Gaelic Football - Rules & Regulations discussion/clarification

[thebigfullforward]

On another point the advantage rule is another rule that would wind you up. The advantage should be say 5 seconds if nothing is accrued then give the free. I was at a game at the weekend and the ref on a few occasions let the play go for possibly 20 seconds let the team get a shot off then brought it back for a free in. There will be inconsistencies in this rule within a game as it is down to the ref interpretation never mind week to week. 

The advantage rule is unlimited time, 5 seconds 20 seconds or even a minute within that play, its not specified and it will always be the ref's interpretation as it has been for all the rules in a game before this

Makes it difficult for the referee to have consistency across the peace without having a defined limit of time. If a ref played a minute advantage and the team missed opportunity and then got pulled back for a free I would imagine that would cause uproar. 

The new rules obviously are in favour of the forward, but it is unfair on defenders e.g. ref plays a 30 second advantage, forward goes for a shot defender makes a great block and this is in vein as the attacking team get the original free. 

Having a say 5 second advantage would make things easier on the ref also?

So where is the advantage then? The purpose is to favour the attacker, we wanted to have the games be more attacking, If the attacker claims the high ball inside the 21 from a pass from outside the 40 its to award that skill, the unlimited advantage is to provided a score from play, be it a point or a goal, for me this is least controversial

So defenders are basically left helpless. They could be beat to the first ball and do everything right after that and the attacker will still be awarded a gauranteed point. I thought the point of the new rules was to bring back tight contests and 1v1. If you're giving one of those players a huge advantage is that not a bit contradictory?

[Milltown Row2]

On another point the advantage rule is another rule that would wind you up. The advantage should be say 5 seconds if nothing is accrued then give the free. I was at a game at the weekend and the ref on a few occasions let the play go for possibly 20 seconds let the team get a shot off then brought it back for a free in. There will be inconsistencies in this rule within a game as it is down to the ref interpretation never mind week to week. 

The advantage rule is unlimited time, 5 seconds 20 seconds or even a minute within that play, its not specified and it will always be the ref's interpretation as it has been for all the rules in a game before this

Makes it difficult for the referee to have consistency across the peace without having a defined limit of time. If a ref played a minute advantage and the team missed opportunity and then got pulled back for a free I would imagine that would cause uproar. 

The new rules obviously are in favour of the forward, but it is unfair on defenders e.g. ref plays a 30 second advantage, forward goes for a shot defender makes a great block and this is in vein as the attacking team get the original free. 

Having a say 5 second advantage would make things easier on the ref also?

So where is the advantage then? The purpose is to favour the attacker, we wanted to have the games be more attacking, If the attacker claims the high ball inside the 21 from a pass from outside the 40 its to award that skill, the unlimited advantage is to provided a score from play, be it a point or a goal, for me this is least controversial

So defenders are basically left helpless. They could be beat to the first ball and do everything right after that and the attacker will still be awarded a gauranteed point. I thought the point of the new rules was to bring back tight contests and 1v1. If you're giving one of those players a huge advantage is that not a bit contradictory?

Not really, the defender and defenders have an opportunity to win that first ball also, the advance 'mark' was brought in to encourage and reward teams playing attacking football, and kick passing from the 40m line or further to inside the 21, it doesn't happen that much in fairness and I actually don't think it will be a big thing, I'm not entirely sold on the unlimited side of things.

This is coming from a corner back man and boy! who generally gave up most possessions from high balls to win the tackle off the player after he'd claimed it..

The main point I gathered off the new rules was award attacking play, not defenders

[on the sideline]

Solo and go - what's the right interpretation of it?

I've seen and heard a variety.

Man fouled. Free given. Immediately player continues taking his 4m/4 steps then takes his solo.

Then:
1. One ref allow him to be tackled immediately after this
2. Another ref say that he has 4 more metres steps after the solo before he can be tackled (so 8m/steps in total - seems a massive advantage?)
3. Another ref insist that the player takes his solo immediately/before any steps then gives him the 4m/steps (ala the tap and go in rugby)

So which is it?

[Smokin Joe]

Here is the rule as it is written in the rulebook:

"Where a solo & go is availed of, it must be taken from a position within four metres of where the
foul has occurred and must be taken immediately the free has been awarded and without undue
delay unless the referee has stopped play for any purpose such as to allow for attention to be given
to an injured player or to deal with a disciplinary issue. The ball must not travel backwards. A player
taking a solo & go may not be challenged within four metres of the position where the solo & go was taken"

So you can take your few steps and then solo (so long as the solo is within 4 metres of where the foul occurred)  and then you cannot be tackled for another 4 steps after you take the solo.  Rules are clear on this

[tyrone08]

Here is the rule as it is written in the rulebook:

"Where a solo & go is availed of, it must be taken from a position within four metres of where the
foul has occurred and must be taken immediately the free has been awarded and without undue
delay unless the referee has stopped play for any purpose such as to allow for attention to be given
to an injured player or to deal with a disciplinary issue. The ball must not travel backwards. A player
taking a solo & go may not be challenged within four metres of the position where the solo & go was taken"

So you can take your few steps and then solo (so long as the solo is within 4 metres of where the foul occurred)  and then you cannot be tackled for another 4 steps after you take the solo.  Rules are clear on this

So am player can take 4 meters forward from where the foul occurred, solo and go and be allowed another 4 meters before being challened? That's 8 meters the player is gaining, huge difference

[Smokin Joe]

Here is the rule as it is written in the rulebook:

"Where a solo & go is availed of, it must be taken from a position within four metres of where the
foul has occurred and must be taken immediately the free has been awarded and without undue
delay unless the referee has stopped play for any purpose such as to allow for attention to be given
to an injured player or to deal with a disciplinary issue. The ball must not travel backwards. A player
taking a solo & go may not be challenged within four metres of the position where the solo & go was taken"

So you can take your few steps and then solo (so long as the solo is within 4 metres of where the foul occurred)  and then you cannot be tackled for another 4 steps after you take the solo.  Rules are clear on this

So am player can take 4 meters forward from where the foul occurred, solo and go and be allowed another 4 meters before being challened? That's 8 meters the player is gaining, huge difference

Yes, that is what the rule allows for. Don't forget the FRC seemed very keen to get an attacking game with plenty of scores, that might be why the rule is stacked so favourably to the player who was fouled.
If tackled within the 4 metres after the toe tap the ball should be brought up 50 metres.

[Cavan19]

Here is the rule as it is written in the rulebook:

"Where a solo & go is availed of, it must be taken from a position within four metres of where the
foul has occurred and must be taken immediately the free has been awarded and without undue
delay unless the referee has stopped play for any purpose such as to allow for attention to be given
to an injured player or to deal with a disciplinary issue. The ball must not travel backwards. A player
taking a solo & go may not be challenged within four metres of the position where the solo & go was taken"

So you can take your few steps and then solo (so long as the solo is within 4 metres of where the foul occurred)  and then you cannot be tackled for another 4 steps after you take the solo.  Rules are clear on this

So am player can take 4 meters forward from where the foul occurred, solo and go and be allowed another 4 meters before being challened? That's 8 meters the player is gaining, huge difference

Where a solo & go is availed of, it must be taken from a position within four metres of where the
foul has occurred and must be taken immediately

You cannot stroll forwards for 4 metres and then decide to solo and go. I presume the 4 metres is to allow for players momentum taking them a few metres away from where the foul was commited.

[Rossfan]

Fouling is meant to be punished,  not a device to allow the fouling team get their defence organised.

[Stall the Bailer]

The 4m from the foul occurred, is for examples like when a player is fouled resulting in him falling a few meters from the foul due to his momentum. He doesn't have to go back to the fouled spot and then take the tap and go. It does not mean I run 4m then solo and go and then go for another 4m

[on the sideline]

The 4m from the foul occurred, is for examples like when a player is fouled resulting in him falling a few meters from the foul due to his momentum. He doesn't have to go back to the fouled spot and then take the tap and go. It does not mean I run 4m then solo and go and then go for another 4m

But as with my original post, it's being refereed in a different way by different refs, or being explained differently by them at least.

For purposes of clarity imo the solo and go element should be indicated by a player taking the solo on his first/second step after free is awarded, thus indicating that he is taking the 'solo and go.' He should then have 4m free from tackle at this point. Not at least 8 either side of the solo. This is one of the few rules I'm been in favour of since the proposals.  Just think it makes it cleaner and more straightforward.

[on the sideline]

On another point the advantage rule is another rule that would wind you up. The advantage should be say 5 seconds if nothing is accrued then give the free. I was at a game at the weekend and the ref on a few occasions let the play go for possibly 20 seconds let the team get a shot off then brought it back for a free in. There will be inconsistencies in this rule within a game as it is down to the ref interpretation never mind week to week. 

The advantage rule is unlimited time, 5 seconds 20 seconds or even a minute within that play, its not specified and it will always be the ref's interpretation as it has been for all the rules in a game before this

Makes it difficult for the referee to have consistency across the peace without having a defined limit of time. If a ref played a minute advantage and the team missed opportunity and then got pulled back for a free I would imagine that would cause uproar. 

The new rules obviously are in favour of the forward, but it is unfair on defenders e.g. ref plays a 30 second advantage, forward goes for a shot defender makes a great block and this is in vein as the attacking team get the original free. 

Having a say 5 second advantage would make things easier on the ref also?

So where is the advantage then? The purpose is to favour the attacker, we wanted to have the games be more attacking, If the attacker claims the high ball inside the 21 from a pass from outside the 40 its to award that skill, the unlimited advantage is to provided a score from play, be it a point or a goal, for me this is least controversial

So defenders are basically left helpless. They could be beat to the first ball and do everything right after that and the attacker will still be awarded a gauranteed point. I thought the point of the new rules was to bring back tight contests and 1v1. If you're giving one of those players a huge advantage is that not a bit contradictory?

Not really, the defender and defenders have an opportunity to win that first ball also, the advance 'mark' was brought in to encourage and reward teams playing attacking football, and kick passing from the 40m line or further to inside the 21, it doesn't happen that much in fairness and I actually don't think it will be a big thing, I'm not entirely sold on the unlimited side of things.

This is coming from a corner back man and boy! who generally gave up most possessions from high balls to win the tackle off the player after he'd claimed it..

The main point I gathered off the new rules was award attacking play, not defenders

It's a stupid rule. You can be beat to a ball as a defender and still make a recovery whether through tackle, block, pressuring a wide or miss etc. or  your goalkeeper can make a save, or forward can miss of his own accord. Giving a free hit for winning a ball from a forward mark like this is ridiculous. It removes so many of the skills of being a full back line player. And as another poster pointed out - is contradictory to wanting 'more one on one battles'

[Stall the Bailer]

The 4m from the foul occurred, is for examples like when a player is fouled resulting in him falling a few meters from the foul due to his momentum. He doesn't have to go back to the fouled spot and then take the tap and go. It does not mean I run 4m then solo and go and then go for another 4m

But as with my original post, it's being refereed in a different way by different refs, or being explained differently by them at least.

For purposes of clarity imo the solo and go element should be indicated by a player taking the solo on his first/second step after free is awarded, thus indicating that he is taking the 'solo and go.' He should then have 4m free from tackle at this point. Not at least 8 either side of the solo. This is one of the few rules I'm been in favour of since the proposals.  Just think it makes it cleaner and more straightforward.

Everyone is still getting up to speed with the new rules, plenty of footballers and refs won't have played/reffed with them yet. It is going to take time for everyone to get an reasonable understanding, sorry to say but perfection is not possible. I agree with your interpretation but it will take time and there will be mistakes.

[on the sideline]

The 4m from the foul occurred, is for examples like when a player is fouled resulting in him falling a few meters from the foul due to his momentum. He doesn't have to go back to the fouled spot and then take the tap and go. It does not mean I run 4m then solo and go and then go for another 4m

But as with my original post, it's being refereed in a different way by different refs, or being explained differently by them at least.

For purposes of clarity imo the solo and go element should be indicated by a player taking the solo on his first/second step after free is awarded, thus indicating that he is taking the 'solo and go.' He should then have 4m free from tackle at this point. Not at least 8 either side of the solo. This is one of the few rules I'm been in favour of since the proposals.  Just think it makes it cleaner and more straightforward.

Everyone is still getting up to speed with the new rules, plenty of footballers and refs won't have played/reffed with them yet. It is going to take time for everyone to get an reasonable understanding, sorry to say but perfection is not possible. I agree with your interpretation but it will take time and there will be mistakes.

I get that, but when there's a 50m penalty  for breaking the rule then it's hugely important that it is going to be refereed the same by all referees.

[befair]

I'd get rid of the fly goalie; it's an extra complication, which perhaps helps the attacking team, but there was always a place in football for the less athletic but substantial figure. Compare it with rugby; a teacher once told me he could go into any classroom and ther'd be a place on the rugby team for every kid. Even the short pudgy guys would be vaulable in the front row

[Sportacus]

I'd get rid of the fly goalie; it's an extra complication, which perhaps helps the attacking team, but there was always a place in football for the less athletic but substantial figure. Compare it with rugby; a teacher once told me he could go into any classroom and ther'd be a place on the rugby team for every kid. Even the short pudgy guys would be vaulable in the front row

Agreed, if there was a way to make goalies stay 'at home' I'd back it.  And to be fair they have their own skill set and would still play a vital role. I'm not a fan at all of them running around in the other half, too many people have become obsessed with it.