FRC proposals...black cards, marks etc

[Stall the Bailer]

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.

[Dinny Breen]

Started wearing a gumshield when I was 14, ah the abuse I was use to get, good times.

[AZOffaly]

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

[BennyHarp]

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!

[Wildweasel74]

sure it be covered the same as a body check will it not?

[Milltown Row2]

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

[AZOffaly]

I think that would be incorrect. Grabbing a lad in a bear hug is not the body check foul.

[muppet]

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.

[Hardy]

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?

[Jinxy]

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.

[Milltown Row2]

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

[Jinxy]

Kildare unveil their latest import.



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.

[Syferus]

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.

[Donnellys Hollow]

Kildare unveil their latest import.



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.

[Hardy]

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?