A few GAA referee conundrums

daniels.ducks · 13-06-2013 8:34am

macadam wrote: »

I'd say your wrong there, the goalkeeper cannot be touched in the small square he can only be challenged for the ball Rule 1.7, he also cannot step over a boundary line to gain an advantage Rule 1.9 and Rule 4.34, the foul is not in the small square it when he steps over the end line, Free Kick
1.9 Provided that he has at least one foot on the
ground, a player may make a shoulder to
shoulder charge on an opponent-
(a) who is in possession of the ball, or
(b) who is playing the ball, or
(c) when both players are moving in the
direction of the ball to play it.
When he is within the small rectangle, the
goalkeeper may not be charged but he may be
challenged for possession of the ball, and his
puck, kick or pass may be blocked. Incidental
contact with the goalkeeper while playing the
ball is permitted.
4.34 To deliberately go outside the boundary lines
to gain an advantage except as provided in
Rule 1.9

But he'a in the small rectangle when he steps over the line. I'm not sure but i'd see it as a technical foul occurring within the small rectangle so a penalty. Really harsh one to give though.

macadam · 13-06-2013 9:15pm

daniels.ducks wrote: »

But he'a in the small rectangle when he steps over the line. I'm not sure but i'd see it as a technical foul occurring within the small rectangle so a penalty. Really harsh one to give though.

The foul is when he steps over the line, therefore he is technically over the boundary line and not in the small square.

macadam · 27-06-2013 10:31pm

MOUTHGUARDS,
Whats the general opinion on Underage players coming onto the field with no gumshield, recently a ref walked away from an underage match because not one player on a team had a mouthguard, and I agree with him the Gaa sheet we received stated No Mouthguard= NoGame

Colm R · 11-09-2013 8:43am

Going to resurrect this thread again following the hurling final. I don't want to get into a who is right, who is wrong debate - just want to identify the rule, or if the rules are lacking.

Nash was taking a 21 meter free. Kelly, the Clare goalkeeper charged it down.

Taking a free in hurling has two parts:

- lifting the sliotar

- striking the sliotar

Nash lifted the ball high and for some distance forward - I don't think this breaks any rule. What do ye think?

Its arguable that Kelly left his goal line before Nash lifted the ball, but its neglible - I need to see a replay, but lets say he only left his goal line as Nash lifted the ball for the sake of argument - is this legal - I think it is because Nash had begun the process of striking the ball.

My understanding is that Kelly is entitled to run forward as far as he wants at the point that Nash lifts the sliotar. But he cannot touch the ball or the player until such a time as the free taker has finished striking the ball.

What do ye think?

zetecescort · 11-09-2013 9:00am

Colm R wrote: »

Going to resurrect this thread again following the hurling final. I don't want to get into a who is right, who is wrong debate - just want to identify the rule, or if the rules are lacking.

Nash was taking a 21 meter free. Kelly, the Clare goalkeeper charged it down.

Taking a free in hurling has two parts:

- lifting the sliotar

- striking the sliotar

Nash lifted the ball high and for some distance forward - I don't think this breaks any rule. What do ye think?

Its arguable that Kelly left his goal line before Nash lifted the ball, but its neglible - I need to see a replay, but lets say he only left his goal line as Nash lifted the ball for the sake of argument - is this legal - I think it is because Nash had begun the process of striking the ball.

My understanding is that Kelly is entitled to run forward as far as he wants at the point that Nash lifts the sliotar. But he cannot touch the ball or the player until such a time as the free taker has finished striking the ball.

What do ye think?

Argued this with friends afterwards. If players are allowed charge the freetaker why is this not done for normal frees? Or is it just 21m frees?

Don't think Nash broke any rule in how he lifted the ball, but did himself no favours IMO by rising it so high, stopped his momentum waiting for it to drop.

Colm R · 11-09-2013 9:06am

zetecescort wrote: »

Argued this with friends afterwards. If players are allowed charge the freetaker why is this not done for normal frees? Or is it just 21m frees?

Don't think Nash broke any rule in how he lifted the ball, but did himself no favours IMO by rising it so high, stopped his momentum waiting for it to drop.

Normally a free taker stands stationary over a ball, lifts and strikes very quickly, hence no point in charging down.

However, Kelly knew Nash was going to lift the ball forward, so began his own charge forward.

Being from Cork, you'd expect me to be biased against Kelly. But I don't think he did anything wrong and carried out a fine save, that said, he probably still feels it today

Is there anything in the rule book about this?

bo-sco · 11-09-2013 11:50am

Colm R wrote: »

Normally a free taker stands stationary over a ball, lifts and strikes very quickly, hence no point in charging down.

However, Kelly knew Nash was going to lift the ball forward, so began his own charge forward.

Being from Cork, you'd expect me to be biased against Kelly. But I don't think he did anything wrong and carried out a fine save, that said, he probably still feels it today

Is there anything in the rule book about this?

The rule book says players can't be within 20 metres until the ball is struck which would imply that what Kelly did was illegal.

But the rule book is flawed in that defenders have no choice in the case of a 21 yard free as if the striker advances more than a metre they are breaking the rule.

premierstone · 11-09-2013 1:08pm

Colm R wrote: »

Being from Cork, you'd expect me to be biased against Kelly. But I don't think he did anything wrong and carried out a fine save, that said, he probably still feels it today

The thing about it though is that Kelly was 6 yards from the line before Nash even lifted the ball, there is absolutely no doubt he broke the rules. How he defended the second '21 was the correct way, he moved off the line as soon as Nash had lifted the ball.

Squareball2010 · 11-09-2013 5:19pm

Colm R wrote: »

Going to resurrect this thread again following the hurling final. I don't want to get into a who is right, who is wrong debate - just want to identify the rule, or if the rules are lacking.

Nash was taking a 21 meter free. Kelly, the Clare goalkeeper charged it down.

Taking a free in hurling has two parts:

- lifting the sliotar

- striking the sliotar

Nash lifted the ball high and for some distance forward - I don't think this breaks any rule. What do ye think?

Its arguable that Kelly left his goal line before Nash lifted the ball, but its neglible - I need to see a replay, but lets say he only left his goal line as Nash lifted the ball for the sake of argument - is this legal - I think it is because Nash had begun the process of striking the ball.

My understanding is that Kelly is entitled to run forward as far as he wants at the point that Nash lifts the sliotar. But he cannot touch the ball or the player until such a time as the free taker has finished striking the ball.

What do ye think?

This is one that sparked plenty of debate on Sunday in the terrace and stands and on the Sunday Game later that night. Overall the consensus is the referee Gavin was in this case incorrect and the rules seem to point to this conclusion also.

The rule as it stands states -

4.17 (a) For an opposing player to be nearer than 20m
to the ball before a free puck is struck.

PENALTY FOR THE ABOVE FOULS - Free
puck 13m more advantageous than the
place of original puck - up to opponents’
20m line.

Now a couple of key issues - (obviously the free can be advanced any further so a retake would be the penalty)

1. Kelly was actually already a number of yards off his goal-line before the ball was even lifted by Nash - straight away causing an infringement and a foul.

2. Whether Kelly started on his line or not before the ball was lifted by Nash, by advancing off his line a number of yards towards the ball as it was lifted and in the air for the free BEFORE the ball is struck (not lifted) as is stated in the rule then it is indeed a foul.

3. Gavin realised his error and instructed Kelly for each and every one of the other 20m frees and penalty to stay on his line or it would be retaken.

Anyhow, Kelly did cause an infringement as he was not back the required 20m distance aka remaining on the line and as such the free should have been retaken and the keeper issued a warning to remain on his line or get he would be booked for challenging the authority of a match official but not obeying the referees instruction.

As a side note - you're right Nash does cleverly and sneakly gain extra yardage through his extravagant lift for a free/penalty and is nearly on the 13m line by the time he strikes it but there is no rule against it so it is fair play and in line with the rules as they stand. Recall the great DJ Carey was another man fond of the extra distance gained from such positions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSarXRxcYQc

Grudaire · 11-09-2013 6:13pm

The Rules state:

GAA Rules wrote:

For all free pucks, including penalties, the ball
may be struck with the hurley in either of two
ways:
(a) Lift the ball with the hurley at the first
attempt and strike it with the hurley.
(b) Strike the ball on the ground.

At what point does the strike occur in part (a)?

Is it at the start or the end or somewhere in the middle!?

I would argue that the ball is 'struck' as soons as it has left the ground, otherwise you could argue that:

The defenders and Goalie must go backwards, or at least be behind the goal line. (To not breach the 20m rule)
The attacker is in breach of rule 4.25 by strike the ball from closer to the goal than where the puck is to be taken.

(4.25 To advance the ball deliberately from the place at which a free puck or sideline puck is to be taken.
2.3 A penalty puck shall be taken at the centre
point of the 20m line and the semi-circular arc,)

bruschi · 11-09-2013 7:54pm

premierstone wrote: »

The thing about it though is that Kelly was 6 yards from the line before Nash even lifted the ball, there is absolutely no doubt he broke the rules. How he defended the second '21 was the correct way, he moved off the line as soon as Nash had lifted the ball.

absolutely factually incorrect. watch it again if you have to, but he wasnt anywhere near 6 yards off the line when Nash lifted the ball.

the debate on this is the strike. it says defenders have to be 20m away from the ball when it is struck, so who causes the foul then? the person who brings the ball forward to strike it? or the player who can not retreat back from the ball to keep the 20m?

there is a case to argue that the player taking the free causes the offence by bringing the ball forward to within 20m of the goal. but obviously the whole rule is a bit of an anomaly, and is clearly not defined to take into the modern game and way of taking frees like Nash does.

Squareball2010 · 11-09-2013 10:30pm

bruschi wrote: »

absolutely factually incorrect. watch it again if you have to, but he wasnt anywhere near 6 yards off the line when Nash lifted the ball.

the debate on this is the strike. it says defenders have to be 20m away from the ball when it is struck, so who causes the foul then? the person who brings the ball forward to strike it? or the player who can not retreat back from the ball to keep the 20m?

there is a case to argue that the player taking the free causes the offence by bringing the ball forward to within 20m of the goal. but obviously the whole rule is a bit of an anomaly, and is clearly not defined to take into the modern game and way of taking frees like Nash does.

Firstly factually incorrect that he was 6 yards off his line it may be but Kelly WAS a couple of yards off his line before the ball was struck...the Sunday Game and my eyesight proves this as I was sat directly behind the goal in the Davin Stand on Sunday!

Ok lads I think everyone is getting a little bit too bogged down with this strike issue and when is a free actually struck or as such taken. To me its obvious and the rule book would suggest the same that a free is not taken or struck until the ball is struck, fair point? I think so. NOT when the ball is lifted..if thats the case you could charge down any free in any position of the pitch which is foul play!

Another issue people are getting too bogged down is is the fact Nash sneaks an extra few yards with his strike, so what? DJ Carey and many others have often done the same and its not against the rules so whats the issue? Oh its that the players are not 20m back? This is to preserve the advantage to the forward player striking the ball. If he throws it forward Nashesque style before striking it and the players remain on the goal-line then there's no issue and no foul. Of course the players can't be 20m back in that instance...but you can't expect them to be....as long as they remain on the line no problem.

Now what the issue here is is that Kelly advanced from the line before the free was struck breaking the 20m and then proceeded to rush out towards Nash and illegitimately blocking the free. THIS is foul play! If Kelly remained on his line like every other 20m free or penalty in the game the rules were being adhered to and thus no issue. Brian Gavin realised he was wrong almost straight away after Nash roared in his face I'm guessing and proved this by instructing the keeper to remain on his line for every subsequent 20m free/penalty after that.

Ha I must admit its an intriguing discussion but would people agree with that interpretation? :cool:

Martin567 · 12-09-2013 8:29am

It is an interesting discussion and I will reiterate the point I made several times in the actual match thread as I believe this is a more appropriate place for it.

The rules badly need to be changed. They currently make no sense as they never envisaged the possibility of anyone doing what Anthony Nash is doing. Credit to him for pushing the rules to the limit but I think what he is doing is ludicrous. It should lead to a change at next year's Congress.

For me, there are two alternatives. The first is to make it illegal to throw the ball forward as far as he does. The second may be easier to enforce. Allow all the players on the line to rush forward the second he lifts the ball. It is completely unfair that Nash can advance 7 or 8m from the actual free position over 2 or 3 seconds while everyone else is forced to stand still on the line. This second option would have little effect on a more orthodox style like that of Joe Canning.

I hope something like the above is implemented soon as, to me, what happened last Sunday was a complete farce.

bruschi · 12-09-2013 8:48am

Squareball2010 wrote: »

Firstly factually incorrect that he was 6 yards off his line it may be but Kelly WAS a couple of yards off his line before the ball was struck...the Sunday Game and my eyesight proves this as I was sat directly behind the goal in the Davin Stand on Sunday!

Ok lads I think everyone is getting a little bit too bogged down with this strike issue and when is a free actually struck or as such taken. To me its obvious and the rule book would suggest the same that a free is not taken or struck until the ball is struck, fair point? I think so. NOT when the ball is lifted..if thats the case you could charge down any free in any position of the pitch which is foul play!

Another issue people are getting too bogged down is is the fact Nash sneaks an extra few yards with his strike, so what? DJ Carey and many others have often done the same and its not against the rules so whats the issue? Oh its that the players are not 20m back? This is to preserve the advantage to the forward player striking the ball. If he throws it forward Nashesque style before striking it and the players remain on the goal-line then there's no issue and no foul. Of course the players can't be 20m back in that instance...but you can't expect them to be....as long as they remain on the line no problem.

Now what the issue here is is that Kelly advanced from the line before the free was struck breaking the 20m and then proceeded to rush out towards Nash and illegitimately blocking the free. THIS is foul play! If Kelly remained on his line like every other 20m free or penalty in the game the rules were being adhered to and thus no issue. Brian Gavin realised he was wrong almost straight away after Nash roared in his face I'm guessing and proved this by instructing the keeper to remain on his line for every subsequent 20m free/penalty after that.

Ha I must admit its an intriguing discussion but would people agree with that interpretation? :cool:

I wouldnt. Firstly, why is it alright to give allowance to Nash to sneak a few yards, but not for the defenders to sneak a few yards? Cant have it both ways.

As I said above, the rules are the problem. And Martin points it out well too. They need changing.

As it stands, the defenders are causing a foul play but they can not do anything other than run away from the goal to prevent this. They are the ones required to keep 20m distance, but yet the person taking the free is the one who causes the distance to be less than 20m, not the defenders.

antoobrien · 12-09-2013 9:15am

Squareball2010 wrote: »

Firstly factually incorrect that he was 6 yards off his line it may be but Kelly WAS a couple of yards off his line before the ball was struck...the Sunday Game and my eyesight proves this as I was sat directly behind the goal in the Davin Stand on Sunday!

You'll want to get your eyesight tested again the squareball, you were fooled by Kelly going back and forth between the edge of the square and the goal line.

When Nash starting to approach the ball Kelly bolted and by the time the ball was lifted Kelly was almost stepping on the 6 yard line - as the screen capture below shows (best I can do off youtube):

bruschi · 12-09-2013 10:57am

antoobrien wrote: »

You'll want to get your eyesight tested again the squareball, you were fooled by Kelly going back and forth between the edge of the square and the goal line.

When Nash starting to approach the ball Kelly bolted and by the time the ball was lifted Kelly was almost stepping on the 6 yard line - as the screen capture below shows (best I can do off youtube):

or you could freeze it when Nash first touched the ball, not when up on his hurl.

he is a yard or 2 off the line, not 6 when Nash lifts the ball. the time Nash takes to lift, and then throw it up means if you run at him you will get close to him.

but it shows 2 faults with the rules, and both keepers maxed them both out.

antoobrien · 12-09-2013 11:02am

bruschi wrote: »

or you could freeze it when Nash first touched the ball, not when up on his hurl.

Nash hasn't actually touched the ball yet there (the hurl is behind rather than under the ball)

premierstone · 12-09-2013 12:58pm

bruschi wrote: »

absolutely factually incorrect. watch it again if you have to, but he wasnt anywhere near 6 yards off the line when Nash lifted the ball.

I never said he was, I said he had been on the 6 yard line before the ball was lifted and Nash was adressing it, this is against the rules, and when the ball was lifted he was still well off his line, again in breach of the rules.

Squareball2010 · 12-09-2013 4:13pm

antoobrien wrote: »

You'll want to get your eyesight tested again the squareball, you were fooled by Kelly going back and forth between the edge of the square and the goal line.

When Nash starting to approach the ball Kelly bolted and by the time the ball was lifted Kelly was almost stepping on the 6 yard line - as the screen capture below shows (best I can do off youtube):

Excellent work Anto but you're just reiterating mine and everyone else's point here....before the ball was struck (as per the rulebook which is important here not when the ball was lifted) Kelly is yards off his line and commits the offence. As you say yourself Kelly bolted as Nash approached the free aka was about 2 yards off his line before the ball was lifted. Thus the free should have been retaken - accept it, the referee was wrong in this instance and realised it by warning Kelly for every subsequent free from such distance. My eyesight isn't failing me just yet

Squareball2010 · 12-09-2013 4:26pm

bruschi wrote: »

I wouldnt. Firstly, why is it alright to give allowance to Nash to sneak a few yards, but not for the defenders to sneak a few yards? Cant have it both ways.

As I said above, the rules are the problem. And Martin points it out well too. They need changing.

As it stands, the defenders are causing a foul play but they can not do anything other than run away from the goal to prevent this. They are the ones required to keep 20m distance, but yet the person taking the free is the one who causes the distance to be less than 20m, not the defenders.

Q1 Why is it alright to allow Nash sneak a few yards? I'll tell you why, because the current rules ALLOW him to do so and have done for years - cue Christy Ring and DJ Carey. It's never been a problem before so why is it a problem now? I agree the rule probably needs reviewing but as they stand at present Nash played within the rules so technically not a problem in this instance.

Q2 Why not allow the defenders to sneak a few yards also? Because the current rules prohibit this and rightly so too but stating the defenders must be 20m back before the ball is struck. This preserves the advantage with the attacking team and rightly so. Here the defenders and goalkeeper MUST be on the goal line...its simple! Whether or not Nash hits it from the 20m line or sneaks a few yards....they MUST stay on the line, no exceptions. Kelly did not do this and as the current rules stand he broke one of them and committed the offence which everyone agrees by now days later.

Looking and implementing the current rules which is all we can do Nash did nothing wrong, Kelly did so lets stick to the facts not heresay.

I agree the rules could do with a review to prevent the free/penalty taker stealing extra yardage but until that is done then Nash is completely right to do and execute what is a very difficult skill to lift it that high with that distance and still generate ferocious power in the shot, Kelly is completely wrong to bolt out from his line and be 6m away from Nash by the time he strikes the ball.

As an aside and moving on from this issue, football next year sees the introduction of the public clock. One wonders why hurling doesn't see the same change? This would take a great deal of pressure and criticism from referees as we wouldn't have had the argument of whether a ref is right to add on an extra 30 seconds or not (which here he clearly was right to do so with Cork's time wasting on the sidelines).

Bring in the hooter like the ladies football!:pac:

premierstone · 12-09-2013 4:48pm

It also seems to be conveniently ignored or forgotten here that a '21 or penalty is awarded because the defending team has commited an offence, any advantage or grey area the advantage should always be afforded to the attacking team IMO.

bruschi · 12-09-2013 5:44pm

Squareball2010 wrote: »

Q1 Why is it alright to allow Nash sneak a few yards? I'll tell you why, because the current rules ALLOW him to do so and have done for years - cue Christy Ring and DJ Carey. It's never been a problem before so why is it a problem now? I agree the rule probably needs reviewing but as they stand at present Nash played within the rules so technically not a problem in this instance.

Q2 Why not allow the defenders to sneak a few yards also? Because the current rules prohibit this and rightly so too but stating the defenders must be 20m back before the ball is struck. This preserves the advantage with the attacking team and rightly so. Here the defenders and goalkeeper MUST be on the goal line...its simple! Whether or not Nash hits it from the 20m line or sneaks a few yards....they MUST stay on the line, no exceptions. Kelly did not do this and as the current rules stand he broke one of them and committed the offence which everyone agrees by now days later.

Looking and implementing the current rules which is all we can do Nash did nothing wrong, Kelly did so lets stick to the facts not heresay.

I agree the rules could do with a review to prevent the free/penalty taker stealing extra yardage but until that is done then Nash is completely right to do and execute what is a very difficult skill to lift it that high with that distance and still generate ferocious power in the shot, Kelly is completely wrong to bolt out from his line and be 6m away from Nash by the time he strikes the ball.

As an aside and moving on from this issue, football next year sees the introduction of the public clock. One wonders why hurling doesn't see the same change? This would take a great deal of pressure and criticism from referees as we wouldn't have had the argument of whether a ref is right to add on an extra 30 seconds or not (which here he clearly was right to do so with Cork's time wasting on the sidelines).

Bring in the hooter like the ladies football!:pac:

highlighted your points there. you condradict yourself, it says you must be 20m from the ball, not stay on the line. Now If Nash throws if forward and hits it from the 13, then the defenders have committed a foul in your mind, as they are not 20m from the ball when it has been struck. so how can that be realistically enforced? there is a huge flaw in the rules.

the defenders did nothing wrong, do not move, but yet they are less than 20m from the ball when it was struck. so thereby they have committed a foul?

premierstone wrote: »

It also seems to be conveniently ignored or forgotten here that a '21 or penalty is awarded because the defending team has commited an offence, any advantage or grey area the advantage should always be afforded to the attacking team IMO.

yup, would agree with that too.

Martin567 · 12-09-2013 5:45pm

premierstone wrote: »

It also seems to be conveniently ignored or forgotten here that a '21 or penalty is awarded because the defending team has commited an offence, any advantage or grey area the advantage should always be afforded to the attacking team IMO.

Not forgotten at all. Lots of 21 yard frees are for very minor offences. I don't believe that a team should be able to have a completely unimpeded shot at goal from less than 14 yards out just because a back has been harshly penalised for over carrying, to give just one example.

Thanks to Squareball2010 for a very good post above. I can't argue with much of it but, for me, it just highlights why the rules need to be changed so urgently to avoid a repeat of last Sunday's farce.

premierstone · 12-09-2013 5:50pm

Martin567 wrote: »

it just highlights why the rules need to be changed so urgently to avoid a repeat of last Sunday's farce.

I think this is one thing we can all universally agree on, what amazes me is the fact that it has never been an issue before this.

Martin567 · 12-09-2013 5:53pm

premierstone wrote: »

I think this is one thing we can all universally agree on, what amazes me is the fact that it has never been an issue before this.

In my lifetime it was by a distance the most extreme I've ever seen. Although my father tells me that Christy Ring & Nicky Rackard took penalties like that 50 odd years ago.

premierstone · 12-09-2013 6:01pm

Martin567 wrote: »

In my lifetime it was by a distance the most extreme I've ever seen. Although my father tells me that Christy Ring & Nicky Rackard took penalties like that 50 odd years ago.

Yeah I've seen a number of players taken 21' and pens like that but its probably the first time we have had a combination of the exagerated lift and a keeper rushing from the line at the same time, pretty funny if the keeper got there before the player struck the ball

Squareball2010 · 12-09-2013 9:50pm

premierstone wrote: »

Yeah I've seen a number of players taken 21' and pens like that but its probably the first time we have had a combination of the exagerated lift and a keeper rushing from the line at the same time, pretty funny if the keeper got there before the player struck the ball

Definitely one for next years Congress one would assume! We all agree the rule as it stands is out of date and unenforceable when you have free takers like Nash at least who gain extra yardage at ease. Ha it would have been hilarious had the keeper got to the ball before Nash struck it, not that he was far away! At least Kelly had the presence of mind to turn his back on the shot because had he faced that strike square on he might be regretting it for the rest of his life with the crown jewels

Squareball2010 · 12-09-2013 10:05pm

bruschi wrote: »

highlighted your points there. you condradict yourself, it says you must be 20m from the ball, not stay on the line. Now If Nash throws if forward and hits it from the 13, then the defenders have committed a foul in your mind, as they are not 20m from the ball when it has been struck. so how can that be realistically enforced? there is a huge flaw in the rules.

the defenders did nothing wrong, do not move, but yet they are less than 20m from the ball when it was struck. so thereby they have committed a foul?

yup, would agree with that too.

I hear ya Bruschi but as a referee I'm merely pointing out how I would be enforcing the rules as they currently stand i.e. I would be telling the goalkeeper and defenders to remain on the goal line which is 20m back before the free is struck. In this case the defenders are not wrong and have not committed a foul as they are back 20m before the ball is lifted and struck and hold their positions on the line which is as far back as they can go unless they go into the net.The 20m distance back is to give the advantage to the free taker. He is voluntary giving up some of that advantage himself if he scoops if forward like Nash did. Now mind you he clearly gains a far superior advantage by adopting his strategy as hes only pucking from the 13m this time.

Completely agree with you that people like Nash with their free taking prove the rule is flawed as how can the defenders possibly be 20m back if he hits it from the 13m by the time he has it lifted! This needs to be looked at maybe changing the wording of the rule to: the keeper and defenders need just remain on the goal line for 20m frees and penalties before the ball is struck or else bring in a rule stating the free taker must strike the ball from the 20m line and can not encroach on this by stealing extra yardage...this would mean perhaps taking the ball back a little distance before lifting and striking to ensure it is hit from the 20m line.

It's sparked some debate lads in fairness but tis rare you see lads able to smack a free like Nash trust me which is probably why this hasn't been much of an issue before this.

You gotta love the GAA rulebook and the auld chancers who can stretch it to the limit

zetecescort · 13-09-2013 9:05am

Agree the wording of the rules need changing so defenders are told to stay on the line.

Nash only doing what free takers in football have been doing forever, gaining yards or trotting towards the centre of the pitch before kicking. Unusual in hurling but another grey area in the rule book.

antoobrien · 13-09-2013 9:26am

Squareball2010 wrote: »

struck (as per the rulebook which is important here not when the ball was lifted) Kelly is yards off his line and commits the offence.

God I wish football refs would stay out of hurling, it's embarrassing.

In hurling the strike (for a free) is to start taking a free. It illustrate this, the next time you see somebody make a mes of a lift, the opposition start to move in as the ball is already considered "struck".

So where Kelly was when Nash "struck" the ball is totally irrelevant - as under the rules of hurling he has already struck the ball by lifting it.

Squareball2010 wrote: »

As you say yourself Kelly bolted as Nash approached the free aka was about 2 yards off his line before the ball was lifted. Thus the free should have been retaken - accept it, the referee was wrong in this instance and realised it by warning Kelly for every subsequent free from such distance. My eyesight isn't failing me just yet

And when the ball was actually lifted he was almost stepping on the edge of the square, so yeah go check your eyesight.

The refs decision (to let play continue) was wrong the free should have been retaken, that's the only thing we agree about (and the only thing you're right about).

As for why he warned Kelly after that, take a look at the picture - Gavin is looking at Nash, so he can't see where Kelly is (I didn't watch the sunday game, did anyone pick up on this?).

So Gavin can not make that call without help from linesmen or umpires and, under the rules, they don't have the power or responsibility to anything about it (they signal when the ball went over a line). If he had done, it would have been wrong (despite the fact that it would have been correct) because he'd have been guessing.

To hazard a guess as to why Gavin warned Kelly from there on, when he clearly couldn't see what Kelly had done, I'd say the incident was brought to his attention at some point, probably half time.

Colm R · 13-09-2013 9:48am

antoobrien wrote: »

God I wish football refs would stay out of hurling, it's embarrassing.

In hurling the strike (for a free) is to start taking a free. It illustrate this, the next time you see somebody make a mes of a lift, the opposition start to move in as the ball is already considered "struck".

So where Kelly was when Nash "struck" the ball is totally irrelevant - as under the rules of hurling he has already struck the ball by lifting it.

And when the ball was actually lifted he was almost stepping on the edge of the square, so yeah go check your eyesight.

The refs decision (to let play continue) was wrong the free should have been retaken, that's the only thing we agree about (and the only thing you're right about).

As for why he warned Kelly after that, take a look at the picture - Gavin is looking at Nash, so he can't see where Kelly is (I didn't watch the sunday game, did anyone pick up on this?).

So Gavin can not make that call without help from linesmen or umpires and, under the rules, they don't have the power or responsibility to anything about it (they signal when the ball went over a line). If he had done, it would have been wrong (despite the fact that it would have been correct) because he'd have been guessing.

To hazard a guess as to why Gavin warned Kelly from there on, when he clearly couldn't see what Kelly had done, I'd say the incident was brought to his attention at some point, probably half time.

You're bang on - Gavin could not see Kelly, so could not make a decision, which brings us back ultimately to biggest issue in Hurling - its too difficult in hurling for one man to call the shots.

There are 7 officials involved in the game, and the GAA really need to change the definition of their roles and their responsibilities. In addition, I think standard positions need to be defined for all officials in certain circumstances, such as 65, 21 yard frees, penalties etc.

Lets take this incident (and this is just my opinion on how things could be done) - one person needs to be able to see both the players on the line and the free taker at the same time to ensure that they don't breach the rules timing wise - best person for this would be the referee, standing at an angle behind the free taker. If he is positioned to the side, he can only watch one person, so cannot make a proper judgement.

One umpire should take on the task of watching the flight of the ball. And the second umpire should take on the task of standing diagonally opposite the referee, looking for the same problems that the referee is, but from a different perspective.

The linesman on the side of the pitch closest to the referee should move back down the field and watch for foul play behind the referees back.

The linesman on the other side should be inline with the ref and doing looking for foul play on that side of the field.

The umpires at the other end should watch for foul play inside their half and not even be concentrating on events at the far end.

If the referee is confident in his officials to do their tasks, then he can be give full concentration to the free taker.

I'm sure there are flaws in what I've suggested, but I do think standardised position for set play is needed.

antoobrien · 13-09-2013 9:59am

Colm R wrote: »

There are 7 officials involved in the game, and the GAA really need to change the definition of their roles and their responsibilities. In addition, I think standard positions need to be defined for all officials in certain circumstances, such as 65, 21 yard frees, penalties etc.
...
I'm sure there are flaws in what I've suggested, but I do think standardised position for set play is needed.

We could probably learn from how soccer & rugby deal with these situations. The linesmen (assistant referees, they actually do have the power to recommend stopping play), only cover half the pitch, with the ref generally running diagonally to the other side of the pitch.

For a penalty the linesman takes up a position where he can see the ball crossing the line, so that if the ref is unsighted (e.g. keepers body) a ruling can be made.

Also in rugby the touch judges stake out the positions for the opposing teams at lineouts & scrums.

None of these systems are perfect, but they help.

premierstone · 13-09-2013 10:58am

antoobrien wrote: »

We could probably learn from how soccer & rugby deal with these situations. The linesmen (assistant referees, they actually do have the power to recommend stopping play), only cover half the pitch, with the ref generally running diagonally to the other side of the pitch.

For a penalty the linesman takes up a position where he can see the ball crossing the line, so that if the ref is unsighted (e.g. keepers body) a ruling can be made.

Also in rugby the touch judges stake out the positions for the opposing teams at lineouts & scrums.

None of these systems are perfect, but they help.

On one hand you accuse Squareball of embarrassing himself by using Gaelic Football logic and then you compare the role of a linesman in hurling to that of a touch judge in Rugby?? Seriously?

And best of luck trying to run the line in the fastest field game in the world from potentially >70m away and deciding who the ball you can't even see hit off last!

Colm R · 13-09-2013 2:18pm

premierstone wrote: »

On one hand you accuse Squareball of embarrassing himself by using Gaelic Football logic and then you compare the role of a linesman in hurling to that of a touch judge in Rugby?? Seriously?

And best of luck trying to run the line in the fastest field game in the world from potentially >70m away and deciding who the ball you can't even see hit off last!

In fairness, he was not suggesting that linesmen go to the corner for such events, and neither am I. Just giving examples, that in particular with set play, other sports have defined where a referee and other officials need to be located. Its not feasible for a linesman to go the corner, and besides, we have umpires to fulfill that role anyway.

antoobrien · 13-09-2013 2:43pm

premierstone wrote: »

On one hand you accuse Squareball of embarrassing himself by using Gaelic Football logic

Not only was Squareball using the football mindset on taking the free (i.e. the free doesn't start until the ball is struck, ignoring the lift) but Squareball was also wrong in the application of the rule. The rule never mentions "striking" the ball, it just says taking the free.

All players, except the player taking the free puck (excluding penalties), shall be 20m from where the free puck is being taken or all players, except those two contesting the throw-in, shall be 13m from where the throw-in is awarded.

The only reference to "striking" the ball comes in the description of how frees can be taken, not in relation to how far way an opponent must be:

For all free pucks, including penalties, the ball may be struck with the hurley in either of two ways:
(a) Lift the ball with the hurley at the first attempt and strike it with the hurley.
(b) Strike the ball on the ground.

Squareball refers to where the ball is struck - totally irrelevant to the rule - rather than where it is taken from and how far away the opposition is at that point.

premierstone wrote: »

and then you compare the role of a linesman in hurling to that of a touch judge in Rugby?? Seriously?

In the context of the post I was replying to, which was suggesting roles/positions for the various officals, I was point out the fact that the touch judges have defined roles at scrum & lineout time e.g. it's part of their jobs to watch for encroachment until the scrum/lineout is over.

Or is it wrong to suggest that we can learn something from how other sports use their officials?

premierstone wrote: »

And best of luck trying to run the line in the fastest field game in the world from potentially >70m away and deciding who the ball you can't even see hit off last!

If the ball is cleared from the 21 to midfield, a linesman will be looking at something about 50m away anyways, nothing is perfect, and it was discussing solely the suggestion put forward, but there are things that can be looked at to see if it can help (or is it jsut the mention of those foreign games that got your goat up).

Do I seriously think that we should use the soccer style line running? No. But we can take a look at how the set up for penalties (which you have studiously ignored).

So back to the matter at hand, if a soccer style approach had been taken where the ref and a linesman were watching from opposing sides, would it be more likely that the infringement could have been seen? Possibly.

Squareball2010 · 14-09-2013 5:40am

Let me take this ludicrous reply piece by piece...

antoobrien wrote: »

God I wish football refs would stay out of hurling, it's embarrassing.

Firstly where you're incorrect I will have you know is that I am in fact a dual referee, so that argument/stereotype holds no water here anto. Though it is humorous hearing football referees at times calling hurling incidences and saying what they would have done in such cases - straight red is a common diagnosis :rolleyes:

In hurling the strike (for a free) is to start taking a free. It illustrate this, the next time you see somebody make a mes of a lift, the opposition start to move in as the ball is already considered "struck".

Oh in hurling the strike (taking of the free) is actually in the mere lifting of the ball? Really? Do you honestly believe that to be the case? Biggest load of nonsense I've heard in my time on this forum. Let me guide you back to the rulebook which you clearly need to read up on again - RULE 2 - SET PLAY rule 2.5 specifically outlines:-

"For all free pucks, including penalties, the ball may be struck with the hurley in either of two ways:

a) Lift the ball with the hurley at the first attempt and strike it with the hurley

b) Strike the ball on the ground"

Now you give an example of how a player may mess up the lifting of the ball to strike it for the free and how players can start to move in..yes this is the case your right but when and why? Consult rule 2.5 again and read on to where it covers this instance:

"If a player taking a free puck or penalty fails to lift the ball at the first attempt, or fails to strike it with the hurley, he must strike it on the ground without delay. (Now this is important) Only when he delays, may a player of either side approach nearer than 20m, except in the case of penalties

Now that is the rule anto so your logic is incorrect.

So where Kelly was when Nash "struck" the ball is totally irrelevant - as under the rules of hurling he has already struck the ball by lifting it.

And when the ball was actually lifted he was almost stepping on the edge of the square, so yeah go check your eyesight.

I must apologise as I can't get my print screen to paste into this for some reason but on this highlights video of the AI I had paused it at 5.06 to prove Kelly was 2 yards off his line when Nash lifts the ball off the 20m! Check it out if you wish - http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=PwNzHxuOPtk#t=306

The ball was lifted a long time ago...it was lifted on the 20m line (when the keeper was a few yards off his line as I said) and thrown into the air off nash's hurley so by the time the ball was released from being balanced on his hurley (already lifted) the keeper was almost on the edge of the square well done. Your point is what here exactly? Both are fouls....whether he was 2 yards which he was when he technically had the ball lifted on the hurley or 6 yards when the ball had left his hurley and was thrown into the air! 20:20 vision sure i'll say again but will reiterate your point seems pointless in truth :rolleyes:

The refs decision (to let play continue) was wrong the free should have been retaken, that's the only thing we agree about (and the only thing you're right about).

As for why he warned Kelly after that, take a look at the picture - Gavin is looking at Nash, so he can't see where Kelly is (I didn't watch the sunday game, did anyone pick up on this?).

So Gavin can not make that call without help from linesmen or umpires and, under the rules, they don't have the power or responsibility to anything about it (they signal when the ball went over a line). If he had done, it would have been wrong (despite the fact that it would have been correct) because he'd have been guessing.

To hazard a guess as to why Gavin warned Kelly from there on, when he clearly couldn't see what Kelly had done, I'd say the incident was brought to his attention at some point, probably half time.

Agree with this but Gavin was at fault here still regardless of what you say. He half heartedly funnily enough tells kelly to get back on his line if you re watch it but doesn't even look at him again until the free is struck at which point he CAN see Kelly is yards off his line so he should be awarding the retake. No excuses....

antoobrien · 23-09-2013 10:53am

Squareball2010 wrote: »

Agree with this but Gavin was at fault here still regardless of what you say.

That's about as idiotic as the rest of your response (god help the hurlers that get you as a ref).

Squareball2010 · 23-09-2013 8:27pm

antoobrien wrote: »

That's about as idiotic as the rest of your response (god help the hurlers that get you as a ref).

You're right...apologies for showing you up in my last post by using actual wording from the rulebook to highlight the many flaws in your argument re the infamous 20m free from Nash two weeks ago.

You say your a referee yourself? This worries me the fact you therefore can't acknowledge the many errors Gavin made in the drawn game, god knows they've been documented enough!

Out of interest what do people (anto included) make of McGraths appt for the replay? All this in spite of an unbelievable decision to send off Horgan in the Munster final which was rescinded and a relatively poor performance in last yrs replay e.g think donellans disallowed goal. #strangeone

Squareball2010 · 24-09-2013 1:36pm

Interesting article in today's Irish Examiner re the Kelly save from Nash's 20m free in the replay highlighting the need for the GAA to address any confusion or ambiguity in the rulebook. Pretty much repeats the differing opinions in this thread - tis we should be in the media hotseats!

http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/gaa/hurling/kellys-fearless-goal-line-charges-lead-to-player-safety-issue-244095.html

Kelly’s fearless goal-line charges lead to player safety issue
Tuesday, September 24, 2013
A serious issue that has arisen after the drawn All-Ireland SHC final between Clare and Cork is the safety of those on the goal-line facing a close in free or penalty.
Cork keeper Anthony Nash has perfected the skill of throwing the ball extra high, thus gaining extra metres after he has lifted the ball and before he strikes.

In one outstanding instance against Clare he was on the 13m when making contact with the ball from a 20m free, while Clare keeper Pa Kelly — having rushed off his line once Nash lifted the ball — was by then a mere 6m away.

The ball hit him on the hip and thankfully, no serious damage was done. But what if it had him in a vulnerable area, what if Kelly had been seriously injured? And with the power of the Nash shot that is a very real possibility.

Ahead of Saturday’s replay in Croke Park (5pm), Kelly addressed that issue but first, his decision to charge down Nash’s shot. “I’ve a strong opinion on that. Once the person taking the free touches the ball the goalie should be allowed attack. I started my run on the line and I don’t see any reason why I can’t attack the ball and block it with my body. It’s in play. Would I do it again the next day? Who knows? It’s a grey area.”

Rule 2.2, which covers ordinary frees, states: ‘All players, except the player taking the free puck (excluding penalties), shall be 20m from where the free puck is being taken.’

Rule 4.16 (b), which specifically covers penalties, states: ‘For any of the three players defending a penalty on the goal-line to move nearer than 20m to the ball before the penalty puck is taken…’

The question though is when and where is the free/penalty ‘taken’?

Is it, as Kelly claims, when the ball is first touched, in which case he is perfectly entitled to then charge from his line, or is it when the ball is actually struck, in which case, other than the three players on the line simultaneously retreating (through the net) the exact same distance as the free-taker has thrown the ball forward, it is technically impossible for them to remain 20m from the ball.

Rules 4.11 (a) ‘For a player on the team awarded a free puck to stand or move nearer than 20m to the ball before it is struck’ and 4.17 (a) ‘For an opposing player to be nearer than 20m to the ball before a free puck is struck’ are very specific — it’s when the ball is struck. But which rule takes precedence?

To add even more confusion, there’s Rule 4.25: ‘To advance the ball deliberately from the place at which a free puck is to be taken — penalty for the above foul, (i) Cancel free puck; (ii) Throw in the ball where the foul occurred, except as provided under exception (v) of Rule 2.2!

Can anyone argue that in almost all free-taking situations, now and historically, the ball is indeed advanced, thrown forward with the jab-lift, thus is almost never struck from the spot on which it was awarded.

Meanwhile, Kelly is prepared to face another possible Nash missile on Saturday.

He said: “The first thing is, you have to set up your two defenders and make sure they’re in the right positions. You’re probably doing a bit of trash talk or whatever. You’re trying to read where he’s going to hit it, read his pick-up. There’s an element of studying him, looking at tapes and seeing where he hits the ball. But with him, a lot of it is luck. It’s more hope the ball is going to hit off you because he has such a ferocious shot.

“Do goalies need some protection? That’s an issue that has to be dealt with. If the ball hits you in certain areas it could seriously hurt you. I’d say the powers-that-be will look at it at the end of the year.”

zetecescort · 24-09-2013 9:14pm

To add even more confusion, there’s Rule 4.25: ‘To advance the ball deliberately from the place at which a free puck is to be taken — penalty for the above foul, (i) Cancel free puck; (ii) Throw in the ball where the foul occurred, except as provided under exception (v) of Rule 2.2!

I'd imagine that relates to where the ball is placed before the free is taken imo.

zetecescort · 31-08-2014 2:01pm

After the penalty awarded to Kerry last night Is it in the rule book that a soccer style sliding tackle is banned or is it just deemed dangerous play?

chubba1984 · 31-08-2014 2:31pm

Sliding tackles are against the rules in GAA.

zetecescort · 31-08-2014 2:37pm

Yeah ok, but is the sliding tackle mentioned in the rule book or is it dealt with under a general dangerous play rule

31-08-2014 2:53pm

whats the point of having rules, Enrights rugby tackle on O'Connor was a blatant black card in front of the ref. He even acknowledged it by giving a penalty, yet no card.
Its not the rules that are the problem its the poor quality of the officials.

Robson99 · 31-08-2014 8:57pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

whats the point of having rules, Enrights rugby tackle on O'Connor was a blatant black card in front of the ref. He even acknowledged it by giving a penalty, yet no card.
Its not the rules that are the problem its the poor quality of the officials.

How Kevin McLaughlin escaped a black card for some of his rugby tackles is also questionable

keeponhurling · 31-08-2014 9:36pm

Robson99 wrote: »

How Kevin McLaughlin escaped a black card for some of his rugby tackles is also questionable

Yes, and McGee got a black card today for a body check, correctly.

As usual lack of consistency

31-08-2014 11:41pm

keeponhurling wrote: »

Yes, and McGee got a black card today for a body check, correctly.

As usual lack of consistency

surely time for a set of multiple professional referees and umpires from the Quarter final stage. Heck if we have to import soccer refs from the UK :eek: nothing can be as bad as what we have had recently...:o

T0001 · 01-09-2014 12:19am

so far a very poor year for referees. Disgraceful and unacceptable

daniels.ducks · 01-09-2014 12:39pm

zetecescort wrote: »

After the penalty awarded to Kerry last night Is it in the rule book that a soccer style sliding tackle is banned or is it just deemed dangerous play?

Not once does the book mention sliding tackle. When I referee, if it's on the ball it's perfectly okay. The cases where I would blow are:

if it's on the man
if the player is beginning to pick up the ball or in the process of playing it.

Kerry's penalty I would have deemed a penalty, the player was in the act of playing the ball.

realweirdo · 01-09-2014 4:31pm

Interesting piece in the Examiner about Saturday's game from John Bannon.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/gaa/reillys-officiating-lacked-consistency-284360.html

A few GAA referee conundrums

Comments