Gaelic Football - Rules & Regulations discussion/clarification

[Wildweasel74]

Our pitch was 78m x 143m (our 45, were 44.5, and sneaked 9m instead 10m at centrefield) all caused by 1 corner been owned by a protestant farmer who wouldnt sell abit to get us a 85m wide pitch.

[westbound]

Can anyone explain to me why the 'new' screening fouls are not being treated as black card offences?
Shurely, they satisfy the black card infringement criteria of
- To deliberately collide with an opponent after he has played the ball away or for the purpose of taking him out of the movement of play

[Armagh18]

Can anyone explain to me why the 'new' screening fouls are not being treated as black card offences?
Shurely, they satisfy the black card infringement criteria of
- To deliberately collide with an opponent after he has played the ball away or for the purpose of taking him out of the movement of play

Fine line between deliberately taking out an opponent and you being there and not being able to magically disappear 

[westbound]

Can anyone explain to me why the 'new' screening fouls are not being treated as black card offences?
Shurely, they satisfy the black card infringement criteria of
- To deliberately collide with an opponent after he has played the ball away or for the purpose of taking him out of the movement of play

Fine line between deliberately taking out an opponent and you being there and not being able to magically disappear 

But surely if it's a foul it must be a black card?
Unless referees are saying that these screening offences are 'accidental' collisions?

[Milltown Row2]

Can anyone explain to me why the 'new' screening fouls are not being treated as black card offences?
Shurely, they satisfy the black card infringement criteria of
- To deliberately collide with an opponent after he has played the ball away or for the purpose of taking him out of the movement of play

Fine line between deliberately taking out an opponent and you being there and not being able to magically disappear 

But surely if it's a foul it must be a black card?
Unless referees are saying that these screening offences are 'accidental' collisions?

That's what they are, if a player leans into that space then that's deliberate and a black card, if there is no space what can the opposition player do? Think the wording should always be deliberate

[AustinPowers]

If a player  steps over the sideline with the ball , does he have to hand  the ball back to  the opposition for them  to take the sideline kick?

Or does handing the ball   back only apply to frees?

[Milltown Row2]

If a player  steps over the sideline with the ball , does he have to hand  the ball back to  the opposition for them  to take the sideline kick?

Or does handing the ball   back only apply to frees?

Free's only unless he throws it over the fence or kicks it away

[theticklemister]

Can anyone explain to me why the 'new' screening fouls are not being treated as black card offences?
Shurely, they satisfy the black card infringement criteria of
- To deliberately collide with an opponent after he has played the ball away or for the purpose of taking him out of the movement of play

Fine line between deliberately taking out an opponent and you being there and not being able to magically disappear 

But surely if it's a foul it must be a black card?
Unless referees are saying that these screening offences are 'accidental' collisions?

Your spot on.

Was thinking that myself last weekend.

And another thing....


Why do referees never give black cards for contributing to a melee?

[theticklemister]

Can anyone explain to me why the 'new' screening fouls are not being treated as black card offences?
Shurely, they satisfy the black card infringement criteria of
- To deliberately collide with an opponent after he has played the ball away or for the purpose of taking him out of the movement of play

Fine line between deliberately taking out an opponent and you being there and not being able to magically disappear 

But surely if it's a foul it must be a black card?
Unless referees are saying that these screening offences are 'accidental' collisions?

Your spot on.

Was thinking that myself last weekend.

And another thing....


Why do referees never give black cards for contributing to a melee?

Referee called a black for one today. Other referees have blatantly ignored it. 

[David McKeown]

Can anyone explain to me why the 'new' screening fouls are not being treated as black card offences?
Shurely, they satisfy the black card infringement criteria of
- To deliberately collide with an opponent after he has played the ball away or for the purpose of taking him out of the movement of play

Fine line between deliberately taking out an opponent and you being there and not being able to magically disappear 

But surely if it's a foul it must be a black card?
Unless referees are saying that these screening offences are 'accidental' collisions?

Your spot on.

Was thinking that myself last weekend.

And another thing....


Why do referees never give black cards for contributing to a melee?

Referee called a black for one today. Other referees have blatantly ignored it. 

The one today I thought was a foul the other way. It looked like Duffy plays the ball as he is turning. He makes no further movement towards his opponent other than bracing for impact and his opponent collides with him but comes off worse.

Obviously if Duffy did make a movement towards his opponent that's different but it doesn't look that way to me

[EoinW]

Can anyone explain to me why the 'new' screening fouls are not being treated as black card offences?
Shurely, they satisfy the black card infringement criteria of
- To deliberately collide with an opponent after he has played the ball away or for the purpose of taking him out of the movement of play

Fine line between deliberately taking out an opponent and you being there and not being able to magically disappear 

But surely if it's a foul it must be a black card?
Unless referees are saying that these screening offences are 'accidental' collisions?

Your spot on.

Was thinking that myself last weekend.

And another thing....


Why do referees never give black cards for contributing to a melee?

Referee called a black for one today. Other referees have blatantly ignored it. 

The one today I thought was a foul the other way. It looked like Duffy plays the ball as he is turning. He makes no further movement towards his opponent other than bracing for impact and his opponent collides with him but comes off worse.

Obviously if Duffy did make a movement towards his opponent that's different but it doesn't look that way to me

I think the tv camera angle on the replay was deceptive.  It looked like Duffy was run into, however there was no reason for the Derry defender to do so.  He was chasing Conaty.  Why veer into Duffy?  I'd say it was a moving pick and deserved a black card.

[Armagh18]

Can anyone explain to me why the 'new' screening fouls are not being treated as black card offences?
Shurely, they satisfy the black card infringement criteria of
- To deliberately collide with an opponent after he has played the ball away or for the purpose of taking him out of the movement of play

Fine line between deliberately taking out an opponent and you being there and not being able to magically disappear 

But surely if it's a foul it must be a black card?
Unless referees are saying that these screening offences are 'accidental' collisions?

Your spot on.

Was thinking that myself last weekend.

And another thing....


Why do referees never give black cards for contributing to a melee?

Referee called a black for one today. Other referees have blatantly ignored it. 

The one today I thought was a foul the other way. It looked like Duffy plays the ball as he is turning. He makes no further movement towards his opponent other than bracing for impact and his opponent collides with him but comes off worse.

Obviously if Duffy did make a movement towards his opponent that's different but it doesn't look that way to me

I think the tv camera angle on the replay was deceptive.  It looked like Duffy was run into, however there was no reason for the Derry defender to do so.  He was chasing Conaty.  Why veer into Duffy?  I'd say it was a moving pick and deserved a black card.

Not sure what else Duffy is meant to do, they had it right on the Saturday game he can't disappear.

[David McKeown]

Can anyone explain to me why the 'new' screening fouls are not being treated as black card offences?
Shurely, they satisfy the black card infringement criteria of
- To deliberately collide with an opponent after he has played the ball away or for the purpose of taking him out of the movement of play

Fine line between deliberately taking out an opponent and you being there and not being able to magically disappear 

But surely if it's a foul it must be a black card?
Unless referees are saying that these screening offences are 'accidental' collisions?

Your spot on.

Was thinking that myself last weekend.

And another thing....


Why do referees never give black cards for contributing to a melee?

Referee called a black for one today. Other referees have blatantly ignored it. 

The one today I thought was a foul the other way. It looked like Duffy plays the ball as he is turning. He makes no further movement towards his opponent other than bracing for impact and his opponent collides with him but comes off worse.

Obviously if Duffy did make a movement towards his opponent that's different but it doesn't look that way to me

I think the tv camera angle on the replay was deceptive.  It looked like Duffy was run into, however there was no reason for the Derry defender to do so.  He was chasing Conaty.  Why veer into Duffy?  I'd say it was a moving pick and deserved a black card.

Duffy has the ball and turns and offloads. He makes no movement towards the defender having done that whereas the defenders movement changes. If it's not deliberate then it's not a black card but it's not a foul by Duffy.