Should the 'Nash' free be outlawed?

Martin567 · 30-03-2014 6:22pm

DJ Carey & Eoin Kelly, among others, have been criticised for balancing the ball on the hurley before striking. Anthony Nash also does this but takes it a step further.

Watch the goal today. He scoops it up, takes two steps with the ball balanced on the hurley and then throws it way into the air. If he keeps perfecting it, eventually he'll be in the small square before he strikes.

As long as he keeps getting away with it, he and Cork would be crazy to stop doing it. But it is farcical to look at and potentially hugely dangerous.

thinkstoomuch1 · 30-03-2014 7:36pm

Martin567 wrote: »

DJ Carey & Eoin Kelly, among others, have been criticised for balancing the ball on the hurley before striking. Anthony Nash also does this but takes it a step further.

Watch the goal today. He scoops it up, takes two steps with the ball balanced on the hurley and then throws it way into the air. If he keeps perfecting it, eventually he'll be in the small square before he strikes.

As long as he keeps getting away with it, he and Cork would be crazy to stop doing it. But it is farcical to look at and potentially hugely dangerous.

Martin ,stop lad ,will yeah.No one has ever got injured playing re nash.Dont make laugh ffs,a kilkenny man preaching safety,tyrell nearly took head of corbett 2010 ,he threw hurley at him.

adrian522 · 30-03-2014 7:53pm

thinkstoomuch1 wrote: »

tyrell nearly took head of corbett 2010 ,he threw hurley at him.

Seriously WTF does this have to do with the subject? Are we going to dredge up every foul from the last 5 years to attempt (badly) to prove a point?

thinkstoomuch1 · 30-03-2014 8:21pm

adrian522 wrote: »

Seriously WTF does this have to do with the subject? Are we going to dredge up every foul from the last 5 years to attempt (badly) to prove a point?

as your kilkenny mate says,No fuding please,answer the question.

Its not one rule for cats and another for anyone else.Ye like to think there is.Ye cant speak or claim to be on a high horse when it comes to dangerous pkay

keane2097 · 30-03-2014 8:22pm

Throwing the hurley at someone is against the rules because it's dangerous. It's not so much irrelevant as proving the opposite of the desired point.

adrian522 · 30-03-2014 8:33pm

thinkstoomuch1 wrote: »

as your kilkenny mate says,No fuding please,answer the question.

Its not one rule for cats and another for anyone else.Ye like to think there is.Ye cant speak or claim to be on a high horse when it comes to dangerous pkay

so because of some foul 5 years ago no one from Kilkenny can voice an opinion? Maybe it's time for you to stop playing the victim and grow up?

adrian522 · 30-03-2014 8:35pm

Also if you are talking about the all ireland final it wasn't Tyrell, but don't let things like facts get in the way of your irrelevant rant.

thinkstoomuch1 · 31-03-2014 12:15am

adrian522 wrote: »

so because of some foul 5 years ago no one from Kilkenny can voice an opinion? Maybe it's time for you to stop playing the victim and grow up?

What a laugh.Sure its mans game ,cody doesnt want cards yet Nash oh my god,sweet jesus is a danger to all.

See you sidetricked tyrell.
Yere wasting yere time going on about nash it is here to stay

What next lads a petiton to Enda kenny to change it

As proved by post earlier the poster no rule is broken.

I cant wait to seeing many more goals like today

No one has ever in a club game the last ten years without helments been injured by nash

The danger argument has no credibility

Ban nash over danger you may as well ban hurling.

Realt Dearg Sec · 31-03-2014 12:18am

thinkstoomuch1 wrote: »

Its not one rule for cats and another for anyone else.

This would be a much less hilarious point if you weren't quite obviously referring to two different rules.

Fortunately it is really hilarious. It's a total red herring.

Aside from the fact that, by your logic, you could say "a cork player once hit a lad a shoulder in the chest therefore Kilkenny should, forever more, be allowed catch the ball three times" without fear of contradiction, the point here is that what Nash does is potentially dangerous and should be against the rules. Last I checked throwing a hurl already it's against the rules. Just because a Kilkenny player (not Tyrell by the way, at least try and limit the irrelevance of your points with some actual facts) once broke as rule doesn't render all debates about rules irrelevant.

(please, please, if at all possible, limit your response to the length if one book of the bible)

adrian522 · 31-03-2014 12:23am

@thinkstoomuch1 I'm going to stop talking to you now.

131spanner · 31-03-2014 12:24am

thinkstoomuch1 wrote: »

No one has ever in a club game the last ten years without helments been injured by nash

The danger argument has no credibility

With twelve lads inside in the Clare goal during the replayed final it's actually a miracle nobody took serious damage off that sliothar. Do we wait til someone takes it to the body or neck until there's action taken?

Saying that there's no credibility behind the danger argument is absolute nonsense to be fair.

31-03-2014 12:27am

adrian522 wrote: »

Well if the "strike" is deemed to start as soon as he rises the ball defenders should be allowed come out to meet him and get their block in.

As things stand if the strike is the moment of impact all the defenders are committing a foul by not being 20 meters back.

They'll have to tidy up the rule book one way or another.

I noticed TJ Reid trying something similar at the weekend, I imagine if no change is made the practice will be a lot more widespread by summer.

Your spot on there. There has to be a trade off if this is allowed continue. Its a great bit of skill dont get me wrong but it just gives too much advantage to the striker. I suppose that element of danger is there also. From Nash's point of view though fair play to him. He's right to play to the rules.

The powers that be will have to change it.

keane2097 · 31-03-2014 12:29am

I don't think there's any real credibility to the danger argument either for what it's worth but I think it makes more sense for the rule to relate to the final strike of the sliotar rather than the original lift.

Having said that I hope they don't change the rule because I think it's class what Nash does.

Hammer Archer · 31-03-2014 12:33am

thinkstoomuch1 wrote: »

,a kilkenny man preaching safety,tyrell nearly took head of corbett 2010 ,he threw hurley at him.

thinkstoomuch, this thread is about Nash's free/penalty taking technique and this has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.

I agree that it's an amazing piece of skill, but I would also agree that if he is allowed to nearly halve the distance from the goal between lifting and striking, the defenders should certainly be allowed advance on him.
Don't agree with the danger element though. No more dangerous than a forward one on one with a keeper and blasting it past him.

yop · 31-03-2014 12:37am

First time I "noticed" it today, bit unfair to ban it, though I can see the advantage, was a great save though by the waterford backs in the end.

Realt Dearg Sec · 31-03-2014 12:39am

yop wrote: »

was a great save though by the waterford backs in the end.

Huh?

Kristopherus · 31-03-2014 12:41am

yop wrote: »

First time I "noticed" it today, bit unfair to ban it, though I can see the advantage, was a great save though by the waterford backs in the end.

If its Sunday's match you are referring to, Yop, Cork were playing Tipperary................

yop · 31-03-2014 12:42am

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

Huh?

Jsus!! Sorry, TIPP!!!! Sorry, I was reading the report on the Waterford match and i typed Waterford!!!! sorry

thinkstoomuch1 · 31-03-2014 1:25am

keane2097 wrote: »

I don't think there's any real credibility to the danger argument either for what it's worth but I think it makes more sense for the rule to relate to the final strike of the sliotar rather than the original lift.

Having said that I hope they don't change the rule because I think it's class what Nash does.

Id agree keane.
Its the danger argument that people make that strongly makes cork fans frustarted.

People would be more receiptve of views without that part of it put in.

Nash is such a geuine ,great lad,and hes human at the end of the day ,if he thought he could injure someone ,he honsesty wouldnt do it.

Its a skill at the end of the day.

Hanalei · 31-03-2014 8:40am

thinkstoomuch1 wrote: »

Id agree keane.
Its the danger argument that people make that strongly makes cork fans frustarted.

People would be more receiptve of views without that part of it put in.

Nash is such a geuine ,great lad,and hes human at the end of the day ,if he thought he could injure someone ,he honsesty wouldnt do it.

Its a skill at the end of the day.

Not true, he knows full well he could injure someone, it goes without saying that he obviously doesn't want to injure anyone.

There is always a very small chance of injury in a penalty/close range free situation. Just ask Joe Quaid (Limerick goalkeeper 1994-2002), in a league game against Laois in 1997 a penalty hit him straight in the genitals and the damage was so bad he had to have a testicle removed.

Like I said, there's always a very small chance, but Nash's technique increases that risk significantly, it's hard enough to react in time to a conventionally struck penalty, never mind one where the taker is gaining 10 yards!

Just for the record, I'm not one citing safety reasons, I believe it is fundamentally unfair for a player to advance 10 yards when the defence are not allowed to do so.

Red Crow · 31-03-2014 8:45am

There is very much a danger with the technique. Getting hit in the head from that distance and the pace he gets on the ball would lead to some serious damage.

There is no argument for it IMO.

STIG83 · 31-03-2014 9:53am

It's a great skill he has, a joy to watch, especially at the AI final last year.

If it ain't broken don't fix it.

DDC1990 · 31-03-2014 10:12am

I think the rule should be altered, not because its dangerous but because its unfair.

If a foul takes place 21m out the free should be from 21m out, not 13m.

A simple change to say that the ball must be struck from the spot of the foul would help.

Then Nash could continue with his technique, but have to place the ball 8m or so back.

blue note · 31-03-2014 10:53am

Could they alter it by saying that no free can be struck beyond the 21m line? but allow players to take it back a metre or two in order to allow them still get a little run at them to generate power?

Mal-Adjusted · 31-03-2014 11:03am

The 21 meter free will be fixed sooner or later. It's blatantly unfair and the controversy will not go away anytime soon.

Anonymou · 24-04-2014 6:14pm

There is an interview with Anthony Nash in today's examiner on the 'Nash' rule. Boards wont let me post it here but its definitely worth a read. Interesting to hear the man himself speak out about the situation. I'd tend to agree with him he raises a lot of valid points.

Grats · 24-04-2014 7:07pm

The debate is over for now. Nash would therefore be well advised to concentrate on his other "minor" role as Cork goal keeper, stopping goals!

Clareman · 24-04-2014 7:49pm

Simple solution to it, like the first attempted "Nash" free in the drawn game last year, once the ball is touched by the taker the defenders are allowed leave the line, if the striker wants to risk having someone block him down hitting the ball then they can bring it in as far as they want, if they don't they can hit it early.

I also think that the penalty should be changed to striker and goalie only with the ball on the 21 yard line, a penalty should be advantage attacker.

Finally, in regards to taking a free with a goalies hurley, that's fair enough, every player must use the same equipment, can't make exceptions for position, I would say though that players should not be allowed change their hurler to either defend or take a free, it's not golf, same stick for all strikes folks.

adrian522 · 25-04-2014 9:43am

Anonymou wrote: »

There is an interview with Anthony Nash in today's examiner on the 'Nash' rule. Boards wont let me post it here but its definitely worth a read. Interesting to hear the man himself speak out about the situation. I'd tend to agree with him he raises a lot of valid points.

There is no rule against you posting a link to an article as far as I am aware.

dastardly00 · 25-04-2014 9:48am

Here's the link to Examiner article with Nash.

“It’s not that it bugs me, I just want to know, what’s the reasoning behind it? If it is for the safety of players, then fine, but if a full-forward catches the ball in front of me, can they ask him to take it out to the 21 and strike it from there?

spurious · 25-04-2014 9:52am

adrian522 wrote: »

There is no rule against you posting a link to an article as far as I am aware.

The problem may have been that posters are not allowed post links if their post count is below 50 - it's an anti-spam thing.

premierstone · 25-04-2014 10:53am

Have to say I have no problem with the 'Nash' technique and think it is a great skill but I must admit I thought that interview was a bit cringeworthy, firstly he claimed that he was really only gaining about 2 yards and then he claimed that the bas on a GK hurl was only very marginally bigger than an outfield player, I'd be very worried if I was a Cork man having someone with that poor eyesight and judgement in goals for my team!

The point quoted above about the big full forward is a valid one and I have always thought the 'safety' arguement was a red herring tbh, if you were to examine every facet of Hurling you could apply the same arguement, it is essentially a potentially dangerous game.

Anonymou · 25-04-2014 1:26pm

premierstone wrote: »

Have to say I have no problem with the 'Nash' technique and think it is a great skill but I must admit I thought that interview was a bit cringeworthy, firstly he claimed that he was really only gaining about 2 yards and then he claimed that the bas on a GK hurl was only very marginally bigger than an outfield player, I'd be very worried if I was a Cork man having someone with that poor eyesight and judgement in goals for my team!

The point quoted above about the big full forward is a valid one and I have always thought the 'safety' arguement was a red herring tbh, if you were to examine every facet of Hurling you could apply the same arguement, it is essentially a potentially dangerous game.

I think what he is getting at here is all free takers gain a few yards when they take a free, generally 21 yard frees are never struck from the 21 yard line be it Nash or whoever is taking it. His technique allows him to gain even more yardage but its not as if he's taking his 8 yards ahead of every other player in the country.

keane2097 · 25-04-2014 1:47pm

Clareman wrote: »

Simple solution to it, like the first attempted "Nash" free in the drawn game last year, once the ball is touched by the taker the defenders are allowed leave the line, if the striker wants to risk having someone block him down hitting the ball then they can bring it in as far as they want, if they don't they can hit it early.

I also think that the penalty should be changed to striker and goalie only with the ball on the 21 yard line, a penalty should be advantage attacker.

Finally, in regards to taking a free with a goalies hurley, that's fair enough, every player must use the same equipment, can't make exceptions for position, I would say though that players should not be allowed change their hurler to either defend or take a free, it's not golf, same stick for all strikes folks.

The idea of letting the defenders run towards the free taker would seem to fly in the face of the hand wringing "health and safety of players" argument. It is probably a more honest response to the whole affair however which is that every team that doesn't have a Nash is pissed off that Nash is so much better than them at scoring goals from 21s and want to try and make it harder for him.

I would agree with the reservations on players using different types of hurleys, although I haven't made up my mind whether I think it should be allowed or not.

premierstone · 25-04-2014 2:51pm

keane2097 wrote: »

The idea of letting the defenders run towards the free taker would seem to fly in the face of the hand wringing "health and safety of players" argument. It is probably a more honest response to the whole affair however which is that every team that doesn't have a Nash is pissed off that Nash is so much better than them at scoring goals from 21s and want to try and make it harder for him.

I would agree with the reservations on players using different types of hurleys, although I haven't made up my mind whether I think it should be allowed or not.

Thats the whole nub of the issue and tbh they should be concentrating on getting their own house in order rather than trying to have the rules changed because it doesn't suit them at this particular moment in time.

Martin567 · 25-04-2014 3:28pm

premierstone wrote: »

Thats the whole nub of the issue and tbh they should be concentrating on getting their own house in order rather than trying to have the rules changed because it doesn't suit them at this particular moment in time.

The main nub of the issue is that the rules as they stand make no sense.

Someone else posted earlier in the thread the detailed rule which states it is an offence to "take" the free from a point closer than the line it is supposed to be taken from. This raises the question at what point is the free/penalty "taken"? If it is only "taken" when he strikes the ball then Nash (and every other penalty taker) are constantly in breach. If it is "taken" when he lifts the ball then every other player should be entitled to move the instant the ball is lifted. It's either one or the other. Anthony Nash can't have it both ways. The big difference with his technique is that there is a 2-3 second gap between the lift & strike, far greater than any other player.

There will always be a certain risk attached to being struck by an opponent's shot. It can never be eliminated entirely. But it is wrong of Nash to try to say it is no different to a full forward striking out of his hand. Firstly, a full forward in that situation will be pressurised by other players. He won't be striking with both feet in the air while everyone else has to stand and watch. Also, in general play there will only be one person in the goal and the striker will be aiming at either side of the keeper rather than straight at him. Anthony Nash is hitting a small object at ferocious speed straight into a packed goal. The players on the line are sitting ducks and are depending on dumb luck to avoid serious injury.

keane2097 · 25-04-2014 3:31pm

Martin567 wrote: »

The main nub of the issue is that the rules as they stand make no sense.

Someone else posted earlier in the thread the detailed rule which states it is an offence to "take" the free from a point closer than the line it is supposed to be taken from. This raises the question at what point is the free/penalty "taken"? If it is only "taken" when he strikes the ball then Nash (and every other penalty taker) are constantly in breach. If it is "taken" when he lifts the ball then every other player should be entitled to move the instant the ball is lifted. It's either one or the other. Anthony Nash can't have it both ways. The big difference with his technique is that there is a 2-3 second gap between the lift & strike, far greater than any other player.

There will always be a certain risk attached to being struck by an opponent's shot. It can never be eliminated entirely. But it is wrong of Nash to try to say it is no different to a full forward striking out of his hand. Firstly, a full forward in that situation will be pressurised by other players. He won't be striking with both feet in the air while everyone else has to stand and watch. Also, in general play there will only be one person in the goal and the striker will be aiming at either side of the keeper rather than straight at him. Anthony Nash is hitting a small object at ferocious speed straight into a packed goal. The players on the line are sitting ducks and are depending on dumb luck to avoid serious injury.

Good post.

The alternative viewpoint - which to my mind seems perfectly sensible either - is that "taking" the free involves the entire motion of lifting and striking the sliotar.

Like in golf, you have a back swing and a forward swing but it's all part of the action of actually taking the shot (not meant as a perfect analogy, just from a philosophical POV you can think of two components to an action being taken as part of a whole).

Martin567 · 25-04-2014 3:40pm

keane2097 wrote: »

Good post.

The alternative viewpoint - which to my mind seems perfectly sensible either - is that "taking" the free involves the entire motion of lifting and striking the sliotar.

Like in golf, you have a back swing and a forward swing but it's all part of the action of actually taking the shot (not meant as a perfect analogy, just from a philosophical POV you can think of two components to an action being taken as part of a whole).

Fair enough but I don't agree with the golf analogy. The golfer only makes contact with the ball once.

Look at Anthony Nash's action. He lifts the ball, then he balances it on the hurley for 1-2 steps, then he throws it ahead before running in to strike at least 8m ahead of the original line. I don't think think there's anything sensible in considering all of those parts to represent one action.

premierstone · 25-04-2014 3:43pm

Martin567 wrote: »

The main nub of the issue is that the rules as they stand make no sense.

Someone else posted earlier in the thread the detailed rule which states it is an offence to "take" the free from a point closer than the line it is supposed to be taken from. This raises the question at what point is the free/penalty "taken"? If it is only "taken" when he strikes the ball then Nash (and every other penalty taker) are constantly in breach. If it is "taken" when he lifts the ball then every other player should be entitled to move the instant the ball is lifted. It's either one or the other. Anthony Nash can't have it both ways. The big difference with his technique is that there is a 2-3 second gap between the lift & strike, far greater than any other player.

There will always be a certain risk attached to being struck by an opponent's shot. It can never be eliminated entirely. But it is wrong of Nash to try to say it is no different to a full forward striking out of his hand. Firstly, a full forward in that situation will be pressurised by other players. He won't be striking with both feet in the air while everyone else has to stand and watch. Also, in general play there will only be one person in the goal and the striker will be aiming at either side of the keeper rather than straight at him. Anthony Nash is hitting a small object at ferocious speed straight into a packed goal. The players on the line are sitting ducks and are depending on dumb luck to avoid serious injury.

So I assume when DJ carey was doing something very similar, admitedly Nash has taken it to another level, you were equally opposed to it and if a KK player arrives on the scene that does the same as Nash you will still think its against the spirit of the rules?

I guarantee you one thing if Nash was from Wicklow, all due respect, or some other weaker county there wouldn't be too many from KK and Clare making a song and dance about it, fear is an awfull thing!

Martin567 · 25-04-2014 3:48pm

premierstone wrote: »

So I assume when DJ carey was doing something very similar, admitedly Nash has taken it to another level, you were equally opposed to it and if a KK player arrives on the scene that does the same as Nash you will still think its against the spirit of the rules?

I guarantee you one thing if Nash was from Wicklow, all due respect, or some other weaker county there wouldn't be too many from KK and Clare making a song and dance about it, fear is an awfull thing!

You're missing the point. I didn't criticise Nash. As long as the refs allow it, he would be stupid to stop doing it. That doesn't mean it's ok.

DJ & other players have gained ground for years. That doesn't make it right. Anthony Nash is the straw that broke the camel's back. His action is so farcical looking that it was bound to draw attention. Once what he does is outlawed, it will be illegal for everyone else as well.

premierstone · 25-04-2014 3:56pm

Martin567 wrote: »

You're missing the point. I didn't criticise Nash. As long as the refs allow it, he would be stupid to stop doing it. That doesn't mean it's ok.

DJ & other players have gained ground for years. That doesn't make it right. Anthony Nash is the straw that broke the camel's back. His action is so farcical looking that it was bound to draw attention. Once what he does is outlawed, it will be illegal for everyone else as well.

Fair enough, I still think that it is fine and see it as a skill, but I do accept the counter arguement as being valid, I think from reading the article Nash is more frustrated at people calling it the 'Nash rule' etc. I think he should be applauded for his intinuity tbh and as he said himself if/when it goes wrong he is going to look rather foolish.

On the last point about once it is outlawed, do you think it will be enforced correctly though? and I dont just mean from 21's and pens, just look at football when is the last time you seen a free or a sideline actually struck from the correct position and conversly when was the last time you saw anyone penalised for it.

keane2097 · 25-04-2014 3:58pm

Martin567 wrote: »

Fair enough but I don't agree with the golf analogy. The golfer only makes contact with the ball once.

Look at Anthony Nash's action. He lifts the ball, then he balances it on the hurley for 1-2 steps, then he throws it ahead before running in to strike at least 8m ahead of the original line. I don't think think there's anything sensible in considering all of those parts to represent one action.

I'm not convinced about the balancing for 1-2 steps bit. Had a look at a couple of videos there and the only ones I could find that were high enough quality to be sure he looked to throw it up straight away in fairness though I admit I didn't have an exhaustive look.

If he's genuinely balancing the sliotar on the stick for a couple of steps then he's breaking the striking action, but from a "theory" POV I wouldn't see a major issue with the lift and strike being packaged together as "taking the free".

Martin567 · 25-04-2014 4:14pm

keane2097 wrote: »

I'm not convinced about the balancing for 1-2 steps bit. Had a look at a couple of videos there and the only ones I could find that were high enough quality to be sure he looked to throw it up straight away in fairness though I admit I didn't have an exhaustive look.

If he's genuinely balancing the sliotar on the stick for a couple of steps then he's breaking the striking action, but from a "theory" POV I wouldn't see a major issue with the lift and strike being packaged together as "taking the free".

It was really obvious for the one in the Tipp game a few weeks back. Someone posted a clip of it that day and I posted in the thread shortly afterwards. The ball was correctly placed on the 20m line and he stuck his hurley beneath in order to lift it. You only have to look at where his feet are when the sliotar leaves contact with his hurley as he throws it forward. In that instance, he had advanced at least two steps while balancing it on the hurley.

Clareman · 25-04-2014 9:40pm

Didn't Nicky English used to take a couple of steps with the ball balanced on the hurley when taking a free, the problem was the ball couldn't separate from the hurley at all or else it would be a foul.

In regards to the H&S impact of having the players run out to block it, I would imagine that there would be a lot less momentum in the ball as soon as it was hit, it gains velocity and then is dangerous, although I personally wouldn't fancy getting in front of it.

thinkstoomuch1 · 26-04-2014 8:14pm

At challenge match,Cork V limerick

Tonight two more superb penaltes by nash ,and what awesome,amazing techinque.
Not one single player ,injured or even close to It
Fans from both counties lauded the skill.
Long may it cotinue Nash lad.
Your just warming up for the summer.

Awesome,privelged to be at game ,that saw hes skill grace it .Just a challenge,match ,it wil live long in the memory for that .A

Clareman · 27-04-2014 9:45am

A further refinement to my suggestion that once the ball is touched it's fair game, I don't think that's feasible for long range frees, so how about once the ball is breaks the plane of the 21 line that it's fair game, but as a further requirement, the free taker is allowed take the ball back, parallel to the sideline, as far as they want, in order to nullify the possibility of being blocked down

131spanner · 27-04-2014 10:39am

Having thought about it a bit, I think it's not the safety issues surrounding the free-taking style that bring about the need for change, but the advantage it gives to the player striking the ball. I think once the ball is lifted, or once the ball passes the 21 as mentioned above, it should be fair game to be attacked by the defenders. A great skill or whatever you want, but at the minute the free taker has far too great of an advantage.

Clareman · 27-04-2014 10:45am

131spanner wrote: »

Having thought about it a bit, I think it's not the safety issues surrounding the free-taking style that bring about the need for change, but the advantage it gives to the player striking the ball. I think once the ball is lifted, or once the ball passes the 21 as mentioned above, it should be fair game to be attacked by the defenders. A great skill or whatever you want, but at the minute the free taker has far too great of an advantage.

In theory, a player could rise the ball 20 meters, be 1 meter out and then hit it without a defender being allowed at it.

131spanner · 27-04-2014 10:53am

Clareman wrote: »

In theory, a player could rise the ball 20 meters, be 1 meter out and then hit it without a defender being allowed at it.

I was thinking the exact same. Anthony Nash hit a free off the 13 meter line in the replayed All Ireland, nothing to say that in time he couldn't refine it down to 10 meters or closer. At that range the only result will be a goal or take a sliotar to the body, not great options for defenders :pac:

Definitely a need for change.

Clareman · 27-04-2014 11:23am

131spanner wrote: »

I was thinking the exact same. Anthony Nash hit a free off the 13 meter line in the replayed All Ireland, nothing to say that in time he couldn't refine it down to 10 meters or closer. At that range the only result will be a goal or take a sliotar to the body, not great options for defenders :pac:

Definitely a need for change.

If the powers that be are saying that a defender can't touch the ball until it's struck, not just picked, you wouldn't even need to worry about the defenders, just toss the ball as far as the goal line, once you can keep up with it the defenders can't touch it even if it goes over the line.

When you have a rule that doesn't make sense, you should change it, a 21 isn't always a goal scoring chance, so it doesn't have to be advantage attacker, a penalty is, so change the 21 rule and the penalty rules to reflect correctly.

Should the 'Nash' free be outlawed?

Comments