[namloc1980]

You make it sound like the mark is going to be implemented on every play. It's only on kickouts that land between the 45s! Let's face it the mark will only come into play a couple of times a game as most kickouts end in broken play anyway so the mark won't apply in those instances - whereas your third man in rule would apply to EVERY kickout and would IMO disrupt the game alot more than the mark ever would. Not to mention third man in rule would be a nightmare to monitor and manage.

[DonkeyPokerTour]

Originally Posted by Flukey

From the games I've seen in this trial period, the players very much ignore it anyway, and I don't expect that to change. The clip above showed that too. It would have been easier and quicker to have got that ball away immediately than to have stopped, even for a second. There was no danger of him being surrounded, the case used for bringing it in. So it is actually most often used in situations where there is no danger of the scenario it is supposed to deal with. So it brings in needless stops in play. My careful, long thought out over many years, analysis and observation of it, sees no merits in it whatsoever, and plenty of problems. The players have been voting with their feet, by keeping them moving. That is the game that we all love. Let's hold on to it and deal with its problems in a logical manner, which therefore completely rules out the mark.

I'm a little confused here, you say you don't like it and the players don't like it therefore they "Run Through It". Well then I don't see why you really have a problem with it. If it remained Just from Kickouts between the two 45, but was modified to be like the aussie rules mark in that the player decides if he wants to "Run Through It" or Take his Mark, then it solves a problem, without causing another one. Then if a player catches the ball in space he can just run away without having to stop. But if you are in Traffic, or fall you have a free and it prevents ugly sceen's, like when someone falls to the ground and is surrounded by 3 or 4 players. (I know your suggested penalize the third man in idea solves this but its dam near impossible to referee!)

Also you pointed out that your not "rewarded" for any other skill. But kicking the ball over the ball, or into the net he is rewarded with a score. Its just as hard to kick pass the ball to someone as it is to kick it over the bar, harder in some cases.

I think were going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I wont be convinced that "Nothing Good Comes From The Mark" (I Know I'm paraphrasing there but thats basically what your saying). The current method may not be the right way to implement it but it will remain to be seen.

To move on slightly, what do people think of the other rules?:
Square Ball
Bounce Redefinition
Closed Fist Handpass
Penalty from 11m
Kickouts from the 13m Line
"Show" Advantage

[Spiritoftheseventies]

Originally Posted by DonkeyPokerTour

To move on slightly, what do people think of the other rules?:
Square Ball
Bounce Redefinition
Closed Fist Handpass
Penalty from 11m
Kickouts from the 13m Line
"Show" Advantage

The square ball rule is a good one and who knows it may define how teams set out their teams from now on. Goalkeepers i think will be put to the test from now on as I can see a lot of teams pupping the high ball in. The bounce redefinition may take a while getting used to though

[Flukey]

Square Ball - Not bad, but I would have concern for the protection of the goalkeeper. We know how blind umpires can be at times too.

Bounce Redefinition - That is OK.

Closed Fist Handpass - There shouldn't be any problem with that. There seemed to be last weekend, but I think it is something that they will get used to, and isn't hard to adapt to.

Penalty from 11m - I don't think it will make much of a difference.

Kickouts from the 13m Line - No problem in having a standard kickout place (as long as when the ball is coming down and caught that no one uses that stupid mark )

"Show" Advantage - Definitely needed to have and show an advantage.

[rebel girl 15]

Originally Posted by namloc1980

You make it sound like the mark is going to be implemented on every play. It's only on kickouts that land between the 45s! Let's face it the mark will only come into play a couple of times a game as most kickouts end in broken play anyway so the mark won't apply in those instances - whereas your third man in rule would apply to EVERY kickout and would IMO disrupt the game alot more than the mark ever would. Not to mention third man in rule would be a nightmare to monitor and manage.

Apologies to going back to the mark, only saw this thread now!

I agree that the mark is the easiest way to reward the skill of high catching. Flukey mentioned about having a rule where 2 men can go in, and if the catcher holds on to the ball, it a free against him, and if a third man comes in it is a free to the catcher. What you failed to mention IMO, is if the catcher falls to the ground and has the two men around him, where he is more than likely to do one of two things, either hold onto the ball and have a free against him or cough up possession to those two men when he tries to release the ball. The third man in thing, or limiting the number of players in the midfield area would be a nightmare to ref, the mark is way easier. I'm for it between the two 45's from kickouts (where most high fielding occurs anyway), but would be against it coming in all over the pitch.

Of the games that I have either watched or heard about, I'd say there wasn't more than 10 marks in any game. I completely agree that high fielding is way more than a basic skill, being able to catch a ball cleanly under pressure combines many elements, timing the run, catching the ball at its highest point etc. It is a skill that was becoming less and less prevalant in games IMO with many players breaking the ball rather than catching it because they knew if they were going to catch it they would be surrounded by players, Kildares Dermot Earley was a prime example this year IMO

Of the other rules

• Square ball rule - does take the ambiguity out of it for refs, IIRC the player can only enter the square when the ball is coming in in open play, but not during frees etc. I'd worry for the keepers though, but the FB should be able to shield them some bit by keeping goalside of their man

• Fist pass - the definate striking motion hasn't been there for a while, read somewhere that in last years AI final there were roughly 30 foul passes without the correct motion, it will take the players a while to get used to it, but they will. Makes it easier to ref as well, before passes could be borderline throws, new rule eliminates that

• Bounce - no issue with it

• Penalty spot moved - increases the chance of penalty being scored, which is a bigger deterrant for teams not to foul in that area, so it is a good rule IMO. It will be interesting to see if more are scored though

• Kick out - good idea, may or may not speed up the game, and may stop short kick outs designed to win possession, could encourage longer kick outs as players know that if they catch the ball cleanly, they are rewarded with possession.

• Advantage - agree with the clearly signalled advantage, but I wonder how much of an advatange does the team get, the committee decided against a re-call method, that if the team with possession whose player was fouled failed to make any use of the ball, it would come back for a free. What I'd like to see is a re-call method around the 21 m line, so that if a foul is committed and the team don't score, they come back for the free. The team who commited the foul do not get punished in any way if the ball goes wide. Especially in goal scoring areas, if the player going through is fouled and ends up shooting wide after the ref calls advantage, it rewards the foul IMO, on the other hand, having the refs blow up if they see a foul and award a peno, which may or may not be scored, such as Waterford and KK, I think, where Waterford put the ball in the net, but were called back for the penalty. If the refs were allowed to leave the play develop after the foul especially in goal scoring areas and then had the power to pull back to the penalty afterwards if the goal isn't scored, it would take pressure off them to stop the game or leave it flow IMO. But in all honesty, I don't see this ever coming in though

• Throw ins - happy with that one, previous distance was 5m IIRC

• Charge - clears up ambiguities, shoulder to shoulder is way clearer than side to side for refs and players, another rule on the charge states: That a player who is in the act of kicking the ball could not be charged, in a manner otherwise considered to be fair. Good rule, as when kicking a player is standing on one foot in an open position, I'm presuming if this happens and the player has kicked the ball, the free is from where the ball lands

• Boundary line - "Amend the penalty for deliberately going outside the boundary lines to gain an advantage to “Free-puck/kick from where the foul occurred” (instead of caution the first time, order off the second time). It will be interesting to see how this one is implemented, if at all. I'm presuming the rule would be implemented in a case where the ball is along the sideline, player goes outside the line, around the ball to pick it up rather than picking it up in line with the sideline. Had the previous rule been implemented? Not that I had seen tbh! Plenty of times hurlers had stepped out over the line while keeping the sliotar inside the line on their hurley

• Time - great rule IMO! Too many games finish with the losing team just about to go up the field to try and score to level the game only for the ref to blow up for time. this rule should stay!

My only issue would be are all the rules going to voted on as a block or individually -I feel that if voted for as a block, they won't go through, voted for individually, absolutely necessary ones such as the time and advantage rules would be implemented next season

[Spiritoftheseventies]

great post there rebel girl.

[Colm R]

I went along to the Dublin Meath game yesterday. As a neutral, it was very entertaining, despite the lack of match practise, but this is Janurary.

The timing rule at the end of the second half came in to play in a big way. Dublin were up by a point well in to injury time. A lot of the fans were whistling for full time but the refs hands were tied as the ball was simply not going out of play.

Twice Meath attacked and twice Dublin repelled it down the field. Only for Meath to come back to level it. All Dublin had to do was kick it out of play and the game was over but they didn't.

So, what I'm wondering is why they didn't. I assumed as its a new rule, they just didn't know. Understandable in the heat of the game.

However I wonder are you allowed to intentionally kick the ball out of play, rugby style, in this case.

[Flukey]

There is nothing to stop a leading team doing that. Not to labour another issue, but the mark failed again - as it always has done - last Sunday. No surprise there. It is compounded by the fact that players trying to move on get called back by the referee to take the mark. A classic case of a referee calling back the play for nothing. Anyway, you all know what I think at this stage. If you don't, you haven't been paying attention through this thread.

[DonkeyPokerTour]

Originally Posted by Flukey

There is nothing to stop a leading team doing that. Not to labour another issue, but the mark failed again - as it always has done - last Sunday. No surprise there. It is compounded by the fact that players trying to move on get called back by the referee to take the mark. A classic case of a referee calling back the play for nothing. Anyway, you all know what I think at this stage. If you don't, you haven't been paying attention through this thread.

I don't know if this is a new directive or if its something the referee did off his own back but the last game he played he called both panels together and said that if there is a mark he will blow the whistle, the player then has the option to either run through it or take it, leaving it 100% up to the player. Few marks in the game but about a 75-25 split in people taking the mark vs running through it.

[Spiritoftheseventies]

Originally Posted by Colm R

Twice Meath attacked and twice Dublin repelled it down the field. Only for Meath to come back to level it. All Dublin had to do was kick it out of play and the game was over but they didn't.

So, what I'm wondering is why they didn't. I assumed as its a new rule, they just didn't know. Understandable in the heat of the game.

However I wonder are you allowed to intentionally kick the ball out of play, rugby style, in this case.

Good point there. Rule seems to be going well overall though.

[Spiritoftheseventies]

As a mid term review how are the new rules going overall? Haven't seen much use of the mark to be honest while some it seems are stil struggling with the new hand pass rule.
Will be curious to see if the mark is used more in the championship when the pace of the game picks up.

[Colm R]

Went to Meath Donegal game at the weekend. The Mark is leading to a lot more punching of the ball in midfield. Itself is not a bad thing as it keeps the flow going.

However I think the rule needs to be changed where a mark should be the choice of the player and not the referee to play on. Too often is the ref calling it back now when the player runs on.

[hardybuck]

Was at an excellent game yesterday in Div.4 between Waterford and Wicklow. Very entertaining stuff with periods of high quality. Waterford punched about 3/4 balls as most teams do, but took a number of marks. This is a rule which is working quite well I think, and rewards good fielding.

However, the fist pass rule is a disgrace. 4 times nice moves up the field were stopped, which breaks up the play and infuriates fans and players alike. The referees will be glad to see the back of this one I reckon.

[rebel girl 15]

Originally Posted by hardybuck

Was at an excellent game yesterday in Div.4 between Waterford and Wicklow. Very entertaining stuff with periods of high quality. Waterford punched about 3/4 balls as most teams do, but took a number of marks. This is a rule which is working quite well I think, and rewards good fielding.

However, the fist pass rule is a disgrace. 4 times nice moves up the field were stopped, which breaks up the play and infuriates fans and players alike. The referees will be glad to see the back of this one I reckon.

I disagree about the handpassing rule, IIt makes it much easier for a ref to see the definite striking motion of the pass, instead of the throws that were going on. IIRC there was a article published last year after the football AI final saying that there were 30 or 40 illegal handpasses, if a ref was blowing for all of them he would be shot by the fans and the teams. It'll take time to get used to, but I think it is one that should be kept.

[hardybuck]

Originally Posted by rebel girl 15

I disagree about the handpassing rule, IIt makes it much easier for a ref to see the definite striking motion of the pass, instead of the throws that were going on. IIRC there was a article published last year after the football AI final saying that there were 30 or 40 illegal handpasses, if a ref was blowing for all of them he would be shot by the fans and the teams. It'll take time to get used to, but I think it is one that should be kept.

Who was complaining about the All-Ireland final in the first place? The bottom line is that players hate it. Fans hate it. Referees are getting a hard time over it. What is the point of making rules that neither fans nor players want?

Rule makers and delegates should focus on some of the more important issues like lack of fixtures for club players during the summer and tackling payment of managers rather than wasting time chopping and changing rules every year.