Should the 'Nash' free be outlawed?

Warper

Pretty hot topic right now but do you think the 'Nash' free should be outlawed?

Personally i think it should, it is blatantly dangerous as if a sliotar hit you travelling at that speed and from that distance it could do some serious damage. There is no doubt that it is a great skill that Nash has perfected but it is extremely dangerous. This must be tackled before someone does get hurt and then it is too late.

A solution must be found, basically something like contact must be had with the sliotar before the 21 yard line or else it is a foul.

Kristopherus

Yes, it should be disallowed. Someone is gonna get badly hurt someone sooner or later.

thinkstoomuch1

Its been a waste of time to debate a topic that has been debated inside out ,upside down you oame it ,its been done,and it wont be changed if it even will be ,for a year.

People need to let it go for now.
Its getting boring now.
No saftety risk at all ,greater other risks in the game


I cant wait to see nash scoring galores in the championship.

adrian522

Well if the "strike" is deemed to start as soon as he rises the ball defenders should be allowed come out to meet him and get their block in.

As things stand if the strike is the moment of impact all the defenders are committing a foul by not being 20 meters back.

They'll have to tidy up the rule book one way or another.

I noticed TJ Reid trying something similar at the weekend, I imagine if no change is made the practice will be a lot more widespread by summer.

GS11

I'd imagine a lot of free takers are practising this, expect to see a lot more of it from others this season.

IrishAlice

Davy fitz is the main person talking about the dangers of this style of free taking.

The same man who put 13 men into the goal in the AI replay last year to try stop Nash scoring. He didn't seem too worried about player safety then!

keeponhurling

IrishAlice wrote: »

The same man who put 13 men into the goal in the AI replay last year to try stop Nash scoring. He didn't seem too worried about player safety then!

Is that more dangerous than 1 man in goals ?

I do think it needs to be changed, or at least tidied up in some way. It is quite dangerous.

Going off on somewhat of a tangent, I believe Horgan has been taking the 21-year frees for Cork in the league this year, what's the story there?

lukin

If it's such a safety risk then why hasn't it been banned already? Let me first say yes I am from Cork but it seems clear this is a case of one player being singled out.
The rules are the same for everyone and every county team can use the same tactic if they so desire (the freetaker throwing the ball forward when taking a 21 or a penalty). It's just that Nash is able to do this and no other player can.
And by the way, I see nobody has pointed out that the players on the goal line defending the free/penalty are running off their line to block the shot before Nash has struck the sliotar(this happened in the AI final last year). This IS actually against the rules but maybe the ref ignores it to "even things up".
Still doesn't make it right though.

Hanalei

If the free taker is allowed advance once the ball is lifted then the defenders should be too. Nonsense to instruct the keeper to stay on his line if the attacker is allowed to gain 7 or 8 yards.

IrishAlice

I don't see how it's any less dangerous to have 13 men in the goal, there's still the same chance someone will be injured and more men in the line of fire.

Nash isn't the first player to use this style but possibly he's had the most success with it which is why it's been highlighted in the last year.

adrian522

lukin wrote: »

If it's such a safety risk then why hasn't it been banned already? Let me first say yes I am from Cork but it seems clear this is a case of one player being singled out.
The rules are the same for everyone and every county team can use the same tactic if they so desire (the freetaker throwing the ball forward when taking a 21 or a penalty). It's just that Nash is able to do this and no other player can.
And by the way, I see nobody has pointed out that the players on the goal line defending the free/penalty are running off their line to block the shot before Nash has struck the sliotar(this happened in the AI final last year). This IS actually against the rules but maybe the ref ignores it to "even things up".
Still doesn't make it right though.

In last years game Nash got to retake one of his frees when players rushed off the line.

As I said above the rule book is pretty ambiguous on what is allowed and what is not.

According to the rules when the strike happens inside the 20 meter line both the striker and the defenders are in contravention of the rules.

I think it's pretty sad and predictable that people are falling in along county lines on this.

Essentially it will be everyone doing it this year so it shouldn't be seen as Cork v everyone else.

adrian522

IrishAlice wrote: »

I don't see how it's any less dangerous to have 13 men in the goal, there's still the same chance someone will be injured and more men in the line of fire.

Nash isn't the first player to use this style but possibly he's had the most success with it which is why it's been highlighted in the last year.

I don't get your point about Davy Fitz or the amount of people on the line. Don't see what difference it makes.

There were 13 on the line because they didn't want to concede a goal.

IrishAlice

It was done in the Kilkenny county final this year and I'm sure it'll show up in championship matches.

IrishAlice

adrian522 wrote: »

I don't get your point about Davy Fitz or the amount of people on the line. Don't see what difference it makes.

There were 13 on the line because they didn't want to concede a goal.

I was just making the point that Davy is the one that was in all the papers giving out about safety concern over this style of play.

Fair enough they didn't want to concede a goal but like I said the safety concerns took a back seat that day.

spurious

They should have to use a hurley with a normal sized boss, at the very least.

thinkstoomuch1

keeponhurling wrote: »

Is that more dangerous than 1 man in goals ?

I do think it needs to be changed, or at least tidied up in some way. It is quite dangerous.

Going off on somewhat of a tangent, I believe Horgan has been taking the 21-year frees for Cork in the league this year, what's the story there?

Great move -as nash cant be counterac ed if teams dont get the chance in the league to play against it


Great to have horgan as an option


Normal service will be reassumed in may
People will be glad to know

randd1

The only thing that should be changed is that a goalie taking penalties or frees should have to take them with a regular sized hurl like the outfield players would.

Apart from that, this is a load of bull concocted by Davy Fitz to stop a goal threat.

If he was that concerned about his players safety, he should have them wear athletic cups and protective undergarments. Problem solved with no need to penalize a great skill and reward defenders for giving away 21's and penalties.

slingerz

Warper wrote: »

Pretty hot topic right now but do you think the 'Nash' free should be outlawed?

Personally i think it should, it is blatantly dangerous as if a sliotar hit you travelling at that speed and from that distance it could do some serious damage. There is no doubt that it is a great skill that Nash has perfected but it is extremely dangerous. This must be tackled before someone does get hurt and then it is too late.

A solution must be found, basically something like contact must be had with the sliotar before the 21 yard line or else it is a foul.

Just on your blatantly dangerous line.

If i am at full forward i can take a shot as goal from as close as i like which by the same logic is patently dangerous but noone seems to have an issue with that element. The skill to throw the ball ahead and run after if and strike it cleanly is incredibly complicated and difficult and Nash himself does not achieve this on every stroke.

secondly, the fact that a goal can be scored from these frees seems to be the honest root cause of complaints about this style which will lead to more tactical fouling to limit goal scoring opportunities especially given the lack of a black card in the game.

lastly, the encroaching of defensive players from the goal line brings the players closer together also but there is no comment on that issue?

It is a farcical debate and I for one, am amazed that the winter was taken up with debate on this point as well as Eddie Keher's and others ludicrous claims to remove the yellow and red cards from the game

slingerz

adrian522 wrote: »

In last years game Nash got to retake one of his frees when players rushed off the line.

As I said above the rule book is pretty ambiguous on what is allowed and what is not.

According to the rules when the strike happens inside the 20 meter line both the striker and the defenders are in contravention of the rules.

I think it's pretty sad and predictable that people are falling in along county lines on this.

Essentially it will be everyone doing it this year so it shouldn't be seen as Cork v everyone else.

dont believe he did get to retake it. i think the keeper blocked the first but when another free was later awarded in the game the ref was reminded that the goalie needed to stay on the line.

at the end of the day, the only reasonable change would be that a normal sized hurley/bas would have to be used

Grats

Something has to be done, otherwise what's to stop a penalty taker taking more steps and more steps and more, until he's almost on the goal line? Why should a defender be penalised from running in too quickly as a penalty is being taken when the penalty taker gains so much ground anyway?

While Nash doesn't necessarily take any more steps than some, the fact that he is using a goalies hurl and doesn't look that tidy with the lift etc makes his style more obvious. Furthermore there is a lot of criticism and complaining regarding football goalkeepers running the length of the pitch to take penalties, and indeed frees and forty fives. The time wasting is a factor.

I agree that at a minimum the penalty should not be taken with using a goal keepers hurl.

Something has to be done and will be done.

slingerz

Grats wrote: »

Something has to be done, otherwise what's to stop a penalty taker taking more steps and more steps and more, until he's almost on the goal line? Why should a defender be penalised from running in too quickly as a penalty is being taken when the penalty taker gains so much ground anyway?

While Nash doesn't necessarily take any more steps than some, the fact that he is using a goalies hurl and doesn't look that tidy with the lift etc makes his style more obvious. Furthermore there is a lot of criticism and complaining regarding football goalkeepers running the length of the pitch to take penalties, and indeed frees and forty fives. The time wasting is a factor.

I agree that at a minimum the penalty should not be taken with using a goal keepers hurl.

Something has to be done and will be done.

well if he's too close the defenders can get a block or if he carries the sliotar on his hurley they he will have fouled the ball. Nash takes a chance by throwing it up and ahead of himself

Grats

slingerz wrote: »

well if he's too close the defenders can get a block or if he carries the sliotar on his hurley they he will have fouled the ball. Nash takes a chance by throwing it up and ahead of himself

Exactly my point, if it is allowed to continue it will end up in disarray and a complete farce.

keane2097

Don't buy the "dangerous" line TBH. Hurling is a dangerous sport by nature and I don't believe the Nash free is any more dangerous than trying to block a guy down in normal play or a full forward trying to burst the net from five yards out in a one on one.

It does seem to make some sense that if the free is a 21 yard free then it should be the striking action rather than the lifting action that must occur on or before the 21 yard line alright.

Martin567

Clearly the rule-book will eventually have to be rewritten as it never envisaged this type of action. When is the free/penalty actually taken, as it's risen or when it's actually struck? I don't think this is properly defined at all.

It is simply ludicrous to watch a player take 2-3 seconds between the lift & strike and make up huge ground while the players on the line are forced to stand still. That should be the downside for those who want to take the penalty in this manner. Everyone on the line should be allowed to run forward as he lifts the ball. If he takes it in a more orthodox manner, he won't be affected. But if he takes it in the Anthony Nash fashion, he will risk having several players on top of him by the time he strikes.

If this issue is not addressed at all, confusion will reign and how far will it go? If the players on the line can't move before the strike, what is to stop a player throwing the ball forward on a lower trajectory and then running in & pulling on a bouncing ball a few feet from the line? As long as it's out of reach of the players on the line, they won't be allowed to do anything. Unless the ball hitting the ground is significant but where does it say that in the rules?

Clearly it is hugely dangerous as it stands and it's downright dishonest to suggest otherwise. If a player connects properly with a "saucepan" hurl from 13m away, nobody on the line can possibly react in time to either block it or to get out of the way. They are just sitting ducks and relying on luck to avoid serious injury.

Finally, there is another side to the argument people have made about cynical play deserving to be punished. Not all 20m frees are punishing cynical play. At least one of the ones from last year's final involved a Clare player being incorrectly penalised for over carrying after he had been repeatedly fouled as he tried to clear. The result was Cork having a free attempt at goal from 13m away. Is that really appropriate? I have little doubt that any team with a player capable of taking a free in this manner will try to gain an advantage by going to ground anywhere near the 20m line.

savannahkat

I see Donal Og Cusack has come out and is for banning the practice.

131spanner

I would've said that once the ball is lifted it should be fair game, let the defenders come out and challenge it. Surely if the man attacking the ball can steal six yards, so too can the men defending it..?

You can't say that it's no more dangerous than any other part of the game. That claim is a bit ridiculous to be fair.

Grats

Martin567 wrote: »

Clearly the rule-book will eventually have to be rewritten as it never envisaged this type of action. When is the free/penalty actually taken, as it's risen or when it's actually struck? I don't think this is properly defined at all.

It is simply ludicrous to watch a player take 2-3 seconds between the lift & strike and make up huge ground while the players on the line are forced to stand still. That should be the downside for those who want to take the penalty in this manner. Everyone on the line should be allowed to run forward as he lifts the ball. If he takes it in a more orthodox manner, he won't be affected. But if he takes it in the Anthony Nash fashion, he will risk having several players on top of him by the time he strikes.

If this issue is not addressed at all, confusion will reign and how far will it go? If the players on the line can't move before the strike, what is to stop a player throwing the ball forward on a lower trajectory and then running in & pulling on a bouncing ball a few feet from the line? As long as it's out of reach of the players on the line, they won't be allowed to do anything. Unless the ball hitting the ground is significant but where does it say that in the rules?

Clearly it is hugely dangerous as it stands and it's downright dishonest to suggest otherwise. If a player connects properly with a "saucepan" hurl from 13m away, nobody on the line can possibly react in time to either block it or to get out of the way. They are just sitting ducks and relying on luck to avoid serious injury.

Finally, there is another side to the argument people have made about cynical play deserving to be punished. Not all 20m frees are punishing cynical play. At least one of the ones from last year's final involved a Clare player being incorrectly penalised for over carrying after he had been repeatedly fouled as he tried to clear. The result was Cork having a free attempt at goal from 13m away. Is that really appropriate? I have little doubt that any team with a player capable of taking a free in this manner will try to gain an advantage by going to ground anywhere near the 20m line.

Very well stated, spot on.

I can fully understand the Cork attitude to this issue. Clearly their main tactic in the latter stages of last years championship was to force a foul as near to the Clare goal as possible, and then call on Nash. It was so obvious watching Cronin at full forward and drawing a free, some "fouls" on him weren't blown!

RGS

The simplest solution IMO is to move the 20 metre line out to 25 metes thereby creating a "safer" free taking zone.

Trying to stop free takers lifting the ball forward is impossible. No free taker, even those taking 65s, take the free from a static position.


The bigger issue for me is that most free takers foul the ball by balancing the ball and taking a few step forward. They are basically soloing the ball forward before tossing the ball up to strike it.

Realt Dearg Sec

RGS wrote: »

 No free taker, even those taking 65s, take the free from a static position.

What? If course they do! I must be watching a different sport.

RGS

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

What? If course they do! I must be watching a different sport.

watch this link==2 mins of free taking and not one free taken from where the ball was placed. all players moved the ball forward to be struck.



www.ballygarvangaa.ie Hurling Skills - Free Puck

lukin

lukin wrote: »

If it's such a safety risk then why hasn't it been banned already?.

It was due to come up at Congress this year but was withdrawn.

This lead some people to believe that they weren't going to change it.

However the GAA have came out and said it was due to the wording of the rule and they didn't want it to effect all types of frees and pucks so it had to be pulled from this years.

http://www.rte.ie/sport/gaa/hurling/2014/0322/603957-gaa-to-debate-nash-motion-at-congress/

The article on the GAA site recently explained that in more details but there's a quick link.

It'll be back for 2015, and it'll pass on a vote.

shamco

adrian522 wrote: »

Well if the "strike" is deemed to start as soon as he rises the ball defenders should be allowed come out to meet him and get their block in.

As things stand if the strike is the moment of impact all the defenders are committing a foul by not being 20 meters back.

They'll have to tidy up the rule book one way or another.

I noticed TJ Reid trying something similar at the weekend, I imagine if no change is made the practice will be a lot more widespread by summer.

I agree entirely. I thinks thats where the confusion lies. If a player lifts and advances then the defenders should also be allowed to advance.

Flukey

They could change the way it is done. The free should be taken from a few steps back from the line, with the ball having to be hit by the time the player reaches the line. A similar rule already exists. In fact Anthony Nash should be familiar with it. It is the way the puck out is done. The goalkeeper can start as far back as he wants and take a run, but must hit the ball by the time he reaches the edge of the small square. Do something similar for 21 yard frees and the problem would be solved.

victorcarrera

Martin567 wrote: »

Clearly the rule-book will eventually have to be rewritten as it never envisaged this type of action. When is the free/penalty actually taken, as it's risen or when it's actually struck? I don't think this is properly defined at all.

It might help to refer to the rules.

2.2 (ii) A free puck, awarded for a foul by a
defending player inside his own 20m line
but outside the large rectangle, shall be
taken from the 20m line opposite where the
foul occurred.

2.5 For all free pucks, including penalties, the ball
may be struck with the hurley in either of two
ways:
(a) Lift the ball with the hurley at the first
attempt and strike it with the hurley.
(b) Strike the ball on the ground.

RULE 4 - TECHNICAL FOULS
4.25 To advance the ball deliberately from the place
at which a free puck or side-line puck is to be
taken.

PENALTY FOR THE ABOVE FOULS -
(i) Cancel free puck or side-line puck.
(ii) Throw in the ball where the foul occurred, except as provided under Exception (v) of Rule 2.2.

The existing rules are quite clear on this once you accept that the Irish word Puck is directly translated into English as Hit or Strike.
So the taking of a free is two actions which must be taken from the 20m line.

IMO the referees either don’t know the meaning of the word puck, can't comprehend structured English or don’t bother to read the rules.

All that is needed is for the GAA to give direction to the referees.

Hanalei

victorcarrera wrote: »

It might help to refer to the rules.

2.2 (ii) A free puck, awarded for a foul by a
defending player inside his own 20m line
but outside the large rectangle, shall be
taken from the 20m line opposite where the
foul occurred.

2.5 For all free pucks, including penalties, the ball
may be struck with the hurley in either of two
ways:
(a) Lift the ball with the hurley at the first
attempt and strike it with the hurley.
(b) Strike the ball on the ground.

RULE 4 - TECHNICAL FOULS
4.25 To advance the ball deliberately from the place
at which a free puck or side-line puck is to be
taken.

PENALTY FOR THE ABOVE FOULS -
(i) Cancel free puck or side-line puck.
(ii) Throw in the ball where the foul occurred, except as provided under Exception (v) of Rule 2.2.

The existing rules are quite clear on this once you accept that the Irish word Puck is directly translated into English as Hit or Strike.
So the taking of a free is two actions which must be taken from the 20m line.

IMO the referees either don’t know the meaning of the word puck, can't comprehend structured English or don’t bother to read the rules.

All that is needed is for the GAA to give direction to the referees.

Interesting, so Nash has been breaking 4.25 all along, the problem is that for some reason referee's have been opting not to enforce 4.25.

I had assumed that the rules weren't clear on this, but it's right there in black and white, a technical foul. No need for rule changes or debate, just enforce the rule as it stands!

Grats

The onus is on refs to implement the rule. They just need to acquaint themselves with the relevant rule. Barry Kelly had no problem disallowing Richie Power's penalty against Cork last year after a KK player ran ahead of Power. Why then cannot he and his comrades deal with Nash?

If I was a manager I would tell the penalty taker to steal as many yards as possible, even more than Nash and why not?

The GAA should restate the rule, inform all county boards, the refs, players and the public. Can't see why this issue cannot be dealt with now, why wait until next year, why allow this cheating to continue?

victorcarrera

Hanalei wrote: »

Interesting, so Nash has been breaking 4.25 all along, the problem is that for some reason referee's have been opting not to enforce 4.25.

I had assumed that the rules weren't clear on this, but it's right there in black and white, a technical foul. No need for rule changes or debate, just enforce the rule as it stands!

Yes, and as someone referred to earlier this incident is not about any individual or Cork against the rest. This violation has been tolerated by many others for a long time. It just became obvious and repeated a few times in a close, high profile game. If anything Nash will be remembered for bringing it to the fore and forcing the GAA to implement the rules.
We should also remember that a similar if relatively minor problem of the long puckouts being taken from outside the small rectangle was fixed just by implementing existing rules too.

marco_polo

He just scored from the football penalty spot today against Tipp, one the one hand fair play to Nash it is a great skill but surely that just can't be right.

thinkstoomuch1

marco_polo wrote: »

He just scored from the football penalty spot today against Tipp, one the one hand fair play to Nash it is a great skill but surely that just can't be right.

REF thought it was fine.Great skill more of the same please ,Anthony.Redemption for the man.Get used to a lot more nash goals.Great to see.

Hanalei

It's fairly ridiculous alright. I don't blame Nash at all, if referee's continue to allow him to do it then he should just keep on doing it.

Reminds me of the controversy after the Clare v Tipp Munster U-21 final in Ennis in 2008, when the Clare GK was pulled for having (marginally) stepped out of the small parallelogram while taking a puck-out. Except this is far more blatant than having one leg over the line like the Clare 'keeper did!

Hanalei

thinkstoomuch1 wrote: »

REF thought it was fine.Great skill more of the same please ,Anthony.Redemption for the man.Get used to a lot more nash goals.Great to see.

It is a great technique, and I wouldn't say a word against Nash for doing it, as it's not his fault the referee's aren't enforcing rule 4.25, but I don't see how anyone could argue that Nash is not breaking that rule as it is written!

marco_polo

thinkstoomuch1 wrote: »

REF thought it was fine.Great skill more of the same please ,Anthony.Redemption for the man.Get used to a lot more nash goals.Great to see.

It is perfectly legal (at least as vaguely written in the rulebook) so of course the ref thought it was fine. Like I said it is a great skill but was the hurling penalty really meant to be hit from.12 yards out?

cowboyjoe

Dangerous to defenders and pushing the rules to their limits. He's hitting the ball now from the football penalty spot. Totally taking the pxss.

Red Crow

It's a total pi*s take all right. No way it should be allowed

thinkstoomuch1

marco_polo wrote: »

It is perfectly legal (at least as vaguely written in the rulebook) so of course the ref thought it was fine. Like I said it is a great skill but was the hurling penalty really meant to be hit from.12 yards out?

You answered your own query there,you said its perfectly legal ,no problem.

marco_polo

thinkstoomuch1 wrote: »

You answered your own query there,you said its perfectly legal ,no problem.

Pretty sure this thread was setup to have a debate on the matter, so those like myself who think that perhaps a change ought to be looked at are more than entitled to their opnion, as you are yours.

Martin567

thinkstoomuch1 wrote: »

You answered your own query there,you said its perfectly legal ,no problem.

Address Hanalei's post and explain how it is perfectly legal. No fudging please!

Hanalei

thinkstoomuch1 wrote: »

You answered your own query there,you said its perfectly legal ,no problem.

RULE 4 - TECHNICAL FOULS
4.25 To advance the ball deliberately from the place
at which a free puck or side-line puck is to be
taken.

PENALTY FOR THE ABOVE FOULS -
(i) Cancel free puck or side-line puck.
(ii) Throw in the ball where the foul occurred, except as provided under Exception (v) of Rule 2.2.

Perfectly legal??

keane2097

Here it is in case anyone didn't see it:

http://www.livegaelic.com/news/vine-anthony-nash-piledriver/

sasol

What happened today proves again what Nash is doing is a joke.

cork people will blinkerdly try to justify it by calling it a great skill etc. it is cheating and what is worse, it is extremely dangerous.

Do we need to wait until someone is injured before doing anything about it?

RGS

He is not breaking rule 4.25. he is taking the free from the stop that the ref told told him to. He is lifting and striking the ball as per the official guide.

No free is taken from the spot where the ball is placed and that includes frees 100 yds from goal.

This style of free taking has been in existence for decades. Ring perfected the technique in the 40's and 50's. Davy fitz, DJ Carey Eoin Kelly etc have all taken frees in a similar manner, however Nash has perfected the throw forward and i do agree the rule needs to be amended but the current suggestion is illogical and places too much pressure on refs to police the situation. He needs to check if the taker is fouling the free, are the defenders charging the taker and are other players encroaching the semi circle.

Simple solution move 20 metre line out to 25 metres and problem solved. even Nash would just get a metre or 2 inside the 20 metre line.