The infamous Squareball Rule?

Squareball2010

Well its the one rule we all know and all love to hate! It's a nightmare for everyone be it referees, supporters or the frustrated full forward who's being penalised time and time again by a referee who's out on the halfway line!!

There are plenty of controversies i.e. Kildare Meath and Down Kildare to name but two and there will be plenty more in the year to come yet!

So what can the GAA do? Well fair enough something has to be there to offer some bit of protection to the keeper but the rule as it is now is virtually impossible to police and enforce!

As a person who has refereed and umpired both football and hurling games I am speaking from experience.

Consider this...a referee has 101 other things to be looking out for e.g. time, steps taken, fouls, illegitimate handpasses, off the ball incidents, scores etc not to mind trying to keep up with play as best as possible!! As a direct result his positioning is bound to be susceptible when it comes to making the squareball decision...how can he clearly see it if hes out on the 45 or worse 65? He cant possibly unless it is blatantly obvious(which it rarely is)

Now as an umpire you have to look out for scores number 1 which involves good positioning being vital to make the right call, you have to watch the play/ball, watch for off the balls and then try keep an eye on the square as well to judge whether or not the forward was inside the square before or after the ball?

To me it either has to be changed as they did before in the league by not being in the square as the ball is struck OR entrust the task to the umpires! At the moment 90% of the time the ref calls it (without little or no help from umpires).
The one problem with that is at club games where you may have 2 umpires from each side...then the fun starts!

Any thoughts on this? (I'm sure there's plenty! :rolleyes:)

SD7792

How about not being allowed score from inside the square?

Cill Dara Abu

How about get rid of the square ball rule and replace with a rule that you cannot physically touch the keeper within the large rectangle.

whatnext

Cill Dara Abu wrote: »

How about get rid of the square ball rule and replace with a rule that you cannot physically touch the keeper within the large rectangle.

What if the goalie touches the forward? who is to say which party instigated the contact?

It would be easier to police that no attacking player can enter the small rectangle.

Hammer Archer

Go back to the rule they had in the league last year I'd say.
Don't think banning attacking players from the small square is the answer at all. You'd have a situation where a team is up by a point in the last few minutes and they run down the clock by giving the ball to the keeper in the small square who would then keep it for the remainder of the game knowing no attackers are allowed in the square.

davegrohl48

I'v always thought it was a rule that needs tweaking. It's unfair to the attacking side. As an attacking side how do you try and attack a ball travelling at 50 mph that you have to "wait until it is in the square". By the time the ball reaches the edge of the square (mid air) it will travel on to the goalie before you can get a hand on it.
Make the square smaller and have a rule you can't score from in there if the keeper is present in the square. If the keeper is gone out of the square then do what you want.

Slight tweak as well, you are allowed bring the ball into the square as the attacking side. But can't attack a ball in the small square that has just arrived in the square. Once opposition touch it you can attack away. Which is pretty much similar to todays rule. I dunno now I'm confusing myself.

whatnext

Hammer Archer wrote: »

Go back to the rule they had in the league last year I'd say.
Don't think banning attacking players from the small square is the answer at all. You'd have a situation where a team is up by a point in the last few minutes and they run down the clock by giving the ball to the keeper in the small square who would then keep it for the remainder of the game knowing no attackers are allowed in the square.

Unless the attacker entered the square resulting in a free out.

You wouldn't want to risk a short one if you were in the above situation.
It was only a suggestion.

There needs to be some rule, but I have no idea what that should be

gaelic cowboy

Scrap the rule and in order to safegaurd the goalies from big hits you drop the size of a GAA team to 13, creating more space on the field reducing the packed out rectangle phenomenon.

hardybuck

Has anyone considered why keepers need special protection in the first place? In the act of fielding a high ball, what is different from what they are doing to another player trying to field a high ball in the middle of the field?

When you think about it the keeper is often a lot bigger than the incoming forward, so I don't know why they need to be wrapped in cotton wool.

How about scrapping the square ball rule, and giving the keeper the same level of protection as every other player out there - i.e. if he is fouled while jumping blow for it and leave it at that.

DH2K9

hardybuck wrote: »

Has anyone considered why keepers need special protection in the first place? In the act of fielding a high ball, what is different from what they are doing to another player trying to field a high ball in the middle of the field?

When you think about it the keeper is often a lot bigger than the incoming forward, so I don't know why they need to be wrapped in cotton wool.

How about scrapping the square ball rule, and giving the keeper the same level of protection as every other player out there - i.e. if he is fouled while jumping blow for it and leave it at that.

A keeper has a hard enough job as it is.

gaelic cowboy

hardybuck wrote: »

Has anyone considered why keepers need special protection in the first place?

I was always told by my father it was because in the old days a goalie might be rushed and bundled into the back of the net, the squareball rule prevents that to a certain extent.

In fact many of the rules which we have today were merely invented to reduce the amount of anarchy on the pitch, like reducing from 21 to 15 players handling on the ground etc.

hardybuck

gaelic cowboy wrote: »

I was always told by my father it was because in the old days a goalie might be rushed and bundled into the back of the net, the squareball rule prevents that to a certain extent.

In fact many of the rules which we have today were merely invented to reduce the amount of anarchy on the pitch, like reducing from 21 to 15 players handling on the ground etc.

True, but bundling the keeper into the back of a net is a free anyway, as it would be if done to any other player. We already have made a provision for this.

hardybuck

DH2K9 wrote: »

A keeper has a hard enough job as it is.

No, not really. Fine, they have to keep their concentration for the one important save they may need to make in a game, but I don't accept that they have a harder job than anyone else out there.

mrgaa1

I would propose the rule should be as follows:

Once a defending player, including the goalkeeper, has touched the ball within the small square an offensive player or players may enter. A defending player, in possession, can be tackled as per rule.

If the defending player(s) have played the ball out of the small square, and the ball is still in play, all offensive players must leave the small square before the ball comes back into this area.

If an offensive player enters the small square before the ball arrives - Free out
If an offensive player fouls a defensive player within the small square - free out


In this way and offensive player can't enter unless the ball is touched by a defensive player first.
Also umpires can be more proactive in this and watch for the infraction.

harpsman

hardybuck wrote: »

Has anyone considered why keepers need special protection in the first place? In the act of fielding a high ball, what is different from what they are doing to another player trying to field a high ball in the middle of the field?

When you think about it the keeper is often a lot bigger than the incoming forward, so I don't know why they need to be wrapped in cotton wool.

How about scrapping the square ball rule, and giving the keeper the same level of protection as every other player out there - i.e. if he is fouled while jumping blow for it and leave it at that.

Exactly.Funny how simple the solution can be when a bit of common sense is applied.The square ball rule is a bit like the horse designed by a comittee.
Scrap rule.If keeper is subject to frontal charge red card fo offender.same as in every other part of field.

TopOfTheRight

Get rid of all existing rules and just give the keeper a free out if he catches it clean within the square from an opposition kick, like a mark in AFL

Ah nuts

hardybuck wrote: »

Has anyone considered why keepers need special protection in the first place? In the act of fielding a high ball, what is different from what they are doing to another player trying to field a high ball in the middle of the field?

When you think about it the keeper is often a lot bigger than the incoming forward, so I don't know why they need to be wrapped in cotton wool.

How about scrapping the square ball rule, and giving the keeper the same level of protection as every other player out there - i.e. if he is fouled while jumping blow for it and leave it at that.

A forward running in has a significant advantage in gaining height in th air as opposed to the keeper who has to hold position for fear of being lobbed.

The rule will more than likely not be changed as it leads to the media attention which helps promote the games. The trouble is really with the umpires, they should be able to judge consistently on square balls but never do.

lovelypoint

Squareball2010 wrote: »

Well its the one rule we all know and all love to hate! It's a nightmare for everyone be it referees, supporters or the frustrated full forward who's being penalised time and time again by a referee who's out on the halfway line!!

There are plenty of controversies i.e. Kildare Meath and Down Kildare to name but two and there will be plenty more in the year to come yet!

So what can the GAA do? Well fair enough something has to be there to offer some bit of protection to the keeper but the rule as it is now is virtually impossible to police and enforce!

As a person who has refereed and umpired both football and hurling games I am speaking from experience.

Consider this...a referee has 101 other things to be looking out for e.g. time, steps taken, fouls, illegitimate handpasses, off the ball incidents, scores etc not to mind trying to keep up with play as best as possible!! As a direct result his positioning is bound to be susceptible when it comes to making the squareball decision...how can he clearly see it if hes out on the 45 or worse 65? He cant possibly unless it is blatantly obvious(which it rarely is)

Now as an umpire you have to look out for scores number 1 which involves good positioning being vital to make the right call, you have to watch the play/ball, watch for off the balls and then try keep an eye on the square as well to judge whether or not the forward was inside the square before or after the ball?

To me it either has to be changed as they did before in the league by not being in the square as the ball is struck OR entrust the task to the umpires! At the moment 90% of the time the ref calls it (without little or no help from umpires).
The one problem with that is at club games where you may have 2 umpires from each side...then the fun starts!

Any thoughts on this? (I'm sure there's plenty! :rolleyes:)

Two things - video referee, and refereeing TEAM strategy.

Scrapping the square ball leads to carnage, as seen when trialled in the league a few years, and keepers deserve better than being subject to some flailing lunatic.

lovelypoint

Should add that there would be no media furore about squareballs, if umpires simply did their job. The last two years has really seen how lacklustre many umpires are, and it does my head in to see blatantly mis-awarded points in hurling.

Squareball2010

lovelypoint wrote: »

Should add that there would be no media furore about squareballs, if umpires simply did their job. The last two years has really seen how lacklustre many umpires are, and it does my head in to see blatantly mis-awarded points in hurling.

Firstly I totally disagree with those saying abolish the rule completely as that would lead to a farce with lads standing on the line/obstructing the keeper/his view etc etc. it would be carnage in the square and a free for all! Some sort of rule needs to be in place just like soccer with the offside. It seems to me that the rule that was introduced during the league worked best and should not have been done away with so quickly- it should have been allowed stand the test of time!

@ Lovely Point I would agree with you that alot of umpires are passive and merely want to wave the flag or wave wides!! You will always get these people who want to avoid confrontation and/or any sort of controversy! Tbf an umpire must do all he can to assist the referee and the squareball area is a huge point on which they can and should act more! However this also comes down to the referee who must be ready and willing to consult with his umpires for these kind of instances ( rememeber this was Martin Sluddens downfall in Louth Meath last year)! The referee has his team of umpires and linesmen who are ultimately there to help him officiate the game....it is up to him whether he chooses to use them or not!

Intrigued to hear of these misawarded points in hurling you refer to??

Fandango

Something i dreamt up as an alternative and im sure others may have had the same thought, how about a rule where you cant enter the large rectangle before the ball is played (not before the ball enters, before it is struck)? Firstly this would be alot easier to judge and if a ref/linesman gets it wrong its not a clear cut goal as it tends to be with the current rule. Also, it would add the skill of the through ball with more prominence than it currently has and i think would add to the game. As a sports fan in general, id also love to see this tried out in soccer as i feel it would expand the play alot more than the current offside rule there.

johnmcdnl

TopOfTheRight wrote: »

Get rid of all existing rules and just give the keeper a free out if he catches it clean within the square from an opposition kick, like a mark in AFL

so now the big full forward will do all he can to prevent the goalie catching the ball... and the goalie has no protection at all

nice rule in theory but full forwards will just do anything to prevent goalie from catching the ball so it'll not work... similar to the marks that were in the league one year?? (last year was it) other midfielders just tried to break the ball rather than give a mark away...

Squareball2010

Fandango wrote: »

Something i dreamt up as an alternative and im sure others may have had the same thought, how about a rule where you cant enter the large rectangle before the ball is played (not before the ball enters, before it is struck)? Firstly this would be alot easier to judge and if a ref/linesman gets it wrong its not a clear cut goal as it tends to be with the current rule. Also, it would add the skill of the through ball with more prominence than it currently has and i think would add to the game. As a sports fan in general, id also love to see this tried out in soccer as i feel it would expand the play alot more than the current offside rule there.

Yeah this is what Ive been referring to. It was a rule introduced in the league last year I think and seemed to be alot better than what we currently have in place!! It's virtully impossible to call at the moment!

lovelypoint

Squareball2010 wrote: »

Intrigued to hear of these misawarded points in hurling you refer to??

Wides waved as points, and points waved as wides, by umpires. Unfortunately increasingly common to see happening in the last 2/ 3 years, and something I had not seen with as much alarming regularity before then. I'm sure others can chime in with the specific cases/ examples.

PARKHEAD67

hardybuck wrote: »

Has anyone considered why keepers need special protection in the first place? In the act of fielding a high ball, what is different from what they are doing to another player trying to field a high ball in the middle of the field?

When you think about it the keeper is often a lot bigger than the incoming forward, so I don't know why they need to be wrapped in cotton wool.

How about scrapping the square ball rule, and giving the keeper the same level of protection as every other player out there - i.e. if he is fouled while jumping blow for it and leave it at that.

This sums it up for me. The rule as it stands cannot be implemented.Umpires tend to be clueless about whether or not its a point, goal or whatever. Throw a square ball decision into the mix and theyre as confused as George Bush at a spelling bee.Its almost impossible for a ref to know as theyre out the field.The umpire should know instantly.Alas this usually is too much to expect.

lovelypoint

PARKHEAD67 wrote: »

This sums it up for me. The rule as it stands cannot be implemented.Umpires tend to be clueless about whether or not its a point, goal or whatever. Throw a square ball decision into the mix and theyre as confused as George Bush at a spelling bee.Its almost impossible for a ref to know as theyre out the field.The umpire should know instantly.Alas this usually is too much to expect.

You do realise you are arguing umpires are inadequate, not the rule..

PARKHEAD67

lovelypoint wrote: »

You do realise you are arguing umpires are inadequate, not the rule..

Ya. The rule is inadequate because of inadequate umpires. So just scrap it.Its too 50/50 the way it is.TV replays show how wrong these decisions are time after time.But, for club matches etc. its unknown how many of these decisions go wrong.(It usually goes against the forward)

lovelypoint

PARKHEAD67 wrote: »

Ya. The rule is inadequate because of inadequate umpires. So just scrap it.Its too 50/50 the way it is.TV replays show how wrong these decisions are time after time.But, for club matches etc. its unknown how many of these decisions go wrong.(It usually goes against the forward)

Disagree entirely. Just because umpire are inadequate, doesn't mean the rule is. We need to grasp the nettle here, and deal with the actual problem - poor umpires, rather than change other elements of the game to hide inadequacies.

Its easier to change a rule, than for the GAA to overhaul the refereeing standards and structures though, so the cynic in me says if anything goes, it will be the rule first as thats the easy option..

PARKHEAD67

lovelypoint wrote: »

Disagree entirely. Just because umpire are inadequate, doesn't mean the rule is. We need to grasp the nettle here, and deal with the actual problem - poor umpires, rather than change other elements of the game to hide inadequacies.

Its easier to change a rule, than for the GAA to overhaul the refereeing standards and structures though, so the cynic in me says if anything goes, it will be the rule first as thats the easy option..

I know what you mean but umpires at club games and underage matches are usually just lads without a clue.They wouldnt know or care about a squreball.They think that all they've to do is decide if its a point or not.The poor ref could be out in midfield.How does he decide a squareball without a bit of help from the two(usually) morons doing umpire?

lovelypoint

PARKHEAD67 wrote: »

I know what you mean but umpires at club games and underage matches are usually just lads without a clue.They wouldnt know or care about a squreball.They think that all they've to do is decide if its a point or not.The poor ref could be out in midfield.How does he decide a squareball without a bit of help from the two(usually) morons doing umpire?

True, that is a dilemma - what do you do about refereeing/ umpiring inadequacies at club level? Can't say I have the answer, but changing rules to embrace weak points in our games does not sit well with me, and there must be a better way, even if its not easy..

Squareball2010

lovelypoint wrote: »

True, that is a dilemma - what do you do about refereeing/ umpiring inadequacies at club level? Can't say I have the answer, but changing rules to embrace weak points in our games does not sit well with me, and there must be a better way, even if its not easy..

Ultimatley as ye have pointed out responsibility lays at the door of the umpires....they have to step upto the plate on this one and accept this is equally as much part of their job as it is to wave a flag for a score! They are 9 times out of 10 the men in the best position to decide whether an infringement occured or not!

What about the ref then? All he can do is do his best to get in a good position to get and/or consult with both umpires before deciding as we saw in Derry Kildare last weekend...correct decision!

Now the clubs dilemma...you've umpires from each sides! Ultimately it is upto the referee then as he has little option ( we all know ones gonna say squareball and the other no way he ran in). An interesting system that the GAA could and should implement in divisions across the country is one that is in use in East Cork I believe whereby there is a panel of umpires set up and chosen for various club games in the division...if nothing else it assures fairness and non-bias in decisions like this!

Trenchman

Hmmm, I see the sweeping statement brigade are out in force again!

Lads,not all umpires are inadequate.Not all umpires 'have no interest in making the big calls'.Not all umpires are there to just wave a flag and get a free dinner.It's just that when a referee or his umpires makes a hames of a decision, a la Derek Fahy, Martin Sludden, John Sexton and McEneaney last year, the tendency is to say 'ALL umpires are not up to standard....fat,old,balding....in it for the day out....blah blah blah.'

I umpire for an intercounty referee. I am part of an eight man team, nationally qualified, that the referee rotates depending on availability.The oldest of us is 30 and we have two fully qualified referees amongst the 8.
We care deeply about our job because we realise it's importance. We all still play the game and we all know the rules inside out. People make out that it's a complete free for all and that we are only interested in a free dinner. But it's not. We consider it a privileged position and prepare accordingly. Say we are umpiring a game in Portlaoise on a Sunday. We travel up from Waterford to be at the pitch at least an hour beforehand if not more, having had a quiet night on the Saturday. We might have a chat about the rules on the way up, although our powers as umpires are pretty limited. Perhaps two hours up and two hours down. Do the game as best we can, maybe stop for food on the way home (invariably we are more anxious just to get home to be honest). Not exactly glamourous and not exactly the most rewarding.

But we love it. It's important to us that we do the game to the absolute best of our ability, because that's what the players deserve. Now we will not get it right 100% of the time, but then who does? So all we can do is ensure that we are prepared to the best of our ability. And unfortunately, sometimes a call will be marginal. But we need to make a decision and go with what we fell is the correct decision. So invariably there will be square balls where it is just too close to call exactly what happened. Which goes back to the point that the rule itself is a complete farce and needs clarification.

The rule trialled in the league a few years ago was a pleasure to implement and it simply beggars belief that people wanted to go back to the old rule. The square ball rule in it's current form is not concise enough and too hard to make an accurate decision on. Something needs to be done or there will continue to be contentious square ball calls made each and every weekend.

harpsman

johnmcdnl wrote: »

so now the big full forward will do all he can to prevent the goalie catching the ball... and the goalie has no protection at all

nice rule in theory but full forwards will just do anything to prevent goalie from catching the ball so it'll not work... similar to the marks that were in the league one year?? (last year was it) other midfielders just tried to break the ball rather than give a mark away...

total rubbish,like most of the posts on here,tbh.
no team is going to waste a player just to have him stand in front of the goalkeeper.if i was defending i would love it if the other team wasted a forward by just stickin him in the square.also our keeper is 6'4" and 16 st so ill take my chances with him bein able to look after himself.if hes fouled:free out.there are rules about fouling already

harpsman

fair play to you trenchman.id say you d find most refs are in it for the love of the game too,but sure isnt it easier for the smart arses on tv and internet to slag em off all the time,with the benifit of 20 slow motion replays.
mind you the 2 boys at weekend were a joke.

Trenchman

Agree totally with you. They looked like two lads left out of the hospital to watch the game!

Squareball2010

Trenchman wrote: »

Agree totally with you. They looked like two lads left out of the hospital to watch the game!

They were a laughing stock tbh and its the minority like this that give the rest a bad name imo!

homerjay2005

TopOfTheRight wrote: »

Get rid of all existing rules and just give the keeper a free out if he catches it clean within the square from an opposition kick, like a mark in AFL

this...or indeed any defending player that catches the ball in the square gets a mark...

but it would be a more exciting game if you could just stand where you want when the ball is coming in.

padraig_f

Simple: an attacking player can't receive a pass in the square full stop. You can carry it in ok, you just can't receive a pass in there (which includes deflecting it goalwards).

Easy to judge: is the player inside the square when he receives the ball?

Scrapping the rule completely didn't work imo, teams just bombed in balls on top of the goalie with 10 people in there hoping for a deflection into the goal, it was a mess, not football.

The problem with current rule isn't the capability of the refs or umpires, it'll always be impossible to judge in it's current format. I've watched contentious ones multiple times on slow-motion replays and still wasn't sure, so it'll never be possible to judge in real-time.

padraig_f

padraig_f wrote: »

Simple: an attacking player can't receive a pass in the square full stop. You can carry it in ok, you just can't receive a pass in there (which includes deflecting it goalwards).

Maybe a tweak to it would be: the attacking player can't receive a pass with his hands in the square. I'm just thinking of the case where the goalie comes out, the forward fists it across to his team-mate, and the ball drifts into the square before the team-mate reaches it. He'd now be prevented from touching the ball, which wouldn't be ideal. With the tweak, the other attacker would still have the opportunity to kick the ball into the net without catching it.

johnmcdnl

padraig_f wrote: »

Maybe a tweak to it would be: the attacking player can't receive a pass with his hands in the square. I'm just thinking of the case where the goalie comes out, the forward fists it across to his team-mate, and the ball drifts into the square before the team-mate reaches it. He'd now be prevented from touching the ball, which wouldn't be ideal. With the tweak, the other attacker would still have the opportunity to kick the ball into the net without catching it.

tidier yet - can't receive a kick pass to hand any body part from a kick taken from outside the big rectangle.. (kick pass to foot or other body part??? could end up with a game of soccer with lads volleying but that could actually be pretty interesting... hmmm - as long as they don't impede goalie's attempt to catch the ball in any way... lets just ban this situation to prevent confusion)
- if ball touches ground before coming to the square it's live but forward must follow ball into square... ie - can't stand inside the square waiting for it...
- if a defender touches ball anywhere before the ball arrives it's automatically live and can be played... still have to wait for the ball to enter square before following in to prevent crowding the goalmouth


that allows for forwards taking shots that might fly across the face of the goal... also allows for fist passes across the face of the goal as well...

padraig_f

johnmcdnl wrote: »

- if ball touches ground before coming to the square it's live but forward must follow ball into square... ie - can't stand inside the square waiting for it...

oh yeah, that's a good one, would get rid of my (slightly messy) not being able to receive the pass with your hands. in the second case, the attacker recieving the pass would just have to let the ball bounce first.

so the rule could just be:

attacking player can't receive a direct pass inside the square.

(where bouncing or coming off defender makes it indirect).

Mountainlad

padraig_f wrote: »

oh yeah, that's a good one, would get rid of my (slightly messy) not being able to receive the pass with your hands. in the second case, the attacker recieving the pass would just have to let the ball bounce first.

so the rule could just be:

attacking player can't receive a direct pass inside the square.

(where bouncing or coming off defender makes it indirect).

To be honest if they had to wait for it to bounce they might as well just not be allowed in the square. Given the defender can be in the square at will, as can the keeper, how would the forward ever get their first if he has to wait for it to bounce?

lovelypoint

Trenchman wrote: »

Hmmm, I see the sweeping statement brigade are out in force again!

Well, I'll be the first to hold my hand up and say if any of my posts read that all umpires were inadequate, that I failed to get my point across. High profile examples of incorrect calls highlight the failings of some umpires, but not all, and if my posts read as tarring all umpires with the same brush, then that is not something I intended.

I'm sure there are many, many good umpires out there, but the fact remains that the standard isn't consistent, hence this squareball debate , and also the increasing incidences of incorrectly awarded points (hurling).