Mark from kickouts

Agus

http://www.hoganstand.com/ArticleForm.aspx?ID=102985

Kieran Donaghy says he would like a mark for catches from kickouts in football. I think it would probably improve the spectacle and give a proper reward for a good catch, which too often isn't the case now, with players getting surrounded and smothered when they make a catch. It could be allowed only when the ball had travelled a certain distance, such as at least 40 yards. Any thoughts?

Pride Fighter

I agree, the current way does not encourage one of the great skills of Gaelic football. Instead players will take a step back and smother the opposing catcher.

smashey

Good idea.

Daysha

Sounds good.

BigCon

Great idea, one of the best spectacles of football is a player rising high to take a ball out of the clouds. It's so annoying when they are deemed to have held on too long after coming down and being smothered by the other players. Sooner the mark comes in for kick outs the better imo.

homerjay2005

hmmm, yes a great idea in theory. but cant see the GAA accepting it. very few playing rule changes will ever be made i would think.

GAAman

Gonna go against the grain here and say no i wouldnt like to see it brought in. My reasons? A secret


Nah only jokin, i think there are enough stoppages to the game as it is esp with the god damn divin not creepin its ugly way in but chargin in and fallin on the floor in "agony". Bringing the mark into football would considerably slow the game down and sure part of being a good fielder of the ball is catching it under pressure and playin the ball on/goin for a score

So in short its a no from me, ted

Geology

It's worth a try at least. Then they can decide if it's a runner.

DDC1990

Definitly worth a try. At the moment the only reward for spectacular catches at midfield or in the full forward line, is an "OHH" from the crowd before being smashed by the opposition half backs, half forwards, midfielders and the odd corner forward that drifts out the field.
The again, it still doesnt solve the problem of players being held as the ball comes in (a-la Donaghy.) preventing the forward making the catch in the first place.

Flukey

Absolutely not. The most stupid rule in the entire International Rules is the mark. The very idea of getting a free for catching a ball is ridiculous. Catching is a skill and basic element of the game. Should people get a free if they kick the ball? Should they get a free if they pass the ball? Should they get a free if they do a solo run? Of course not. So why should they get a free for catching it?

It turns the whole game into a stop-start game. You remove the flow of the game. There is nothing more exciting than a player trying to win the ball and then immediately try to do something with it. The mark creates a complete anti-climax. Giving them a free in those situations would take a way from a lot of situations. Take a situation of a ball coming in towards the square. A group of players go up for it and one wins it. At this moment normally there is a hug buzz of anticipation and excitement in the crowd. Imagine then if a player could stop and just calmly kick the ball over the bar or calmly kick out of defence. It would be awful. We'd be robbed of what is often a very exciting passage of play. So many times the mark kills a high tempo move midstream. It is frustrating to watch, when you are expecting the movement to keep going as it does in Gaelic Football.

Kieran Donaghy is in favour of it? He should think back a bit. One of the pivotal moments, literally, in the 2006 Championship was when he went up for a high ball, got it, came down, turned, left Francie Bellew for dead and scored a great goal in Kerry's quarter-final against Armagh. That one movement pushed that Armagh monkey off Kerry's back and was the winning of that match. Now, imagine if the mark had been in operation and he'd used it. He'd have got the ball the same way, but then he'd have been able to stop and quietly kick the ball over the bar, unchallenged. We would not have got that goal. We would not have got him trying to have to beat Francie Bellew and the goalkeeper. The fact he could not stop meant he had to go on and that created that goal. The mark would have robbed us of a very exciting moment in that match. The same could be said of countless other situations over the history of our game. The fact a player can't stop and has to go on, often creates great moments. A mark could actually reduce the amount of goals we'd get as a mark in that situation could have.

People say that players catching the ball at present don't get the benefits and that they should be rewarded. Their reward is that they are in possession of the ball. True, they may then be swamped by the other team and then forced to do something with it, and not be able to do anything, and often gets penalised for not getting the ball away. It is up to him and his team mates to do something there. Giving him a free just because he caught the ball is not the answer. We all hate those situations of a surrounded player being penalised for not being able to move, but there are other solutions. A rule could be brought in that no more than two players can surround a player in those situations. That could get rid of the deadlock that often happens there, and for which the mark is seen as the solution. The vast majority of the time when a player catches a ball, he is unchallenged and well clear of the nearest opposition player. There would be no reason to use the mark there, but you see exactly that happening in the International Rules. It might have some merits when a player is surrounded, but over 90% of the time when it would be used, it would take away from the game, not add to it.

Look at the game last Friday and tomorrow and ask yourself which is more exciting: A player kicking a ball to another, who stops and then kicks it to another who then stops and then kicks it to another and so on all the way up the field and finally to a player within scoring range who kicks the ball over the bar while others can only stand and can't challenge him, OR the quick fast movement with the ball being kicked from player to player non-stop, right up the field in seconds and then being crowned with a glorious point that a player gets under pressure? There is obviously only one answer. The best moves of the matches don't have even one mark in them. Even the Australians at times were ignoring the mark which they are used to, and just kept on going with the ball last Friday - and that was far better to watch. The mark should never be brought into our game and it should be removed from the International Rules and even Australian Rules itself. It would make it a far better game.

Our games are fast-moving field games, not a board game like draughts or chess. The mark would reverse that. So I would be totally against the mark and so should anyone who loves the fast-moving game that we have with players having to react quickly under pressure when winning possession. They may be challenged, but not always surrounded. Those situations are very few and it would not be worth destroying the game to tackle what is a minority of cases.

Agus

Flukey wrote: »

Absolutely not. The most stupid rule in the entire International Rules is the mark. The very idea of getting a free for catching a ball is ridiculous. Catching is a skill and basic element of the game. Should people get a free if they kick the ball? Should they get a free if they pass the ball? Should they get a free if they do a solo run? Of course not. So why should they get a free for catching it?

It turns the whole game into a stop-start game. You remove the flow of the game. There is nothing more exciting than a player trying to win the ball and then immediately try to do something with it. The mark creates a complete anti-climax. Giving them a free in those situations would take a way from a lot of situations. Take a situation of a ball coming in towards the square. A group of players go up for it and one wins it. At this moment normally there is a hug buzz of anticipation and excitement in the crowd. Imagine then if a player could stop and just calmly kick the ball over the bar or calmly kick out of defence. It would be awful. We'd be robbed of what is often a very exciting passage of play. So many times the mark kills a high tempo move midstream. It is frustrating to watch, when you are expecting the movement to keep going as it does in Gaelic Football.

Kieran Donaghy is in favour of it? He should think back a bit. One of the pivotal moments, literally, in the 2006 Championship was when he went up for a high ball, got it, came down, turned, left Francie Bellew for dead and scored a great goal in Kerry's quarter-final against Armagh. That one movement pushed that Armagh monkey off Kerry's back and was the winning of that match. Now, imagine if the mark had been in operation and he'd used it. He'd have got the ball the same way, but then he'd have been able to stop and quietly kick the ball over the bar, unchallenged. We would not have got that goal. We would not have got him trying to have to beat Francie Bellew and the goalkeeper. The fact he could not stop meant he had to go on and that created that goal. The mark would have robbed us of a very exciting moment in that match. The same could be said of countless other situations over the history of our game. The fact a player can't stop and has to go on, often creates great moments. A mark could actually reduce the amount of goals we'd get as a mark in that situation could have.

People say that players catching the ball at present don't get the benefits and that they should be rewarded. Their reward is that they are in possession of the ball. True, they may then be swamped by the other team and then forced to do something with it, and not be able to do anything, and often gets penalised for not getting the ball away. It is up to him and his team mates to do something there. Giving him a free just because he caught the ball is not the answer. We all hate those situations of a surrounded player being penalised for not being able to move, but there are other solutions. A rule could be brought in that no more than two players can surround a player in those situations. That could get rid of the deadlock that often happens there, and for which the mark is seen as the solution. The vast majority of the time when a player catches a ball, he is unchallenged and well clear of the nearest opposition player. There would be no reason to use the mark there, but you see exactly that happening in the International Rules. It might have some merits when a player is surrounded, but over 90% of the time when it would be used, it would take away from the game, not add to it.

Look at the game last Friday and tomorrow and ask yourself which is more exciting: A player kicking a ball to another, who stops and then kicks it to another who then stops and then kicks it to another and so on all the way up the field and finally to a player within scoring range who kicks the ball over the bar while others can only stand and can't challenge him, OR the quick fast movement with the ball being kicked from player to player non-stop, right up the field in seconds and then being crowned with a glorious point that a player gets under pressure? There is obviously only one answer. The best moves of the matches don't have even one mark in them. Even the Australians at times were ignoring the mark which they are used to, and just kept on going with the ball last Friday - and that was far better to watch. The mark should never be brought into our game and it should be removed from the International Rules and even Australian Rules itself. It would make it a far better game.

Our games are fast-moving field games, not a board game like draughts or chess. The mark would reverse that. So I would be totally against the mark and so should anyone who loves the fast-moving game that we have with players having to react quickly under pressure when winning possession. They may be challenged, but not always surrounded. Those situations are very few and it would not be worth destroying the game to tackle what is a minority of cases.

Flukey, did you even read what this was about, or did you just read the word 'mark'' and assume you knew what was being proposed? ::D

smashey

Flukey wrote: »

Kieran Donaghy left Francie Bellew for dead and scored a great goal in Kerry's quarter-final against Armagh.

Francie Bellew slipped.

Waylander

Dopnaghy would still have that option, the mark is not mandatory, you can play on if you wish. I think it would be a good introdcution into the game myself.

premierstone

Flukey, can you tell me who the fcuk is takin these kick outs that Donaghey is catching on the edge of the oppositions square, he must have some belt of a ball on him

Orizio

Not so sure, it would slow the game down even further.

Besides, of course Donaghy would want this, look at the fecking size of him. Actually this would probably help Cork. So YES.

Orizio

premierstone wrote: »

Flukey, can you tell me who the fcuk is takin these kick outs that Donaghey is catching on the edge of the oppositions square, he must have some belt of a ball on him

He moves out to midfield a bit as well though. It would help the best, most physical teams like Kerry and Cork as well, not necassarily a good thing.

premierstone

Orizio wrote: »

He moves out to midfield a bit as well though. It would help the best, most physical teams like Kerry and Cork as well, not necassarily a good thing.

Im fully aware of that, but when does Francie Bellew follow him, Donaghy catches it, rounds bellew and scores a goal???

Flukey

The mark on any part of the field is a bad idea. This morning again we saw Donaghy catch a ball and instead of stopping he had the ball in the goal before the Australian goalkeeper knew what was happening. As to those to put the question to me, yes I realise it is being proposed only for kickouts. Still, I dealt with those types of scenarios in my post too. Possession is their reward for catching the ball and other rule changes can deal with players being surrounded by the opposition. As I proposed, no more than two people being allowed to surround him would help to deal with those situations.

I dealt with other situations, because if the mark is allowed in at all, there would be the danger of it being eventually asked for to be allowed not just from kickouts. Any mark would be a bad mark against the game. So letting it in at all would be a bad idea.

The match this morning was great, except for the mark spoiling it on so many occasions. The commentators and analysts talked about how fast the game was and yet there were loads of needless stoppages due to the mark. It wasn't just for high fielded balls when a player was constesting with others for the ball. We had fellas in loads of space catching the ball at chest and even waist level, and then unbelievably stopping instead of getting on with the match. That could happen from kickouts too.

Referees are frequently given out to for giving frees for nothing, but this would be the ultimate in it. We frequently hear criticism of the amount of stoppages in the game, and this would only add to that. It is far more exciting seeing lads going up for the ball, winning it, and then trying to get it away under pressure. As I keep saying, him being surrounded and unable to play it and conceding a free can easily be dealt with without bringing in something that would slow the game. So for kickouts or anything else, the mark should never be brought into the game. It would ruin it.

aidan24326

Flukey wrote: »

Absolutely not. The most stupid rule in the entire International Rules is the mark. The very idea of getting a free for catching a ball is ridiculous. Catching is a skill and basic element of the game. Should people get a free if they kick the ball? Should they get a free if they pass the ball? Should they get a free if they do a solo run? Of course not. So why should they get a free for catching it?

Agree 200%.

The mark would do nothing only to slow down the game and make it stop-start. Of course Donaghy would want such a rule introduced since he's 6'6" and catching the ball is his party piece. Were he a few inches smaller he probably wouldn't even be on the Kerry team. I'm amazed so many people are in favour of this.

manster

aidan24326 wrote: »

Agree 200%.

The mark would do nothing only to slow down the game and make it stop-start. Of course I'm amazed so many people are in favour of this.

The game is slowed down with the current rules. This is precisely the reason why so many people are in favour of introducing the mark from kick-outs. This rule will reward the player for making a catch, a gaelic football skill which is sadly dying.

For example, a palyer catches a ball and he either
1. is fouled
2. fouls the ball
3. gets the ball away or loses posession

In two of these scenarios a free-kick is awarded thereby slowing down the game.

I see no skill in the game whereby defenders wait for a player to land after catching a kick out, surround him and then make the player foul the ball by overcarrying.

Agus

manster wrote: »

The game is slowed down with the current rules. This is precisely the reason why so many people are in favour of introducing the mark from kick-outs. This rule will reward the player for making a catch, a gaelic football skill which is sadly dying.

For example, a palyer catches a ball and he either
1. is fouled
2. fouls the ball
3. gets the ball away or loses posession

In two of these scenarios a free-kick is awarded thereby slowing down the game.

I see no skill in the game whereby defenders wait for a player to land after catching a kick out, surround him and then make the player foul the ball by overcarrying.

Very good points.

rebel girl 15

I'd be in favour of the mark from the kickouts - flukey, you just saw the word mark, and ranted! there is no keeper in Ireland that would get the ball from their own square to teh edge of the oppositions!

the mark as it is used in the international rules is called, if the players wants to stop they can, if not they can play on - it does not in any way interfere with the flow of the game, unless the players make use of it. It would encourage the skill of high fielding.

Agus

rebel girl 15 wrote: »

I'd be in favour of the mark from the kickouts - flukey, you just saw the word mark, and ranted! there is no keeper in Ireland that would get the ball from their own square to teh edge of the oppositions!

the mark as it is used in the international rules is called, if the players wants to stop they can, if not they can play on - it does not in any way interfere with the flow of the game, unless the players make use of it. It would encourage the skill of high fielding.

There are pros and cons but overall I feel it would be a definite improvement.

Marse

GAAman wrote: »

Gonna go against the grain here and say no i wouldnt like to see it brought in. My reasons? A secret


Nah only jokin, i think there are enough stoppages to the game as it is esp with the god damn divin not creepin its ugly way in but chargin in and fallin on the floor in "agony". Bringing the mark into football would considerably slow the game down and sure part of being a good fielder of the ball is catching it under pressure and playin the ball on/goin for a score

So in short its a no from me, ted

I agree, it would only serve to slow the game for me.

Mr. Incognito

Try it in the league- if it doesn't work scrap it like everything else.

Sheesh- why not.