Hurling Penalties: Does the attacking team have enough advantage.

Dublin Red Devil

Personally I think the current penalty system is a joke. A forward can go from being inside the square, one on one with the keeper, extreamly likely to score.

To being fouled and having to take a lift and strike shot 20m+ out with 3 men on the line.

Where is the advantage there? I think it encourages fouling in the box and is therefore bad for the game.

I say take the 2 defenders out of the goal and leave it as Taker vs Keeper.

merryberry

The team being awarded the penalty still has the advantage in my opinion. How is a dead ball strike that is hit from 20m, possibly reaching speeds of 80-90mph, not an advantage? Also two of the 3 that stand on the line are not 70min shot stoppers. Tipp will be pissed with those penalty strikes yesterday but I think it was really down to poor striking (Calahan hit it bad) and poor direction (Bubbles hit his to goalies hurley side). Would Reid have missed with the pace he can hit a ball at? Taker vs the keeper is too easy I think. This rule is here to stay for a while I think.

1984baby

I still think the forward has the advantage. Yesterday, the Tipp lads hit 2 bad penalties. I reckon TJ would've buried them if he had the chance.
Joe Canning and Patrick Horgan had no bother scoring penalties under the new rules.

Dirty Dingus McGee

For both of Tipps penalties I don't think the taker took enough steps back and had no momentum when he struck the ball.I think players should bring the ball back further as momentum in the strike is more important than striking the ball as close to the goal as possible which is what the Tipp penalty takers seemed to be trying to do.

keeponhurling

There should be a black card in hurling too.
Surely nobody wants to see the rugby tackling we saw yesterday

Dirty Dingus McGee

keeponhurling wrote: »

There should be a black card in hurling too.
Surely nobody wants to see the rugby tackling we saw yesterday

Hurling doesn't need any football rules imposed on it.Let the men be men and get on with it.To be honest I think having a referee at all is a bit unnecessary;)

keeponhurling

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Hurling doesn't need any football rules imposed on it.Let the men be men and get on with it.To be honest I think having a referee at all is a bit unnecessary;)

Hi Brian !

Rightwing

The Tipp penalties were poor, I'd have almost caught them blindfolded.

But it does need change, the simple solution is 1 man in goal.

Prop Joe

If penos were changed to 1 on 1 there would never be one saved

2 on the line would even it up

eyescreamcone

Prop Joe wrote: »

If penos were changed to 1 on 1 there would never be one saved

2 on the line would even it up

It's not supposed to be even.
Penalties should result in goals in 8 or 9 out of 10 awards.
Otherwise defenders will foul more often to prevent goals from play.
As it stands - take your point and get on with it.
In future - taker v keeper.

KK4life

I don't agree with penalties becoming a taker v keeper situation. With the speed the ball travels all a penalty taker would have to do is hit the ball hard towards the side and it is going in. You also have to remember this will be enforced at all levels of hurling not just senior inter county. There will be 12 year olds all over the country in full size goals that wouldn't have a hop in hell of getting near the ball.

I have to admit, I was originally against the so-called 'Nash Rule'. I always felt it was a skill that should not be taken from the game. My opinion at the time was that a solution may have been to stop the use of goalie hurls when taking penalties as this would make it much more difficult to connect with the ball as sweetly, thus forcing penalty takers to be more cautious and perhaps hit the ball sooner. But it would still be dangerous. Some players are just so skillful that goalie hurl or not it makes no odds. TJ Reid in the league final is a case in point.

I have been thinking about this since Sunday and I think there may be a common ground between the old rules and the new rules with a bit of room for the 'KK4Life Rule'!! I feel that there should be a short line say 18 yards out by which point the ball must be struck, similar to the current rule but a bit more advantageous to the penalty taker while also taking away some of the dangers for those facing it. Also, I still feel that goalie hurls should not be allowed. Before long we will see outfield players switching to goalie hurls to take penalties to increase there chances of connecting better.

Dublin Red Devil

Taker vs Keeper is the best way. If the foul is denying a clear goal scoring opportunity.
Than that penalty should give the attacking team a very high probability of scoring the goal they probably would have scored had they not been fouled

Right now, If I'm a defender marking an apposing forward, going for goal, with the game on the line, I'm pulling him down in the box because with 3 men one line and a 20m shot, I like my teams chances of saving it.

ArmaniJeanss

eyescreamcone wrote: »

It's not supposed to be even.
Penalties should result in goals in 8 or 9 out of 10 awards.
Otherwise defenders will foul more often to prevent goals from play.
As it stands - take your point and get on with it.
In future - taker v keeper.

I think your 90% is a bit too high but you are one of the few on the right track as to how the debate should be phrased.
The GAA needs to decide what percentage of penalties they wish goals to be scored from (where a goal is attempted) and frame the format of a penalty around that percentage. So if they want 99% they can make it 1 v 1 from 10 metres, if they want it 2% they can make it 1 v 5 from 40 metres. My preference would be around 75%.

But first decide what the desired percentage is, and take it from there.
Arguing the merits of distance/nash and 1 v 3 or 1 v 2 is otherwise a bit pointless.

keeponhurling

Another possiblity would be penalty goals like in rugby

Look at Bonner Maher going through last Sunday and cynically dragged down or rugby tackled.
the possibility of saving the penalty, and lack of individual punishment, makes this a worthwhile tactic. Managers would be going mad if you didn't do this.

dcrosskid

From my reckoning there are 5 options that can be trialed:

1 - Leave it as it is now.
2 - Restore old ruling of striking it inside the 21 but allow the keeper to advance.
3 - 18m line to strike the ball before.
4 - Keeper vs the taker.
5 - Keeper plus 1 defender vs the taker.

We have seen the first 2 already and for varying reasons don't seem fair or safe.

Number 3 and 5 would be where id try out in the league next year.

Jimmy Bottles

There is a very simple solution to this.

Revert to the old system of placing the ball on the 20m line. The only additional rule is that as part of the lifting action, the sliotar cannot go above head height. Apply it to penalties and all frees.

Simple.

KK4life

Did anybody see any issue with how penalties were taken say pre-Nash style of not hitting till the 14? I don't remember hearing much about it.

Most penalty takers threw the ball about 3-4 yards in front of them, thus hitting from 17-18 yards. A simple solution is to restrict the striking point to say 18 yards from goal.

As for going down the rugby route of awarding a penalty try type goal, we cannot go down that route. A penalty try is for preventing a certain try. In a situation like suday, bonnar still had to beat murphy with the shot, which was by no means a certainty.

keano25

Everyone got up in arms because they couldn't stop Nash scoring.

Now everyone is up in arms the penalty taker can't score.

KK4life

keano25 wrote: »

Everyone got up in arms because they couldn't stop Nash scoring.

Now everyone is up in arms the penalty taker can't score.

But they did stop Nash scoring. He missed 1 or 2 in the all ireland last year between drawn and replayed games and he missed against Waterford. It is the safety of players that was the issue. Two of those he missed were charged down by the keeper and hit the keeper about 3 yards from Nash. Serious damage could have been caused

keeponhurling

KK4life wrote: »

As for going down the rugby route of awarding a penalty try type goal, we cannot go down that route. A penalty try is for preventing a certain try. In a situation like suday, bonnar still had to beat murphy with the shot, which was by no means a certainty.

Yes but Bonner v Murphy was a 1-on-1 situation, also with the option to take it round the goalie, take it in closer, kick it, whatever he wanted

Dragging him down changed this to a 1 v 3 situation, so very worthwhile for the defender. Obviously the Kilkenny lads are all well aware of this.

KK4life

keeponhurling wrote: »

Yes but Bonner v Murphy was a 1-on-1 situation, also with the option to take it round the goalie, take it in closer, kick it, whatever he wanted

Dragging him down changed this to a 1 v 3 situation, so very worthwhile for the defender. Obviously the Kilkenny lads are all well aware of this.

We are well aware of it as are plenty of others such as Donal O'Grady in the semi final. But a one on one situation is not a certain goal. Bonnar still had a lot of work to do, he had plenty of option but none were easy options. Look at murphy's block on callinan in the 2nd half. I agree as it stands with the current rule it benefits to perhaps foul but going down the penalty try route would open up a lot of grey areas as to what constitutes a certain goal, which it would need to be to just give a goal. I feel it would cause more problems than it would fix

Grats

Since last Sunday the whole emphasis is on the the missed penalties which is somewhat understandable. The GAA need to tread carefully and not focus entirely on the actual penalty taking. And particularly so following the nature of last Sundays two penalty awards. Doubts have been expressed about those penalties so it is imperative that any review should include officials. There is the danger that attackers will drop down in the square and cheat their way to a penalty.

The President Liam O'Neill has spoken out twice this week in relation to two incidents from last Sundays game. The first one being the penalty issue and the other Hawkeye. Not a mention of officials. This is typical of the GAA - focus on technology, rules etc but ignore poor standards of officials. In his praise and boast of Hawkeye he is a inadvertently criticising officials but won't address it directly in any way.

Had Joe Canning, Pat Horgan or TJ Reid stepped up to take those two penalties there might not be so much debate about the issue this week. The fact is that both penalties were poorly struck.

BKWDR

Dublin Red Devil wrote: »

I say take the 2 defenders out of the goal and leave it as Taker vs Keeper.

I would agree.

You now have a situation where pulling down someone in the box will result in a fair decent chance of a shot being blocked / cleared. So defenders will look at it as a tactic.

In the AI final i don't think in either penalty case there was a card given (could be wrong).

KK4life

Grats wrote: »

Since last Sunday the whole emphasis is on the the missed penalties which is somewhat understandable. The GAA need to tread carefully and not focus entirely on the actual penalty taking. And particularly so following the nature of last Sundays two penalty awards. Doubts have been expressed about those penalties so it is imperative that any review should include officials. There is the danger that attackers will drop down in the square and cheat their way to a penalty.

The President Liam O'Neill has spoken out twice this week in relation to two incidents from last Sundays game. The first one being the penalty issue and the other Hawkeye. Not a mention of officials. This is typical of the GAA - focus on technology, rules etc but ignore poor standards of officials. In his praise and boast of Hawkeye he is a inadvertently criticising officials but won't address it directly in any way.

Had Joe Canning, Pat Horgan or TJ Reid stepped up to take those two penalties there might not be so much debate about the issue this week. The fact is that both penalties were poorly struck.

I agree entirely with the above. The officials need to be looked at. Everybody has an opinion of whether they were penalties. My own opinion is that the 1st one was (it was similar to the one Kilkenny got in 2009) the attacker is given advantage to break free of the tackle but the foul carried on inside the box so advantage can not be called back so the penalty is rightly given. The second one was a foul outside the box and corbett was not being held as he entered the box and then went down. One issue there that doesn't seem to have been picked up on is that Corbett fell into JJ Delaney but JJ got a yellow card despite being in no way involved in the foul. Mistakes like that could prove very costly and need to be queried.

KK4life

BKWDR wrote: »

I would agree.

You now have a situation where pulling down someone in the box will result in a fair decent chance of a shot being blocked / cleared. So defenders will look at it as a tactic.

In the AI final i don't think in either penalty case there was a card given (could be wrong).

In both cases a card was given. Paul Murphy got one for the 1st incident (and rightly so). JJ Delaney got booked for the 2nd despite not being the tackler. Corbet merely fell against his legs after being fouled outside the box. I'm not certain but I think Jackie Tyrell was the fouler. The fact JJ was wrongly booked should not be overlooked either as mistakes like that could result in a sending off

Grats

KK4life wrote: »

In both cases a card was given. Paul Murphy got one for the 1st incident (and rightly so). JJ Delaney got booked for the 2nd despite not being the tackler. Corbet merely fell against his legs after being fouled outside the box. I'm not certain but I think Jackie Tyrell was the fouler. The fact JJ was wrongly booked should not be overlooked either as mistakes like that could result in a sending off

The above post and the previous one emphasis why the GAA need to be very cautious with any review. And it must include officials. Remember Hawkeye only operates in Croke Park, officials operate in very venue. So Liam O'Neill and his organisation need to be more balanced and honest with their comments and with any review.

Dublin Red Devil

Something has to change anyway. There can't be an incentive for foul play to stop teams from scoring. Hurling cannot become like Basketball where players foul intentionally to gain advantages. To stop the clock or send bad free-throw shooters to the line.

marleyites

The two pens that Tipp missed were very poorly taken. I think that most well struck pens will go in.

corny

Anyone with a bit of time fancy going through League and Championship results to see what the actual scoring percentage was? I reckon its probably close to 50-50, which isn't high enough to discourage 'professional' type fouling.

Best option i've heard so far is return to the old way but stop players rising the sliothar above the head. Strikes from 17 or 18 yards against 3 defenders would seem to be the middle ground.

deadybai

My opinion on the penalty is that there needs to be a undefined rule. I think it should go back to the old way but be up to the ref to decide whether or not he is taking the piss on how far he's bringing it forward. Like the Nash style was a joke. Before the Nash style was popular everything was fine. Maybe a rule on not allowing the player to lift the ball over head height. The current way is ****e

Rebel norrie

Nothing wrong with the way they were taken before. Nash just was perfect at them. Now ye are all bitching about no advantage in a penalty. Reap what ye sow.

adrian522

Well the issue was when the Waterford goal keeper decided to bend the rule himself and rush Nash, then it became untenable.

Also it wasn't just nash that was doing it, pretty much every inter county team would have a player capable of scoring a goal under the old rules.

It would be good if we could have a debate without county loyalty and sniping coming to the fore for once.