wouldn't be blowing up for a one handed pass in such circumstances
Good man. Very frustrating for a player to have his arm held and then penalised for throwing. This can get the player's own supporters up in arms. In those circumstances the next time that player will go down looking for the free. This will drive the opposition supporters up in arms.
You can easily see how a ref can end up being criticised by both sets of supporters.
(I am thinking Connacht Club Final for example).
It's about being consistent throughout the game I think, you have to blow it against both teams, if you don't then you are only leaving yourself open for criticism. 'Ah ref' is usually followed by, 'lads I've been calling this all day, fcuk up :P'
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 28, 2014, 03:22:08 PM
Quote from: muppet on January 28, 2014, 02:50:39 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 28, 2014, 12:32:19 PM
Quote from: Jinxy on January 28, 2014, 12:13:44 PM
I'm not sure if you can throw it up as such.
I always thought your hand could move downward from the ball alright but if there was a significant upward 'throw' that was illegal.
Yes within reason, refs could blow for the hand being held but a quick release pass with the one hand could give a good advantage. Again a lot down to the referee which is the main problem for the armchair supporters ;)
I wouldn't be blowing up for a one handed pass in such circumstances
Good man. Very frustrating for a player to have his arm held and then penalised for throwing. This can get the player's own supporters up in arms. In those circumstances the next time that player will go down looking for the free. This will drive the opposition supporters up in arms.
You can easily see how a ref can end up being criticised by both sets of supporters.
(I am thinking Connacht Club Final for example).
It's about being consistent throughout the game I think, you have to blow it against both teams, if you don't then you are only leaving yourself open for criticism. 'Ah ref' is usually followed by, 'lads I've been calling this all day, fcuk up :P'
Nail on the head. If the ref is consistent and players keep making the same mistake, then the players have to take the blame.
Are you sure a player cannot throw the ball up and strike it with the same hand even if he could perform a normal hand pass? I don't think there is anything in the rule book to say he can't though I can't imagine a situation where throwing it up with one hand and striking it would be preferable to the normal hand pass action.
Quote from: Zulu on January 28, 2014, 04:31:15 PM
Are you sure a player cannot throw the ball up and strike it with the same hand even if he could perform a normal hand pass? I don't think there is anything in the rule book to say he can't though I can't imagine a situation where throwing it up with one hand and striking it would be preferable to the normal hand pass action.
Only if other hand is being held would it be preferable I'd imagine, but it's the throwing action which comes into play, can you by that meaning throw it over a players head and then run onto and strike it? Think if limited to the first instance then it would be fine