Congress Motions

Boom__Boom

So there doesnt seem to be any discussion on the various motions before Congress.

Also a two-thirds majority is required for these to pass.

Overview

http://www.gaa.ie/gaa-news-and-videos/daily-news/1/2402151234-annual-congress-2015-the-motions-explained/

Detail

http://www.gaa.ie/content/documents/GAA007_GAA_motions_web.pdf

The various motions and my invaluable thoughts in bold

Motions 1 and 2: The first two motions on the agenda, if passed, will pave the way for a black card to be used in hurling as well as football. Like in football, the successful introduction of a black card would increase the number of substitutes in a game from five to six and these initial motions relate to that specifically. Motions 12 and 20 (see below) also relate to the introduction of a black card in hurling, with the four motions all providing for its introduction. (Proposed by Maastricht, Europe GAA).
Black Card in hurling = Good idea ; no idea if it will pass

Motion 3: If passed, this motion would mean that yellow cards issued in normal time would no longer carry into extra-time. (Proposed by Gurtin St Patrick's, Tyrone and Warrenpoint, Down).
Bad Idea

Motion 4: This proposal seeks to extend the playing time of inter-county U21 Football and Hurling matches from 30 minutes a half to 35 minutes a half, the same as senior inter-county games. (Proposed by Newport, Tipperary).
Grand

Motion 5: This motion seeks to make extra-time obligatory for all matches in all of the following competitions: all inter-county championships games at all grades, up to and including the All-Ireland Finals; the knock-out stages of the National Leagues, Inter-Provincial Competitions, Oireachtas and other Inter-County Tournaments, Inter-Club Provincial and All-Ireland Championships, the Sigerson and Fitzgibbon Cups, and any other games in subsidiary competitions. If passed, it would greatly limit the need for replays throughout the season. (JK Brackens, Tipperary).
Not a hope of passing

Motion 6: This proposal seeks to increase the diameter size of the sliotar to 85-88mm (from 69-72mm) and the mass to 150-160mm (from 110-120mm). If adopted, this proposal would reduce the travel distance of a sliotar. (Cratloe, Clare).
Grand

Motion 7: In the event of a clash of colours for any game, the CCC charged with organising the game shall toss a coin to decide who wears their own colours and the other team shall be instructed to wear their alternative colours. (Golden-Kilfeacle, Tipperary).
Grand

Motion 8: A slight change to the rules on a referee's powers, allowing for greater consultation with a linesman or umpires "in order to establish matters of fact", such as the validity of a score when the referee is in doubt. (St Loman's, Westmeath).
Grand

Motion 9: This proposal would strengthen the powers of a linesman to bring to the attention of the referee, during a break in play, any instances of foul play, in particular rough or dangerous play, striking, hitting, or kicking, or unauthorised incursions onto the field of play, which have not been noticed by the referee. (St Loman's, Westmeath).
Grand

Motions 10 and 11: Also proposed by St Loman's, these motions propose slight technical amendments to the wording around the awarding of frees. (St Loman's, Westmeath)
Not sure what the effect motion 10 or motion 11 would have. These seems very technical.
Head-scratchers

Motion 12: Linked to Motions 1 and 2, this motion is necessary in order to facilitate a black card in hurling. (Maastricht, Europe).
Basically just means the same rules as apply for the black card in football apply for hurling. Good idea. Hope it passes.

Motion 13: This motion seeks to pave the way for temporary substitutions to be made, just like blood substitutes, in the event of a player suffering a suspected concussion. A player suffering a suspected concussion would only be able to return to the field if tests on the suspected concussion proved negative. (Pomeroy, Tyrone, St Molaise, Fermanagh, Aidan McAnespies, North America).
Good idea. Hope it passes.

Motion 14: If this is passed, goalkeepers in football, after receiving a pass from a teammate, will have to kick the ball away. If the ball is not played away with the foot, it will result in a free to the opposition from the 45 metre line. (Clane, Kildare).
Interesting – can't see it passing

Motion 15: This motion seeks a very slight technical change to the wording around the hand pass in football (Kilsheelan/Kilcash, Tipperary).
From what I can see this would mean that if a player recieves the ball from a hand-pass, he wouldn't be able to hand-pass it again. Can't see it passing in a million years.

Motion 16: If passed, this would mean that a football team would have to kick the ball after two consecutive movements of the ball by hand or fist. In other words, it would limit the use of consecutive hand passes to two. (Clondegad, Clare).
Even though it's less limited than the previous one can't see it passing

Motion 17: This motion seeks to further clarify the definition of the hand pass in football by the addition of the line: 'There must be no propulsion of the ball by the non-striking hand during the execution of the pass.' (St Loman's, Westmeath).
No idea if it will pass. Even if it does it will make zero impact on the game I'd imagine

Motion 18: This motion would increase the penalty against players who stand too close to the taker for free-kicks or sideline kicks. In particular, it would mean that if opposition players stand less than 13 metres from where a kick is being taken, it would result in that kick being brought 13 metres closer to goal by means of penalty. (St Loman's, Westmeath).
Good idea. May pass. Wish it went further

Motion 19: If passed, a player in either football or hurling will only be able to carry the ball in their hand for three steps before an action (pass, hop, solo, tap with hurl) be taken. As it stands, the rule is four steps before an action be taken. (St Mary's, Tipperary).
Not a hope of passing. Don't understand the logic behind it.

Motion 20: Relates to the introduction of a black card in hurling. This motion proposes the addition of various 'Category II infractions' (Cynical Behaviour), such as a deliberate pull-down, a deliberate trip, etc, which would be then punishable by a black card. The black carded player could then be substituted, as it currently is in Gaelic football. See motions 1, 2, 12 and 64. (Maastricht, Europe GAA).
Good idea.

**

HURLING 2020 PROPOSALS (Motions 21-24)
Motion 21: One of the most high-profile proposals, this one is from the Hurling 2020 Committee and relates to the penalty in hurling. If passed, it will mean A) That the player taking the penalty must strike the ball on or outside the 20 metre line, but not beyond it and That only one defending player may stand on the goal-line facing the penalty, and may not move towards the 20 metre line until before the ball has been struck. All other players on both teams must remain outside the 20 metre line until after the ball has been struck. (Hurling 2020 Committee).
Like the idea.

Motion 22: Also from the Hurling 2020 Committee, this would allow for an advantage rule in hurling, similar to the one that currently applies in football. If passed, when a foul is committed, the referee may allow the play to continue if he considers it to be to the advantage of the offended team. The advantage period will last for up to five seconds after the foul has been committed. (Hurling 2020 Committee).
Great idea.

Motion 23: If passed, this would mean that a player given two yellow cards in hurling could be replaced by a substitute, meaning two yellow cards no longer would equal an automatic red. The player with two yellows would have to leave the field, but his side's playing numbers would not be reduced. This motion, from the 2020 Committee, has raised plenty of debate. “The one that came under the most scrutiny in our interactions was the two yellows,” said Committee chairman Liam Sheedy. “If you asked me to pick one that may not whet the appetite it’s that one. But it’s not about being right all the time. There’s data to back up where we are coming from in each of these and if they fail to make it then majority rules - that’s the organisation we operate in.” (Hurling 2020 Committee).
Terrible idea. Hope it doesn't pass.

Motion 24: This motion, the final one from the 2020 Committee on the programme for Congress, would provide for the winners of the Christy Ring Cup to be automatically promoted to the following year's Provincial Qualifier Group in the All-Ireland Senior Hurling Championship. If passed, it will apply from 2015 onwards. (Hurling 2020 Committee).
Hope this passes. Seems much fairer to developing hurling counties.

***
ARD CHOMHAIRLE INTERPRETATIONS (Motions 25-29)
Motion 25: Relates to the penalty in hurling (see full motion here). (Ard Chomhairle).
Grand

Motion 26: Slight technical amendments to the rules around lifting and striking for free pucks and penalty pucks in hurling. (Ard Chomhairle).
Grand

Motion 27: This motion proposes that rule 3.8, introduced last year to provide for a public clock/hooter in all senior football and hurling championship matches, be deleted. The rule was due to come into effect on April 1, 2015 but if this motion is passed, it will be removed from the rule book. (Ard Chomhairle).
Hope this fails miserably. Hooter would improve things massively imo.

Motion 28: This motion relates to the issue of 'collective training'. It defines collective training as follows: "Collective training is where one or more players are asked to be at a specific place at a specific time on a specific date." It outlines when senior inter-county panels can return to collective training based on their championship exits, and also outlines the dates when U21 and minor inter-county teams can begin collective training. The proposed penalties for breaching the rules are: Senior Inter-County panels: Team forfeits venue for next home game in the Allianz League. All other Inter-County panels: Prohibited from participating in challenge games/tournaments until 31st January (Under 21 Football) and 31st March (U21 Hurling). (Ard Chomhairle).
Not going to make a blind bit of difference if passed as it's pretty much unenforcable. Also the wording looks very dodgy to me – to me this means that if a county manager simply makes plans to meet any single player in the county for a pint during the closed period they would technically be breaking this rule. Obviously this would never be enforced but it shows how poorly drafted the rule is.

Motion 29: This proposes a new rule, whereby, for senior inter-county championship games, a panel of 26 players (team plus subs) be registered no later than 9am on the Thursday before a weekend game. The penalty for breaking the rule is the withdrawal of sideline privileges for the manager and/or a €1000 fine. No players may be added to the registered team or panel after it has been submitted (with the exception of a goalkeeper or sub-goalkeeper) and the penalty for breaking this rule is forfeiture of the game. On the day of the match itself, a prescribed team list (as issued by the Committee-in-Charge from time to time), confirming the 15 starting players and maximum 11 additional panel members, shall be submitted to the referee not later than 20 minutes before the official starting time. A fine of €1000 will be issued for every minute after the prescribed time.
Will never be passed. Like the idea of teams being made list teams in advance. Should probably have been broken into 2 separate motions. Punishment of forfeiture of the game is a bit mental. Absolutely love the punishment for the 2nd part – I wonder if a county never submits a team to the manager when the clock stops running on the €1000 a minute fine.

***

RULES ADVISORY COMMITTEE MOTIONS (Motions 30-49)
Motions 30-49: All from the Rules Advisory Committee, these motions are all quite technical, and relate to various issues, including the staging of Annual Congress itself, rules around clubs not taking part in county championships, the organisation of county fixture programmes and rules around transfers. All these motions can be read about in detail by clicking here. (All Rules Advisory Committee)
Very little that's anyway controversial or debatable from what I can see here. Would expect all these to be passed

MINOR REVIEW COMMITTEE MOTIONS (Motions 50-54)
Motion 50: The following five motions are all from the Minor Review Committee. The first (50) proposes that the age of eligibility to play senior club football and hurling be raised from over 16 to over 17, and for inter-county from over 16 to over 18. At U21 level, it proposes that club players be over 16 and that inter-county players be over 18. (Minor Review Committee).
Be surprised if this passed. Can see the sense in it

Motion 51: Proposes that a player on an inter-county minor panel shall not play in adult club league competitions/challenge games until his inter-county activity for the year is concluded. (Minor Review Committee).
Good idea. Could be worded better as player on an intercounty minor panel is a very dubious idea. Not sure how it will go.

Motion 52: This motion proposes the removal of the All-Ireland Minor Championship quarter-finals, and would provide for the four provincial minor champions to proceed directly to the All-Ireland semi-finals. (Minor Review Committee).
Be surprised if it was passed.

Motion 53: This motion relates to the dates when provincial minor championships should commence. (Minor Review Committee).
Grand

Motion 54: This motion gives second level schools 'first call' on players involved with a county minor or U21 panel until such time that their competitive involvement with their school team is concluded. (Minor Review Committee).
Good idea. Wouldnt be surprised if it wasnt passed.

***
OTHER MOTIONS FROM COUNTIES (Motions 55-65)
Motion 55 and motion 56 relates to the terms of office of officers and Motion 56 relates to the submission of motions for county conventions. (Limerick and Roscommon)
Grand

Motion 57 – Seems this was missed on the GAA.ie website. Meant the numbering was off-kilter. Seems a technical and harmless procedural motion.

Motion 58: A significant motion. If passed, it will grant Central Council the power to authorise the use of Croke Park and all county grounds for games other than those controlled by the Association, for example in soccer and rugby. (Milltown-Malbay, Clare).
Very doubtful it will be passed.

Motions 59 and 60: Both relate to player eligibility. Motion 58 is proposed by London GAA, and Motion 59, proposed by Aidan McAnespies GAA in North America, relates to the players in USA/Canada/Australasia/Europe. Click here to read these motions in detail. (London GAA, Aidan McAnespies)
Seem grand.

Motions 61 and 62: These motions relate to the period of time a club player shall not be expected to fulfil inter-club championship fixtures prior to inter-county championship games. Motion 60, from Tyrrellspass in Co Westmeath, proposes that that period for championship games (except the All-Ireland final) be reduced from 13 days to 6 days. If passed, it would mean clubs would have slightly more access to their players in advance of inter-county championship games. Motion 61, from Loughmore-Castleiney in Co Tipperary, proposes a similar rule change. Their proposal is that players be available to clubs until eight days before an inter-county championship match and until 13 days before an All-Ireland final. (Tyrrellspass, Loughmore-Castleiney)
Don't think these are good ideas as they will simply put more pressure on intecounty players. No idea how it will fare.


Motion 63: This lengthy and complex motion relates to the organisation of provincial championships by provincial councils. Its central proposal reads: 'Provincial Championships shall be organised in a format as agreed by each Provincial Council.' It largely relates to the 'A' and 'B' sides of the All-Ireland Qualifiers, and would allow for provincial councils to organise their provincial championships with an 'A' and 'B' side of the draw, to feed into the All-Ireland Qualifier structure at a later date. Crucially, the motion proposes that provincial councils be allowed introduce a seeding system within the province. "Provincial Councils may organise their respective Championships to take into account the relative strengths of the Counties within the Province," it states. (Leinster Council - Longford and Carlow)
Not too sure on the full meaning/effect of this but think it looks like a bad idea.

Motion 64: Relates to the appointment of match officials. Among other adjustments, it proposes the following: "For Senior Inter County League and Championship games, the Committee responsible shall appoint as umpires one retired referee, or a former member of the National Referees Panel and a potential inter county Referee to officiate at each goal end." (Four Masters, Donegal).
Probably a good idea. Not too sure how it will fare.

Motion 65: This motion is a further technical rule change, relating to the possible introduction of a black card in hurling (See motions 1, 2, 12 and 20). (Maastricht, Europe GAA)
Already covered – black card in hurling

Motion 66: This motion seeks a slight change to the rules regarding the referee's report as it is applied and used in hearings. (Cratloe, Clare).
Basically means that a ref's report can only be challenged by “unedited video”
It wants to remove “or other compelling evidence” as something that can challenge a ref's report which looks to me like a terrible idea – I could easily see a solicitor challenging someone using cameraphone evidence or even television footage(on the basis that it was edited) so as such think it's a terrible motion. Hope it fails.

Motion 67 - Grand harmless motion about adopting a code of conduct.

zetecescort

Motion 3: If passed, this motion would mean that yellow cards issued in normal time would no longer carry into extra-time. (Proposed by Gurtin St Patrick's, Tyrone and Warrenpoint, Down).


would be better if they sorted out the issue of a team that finishes a game with 14 can go back to 15 for extra time. always thought it odd that extra time is considered a new game

Fireball07

There's a lot of them, I'd agree with your assessment for most. Some excellent ideas there, some I don't really care either way and some truly horrible ideas. The one about 2 yellows not equalling a red is a shocking idea, just asking for more cynical fouling.


The hooter one is also terrible, hooter would make things a lot better. Advantage rule for hurling and black cards are good ideas imo, as is the penalty one.

I'm not sure what to make of the ones that limit handpassing, but can't see them passing tbh.

bruschi

the one thing about a lot of motions when they are being put through, is that people view the game and think that they dont like the way the tactics are going (ie defensive football and long range shooting hurling) so instead of teams counteracting this and improving it, they try manipulate it by changing rules, which I really dont agree with. Making a goalkeeper kick a ball if he gets it handpassed to him? who even comes up with something like that?

Would agree too, the complete and utter fallacy that is allowing teams to have 15 back in extra time if they have someone sent off, but yet an opposing player could get a second yellow card and they could be down to 14 then in extra time. It makes absolutely no sense.

Hesh's Umpire

MINOR REVIEW COMMITTEE MOTIONS (Motions 50-54)
Motion 50: The following five motions are all from the Minor Review Committee. The first (50) proposes that the age of eligibility to play senior club football and hurling be raised from over 16 to over 17, and for inter-county from over 16 to over 18. At U21 level, it proposes that club players be over 16 and that inter-county players be over 18. (Minor Review Committee).
Will be a disaster for a lot of smaller clubs if this one passes.
A lot of rural clubs need 16 year olds (turning 17 during the year in question, remember) to make up teams.

bruschi

Hesh's Umpire wrote: »

MINOR REVIEW COMMITTEE MOTIONS (Motions 50-54)
Motion 50: The following five motions are all from the Minor Review Committee. The first (50) proposes that the age of eligibility to play senior club football and hurling be raised from over 16 to over 17, and for inter-county from over 16 to over 18. At U21 level, it proposes that club players be over 16 and that inter-county players be over 18. (Minor Review Committee).
Will be a disaster for a lot of smaller clubs if this one passes.
A lot of rural clubs need 16 year olds (turning 17 during the year in question, remember) to make up teams.

I'd disagree. How many 16 year olds make up senior teams (I have to take it that it is senior only? Otherwise it would have been adult). Its not that common to have 16 year olds making up a lot of numbers on adult teams. Taking my own club, I can only think of 3 players over the last 10 years or so who made their debut when they were still 16. I dont think it will make that much difference at all to the running of a club. If a team is dependant on 16 year olds to make up the numbers, then there are far greater problems there.

Prop Joe

bruschi wrote: »

If a team is dependant on 16 year olds to make up the numbers, then there are far greater problems there.

I agree 100%..I would worry about clubs who are reliant on children (U-18's) to play senior football.

I would like a rule to be brought in where minors were exempt from playing senior football at any level. There could be an amnesty over the next 3/4 years to help clubs plan for it,In turn proper minor club leagues could be set up over the summer with them even played as curtain raisers to Senior club league games.

I think it would significantly decrease the drop off rate of players between minor & Senior levels.

Hesh's Umpire

bruschi wrote: »

I'd disagree. How many 16 year olds make up senior teams (I have to take it that it is senior only? Otherwise it would have been adult). Its not that common to have 16 year olds making up a lot of numbers on adult teams. Taking my own club, I can only think of 3 players over the last 10 years or so who made their debut when they were still 16. I dont think it will make that much difference at all to the running of a club. If a team is dependant on 16 year olds to make up the numbers, then there are far greater problems there.

The post is misleading. Motion 50 refers to all adult grades. If passed, it would crucify smaller clubs trying to maybe scrape out a second team for junior c.

bruschi

Hesh's Umpire wrote: »

The post is misleading. Motion 50 refers to all adult grades. If passed, it would crucify smaller clubs trying to maybe scrape out a second team for junior c.

fair enough, and I had thought that before I saw the motion too.

but still, if a junior C team is being "crucified" because 16 year olds cant play, then they should really question is there any point in a junior C team.

Again, my question would be, how many positions on a team do 16 year olds take up?

Prop Joe

bruschi wrote: »

fair enough, and I had thought that before I saw the motion too.

but still, if a junior C team is being "crucified" because 16 year olds cant play, then they should really question is there any point in a junior C team.

Again, my question would be, how many positions on a team do 16 year olds take up?

Exactly and what is wrong with a "veteran" playing instead. I would imagine a rule like this would prolong lads careers at both ends of the scale

rockonollie

Boom__Boom wrote: »

Motion 6: This proposal seeks to increase the diameter size of the sliotar to 85-88mm (from 69-72mm) and the mass to 150-160mm (from 110-120mm). If adopted, this proposal would reduce the travel distance of a sliotar. (Cratloe, Clare).
Grand

Who's footing the bill for that. Just spent close to $300 on sliotars for the upcoming season for our club, is the GAA going to cover the cost of every club in the world replacing their sliotars?

rockonollie

Boom__Boom wrote: »

Motion 51: Proposes that a player on an inter-county minor panel shall not play in adult club league competitions/challenge games until his inter-county activity for the year is concluded. (Minor Review Committee).
Good idea. Could be worded better as player on an intercounty minor panel is a very dubious idea. Not sure how it will go.

Good idea in principal. But could have major implications, especially at the Junior level. An 18 year old on the Kilkenny minor team could well be the best player on his clubs junior team. Kilkenny minors do well in the championship and that club is punished by not having their best player for, pretty much, the entire season.

Prop Joe

rockonollie wrote: »

Who's footing the bill for that. Just spent close to $300 on sliotars for the upcoming season for our club, is the GAA going to cover the cost of every club in the world replacing their sliotars?

I would imagine if passed it would not come into place until next season as teams have been training with & as you pointed out have purchased the lighter balls

bruschi

rockonollie wrote: »

Good idea in principal. But could have major implications, especially at the Junior level. An 18 year old on the Kilkenny minor team could well be the best player on his clubs junior team. Kilkenny minors do well in the championship and that club is punished by not having their best player for, pretty much, the entire season.

I think players clubs and fans have to look at the long term objective on this, and not the single season being missed. By not putting a player under pressure to play at adult level when on a county team, it means the player and club should get longer from that player. At minor, he could be on his school team, club team, club U21 and doing his leaving cert. Being off a club junior team for one season to keep him right for the rest of his career is better IMO.

citykat

Don't agree on the need for a black card in hurling. Where/what is the justification? IMO there isn't anything like the cynicism in hurling that there was in football which necessitated its introduction. All the motions relating to the black card (as far as I can make out) are coming from Mastricht. Is that club being used as a conduit or is there a particular issue with cynical play in Dutch hurling circles? The hurling review committee didn't recommend it in their report and that committee had a good sprinkling from all the main hurling counties (I think their recommendation on two yellows permitting a sub isn't going to fly). I would be concerned that this could be voted in by the 'football' counties purely to align the rules of the two codes.

bruschi

citykat wrote: »

Don't agree on the need for a black card in hurling. Where/what is the justification? IMO there isn't anything like the cynicism in hurling that there was in football which necessitated its introduction. All the motions relating to the black card (as far as I can make out) are coming from Mastricht. Is that club being used as a conduit or is there a particular issue with cynical play in Dutch hurling circles? The hurling review committee didn't recommend it in their report and that committee had a good sprinkling from all the main hurling counties (I think their recommendation on two yellows permitting a sub isn't going to fly). I would be concerned that this could be voted in by the 'football' counties purely to align the rules of the two codes.

surely bringing in the black card would be a better alternative to the rules committee of no red after 2 yellows. It maybe a pre-emptive card, and if there is no cynicism, then there will be no card. I dont get why it would upset you to have a black card, if as you say, there is no cynical tackles. If there are no cynical tackles, then there wont be any black cards issued.

by the way, I totally disagree that there are no cynical tackles in hurling, and particularly with regards to the new penalty ruling, in that you are far better off hauling someone down clean through on goal, get a yellow, and have a good chance of not conceding a goal from the resultant penalty.

citykat

bruschi wrote: »

surely bringing in the black card would be a better alternative to the rules committee of no red after 2 yellows. It maybe a pre-emptive card, and if there is no cynicism, then there will be no card. I dont get why it would upset you to have a black card, if as you say, there is no cynical tackles. If there are no cynical tackles, then there wont be any black cards issued.

by the way, I totally disagree that there are no cynical tackles in hurling, and particularly with regards to the new penalty ruling, in that you are far better off hauling someone down clean through on goal, get a yellow, and have a good chance of not conceding a goal from the resultant penalty.

I don't agree with the committee on the two yellows and no red. Leave as is IMO.
Regarding cynicism, there is cynical play in hurling but not to the same extent as there was in football. A foul awarded in hurling is more likely to result in a score than football. I would say most IC free takers could score from the half way line in. A less able free taker would generally have the ball landing in around the 6 yard box. The scoring zone in football is far more limited and thus makes cynical play more rewarding. In hurling, if you punish a cynical play with a free and a yellow, that individual is unlikely to reoffend ditto for others. How many 'cynical' yellow cards are handed out in a typical match?

The penalty rule is very likely to be changed IMO so the 'reward' for hauling somebody down will be mitigated by the increased probability of scoring a goal from a penalty in future. Additionally what constitutes hauling down? Last year KK were awarded two penalties against Tipp in the league final? I think in both cases mutliple players were involved. Are you going to dish out black cards to all players involved?

citykat

Motion 6: This proposal seeks to increase the diameter size of the sliotar to 85-88mm (from 69-72mm) and the mass to 150-160g (from 110-120g). If adopted, this proposal would reduce the travel distance of a sliotar. (Cratloe, Clare).

Has the science on this been checked out? I'm no physicist but I do know that I can hit an adult ball farther than a juvenile ball. The adult ball is obviously greater in size and mass. Additionally, I wouldn't like to get hit by a bigger/ heavier ball. Surely there are more scientific ways of limiting a sliotar than just making it bigger and heavier.

bruschi

citykat wrote: »

I don't agree with the committee on the two yellows and no red. Leave as is IMO.
Regarding cynicism, there is cynical play in hurling but not to the same extent as there was in football. A foul awarded in hurling is more likely to result in a score than football. I would say most IC free takers could score from the half way line in. A less able free taker would generally have the ball landing in around the 6 yard box. The scoring zone in football is far more limited and thus makes cynical play more rewarding. In hurling, if you punish a cynical play with a free and a yellow, that individual is unlikely to reoffend ditto for others. How many 'cynical' yellow cards are handed out in a typical match?

The penalty rule is very likely to be changed IMO so the 'reward' for hauling somebody down will be mitigated by the increased probability of scoring a goal from a penalty in future. Additionally what constitutes hauling down? Last year KK were awarded two penalties against Tipp in the league final? I think in both cases mutliple players were involved. Are you going to dish out black cards to all players involved?

your engaging in a bit of whataboutery in your example there. Neither of those penalties, from limited recollection, were of a cynical nature that requires a black card as the ruling stands in Football. some people still think that denying a goal scoring opportunity is an automatic black card, its not necessarily always the case. Conceding a penalty is not an automatic black card, and your example is not a good one nor is your suggestion do you give them all black cards.

And just because the penalty ruling 'may' change, players will still make that gamble that it is better to have a chance of the penalty being missed, than a clear cut goal chance one on one.

My definition of hauling down is as per the black card rules, if a player is deliberately pulled to the ground, it is a black card. Fouling is not a black card.

Cynical tackling, as per the rules, doesnt get punished that often in football. If as you say, it wont happen in hurling, then what difference if the rule is introduced?

nice_guy80

Motion 50 means we will have no adult club team in 2015

Motion 51 means any decent minor player we have won't be able to line out for the adult team

Motion 52 will mean a bigger disparity between leinster/munster and the other two provinces in how the minor is run - ie back door, knockout

bruschi

nice_guy80 wrote: »

Motion 50 means we will have no adult club team in 2015

so your club doesnt have 20 players over the age of 16?

nice_guy80 wrote: »

Motion 51 means any decent minor player we have won't be able to line out for the adult team

you expect Westmeath to get to the All Ireland series? Or does the Westmeath championship get wrapped up before April?

nice_guy80 wrote: »

Motion 52 will mean a bigger disparity between leinster/munster and the other two provinces in how the minor is run - ie back door, knockout

not entirely sure what you mean here.

CrabRevolution

citykat wrote: »

Motion 6: This proposal seeks to increase the diameter size of the sliotar to 85-88mm (from 69-72mm) and the mass to 150-160g (from 110-120g). If adopted, this proposal would reduce the travel distance of a sliotar. (Cratloe, Clare).

Has the science on this been checked out? I'm no physicist but I do know that I can hit an adult ball farther than a juvenile ball. The adult ball is obviously greater in size and mass. Additionally, I wouldn't like to get hit by a bigger/ heavier ball. Surely there are more scientific ways of limiting a sliotar than just making it bigger and heavier.

Have I missed some massive vital event/information that requires the sliotar to suddenly not need to travel as far? What is the positive in having the ball travel shorter distances?

It would also wreck the game, lads who have spent years perfecting their skill with a normal size 5 have to just adapt to a new ball 20% wider and 45% heavier when the clock strikes midnight on the day it comes into effect?

Dirty Dingus McGee

CrabRevolution wrote: »

Have I missed some massive vital event/information that requires the sliotar to suddenly not need to travel as far? What is the positive in having the ball travel shorter distances?

It would also wreck the game, lads who have spent years perfecting their skill with a normal size 5 have to just adapt to a new ball 20% wider and 45% heavier when the clock strikes midnight on the day it comes into effect?

I suppose the benefit is there is probably less hurling being played now than there was in the past as players seems to spend more time looking at the ball sail over their heads than actually playing hurling .Its getting too easy to score in my opinion and scoring should be difficult in any sport.Personally I enjoyed hurling from the 90's more than todays hurling (maybe that because I'm from Offaly) as there seemed to be more contests for the ball and it required a bit more effort to get a score.

I would take making the ball bigger wouldn't work as it would make the ball more difficult to catch.Increasing the weight slightly without increasing the size might be a better thing.

nice_guy80

bruschi wrote: »

so your club doesnt have 20 players over the age of 16?



you expect Westmeath to get to the All Ireland series? Or does the Westmeath championship get wrapped up before April?



not entirely sure what you mean here.

we currently have 18 players 17 and over. seriously.
emigration, lads moved away for work, others retired or not committing.

if a club has a talented minor player, they won't be allowed play with the club until the county minor team are knocked out. That could well be June/July.

citykat

bruschi wrote: »

your engaging in a bit of whataboutery in your example there. Neither of those penalties, from limited recollection, were of a cynical nature that requires a black card as the ruling stands in Football. some people still think that denying a goal scoring opportunity is an automatic black card, its not necessarily always the case. Conceding a penalty is not an automatic black card, and your example is not a good one nor is your suggestion do you give them all black cards.

And just because the penalty ruling 'may' change, players will still make that gamble that it is better to have a chance of the penalty being missed, than a clear cut goal chance one on one.

My definition of hauling down is as per the black card rules, if a player is deliberately pulled to the ground, it is a black card. Fouling is not a black card.

Cynical tackling, as per the rules, doesnt get punished that often in football. If as you say, it wont happen in hurling, then what difference if the rule is introduced?

That's not whataboutery. If you look at the referee for both instances he indicates holding and given the player in question fell to the floor, I would deem that being hauled to the ground. You mentioned hauling players to the ground so I chose those examples.

I don't believe hurling has an issue with cynical play so what's the point of the rule? If as you say, it doesn't get punished in football what is the point of having it as a football rule either?

I don't believe in rules for rules sake. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

bruschi

citykat wrote: »

That's not whataboutery. If you look at the referee for both instances he indicates holding and given the player in question fell to the floor, I would deem that being hauled to the ground. You mentioned hauling players to the ground so I chose those examples.

I don't believe hurling has an issue with cynical play so what's the point of the rule? If as you say, it doesn't get punished in football what is the point of having it as a football rule either?

I don't believe in rules for rules sake. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

seriously, if you are not even going to bother debating on the actual black card rule then there is no point. It was pretty obvious when I said that, I meant in the context of the actual rule that is in place for the black card. For some reason, you seem to think that this being brought in will cause lots of normal fouls become black cards.

It might not be broke, but that is not to say it wont become broke. Fix it before it becomes a problem.

bruschi

nice_guy80 wrote: »

we currently have 18 players 17 and over. seriously.
emigration, lads moved away for work, others retired or not committing.

if a club has a talented minor player, they won't be allowed play with the club until the county minor team are knocked out. That could well be June/July.

The minor championship, in both codes, has only 12 teams remaining after May, as they have the semi final pairings decided before June and the exams. In most cases, the majority (over 50%) of minor county teams are eliminated by the first or second week in May or sometimes earlier. And by the start of July, there are only 8 teams in the country left playing minor (in each code). Its not the doomsday situation you may think it is. Obviously it will effect some counties, the likes of Kilkenny and Tipp who are constant in the latter stages of minor hurling, or Dublin, Cork and Kerry in the football, but for most of the countries minors, it will mean a minor player may miss a couple of early round games in the club championship.

Your situation with 18 players is a worrying one alright, but a rule like this shouldnt break a club. Having this rule will help keep players long term and create a better bridge from the change from minor to adult, when most of the drop offs occur.

adrian522

I don't think there is any need for a black card in hurling and I don't think that motion will pass. I don't get the idea that because there is a rule in one sport it should automatically be applied to another. They are different sports overall.

The one I would like to see pass is the advantage rule in hurling, I think that would be beneficial as currently there is a lot of fouls let go as an "advantage" but almost always the team in possession would be better served by a free than by letting play go. Giving the ref the opportunity to go back for the free after a few seconds would be a welcome change.

The number of steps rule should be defeated as it seems it's trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. 2 Yellows not getting sent off is just idiotic.

I'd like to see time keeping taken out of the hands of the referee which would get rid of the "play for a draw" mentality of a lot of referees.

rockonollie

citykat wrote: »

Motion 6: This proposal seeks to increase the diameter size of the sliotar to 85-88mm (from 69-72mm) and the mass to 150-160g (from 110-120g). If adopted, this proposal would reduce the travel distance of a sliotar. (Cratloe, Clare).

Has the science on this been checked out? I'm no physicist but I do know that I can hit an adult ball farther than a juvenile ball. The adult ball is obviously greater in size and mass. Additionally, I wouldn't like to get hit by a bigger/ heavier ball. Surely there are more scientific ways of limiting a sliotar than just making it bigger and heavier.

I don't get this proposal at all......if a half back is able to get himself the space and time to score a point from 100 yards.....then he bloody-well deserves that point.

If goalkeepers start putting puckouts wide, then I'd consider that the ball travels too far.....but right now, I don't see how it's damaging the game, and don't see any need for a change.

Browning

While I agree with the sentiment for Motion 50 in reality it would be a disaster. Sixteen is one of the ages at which the greatest fall off in numbers occur. I would tend to agree with the restriction in terms of Football. Adult Football is a lot more physically demanding than adult hurling. A blanket ban will not work because the circumstances are different in all codes, counties and clubs. One size certainly wont fit all. Take my county, a weaker hurling county. If you are aged 16 you could potentially only play if the 6-8 games between minor league and championship. How in gods name are you supposed to hold lads interest for year if that's all they have to look forward too. At least with being involved with the 2nd Adult Hurling team they could be guaranteed another 10-15 games. How does it make sense that under the proposed change they would still be allowed play U-21. U-21 is as tough and competitive as Adult level. Maybe a lead in of two years may work to allow county boards to get organised to change the structure to try hold onto these players. My eldest lad played Adult hurling at 16 and was none the worst for it. In fact I think it drove he desire to play as he saw it as a challenge. My youngest lad is 16 and he cant waiting to play on the second team this year. Hope he doesn't get disappointed.

randd1

The black card is based on referee interpretation of cynical play.

It is not working in football. How the hell could it be introduced to a sport when it doesn't work in a completely different sport it was designed for?