Another winter, another set of (proposed) rule changes

Daysha

Gaelic football's experimental rule changes:

1: When a player is in possession of the ball it may be struck with an open hand or a fist provided there is a definitive striking action (the current rule just allows for striking with the fist).

2: Introduction of a free kick (or mark) for catching a kick-out between the two 45 metre lines. Free kick must be taken by the player who catches the ball.

3: The rule governing the bounce is redefined - there will be no foul unless the ball is caught. That appears to suggest that a player may bounce the ball more than once as long as the ball is not caught.

4: The square ball rule is to be altered greatly. An attacking player can now enter the small rectangle before the ball. There are three exceptions: a player cannot be in the square before the ball if from a sideline kick, a free-kick or a 45.

5: Statistics show that fewer penalties are being scored. Therefore it is proposed that the penalty kick be moved forward from the 13 metre line to 11 metres from goal.

6: To speed up play it is proposed that all kick-outs be taken from the 13 metre line.

7: To provide more clarity to the advantage rule, referees shall use clearly defined signals to indicate that the foul has been seen and is playing advantage.

8: It was thought that players are getting charged while picking up the ball. To refine the rule and add protection, instead of a fair charge definition using the words 'side to side', the rule should refer to a 'shoulder to shoulder' charge.

9: Topical in view of the controversy during the Cork and Tyrone match and borrowing a rule from rugby, it is suggested that after the full time whistle comes after the expiration of added time when the ball next crosses any boundary line.

Selected hurling's experimental rule proposals:

1: After a number of unsightly scenes it is proposed that throws in should not take place closer than 13 metres from the sideline.

2: Judgement in whether the ball has been thrown has proven difficult so the committee is proposing that definition should be that ball must be released and struck with a definite
striking action of the hand.

3: Presumably to give the penalty taker more space, the wording in the rule shall change from 'before the penalty puck is taken' to 'before the ball is struck'.

4: The penalty for taking a puck-out outside the small square is to be altered. Instead of a free puck from the 65 metre line, the new penalty will be to cancel the puck out and throw the ball in on the defenders' 20 metres line.

5: It will now be foul to deliberately step outside the sidelines to gain an advantage. A free puck will be awarded from where the foul occurred. Like in football, clearer signals will be given in the advantage rule and a fair charge must be 'shoulder to shoulder', as to opposed to 'side to side'.

http://www.rte.ie/sport/gaa/championship/2009/1206/rulechanges.html

All these proposals yet still no sideline cut worth two points

Pretty radical stuff in football though.

LeoB

3: The rule governing the bounce is redefined - there will be no foul unless the ball is caught. That appears to suggest that a player may bounce the ball more than once as long as the ball is not caught.

I always thought that a player not in control of the ball could bounce it as much as he wants so long as he does not catch it.
It was always illegal to tackle a player going down on the ball.

I would let all kick-outs be taken from the hand to speed things up even more.

Basically what they are saying is we need to make the rules a little clearer to players, coachs and managers.

yahoo_moe

LeoB wrote: »

Basically what they are saying is we need to make the rules a little clearer to players, coachs and managers.

That's all I think is happening with the bounce rule as well, Leo - it's just a clarification (rather than opening the door to 'overcarrying' or anything).

Interesting ones for me are square ball revision, closer penalties and the introduction of the mark (this last one I definitely am in favour of trialling). The open-palmed handpass revision makes sense, but I don't think 13-metre kickouts will make that much difference. In hurling, I think the handpass rule will remain problematic but not throwing the ball in by the sideline makes sense (although I'd like to see referees controlling throw-in situations better).

I think it's a pity they seem to have been bullied away from trying to improve discipline though, which was the focus of the last set of changes.

Daysha

The problem I see with the new penalty kicks rule is that when combined with the revised square ball rule it could lead to some players blatantly looking for a penalty whenever they get near the goal. Should be one or the other imo.

gipo2

As long as a player who marks the ball has a choice to play on immediately rather than always stopping to take the free I think its a good idea.

Imposter

Square ball change is a disgrace. Gives the keeper absolutely no protection. My reading of it is a full-forward can now stand on the keepers toes once the ball is in open play and it is ok. A rule along the lines of the player cannot be in there before the ball is passed would be a better rule for everyone.

SeaFields

Agree with the OP, 2 points for the sideline cut should be reconsidered.

Also agree with last poster, square ball thing seems a bit over the top.

Personally the most interesting for me is the advantage "signal" to be used. Could cut out a lot of controversy and it could prove beneficial in a tight call in that at least we'd know afterwards what the ref was thinking or could make an assumption as to what he saw or didn't see. Like the idea of calling the mark (I think!) Once it doesn't slow things down too much - wonder what the time limit on it being taken will be and the distance that the other team must retreat to.

GAAman

5: Statistics show that fewer penalties are being scored. Therefore it is proposed that the penalty kick be moved forward from the 13 metre line to 11 metres from goal.

Did anyone else read that and think "Eh just do penalty practice more f*ckin often instead of making it easier to score!!"

As for the mark i still disagree with this, people complain that the fouling and easy free's given stop the free flow of the game what would this do? I didnt like it with the compromise rules games and would hate to see it here

With the bounce rule, am i to understand we could now dribble the ball up the pitch ala basketball players just as long as we do not catch the ball? That's gonna work :rolleyes:

I would actually welcome the square ball rule, as a forward words cannot express the frustration of catching a beauty of a ball in and being stopped from goal by a bit of white bleedin paint :mad:

The rest i do not really have an opinion about except the "shoulder to shoulder" thing, what if one of the men is 5" 2 and the other is 6" 5, unless there is a step ladder involved shoulder to shoulder aint gonna happen

flahavaj

GAAman wrote: »

Did anyone else read that and think "Eh just do penalty practice more f*ckin often instead of making it easier to score!!"

As for the mark i still disagree with this, people complain that the fouling and easy free's given stop the free flow of the game what would this do? I didnt like it with the compromise rules games and would hate to see it here

With the bounce rule, am i to understand we could now dribble the ball up the pitch ala basketball players just as long as we do not catch the ball? That's gonna work :rolleyes:

I would actually welcome the square ball rule, as a forward words cannot express the frustration of catching a beauty of a ball in and being stopped from goal by a bit of white bleedin paint :mad:

The rest i do not really have an opinion about except the "shoulder to shoulder" thing, what if one of the men is 5" 2 and the other is 6" 5, unless there is a step ladder involved shoulder to shoulder aint gonna happen

Thierry Henry would make some GAA player in that case.

Agus

Imposter wrote: »

Square ball change is a disgrace. Gives the keeper absolutely no protection. My reading of it is a full-forward can now stand on the keepers toes once the ball is in open play and it is ok. A rule along the lines of the player cannot be in there before the ball is passed would be a better rule for everyone.

A disgrace?? Why do you feel the keeper needs extra protection?

baalthor

The mark was introduced experimentally in the 80s - remember when they had 4 quarters for League games?

It didn't really seem to make things better then, so it wasn't kept in.

Gator

The mark rule is a bit odd, one of the things the ozzys had always admitted was the continuous play was a bit hard to get to get used to. I think this may slow up the game and not give the full value to teams who are very quick and work hard to get scores..I dunno, was this not suggested a few years back but dismissed across the board?

yahoo_moe

SeaFields wrote: »

Personally the most interesting for me is the advantage "signal" to be used.

I don't think it's actually that interesting - for me, it's a no-brainer. There's no reason not to make it clearer when advantage is being played and, as you said, it should help to avoid controversy. I'd be shocked if this wasn't kept on afterwards.

Well said GAAman, the standard of penalty-taking in Gaelic football is shocking compared to soccer and I'm not sure how keen I am on changing that. Though soccer kicks are from 12 yards so maybe worth checking it out.

As for the mark, I think it's worth trying - high fielding has suffered in recent years from the 'swarm' defence as soon as the catcher lands and I'd like to see people having to compete for the ball, rather than just waiting for the catcher to come down and spoiling the play.

premierstone

yahoo_moe wrote: »

Well said GAAman, the standard of penalty-taking in Gaelic football is shocking compared to soccer and I'm not sure how keen I am on changing that. Though soccer kicks are from 12 yards so maybe worth checking it out..

Well thats the whole point of the proposed changes, in Soccer the kicker is closer and the goals are bigger, so of course satistically more penalties are converted.

Never mind the need to practise penalty taking, its defenders who need to practice and learn how to tackle probably imo.

Peace

Not in favour of people 'calling the mark'. I can see its place in rugby but not really in the football TBH. The best games i watched last year were the ones which were allowed to flow and the ref took it easy on the whistle while maintaining a balance.

Clear signals for advantage are a welcome change.

I think the end of the match being determined by when the ball goes dead is a good idea. It works well in rugby anyway and it might be worth a lash to see how it goes.

Pity about the side line cut - i do love a good side line cut!

SeaFields

yahoo_moe wrote: »

I don't think it's actually that interesting - for me, it's a no-brainer.

Apologies, that was worded badly by me...I meant it was "interesting" in that they finally decided to make that area a bit clearer. As you say, it is a no-brainer. Should have been there a long time ago and there's no reason why it shouldn't make it through the experimental phase.

blackbelt

Silly rules that will not stick...fact!!

The mark will be a cancer on the game.Fans give the referee a hard enough time for not "letting games flow" as it is and this is sure to piss fans off to the point that GAA would become unwatchable for many.BTW,it is not the referees responsibility to let the game flow,that responsibility is the players and the mark would put the extra onus on them.

The square ball rule is one that irks me as I can see it from both sides.There needs to be provisions there to give a goalkeeper more protection against being impeded or fouled but on the other side of the coin as GAAman pointed out is that the ability to catch the ball and score a point/goal from close range is also a skill of the game that has been lessened.I think to change the rules now though would just stir up confusion especially at club level and more in particular junior club level where the interpretation of the rules of the game varies hugely.

As for the bounce,well they should really limit the bounce to two consecutive bounces where a player does not catch the ball or fails to control the ball after two bounces.To bounces and then take the ball in both hands should be the rule.Colm O Rourke gave out about referees who were inconsistent in applying the catch-bounce rule.

The penalty situation is a joke.As much as the association wants to review the game,the rules applied to penalties are fine.Players should practice penalties and also hitting the ball in such a way that if it doesn't go in the goal,at least it goes over for a point.

docmartin

it will be very interesting to see how the "mark" works out, i'm looking forward to this as i think high fielding is currently a disadvantage, especially as when a player comes down with the ball there's three or four lads waiting on him and he ends up getting done for over carrying.

Embrace the mark

Imposter

Agus wrote: »

A disgrace?? Why do you feel the keeper needs extra protection?

As I said a forward can now stand on the keepers toes in open play and its ok.

Do you think it's a good thing that a keeper's vision and movement can be very easily and deliberately blocked?

Soccer has an offside rule for the same reason!

I've no problem with keepers having to be more physical and having less protection when they have the ball in their hands and feet are on the ground or if they are contesting a high ball with a forward.

MementoMori

Will wait and see how they actually affect games before I fully judge them.

Glad to see the change regarding penalties as currently given the conversion rate, it makes total sense for a defender to pull down a player when they are clear through on goal. Fingers crossed this will tilt the balance back in favour of the better more skillful players and stop negative cynical play being rewarded.

As for the person comparing penalty kicks in football v soccer, check out the dimensions and distance from goal in soccer versus football and I think you will quickly see why the conversion rate in soccer is so much higher.

On the square ball thing, I'm glad they are changing it as the current rule is a very poor rule, especially in terms of marginal decisions. There were games this summer where on the Sunday Game/RTE they couldn't conclusively prove whether it was a square ball or not even with video evidence. Given this is the situation how can we realistically expect consistent rulings from the officals if we give them rules to enforce where it is almost impossible to get consistency.

As for the person saying that you will have forwards standing on keepers toes, I highly doubt this will be considered legitmate and would be hopeful that the umpires would be warned to be on the alert for any foul play. I'll wait and see as to how they effect things before judging them. At least there is a realisation that the current rule is a poor one which inevitably leads to controvery.

On the mark, I'm glad to see high-fielding will be rewarded but would be wary about it possibly slowing up the play.

On the bounce, I'm not too sure it will have much of an impact given the state of pitches the national league will be played on.

Overall I'd say wait and see until some games actually take place under the rules, before immediately reacting as opposed to giving them some sort of chance.

Imposter

MementoMori wrote: »

As for the person saying that you will have forwards standing on keepers toes,

Why do people always take things literally!
Replace "standing on keepers toes" to "standing right in front of the keeper"

MementoMori

Imposter wrote: »

Why do people always take things literally!
Replace "standing on keepers toes" to "standing right in front of the keeper"

You used the phrase in two sperate posts.

On the internet tone is rather tricky thing to convey and given it's a written medium, taking things literally would seem to make a lot of sense. How would you suggest people interpret the written word?

In this case "standing on the keeper's toes" and "standing right in front of the keeper" are not equivalent. I'm sure there are some people who don't think there is anything wrong with standing right in front of the keeper while I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone arguing the case that the rules should allow players to literally "stand on keepers' toes"

LeoB

docmartin wrote: »

it will be very interesting to see how the "mark" works out, i'm looking forward to this as i think high fielding is currently a disadvantage, especially as when a player comes down with the ball there's three or four lads waiting on him and he ends up getting done for over carrying.

Embrace the mark

I was at a game last night and both sets of midfielder's got hammered when they caught the ball. Darren Rooney and Julian Sweetman. The Referee was quite good though and on each occasion the player who won the kickout got the free. Great fielding. The interesting thing was both keepers Cluxton of Parnells and Mark Butterly St. Maurs then started to place their kickouts and they were equally good at finding their men.

keane2097

blackbelt wrote: »

The square ball rule is one that irks me as I can see it from both sides.There needs to be provisions there to give a goalkeeper more protection against being impeded or fouled but on the other side of the coin as GAAman pointed out is that the ability to catch the ball and score a point/goal from close range is also a skill of the game that has been lessened.

I reaaly can't understand where this notion of protecting goalkeepers has come from.

What exactly are they being protected from? Having to actually win challenges for the ball? Why in the world should they be afforded advantages over outfield players in attempting to catch high balls into the square?

Never mind the fact that the square ball rule is actually physically impossible to accurately enforce.

Referees are often hopeless and deserve the stick they get, at least to am extent, but the poor fellas are expected to be able to watch the ball as it travels at speed through the air and gauge its position relative to a thin white line a considerable distance below it while simultaneously gauging a moving player's position relative to the line as well! This is actually beyond the realms of human ability