new rules in football

Spiritoftheseventies

Does anyone have any thoughts on the experimental rules being introduced in football. Personally think allowing the square ball goal is a good idea but not sure about the mark. Tellingly the latter wasnt at the Dublin stars games at weekend but ground was a bit hard anyway. Think mark will slow game down so would not be in favour of it.

Kenteach

Anything is worth a try. Then Mickey Harte will say he doesn't like them so they'll be scrapped. Think the mark could work, might make some players attempt to catch the ball rather than do everything they can to prevent someone else from catching it. And as the mark will have to be kicked, could even speed the game up (a quick kick to the inside forwards from midfield is a lot quicker and truer to the name of the game than forty basketball passes over and back the pitch).

Frank Spencer

I would be in favour of both of these rules along with the closer penalty spot and all the kick outs from the 13 metre line.

All of these rules were implemented at the Dubstars game at the weekend. The way the square ball rule was explained over the PA was wrong in my opinion. The announcer said that the square ball rule was gone completely where as my reading of it is that the player can enter the square as soon as the ball is kicked. Similar to the offside rule in soccer.

There were two marks blown for in the game as far as I can recall. One where the player played on and the second where the mark was taken. The scenario where the mark was taken highlights why it should be brought in permanently. The player rose above three opponents and took a clean catch and fell to the ground. The three opponents proceeded to crowd him as he attempted to get up. This in my opinion is where the rule works so well.

Spiritoftheseventies

yeah but i think opponents will tend to drag down player before he makes the mark. Will be curious to see how rule is implemented/interpreted.

Frank Spencer

bayviewclose wrote: »

yeah but i think opponents will tend to drag down player before he makes the mark. Will be curious to see how rule is implemented/interpreted.

It's up to the referee in that case to sort it out. There's nothing worse than seeing a player field a ball and then land only to be surrounded by a gang of opposition players and get blown up for travelling when he has nowhere to go.

Spiritoftheseventies

Buck_Naked wrote: »

It's up to the referee in that case to sort it out. There's nothing worse than seeing a player field a ball and then land only to be surrounded by a gang of opposition players and get blown up for travelling when he has nowhere to go.

totally agree there. But you know managers. they will find a way round new rules.

Saint_Mel

Whats the actual procedure for calling a mark? Could it start causing confusion/cuteness to field a high ball, make out as if your calling a mark and then just play on if the opposition are moving away from you?

Spiritoftheseventies

Saint_Mel wrote: »

Whats the actual procedure for calling a mark? Could it start causing confusion/cuteness to field a high ball, make out as if your calling a mark and then just play on if the opposition are moving away from you?

Would think the onus is on player making the mark to be make a definitive shout. Would not think he would get away with that to be honest as he would get away with it perhaps one.

Frank Spencer

Saint_Mel wrote: »

Whats the actual procedure for calling a mark? Could it start causing confusion/cuteness to field a high ball, make out as if your calling a mark and then just play on if the opposition are moving away from you?

Just had a look at the Aussie Rules laws and this is how they legislate for it.

17.2 Circumstances — Play On
The field Umpire shall call and signal “Play On” or “Touched Play On” when:
(a) an Umpire is struck by the football while it is in play;
(b) the field Umpire is of the opinion that the football, having been
Kicked, was touched whilst in transit;
(c) the field Umpire is of the opinion that the football, having been
Kicked, does not travel a distance of at least 15 metres;
(d) the field Umpire cancels a Free Kick;
(e) the field Umpire is of the opinion that a Player, who has been
awarded a Free Kick or a Mark, runs, Handballs or Kicks or
attempts to run, Handball or Kick otherwise than over the mark;
(f) where a Player, awarded a Mark or Free Kick, fails to dispose of
the football when directed to do so by the field Umpire;
(g) in the instance of a poor bounce by a field Umpire; or
(h) where a player fails to bring the ball back into play when kicking
in from behind after being directed to do so by the field umpire.
(i) where the field Umpire cancels a Mark.

So basically if the player stops where the mark is taken a mark is awarded but if he goes or attempts to go beyond the point of the mark then it is play on.

Simples!

Flukey

As I have frequently posted on it before, the mark is the most ridiculous and stupid rule and should not even be given a trial. If it is to be given a trial it should be sentenced to life imprisonment and never be seen in society again. The idea of getting a free for catching a ball is stupid. It slows up the game. At the Blue Stars matches on Sunday you could see that players had the good sense to catch the ball and keep going, which is what they should do.

There are other ways of tackling the problem of a player in possession getting swamped and then to add insult to injury to have a free awarded against him for not releasing the ball. A very simple thing to do would be to restrict the amount of players that can tackle a player, so that he couldn't be surrounded by 4 or 5 players. Let 2 players tackle him and if a third one comes in, then give him the free immediately. That would make far more sense than introducing a rule that will slow down the game and detract from the flowing play that can happen. If you go back to the last International Rules games, you'll see that the Australians soon copped on that it was better to keep the ball moving than stopping for marks when they caught it in open play.

The goalkeeper might need a little extra protection in terms of the square ball; there is no problem with all kickouts from the same place, but the mark: GET RID OF IT!

Spiritoftheseventies

Flukey wrote: »

As I have frequently posted on it before, the mark is the most ridiculous and stupid rule and should not even be given a trial. If it is to be given a trial it should be sentenced to life imprisonment and never be seen in society again. The idea of getting a free for catching a ball is stupid. It slows up the game. At the Blue Stars matches on Sunday you could see that players had the good sense to catch the ball and keep going, which is what they should do.

There are other ways of tackling the problem of a player in possession getting swamped and then to add insult to injury to have a free awarded against him for not releasing the ball. A very simple thing to do would be to restrict the amount of players that can tackle a player, so that he couldn't be surrounded by 4 or 5 players. Let 2 players tackle him and if a third one comes in, then give him the free immediately. That would make far more sense than introducing a rule that will slow down the game and detract from the flowing play that can happen. If you go back to the last International Rules games, you'll see that the Australians soon copped on that it was better to keep the ball moving than stopping for marks when they caught it in open play.

The goalkeeper might need a little extra protection in terms of the square ball; there is no problem with all kickouts from the same place, but the mark: GET RID OF IT!

The only way benefit i can see for mark is that it will discourage the practice of defenders swarming over player the minute he gathers possession or goes to ground. But only one or two teams do that to be honest.

An Citeog

Flukey wrote: »

As I have frequently posted on it before, the mark is the most ridiculous and stupid rule and should not even be given a trial. If it is to be given a trial it should be sentenced to life imprisonment and never be seen in society again. The idea of getting a free for catching a ball is stupid. It slows up the game. At the Blue Stars matches on Sunday you could see that players had the good sense to catch the ball and keep going, which is what they should do.

There are other ways of tackling the problem of a player in possession getting swamped and then to add insult to injury to have a free awarded against him for not releasing the ball. A very simple thing to do would be to restrict the amount of players that can tackle a player, so that he couldn't be surrounded by 4 or 5 players. Let 2 players tackle him and if a third one comes in, then give him the free immediately. That would make far more sense than introducing a rule that will slow down the game and detract from the flowing play that can happen. If you go back to the last International Rules games, you'll see that the Australians soon copped on that it was better to keep the ball moving than stopping for marks when they caught it in open play.

The goalkeeper might need a little extra protection in terms of the square ball; there is no problem with all kickouts from the same place, but the mark: GET RID OF IT!

Tbh, I don't have a problem with the mark being trialled. If you actually look at the way it's used in Aussie Rules, the only time players stop to take the mark is if they're surrounded by opposing players, to break up an opposing teams attack or if they're within scoring range. Most of the time, particularly around the middle of the field, they'll just play on and keep the ball moving if they can. I'd have much more of a problem with the way this new square ball rule is going to be implemented than anything else. It seems to me like it's going to put keepers at a massive disadvantage.

Flukey

An Citeog wrote:

If you actually look at the way it's used in Aussie Rules, the only time players stop to take the mark is if they're surrounded by opposing players, to break up an opposing teams attack or if they're within scoring range.

I agree, and that is exactly why we should never let it into our game. It stops the game at pivotal moments, often when there is most excitement, like a high ball dropping into the scoring area. If a player in Gaelic Football could catch it and then completely unchallenged either calmly kick it clear of the defence or calmly kick it over the bar, we'd be robbed of the whole excitement and it would be a complete anti-climax. It is much more exciting when a player has to try and score or clear it under pressure. The swarming around him could be dealt with in the manner I've already mentioned. We all hate seeing a surrounded player being penalised for over-carrying, but the mark is not the solution.

Let me take you on a journey back in time and we'll bring the mark with us. Picture the scene: A ball comes down along the sideline. It is crossed high into the large parallelogram. Two players go up for it. The forward wins it and calls the mark. He then calmly kicks the ball over the bar for a point. Two minutes later the final whistle blows. Kerry have won the five-in-a-row!!!

Probably one of the most commonly seen clips in GAA history is Seamus Darby's goal. If he could have taken a mark, or indeed had Tommy Doyle won it and taken the mark, it would have changed history. Kerry might have been happy with that change in history, but nobody else would have. The fact that Seamus Darby couldn't take the mark, meant he had a go and we know what happened. If the mark was available, he may well still have had a shot, but with a couple of minutes left he might have played it safe and took the point, leaving Offaly trailing by one, which would not have been a bad position to be in at that time, so it is a reasonable chance that he would have opted for it. Had Tommy Doyle won it and called the mark, he could have calmly cleared it. Without the mark, he'd have at least had to do a bit of work to get it out. A situation like that and thousands of others like it in the game would be destroyed if the mark was allowed.

I've seen it so many times in the International rules, where an exciting, rolling passage of play is suddenly stopped, because a player catches the ball and calls a mark. You know the typical situation where the crowd are screaming and roaring with excitement as the ball heads toward the goal after a great move and build up and then... silence. We're robbed, whether it is the forward or back that catches it. I'd much prefer that a player has to work when he catches the ball in a critical area of the field keeping the excitement going, rather than being able to be unchallenged as he kicks to score or clear, and I think most people would too. Like Seamus Darby's goal, it could take away the possibility of one, allowing the defence to regroup and a player going for the safe option available rather than taking the chance of a goal. The mark might solve one little problem, which could easily be solved in other ways anyway, but the cost to our game would be far greater. We're much better off without the mark. Australian Rules and Rugby would be too.

An Citeog

Flukey wrote: »

I agree, and that is exactly why we should never let it into our game. It stops the game at pivotal moments, often when there is most excitement, like a high ball dropping into the scoring area. If a player in Gaelic Football could catch it and then completely unchallenged either calmly kick it clear of the defence or calmly kick it over the bar, we'd be robbed of the whole excitement and it would be a complete anti-climax. It is much more exciting when a player has to try and score or clear it under pressure. The swarming around him could be dealt with in the manner I've already mentioned. We all hate seeing a surrounded player being penalised for over-carrying, but the mark is not the solution.

Let me take you on a journey back in time and we'll bring the mark with us. Picture the scene: A ball comes down along the sideline. It is crossed high into the square. Two players go up for it. The forward wins it and calls the mark. He then calmly kicks the ball over the bar for a point. Two minutes later the final whistle blows. Kerry have won the five-in-a-row!!!

Probably one of the most commonly seen clips in GAA history is Seamus Darby's goal. If he could have taken a mark, or indeed had Tommy Doyle won it and taken the mark, it would have changed history. Kerry might have been happy with that change in history, but nobody else would have. The fact that Seamus Darby couldn't take the mark, meant he had a go and we know what happened. If the mark was available, he may well still have had a shot, but with a couple of minutes left he might have played it safe and took the point, leaving Offaly trailing by one, which would not have been a bad position to be in at that time, so it is a reasonable chance that he would have opted for it. Had Tommy Doyle won it and called the mark, he could have calmly cleared it. Without the mark, he'd have at least had to do a bit of work to get it out. A situation like that and thousands of others like it in the game would be destroyed if the mark was allowed.

I've seen it so many times in the International rules, where an exciting, rolling passage of play is suddenly stopped, because a player catches the ball and calls a mark. You know the typical situation where the crowd are screaming and roaring with excitement as the ball heads toward the goal after a great move and build up and then... silence. We're robbed, whether it is the forward or back that catches it. I'd much prefer that a player has to work when he catches the ball in a critical area of the field keeping the excitement going, rather than being able to be unchallenged as he kicks to score or clear, and I think most people would too. Like Seamus Darby's goal, it could take away the possibility of one, allowing the defence to regroup and a player going for the safe option available rather than taking the chance of a goal. The mark might solve one little problem, which could easily be solved in other ways anyway, but the cost to our game would be far greater. We're much better off without the mark. Australian Rules and Rugby would be too.

Touching and all as your post is, the mark only applies within the two 45 metre lines and bar maybe Ciarán McManus, you wont find too many people shooting for goal from there!;) It's fairly uncommon aswell for a player to score from their hands from anywhere outside the 45. See how it goes in the league and if it doesn't work out it can be easily scrapped.

Mr. Incognito

Probably one of the most commonly seen clips in GAA history is Seamus Darby's goal. If he could have taken a mark, or indeed had Tommy Doyle won it and taken the mark, it would have changed history. Kerry might have been happy with that change in history, but nobody else would have. The fact that Seamus Darby couldn't take the mark, meant he had a go and we know what happened. If the mark was available, he may well still have had a shot, but with a couple of minutes left he might have played it safe and took the point, leaving Offaly trailing by one, which would not have been a bad position to be in at that time, so it is a reasonable chance that he would have opted for it. Had Tommy Doyle won it and called the mark, he could have calmly cleared it. Without the mark, he'd have at least had to do a bit of work to get it out. A situation like that and thousands of others like it in the game would be destroyed if the mark was allowed.

It only applies between the two 45's and if my team was two points down in injury time I think i'd be having a go regardless.

The game has moved on from 1982- it's time for the rules to move on too.

civis_liberalis

I was discussing this over in Teach na nGealt (the "as Gaeilge" forum) http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055790261

- Advantage rule

What can you say against it? Should help the flow of the game and reduce the impact of fouls committed with the intention of slowing the momentum of the opposition.

- Throw-ins must be at least 13m from sideline

Makes sense how they explained the need for it.

- Whistle for end of half and full-time not being blown until ball goes out of play

Good rule, should cut down on shyte talk about referees costing games when they are just ending the game at the correct time.

- "Mark" from the kick out

I'm against adopting the mark from open play, but I think that it could be beneficial in this instance. Someone mentioned that it could prevent players who manage to catch the kick out getting mauled in the middle of the park and being penalised, despite it being almost impossible to do anything anyway.

manutd

I am in flavour of them all, the mark will stop the player who won a good clean catch, be surround around by three or four player and has no way to go to.

It is up to the referee now, if they can follow them or not.

Spiritoftheseventies

manutd wrote: »

I am in flavour of them all, the mark will stop the player who won a good clean catch, be surround around by three or four player and has no way to go to.

It is up to the referee now, if they can follow them or not.

question is will those three or four players attempt to impede players mark. Will be very interesting to see how the mark works. But on plus side the high field is one of the great skills of the game but is being ruined by over zealous marking. my own way around it would be to only allow two players max to surround a player if he goes to ground.

Kenteach

This is the whole point of a trial period. The only place that rule changes can properly be assessed is on the field of play during competitive fixtures. If they don't work, scrap 'em. If they do work, adopt 'em. Quite simple really. Is there anyone who really thinks that football should be left as is? As long as the powers that be stand up to those who are hell bent against anything outside of their own comfort zone being implemented. If after a proper trial period any of the rules are seen to be advantageous, then they can be kept for the championship. If we hang on too tightly to tradition then thats where we'll be left - in the past.

Spiritoftheseventies

Talk this morning that names will go on back of players jerseys in forseeable future as well. What would be great is if squad numbers are handed out at start of season at BOTH senior club and county level.
Would avoid an awful lot of confusion.

manutd

bayviewclose wrote: »

question is will those three or four players attempt to impede players mark. Will be very interesting to see how the mark works. But on plus side the high field is one of the great skills of the game but is being ruined by over zealous marking. my own way around it would be to only allow two players max to surround a player if he goes to ground.

I think me need to give more to the attacking player. Like a player on the ground, four or five player around him, has no where to go to. Some referee will make different decisions.

Kenteach wrote: »

This is the whole point of a trial period. The only place that rule changes can properly be assessed is on the field of play during competitive fixtures. If they don't work, scrap 'em. If they do work, adopt 'em. Quite simple really. Is there anyone who really thinks that football should be left as is? As long as the powers that be stand up to those who are hell bent against anything outside of their own comfort zone being implemented. If after a proper trial period any of the rules are seen to be advantageous, then they can be kept for the championship. If we hang on too tightly to tradition then thats where we'll be left - in the past.

Fully agreed with that.

bayviewclose wrote: »

Talk this morning that names will go on back of players jerseys in forseeable future as well. What would be great is if squad numbers are handed out at start of season at BOTH senior club and county level. Would avoid an awful lot of confusion.

It would vary hard for club to be able to pay for that. My local club in has three Senior teams, and only two sets of club Jersey. It would work at a county level, no problem.

I know there is more need for it in club level, with most of the game with a team list and a PRO speaker, it would be good watching the Championship on the TV.

Spiritoftheseventies

manutd wrote: »

I think me need to give more to the attacking player. Like a player on the ground, four or five player around him, has no where to go to. Some referee will make different decisions.



Fully agreed with that.



It would vary hard for club to be able to pay for that. My local club in has three Senior teams, and only two sets of club Jersey. It would work at a county level, no problem.

I know there is more need for it in club level, with most of the game with a team list and a PRO speaker, it would be good watching the Championship on the TV.

Yes jerseys can be a thorny issue. Nothing worse then teams who tog out with hooped strips where the number is extremely difficult to make out. Saw a county club team once who had a hooped gear with red numbers.

An Citeog

bayviewclose wrote: »

Talk this morning that names will go on back of players jerseys in forseeable future as well. What would be great is if squad numbers are handed out at start of season at BOTH senior club and county level.
Would avoid an awful lot of confusion.

Any links to that? I really hope not and don't see how it could be feasible at club level. Apart from the costs involved, there are too many players rotating between club teams to make it manageable.

Spiritoftheseventies

An Citeog wrote: »

Any links to that? I really hope not and don't see how it could be feasible at club level. Apart from the costs involved, there are too many players rotating between club teams to make it manageable.

It was on the half seven sports bulletin on morning ireland about the names on the jersey. Assume it applied to just county level. Radio presenter said it would definitely make life easier for commentators in the hurling.

manutd

Found these

GAA Director General Paraic Duffy has revealed that the organisation may introduce players names on the back of shirts, in a bid to assist referees in identifying players.

The mandatory usage of helmets in hurling is expected to lead to problems in identifying players and Duffy confirmed that having names on shirts is one proposal the GAA are looking into.

'Going forward it's something we might look at,' Duffy told the Examiner.

'At the moment our primary concern is to get everyone wearing a helmet, that's our first goal. Marketing the games comes after that.

'But it is a valid point. It's been an issue for quite a long time that hurlers are not as easily recognisable as footballers.'

http://www.rte.ie/sport/gaa/championship/2010/0108/gaa.html

GAA Director General Paraic Duffy has not ruled out the printing of players' names on the backs of their jerseys in the future.

The practice, long carried out in soccer and other sports, has often been mooted in GAA, with Cork hurling goalkeeper Donal Og Cusack a known fan, the Cloyne man believing it would help raise the profile of perhaps less recognisable hurling players.

Monaghan man Duffy says it is not an immediate plan of the GAA's, but says it could be something they will look at down the line.

The new rule regarding mandatory safety helmets for hurlers could see players become even less familiar to the public and impede on their marketing opportunities, but despite all that Duffy says everything else must come second to the safety of players.

"Going forward it's something we might look at," Duffy was quoted as saying by the Irish Examiner.

"At the moment our primary concern is to get everyone wearing a helmet, that's our first goal. Marketing the games comes after that.

"But it is a valid point. It's been an issue for quite a long time that hurlers are not as easily recognisable as footballers but at the minute we don't have any plans to do that."

http://www.setanta.com/uk/Articles/other-sports/2010/1/08/Duffy-Names-on-jerseys-an-option/gnid-59451/

DonkeyPokerTour

Anyone know if the rules are being used in the o'byrne cup and the other provences "preseason" competitions?

Flukey

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

It only applies between the two 45's and if my team was two points down in injury time I think i'd be having a go regardless.

The game has moved on from 1982- it's time for the rules to move on too.

If it applied in box 3 feet by 3 feet, 67 yards out and 11 feet in from the sideline only and only between the 7th and 11th minutes of the second half, that would be too much. It should not be allowed on any part of the pitch or in the game at all. It adds nothing and takes a lot away. Restricting the amount of players that surround the one in possession would be a much better way of dealing with a player that has caught the ball being surrounded to the point where it is impossible for him to play the ball and he is penalised.

The game may well have moved on from 1982, but those kind of scenarios happen all the time. I just picked the most famous one. We could all think of lots of other situations where a player went for a goal because he'd no other option and got it. We can think of loads of those thrilling moments in or near the goal area that would be removed were they to bring in the mark. Between the two 45 yard lines it may be, but that is too much to start with. If we let it in at all, it could be extended. As was seen at the matches last weekend, most players ignored it anyway. They have more sense than the people trying to bring it in.

Kenteach

Flukey wrote: »

As was seen at the matches last weekend, most players ignored it anyway. They have more sense than the people trying to bring it in.

Then you have nothing to worry about by letting the initiative undergo a proper trial period.

jackcee

Kenteach wrote: »

Then you have nothing to worry about by letting the initiative undergo a proper trial period.

Even though I am not a fan of the "mark", like everybody else I recognise the problem it is designed to eliminate.

But it is not a very attractive solution.

Why not look at it in a different light??

The main problem arises at kickout time, because of the congested area between the two 45 metre lines.

At kickout time, why not pull everybody, apart from the midfielders, back behind the 45 metre lines. At most, you will have four players contesting the kickouts - but any degree of tactics will ensure that you will a clean contest between two players.

The two linesmen should monitor the 45 lines - and any transgression should be punished by the awarding of a "45" against the transgressing team.

No need for the "mark".

An additional advantage would be the introduction of a slew of new tactics.

Kenteach

Its not merely designed to eliminate a problem, but also to reward a core skill of the game, the high catch, which is basically under threat due to negative tactics. The mark, while not ideal, would encourage coaches to coach positively instead of the current fashion.
What if a team wanted to take a quick kick out, must they wait for the area between 45's to be cleared? And a decent kicker of the ball could give it plenty of airtime to ensure that the current number of players mauling in midfield would still be there by the time the ball enters the midfield from a kickout.
The main problem, as ever, concerns the definition of the tackle. Sort that one out and plenty of other problem areas take care of themselves.

yahoo_moe

http://www.rte.ie/sport/gaa/championship/2010/0112/experimental.html wrote:

Arising from a certain degree of misunderstanding the GAA's Football Playing Rules Revision Committee has moved to clarify and confirm the protocol for the implementation of the proposed experimental rule relating to fielding directly from a kick out.

The proposed rule change is as follows:

A free kick shall be awarded to a player who catches the ball from a kick out between the two 45 metre lines. This free kick must be taken by the player who catches the ball. Exception: The kick may be taken by another member of the player's team if the player who catches the ball is injured prior to the free kick being taken.

In practical terms this will mean that while the free-kick can be awarded, the referee, as with any other foul may allow play to continue if he considers it to be to the advantage of the player who catches the ball. Once he allows play to continue, he may not subsequently award a free.

It should also be noted that there is an experimental adjustment being made to the Advantage Rule which has been extended to include the following: He (the referee) shall signal that advantage is being played by means of a raised and extended arm. The purpose of this proposed amendment is to provide a standardised, common signal which will be used by all referees, and which will be visible to, and understood by, spectators and players alike.

Some clarification on the 'mark' rule for anyone fearing that players would be stopped when they didn't want to be...

Spiritoftheseventies

Yeah should be interesting to see how the rules are interpreted tomorrow. Other rules included the replacement of the open handed pass with the fisted pass while a player must catch the ball if he bounces.
And the most interesting one is that the half time and full time whistle will not now be blow until the ball goes out of play.
If i could one rule myself it would be the introduction of a two point scores for points registered from play from outside a particular distance similiar to the the three point scores they have in basketball. Obviously the wind differentials could pick or decrease but think long range scores in football deserve to be commended.

Flukey

Kenteach wrote: »

Its not merely designed to eliminate a problem, but also to reward a core skill of the game, the high catch, which is basically under threat due to negative tactics.

The award for a high catch is possession. You can't get a better reward than that. As I keep saying, and no one is commenting on, you could easily have a rule that only two players can surround the catcher. If a third man comes in, then it is an automatic free. So a player can get the ultimate reward from a high catch and we could eliminate the negative aspect that happens when he returns to the ground, all done with a sensible rule and not one that makes no sense whatsoever in any sport and which has the potential to do far more damage. So, what do people think of the idea of limiting the amount of players that can surround the catcher to two players?

Spiritoftheseventies

Flukey wrote: »

So, what do people think of the idea of limiting the amount of players that can surround the catcher to two players?

How many are allowed to surround player in australian rules?

An Citeog

Flukey wrote: »

The award for a high catch is possession. You can't get a better reward than that. As I keep saying, and no one is commenting on, you could easily have a rule that only two players can surround the catcher. If a third man comes in, then it is an automatic free. So a player can get the ultimate reward from a high catch and we could eliminate the negative aspect that happens when he returns to the ground, all done with a sensible rule and not one that makes no sense whatsoever in any sport and which has the potential to do far more damage. So, what do people think of the idea of limiting the amount of players that can surround the catcher to two players?

The mark is a lot easier tbh. If the player catches the ball from a kick-out and there's opposition players around him, he takes the mark, lays it off to a teammate and the game continues. If he catches the ball and has a bit of space, then he'll just play on. Simple enough really! Trying to limit the amount of players in the vacinity just isn't feasible imho.

Frank Spencer

An Citeog wrote: »

The mark is a lot easier tbh. If the player catches the ball from a kick-out and there's opposition players around him, he takes the mark, lays it off to a teammate and the game continues. If he catches the ball and has a bit of space, then he'll just play on. Simple enough really! Trying to limit the amount of players in the vacinity just isn't feasible imho.

I would agree with that.

DARK-KNIGHT

i think if the mark takes its place on the gaa stage it will allow the bigger players a huge advantage!

agree with the square ball rule goals should stand its up to the defending team to mark up and prevent it imo

bog master

The MARK

Of those pro and con, most seem to agree there is a problem in midfield, when the high clean catch is made and the player is surrounded by a pack and the ref blows up for overholding.

I personally believe the mark will improve the game, but more than happy to put my hands in the air come April and say I was wrong. There is also merit as Flukey and others have posted about limiting the number of players contesting a kickout between the 45's or the number of players who may tackle or attempt to tackle the player who has fielded the high ball.Personally I believe that both would be very hard to enforce.

But let us not be afraid to improve the game and because a rule or whatever comes from another sport or code, dont knock it. If its a good idea, try it!

Xavi6

bayviewclose wrote: »

How many are allowed to surround player in australian rules?

As many as you want, but you will rarely see more than 2 or 3, though you may see more if it's straight from a congested ruck contest in midfield.

Flukey

bog master wrote: »

The MARK

But let us not be afraid to improve the game and because a rule or whatever comes from another sport or code, dont knock it. If its a good idea, try it!

It has nothing to do with it coming from another sport. There are lots of rules that have been taken from other sports that are good, and there are things that should be taken from our game by other sports, like having goal line officials for soccer. I've outlined some of my objections to the mark, like it slowing up the game unnecessarily and there being better alternatives to solving the problem it is though to solve. But I'd take it out of the other games too. I just think the whole concept of getting a free for executing a skill is ridiculous. Should a player get a free for executing a perfect solo run or a making a perfect pass? A free should be for when an infringement is made. So if he catches the ball and is fouled, then give him the free. If he can catch it and move on, then that is better.

In some ways it is also unfair on the defending team who are precluded from laying a finger on him. If it was brought in in full, you could have a scenario where the ball could be kicked from one player to another, starting with the goalkeeper and involving several others, the whole way along the field until it reached a player near enough to the goal to have a shot for a point, and not once would the other team be allowed to touch anyone. It would become more like a game of chess than a field sport. I've seen it, as I am sure you all have, in the International Rules games and in Australian Rules, and it is awful. There is nothing like a full-blooded move from end to end, finishing with a score. Those kind of moves and scores are often inspirational ones. A full introduction of the mark could leave to moves with every little kick being cheered like the latter stages of a game at present when a team starts playing possession football. That is bad enough as it is without bringing in a rule to facilitate it and give the bonus of a free. At its worst the mark could be rewarding what I would call soft cynical play. Anyway, gotta run. I've an O'Byrne Cup match to go to, one I hope won't be ruined by the mark!!!:(

bog master

Flukey wrote: »

It has nothing to do with it coming from another sport. There are lots of rules that have been taken from other sports that are good, and there are things that should be taken from our game by other sports, like having goal line officials for soccer. I've outlined some of my objections to the mark, like it slowing up the game unnecessarily and there being better alternatives to solving the problem it is though to solve. But I'd take it out of the other games too. I just think the whole concept of getting a free for executing a skill is ridiculous. Should a player get a free for executing a perfect solo run or a making a perfect pass? A free should be for when an infringement is made. So if he catches the ball and is fouled, then give him the free. If he can catch it and move on, then that is better.

In some ways it is also unfair on the defending team who are precluded from laying a finger on him. If it was brought in in full, you could have a scenario where the ball could be kicked from one player to another, starting with the goalkeeper and involving several others, the whole way along the field until it reached a player near enough to the goal to have a shot for a point, and not once would the other team be allowed to touch anyone. It would become more like a game of chess than a field sport. I've seen it, as I am sure you all have, in the International Rules games and in Australian Rules, and it is awful. There is nothing like a full-blooded move from end to end, finishing with a score. Those kind of moves and scores are often inspirational ones. A full introduction of the mark could leave to moves with every little kick being cheered like the latter stages of a game at present when a team starts playing possession football. That is bad enough as it is without bringing in a rule to facilitate it and give the bonus of a free. At its worst the mark could be rewarding what I would call soft cynical play. Anyway, gotta run. I've an O'Byrne Cup match to go to, one I hope won't be ruined by the mark!!!:(

I will stand corrected, you have no opposition to looking at other sports for rule changes, but in other forums I visit, if it comes from soccer, aussie rules, if they use it we should not.

I dont believe the mark will slow down the game! And your scenario of mark after mark after mark is WRONG! Read the rules, it only applies to kickouts and between the 45's. Give it a chance, if it is ****e and does not work out, I will personally address a message to you and admit I was wrong.

Your point about limiting number of players tacking is another route to look at, one I dont personally agree with, but if it was tried, I would be more than happy to give it a chance.

But do you agree, the art and skill of high fielding, a hallmark of football, is sadly missing in the modern game? I sat with clipboard in hand and reviewed a video of Meath and Kerry 2009, Meath man here! Dont have stats to hand but roughly 30 goal kicks in 1st half, and 6 clean catches! What does that say?

DonkeyPokerTour

bog master wrote: »

But do you agree, the art and skill of high fielding, a hallmark of football, is sadly missing in the modern game? I sat with clipboard in hand and reviewed a video of Meath and Kerry 2009, Meath man here! Dont have stats to hand but roughly 30 goal kicks in 1st half, and 6 clean catches! What does that say?

Hi

Dont expect to see 10+ marks at this time of year. In the Laois Vs DIT game last night there was 5ish marks in the whole game. It didn't slow down the game much if at all.

Also the all kickouts from the 13m line made a lot of sense, kickouts landing in roughly the same spot the whole time, much easier for the Midfielders to read.

The referee in the game was very poor on the new Hand pass rule. At least 5 open hand passes were let go.

Also DIT got a penalty from the 11, scored well, however where he put the penalty the keeper wouldn't have got there if it was from the 21!

Square ball didn't really come into it in the game so difficult to access.

Would love to see the mark in Summer Football when you see more high fielding. Its tough to access in Winter football when the ball is so greasy.

Kenteach

Flukey wrote: »

It has nothing to do with it coming from another sport. There are lots of rules that have been taken from other sports that are good, and there are things that should be taken from our game by other sports, like having goal line officials for soccer. I've outlined some of my objections to the mark, like it slowing up the game unnecessarily and there being better alternatives to solving the problem it is though to solve. But I'd take it out of the other games too. I just think the whole concept of getting a free for executing a skill is ridiculous. Should a player get a free for executing a perfect solo run or a making a perfect pass? A free should be for when an infringement is made. So if he catches the ball and is fouled, then give him the free. If he can catch it and move on, then that is better.

In some ways it is also unfair on the defending team who are precluded from laying a finger on him. If it was brought in in full, you could have a scenario where the ball could be kicked from one player to another, starting with the goalkeeper and involving several others, the whole way along the field until it reached a player near enough to the goal to have a shot for a point, and not once would the other team be allowed to touch anyone. It would become more like a game of chess than a field sport. I've seen it, as I am sure you all have, in the International Rules games and in Australian Rules, and it is awful. There is nothing like a full-blooded move from end to end, finishing with a score. Those kind of moves and scores are often inspirational ones. A full introduction of the mark could leave to moves with every little kick being cheered like the latter stages of a game at present when a team starts playing possession football. That is bad enough as it is without bringing in a rule to facilitate it and give the bonus of a free. At its worst the mark could be rewarding what I would call soft cynical play. Anyway, gotta run. I've an O'Byrne Cup match to go to, one I hope won't be ruined by the mark!!!:(

If the rule was brought in as you described above, I wouldn't be in favour of it (although I'd give it the courtesy of a proper trial period). The way it is being brought in makes more sense. Your idea about number of tacklers does have its merits, although it leads to the scenario where you have different number of allowed tacklers depending on the passge of play, making it awkward for players and officials alike.

Frank Spencer

Was at the Dublin match today and that hand pass rule needs to go. The amount of times when promising moves were brought to a halt by an incorrect handpass was unbelievable. It doesn't make any sense. You don't gain any particular advantage by using an open hand and as long as there is a striking motion I don't see the problem with it. As a player it would drive me crazy.

kpnuts

Frank Spencer wrote: »

Was at the Dublin match today and that hand pass rule needs to go. The amount of times when promising moves were brought to a halt by an incorrect handpass was unbelievable. It doesn't make any sense. You don't gain any particular advantage by using an open hand and as long as there is a striking motion I don't see the problem with it. As a player it would drive me crazy.

Agree totally. Was also in Parnell Park today. No flow to the game because of handpass rule. Didn't help that today's ref was ridiculously fussy and took every possible opportunity to whistle, even sometimes where clear advantage was accruing to fouled team.

DonkeyPokerTour

Frank Spencer wrote: »

Was at the Dublin match today and that hand pass rule needs to go. The amount of times when promising moves were brought to a halt by an incorrect handpass was unbelievable. It doesn't make any sense. You don't gain any particular advantage by using an open hand and as long as there is a striking motion I don't see the problem with it. As a player it would drive me crazy.

Give it more than 1 game, players have been using the open hand since they were U-10 or U-12's so at least 6-8 years. Its not easy mentally to change to a closed fist in a couple of weeks.

Also if you think there is no advantage to using the open hand then you obviously have never played the game! There is a huge advantage to passing the ball with the open hand particularly over short distances.

Seeing as the hand passed is already over used I think this is a good rule

Frank Spencer

DonkeyPokerTour wrote: »

Give it more than 1 game, players have been using the open hand since they were U-10 or U-12's so at least 6-8 years. Its not easy mentally to change to a closed fist in a couple of weeks.

Also if you think there is no advantage to using the open hand then you obviously have never played the game! There is a huge advantage to passing the ball with the open hand particularly over short distances.

Seeing as the hand passed is already over used I think this is a good rule

I didn't say there was no advantage in using the open hand. This isn't going to eradicate hand passing as it occurs now. As soon as players get used to using the closed fist it will be back to square one. They should be looking at attempting to curb the fouling that is prevalent in the gameplan of some teams. That is a real problem.

Can't see this rule being kept.

DonkeyPokerTour

Frank Spencer wrote: »

You don't gain any particular advantage by using an open hand

Frank Spencer wrote: »

I didn't say there was no advantage in using the open hand.

You pritty much did. As I said give it more than one game. Also referees will always be stricter on the new rules at the start, and with a combination of the referees relaxing a little and the players getting more used to the rules I dont think you'll notice this as much as the O'Byrne cup and League continue.

Frank Spencer

DonkeyPokerTour wrote: »

You pritty much did. As I said give it more than one game. Also referees will always be stricter on the new rules at the start, and with a combination of the referees relaxing a little and the players getting more used to the rules I dont think you'll notice this as much as the O'Byrne cup and League continue.

That possibly will happen but I still can't see it players making less handpasses than they have been up to now.

bog master

The problem with the "hand pass" is the old rule which states, "struck with the open hand(s) or fist,provided there is a definite striking action;"

This is very difficult to judge by the referee. I have seen, as we all have, players on their back, throwing the ball up, with one hand and on to a teamate, and even on slow mo replay, impossible to judge whether there was that "striking motion!. It can be done but..........

It is not the remit of the ref to provide a free flowing game, he is there to enforce the rules. If you give the ref the power to interpret the rules as he sees fit, then you best never be critical of his decisions!

Flukey

bog master wrote: »

I dont believe the mark will slow down the game! And your scenario of mark after mark after mark is WRONG! Read the rules, it only applies to kickouts and between the 45's. Give it a chance, if it is ****e and does not work out, I will personally address a message to you and admit I was wrong.

Read the rules? Read my post. I said if it was brought in in full, that that could happen. As it stands, no it can't, but we don't want to go down the slippery slope. Even if it was brought in in full, you'd rarely if ever see an end to end mark move, but it would theoretically be allowed for in the rules. We don't want that. When it comes to the International Rules matches, while you don't get the full end to end mark moves, you do sometimes see the ball being moved over large parts of the pitch by several consecutive marks. It is awful, and it most certainly does slow down the game. As I said earlier, the Australians soon copped on to the way the Irish were doing it and just kept the ball moving. As to your message, you can give it to me now, because it is a ridiculous rule. To see it even happening once is more than enough evidence. A description of it is enough. I have given it a chance. The very first time I saw a player take a mark, it had failed. Get rid of it, completely.

bog master wrote: »

But do you agree, the art and skill of high fielding, a hallmark of football, is sadly missing in the modern game? I sat with clipboard in hand and reviewed a video of Meath and Kerry 2009, Meath man here! Dont have stats to hand but roughly 30 goal kicks in 1st half, and 6 clean catches! What does that say?

Fielding has certainly dropped a bit. Bringing in the tee for kickouts has seen an increase in the fielding because balls have got higher and further. What do your stats say? Absolutely nothing about the mark improving that. The fact that there were only 6 clean catches means that players were competing for the ball, trying to catch it and trying to prevent it. Even with the mark, you'd still have a number of players jumping trying to catch it, so you still wouldn't have any real difference in the amount of clean catches. The mark won't make the ball any easier to catch and while a player may try harder to catch it, so would the players trying to stop it. It would balance itself out. You also have to consider that a lot of times the ball isn't caught is because players deliberately try to break the ball down, not because of any inability or difficulty in catching it. When Down started doing breaking the ball down in the 1960s, it was revolutionary and was one of many reasons that they won their All-Irelands. In terms of promoting high fielding, the mark won't wouldn't help there. It does nothing for the game. Gladly, common sense prevailed at the Dublin v Wexford match yesterday, and it was hardly used. We'll see how it goes next Sunday at the Dublin v Meath match, but I don't expect it to be used much there either.