The Mark - Yay or Nay

BKWDR

Had a quick scout of the congress thread, but seems as it is current and seems to be causing a bit of debate.

I'm between two minds to the mark being introduced. Supposed to encourage high fielding, but any catch is deemed a mark.

Will it slow play? Make it to stop / start?

From the compromise rules, I felt it took a lot of the fluidity out of the game. Just constant ref whistle. Sure i suppose like any rule that comes in you just get on with it ..but for me i think its a bit of a Nay!

munchkin_utd

BKWDR wrote: »

<snip>
From the compromise rules, I felt it took a lot of the fluidity out of the game. Just constant ref whistle. Sure i suppose like any rule that comes in you just get on with it ..but for me i think its a bit of a Nay!

yea, but in the compromise rules the mark can be called for every kick.

This is only for kickouts and only when it goes beyond the 45

Mickey Harte had a policy of crowding out high fielders when they land with the ball, and he is annoyed that he cannot do this any more has issues with the mark.
If someone doesn't like something it can mean many things, it can mean its a stupid idea, or it may mean it doesn't suit some people.

Whether modern football has a fluid pattern that should be kept is another arguable point. The way some teams keep possession through endless handpasses you would think you got your scores by making more handpasses than the opposition rather than kicking the ball over the bar.
If a mark out the field (which isnt in the current rules) were introduced then at least it would reward teams who risk a footpass up the field rather than the possession football that we have now.

StupidLikeAFox

Well they were only going to introduce it from the kickout, and only for balls that were caught beyond the 45 yard line. The idea was that if you currently the guy that is good at high fielding is not getting the protection when he catches the ball as 2 or 3 lads can surround him and crowd him out when he comes down, which means teams ignore long kickouts and opt for an easier short kickout.

Hard to know if it is the answer but I don't think it would slow down the game that much. Its being trialled in the Leinster minor league at the moment (along with a rule that limits the number of consecutive hand passes) but I havent seen any of the games so not sure how its going

BKWDR

In defence of my original post, i was not aware it was only from a kickout! (had read about the rule change from other online source that did not specify this...apols)

bucketybuck

I think the unintended consequence will be that to minimise the impact of a mark, players won't try to compete for the kickout but will try to spoil the ball. Basically instead of trying to catch against the likes of O'Shea 2 or 3 lads will be jumping just to force a breaking ball.

Its a subtle difference, but its there.

Xenophile

No, Naw, Nay.

It should have been introduced in the league first as an experiment !

ShamoBuc

I think it is a good introduction. It should of course be implemented in the lge first but fielding is fasdr becoming a list art. There's nothing worse than seeing a great catch and then a swarm of players come in preventing any benefit to the catcher. A mark from a kickout could prove to be advantageous in the long run and will certainly add a new dimension to the game.

Can't see why it won't work really

ProudDUB

It's hard to say really. Unless I've seen a few games, its hard to know how it will impact them. i just know that during the Aussie Rules, it was a pain. At the start of the game, it was something new and interesting. But by the end of the game, I was just irritated by all the constant stop, starting and how it interrupted the flow of the game. I know that the new mark rule will be more limited, but I still have my doubts about it. The last quarter of games are already blighted by time wasting and players going down with mysterious cramps and injuries and other cynical stuff. We really don't need anything else slowing games down.

CrabRevolution

I don't think it will work. Like all innovations trying to make the game more pure and free flowing, it will be closely examined by coaches and ways will be found to crush its usefulness. If anything you might see even fewer high catches with this rule.

The thought process of this rule is: If we reward high catches with a free kick, we will see teams attempt more high catches.

What will really happen though is: If we reward high catches with a free kick, teams will do their utmost to stop the other teams getting a high catch.

Say currently 2 midfielders are going up for a kickout and one gets half a step ahead or jumps that bit earlier, giving him a 70% chance of catching it. The other midfielder will now reckon he has a 30% chance of catching the ball.

Previously he'd have jumped to contest it in the air, since he could still tackle his opponent after he caught the ball. With the mark in place he can no longer take that risk. He won't really bother jumping and trying to catch it anymore and will just do everything in his power to stop the other man catching it. He'll drag and push the man and swipe at the ball to break it.

After all a wildly sprayed ball is still more use to you than a guaranteed free kick for the other team.

What I also find funny is how many players are questioning and criticizing it. The response from the likes of Jarlath Burns is that these players don't know what they're talking about and hopefully will see the light.

Dirty Dingus McGee

I'm in favour of it.Firstly I think it worked quite well the time it was tried in 2010 and also anything that guarantees the player who catches the ball gets an advantage is good.

There is zero skill attached to crowding out a player in midfield and teams have decided rather than trying to bother with winning a midfield battle they would just decide to crowd out the player in the middle and hope to get the benefit from referees and win frees.Now the player who catches the ball will get a real advantage by catching it and not have to worry about being mobbed as soon as he hits the ground.

I don't think it's make much difference to the game overall but it will clear up one small area which few people I suspect actually like.It'll be good to see if it has a positive effect, it won't have any negative effect on the game so there is nothing to lose by trying it.

Davys Fits

Its worth a go. It may not be used much and I cant imagine too may marks being awarded in the modern game. I think it should have been brought in years ago when high fielding was part of the game
I cant believe the amount of people against the idea. Its been bandied about for over 20 years and all of a sudden everyone's against it. Football needs change!

frostyjacks

The game needs less stoppages, not more. I don't see why catching a ball from a kick out earns you a free. It's no more valuable than any other skill during a game. Just the GAA pandering to the Dublin media again.

Dirty Dingus McGee

frostyjacks wrote: »

The game needs less stoppages, not more. I don't see why catching a ball from a kick out earns you a free. It's no more valuable than any other skill during a game. Just the GAA pandering to the Dublin media again.

But usually what happens when a catch is claimed is you get a bit of a scrum and then a free gets awarded one way or the other.This rule just cuts out that bit which is not really something a lot of people like.The player doesn't have to take a kick he can run with the ball after he claims the mark if he wants and the kick has to be taken in 5 seconds so there will be barely any stoppage at all.

Green_Tae

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

I'm in favour of it.Firstly I think it worked quite well the time it was tried in 2010 and also anything that guarantees the player who catches the ball gets an advantage is good.

Yes, the mark as trialled in that year was very different to the rule applied in the AFL. The referee is given the power to award a mark if he deems no advantage has accrued from the successful catch. I prefer this version to what was proposed in the recent motion but there you go.

I still think the way to work the mark into gaelic football is to make it an integral feature of play; If a player catches the ball cleanly from a kick of over 13m then he will have won a mark, however the onus is on the ball-winner to play on. If no advantage accrues, the referee has the option of calling play back to the spot where the ball was initially won and awarding a freekick.

It might mean reworking the advantage rule to state that a free may only be awarded if the ball is turned over within that five second period but if we genuinely want to encourage catch-and-kick football then we have to acknowledge the high-fielding of forwards, not just midfielders.

armaghlad

I think the mark is stupid and I really question any need for it. The wording of the rule is short-sighted and ambiguous; much like the concept in general. The people who pushed for it are dinosaurs who want to hark back to an era of catch and kick. I was actually quite dismayed when I found out that the mark was passed. If anything I think it will be counterproductive and we will be more likely to see an increase in short kick outs than we are to see an increase in high fielding. As if our mostly inept referees needed anything more to worry about. The GAA really beggar belief sometimes.

bucketybuck

Personally I think the GAA has approached the problem from the wrong side.

If they have a problem with catchers getting crowded out and they are going to change the rules, why not just make a rule saying that only one person at a time can tackle the player in possession. If a second or third person surrounds or touches the player in possession its an immediate free.

Not only is it a very simple rule to implement and an easy judgement call for referees, but it would also immediately make the game a lot freer and faster. It would benefit attackers more but it would benefit both sides attackers equally, and would also encourage better defending, allow the proper defenders to make a name for themselves.

Simple and obvious, so of course it won't happen.

nice_guy80

Until I actually see it in operation, I cannot comment

Stoner

bucketybuck wrote:

Not only is it a very simple rule to implement and an easy judgement call for referees, but it would also immediately make the game a lot freer and faster. It would benefit attackers more but it would benefit both sides attackers equally, and would also encourage better defending, allow the proper defenders to make a name for themselves.

IMO that would be a nightmare to implement, when would one man stop tackling and the other start.
The game is getting more and more complicated and they can't ref it as it is.
This would only benefit some attackers what about attacker that built up the ability to break tackles?


Hawkeye is great, that improved things, it helped refs.
IMO the next change should also help refs, like having two of them.

Boom__Boom

Ciaran Whelan has actually seen it in operation and thinks it will be a failure.

Also the utter stupidity of not trialling it beforehand just beggars belief.

http://www.balls.ie/gaa/ciaran-whelan-describes-the-thinking-behind-the-mark-rule-as-off-the-wall/326056

BKWDR

In reference to the catcher going up and getting swarmed by tacklers, you can see a trend of the likes of Donaghy and O'Shea going up for the long high ball into the box and if they catch it, nearly playing for the foul. A O'Shea is making a name for himself of late doing it. Granted you have a couple of defenders around him trying to get their ball but dropping the shoulder and just barging is as much of a foul as putting two hands in or wrapping up a guy with the ball.

I would hate to see the mark develop to incorporate 13m+ kick pass anywhere on the field.

Hesh's Umpire

http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/columnists/michael-moynihan/mark-unfairly-punishes-those-who-perfected-group-tackling-385331.html

Michael Moynihan argues against it in the Irish Examiner.

As it happens, I'm not sure it's a great idea but the premise Moynihan uses to argue against it would mean we'd never have a rule change.

We'd still have a third man tackle on the basis that it was unfair to the teams that mastered it in the '60's if you took his argument to its logical conclusion.

Dirty Dingus McGee

Hesh's Umpire wrote: »

http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/columnists/michael-moynihan/mark-unfairly-punishes-those-who-perfected-group-tackling-385331.html

Michael Moynihan argues against it in the Irish Examiner.

As it happens, I'm not sure it's a great idea but the premise Moynihan uses to argue against it would mean we'd never have a rule change.

We'd still have a third man tackle on the basis that it was unfair to the teams that mastered it in the '60's if you took his argument to its logical conclusion.

An unbelievably idiotic article. "But since when did what you prefer to see become the basis for the rules of the game?" he asks at one point.

Michael that's pretty much the way rules are decided in every sport.People get tired of some aspect of the game and instead of praying it might die out they legislate for it.

intellectual dosser

I took a bit of a hiatus from boards but this is the topic I sought out after logging back in, and I'd most certainly agree with the Michael Moynihan article posted above.

The rules of Gaelic football have been largely unchanged for over 100 years, no longer being able to hand pass into the net probably the only major tweak I can think of off hand. The GAA have now introduced two major changes in the past three years. I think the black card is necessary, but still has a major impact to how the game is played.

So while the black card was 'required' the mark is in no way warranted. When you change rules abruptly like this it interferes with the natural evolution of the sport. We'll never know now whether or not a team would have brought a new approach to countering modern tactics, that eventually everyone would adopt, and maybe fielding would be a factor in it.

Jarlath Burns said the blanket defence was killing the game, he's wrong, rash rule changes are what will destroy it beyond recognition.

Dirty Dingus McGee

intellectual dosser wrote: »

I took a bit of a hiatus from boards but this is the topic I sought out after logging back in, and I'd most certainly agree with the Michael Moynihan article posted above.

The rules of Gaelic football have been largely unchanged for over 100 years, no longer being able to hand pass into the net probably the only major tweak I can think of off hand. The GAA have now introduced two major changes in the past three years. I think the black card is necessary, but still has a major impact to how the game is played.

So while the black card was 'required' the mark is in no way warranted. When you change rules abruptly like this it interferes with the natural evolution of the sport. We'll never know now whether or not a team would have brought a new approach to countering modern tactics, that eventually everyone would adopt, and maybe fielding would be a factor in it.

Jarlath Burns said the blanket defence was killing the game, he's wrong, rash rule changes are what will destroy it beyond recognition.

Technically the black card is not a rule change.It is an increase in the punishment for breaking an already existing rule.

There have been numerous rule changes over the years

Just 3 I can think of off the top of my head

• The thrown pass (the type Dublin and Kerry used to spcialise in back in the day) was effectively outlawed as there now has to be an underhand striking action on any hand pass.
• Frees are now allowed to be taken out of your hands.
• The square ball rule has been changed.

The blanket defence is killing the game and I honestly don't think there is any way to stop it barring directly outlawing it. We've have 12 or 13 years since blanket defence tactics have came into the game and it has only got worse in that period of time and their seems to be no real way around it and no desire to employ different tactics.

Lots of sports have made rule changes to benefit games without fundamentally changing them and football should be no different.

intellectual dosser

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Technically the black card is not a rule change.It is an increase in the punishment for breaking an already existing rule.

There have been numerous rule changes over the years

Just 3 I can think of off the top of my head

• The thrown pass (the type Dublin and Kerry used to spcialise in back in the day) was effectively outlawed as there now has to be an underhand striking action on any hand pass.
• Frees are now allowed to be taken out of your hands.
• The square ball rule has been changed.

The blanket defence is killing the game and I honestly don't think there is any way to stop it barring directly outlawing it. We've have 12 or 13 years since blanket defence tactics have came into the game and it has only got worse in that period of time and their seems to be no real way around it and no desire to employ different tactics.

Lots of sports have made rule changes to benefit games without fundamentally changing them and football should be no different.

Changing the rules for aethetical reasons sets a very concerning precedent.

How pleasing on the eye is it when the first few months of the summer involve the stronger teams putting up monstorous scores against teams that still put in the same time and effort? Yet none of the motions for championship reform made it to congress, theres hypocrosy there.

I'm not a fan of Joe Brolly, but his latest article in the independent on the introduction of the mark made several Father Ted references, I think the one he missed was when Ted tried to fix the tiny dent in the car and ended up with a write off.

Bonniedog

ProudDUB wrote: »

. i just know that during the Aussie Rules, it was a pain. .

Seconded. I know it is not going to be overall rule as in Aussie game, but to my mind it will only slow the game down. Does anyone seriously believe that players will only take five seconds to use the ball after a mark? All that will happen is that defences will have more time to bring every man behind the ball.

Would be far better tackling time wasting through a proper time keeping system, and dealing with the sort of mouthing that led to the mess in Tralee than trying to reinvent some mythical age of men soaring 20 feet into the sky to catch the ball.


Aussie rules is terrible to watch unless games are very close and that is a rarity. Mark is one of reasons it is terrible to watch!

Dirty Dingus McGee

Bonniedog wrote: »

Seconded. I know it is not going to be overall rule as in Aussie game, but to my mind it will only slow the game down. Does anyone seriously believe that players will only take five seconds to use the ball after a mark? All that will happen is that defences will have more time to bring every man behind the ball.

Would be far better tackling time wasting through a proper time keeping system, and dealing with the sort of mouthing that led to the mess in Tralee than trying to reinvent some mythical age of men soaring 20 feet into the sky to catch the ball.


Aussie rules is terrible to watch unless games are very close and that is a rarity. Mark is one of reasons it is terrible to watch!

You've probably just answered your own question there.

Players knowing that taking time over the mark will result in a defence retrating will mean they will probably not actually stop to take the kick and run forward unopposed and kick the ball or hand pass to a team mate.

Dirty Dingus McGee

intellectual dosser wrote: »

Changing the rules for aethetical reasons sets a very concerning precedent.

How pleasing on the eye is it when the first few months of the summer involve the stronger teams putting up monstorous scores against teams that still put in the same time and effort? Yet none of the motions for championship reform made it to congress, theres hypocrosy there.

I'm not a fan of Joe Brolly, but his latest article in the independent on the introduction of the mark made several Father Ted references, I think the one he missed was when Ted tried to fix the tiny dent in the car and ended up with a write off.

The exact reason sports change rules are for aesthetics and to make the games more entertaining.

I want championship reform as well and have the championship divisonalised.

Part of the reason the blanket defence exists is because teams are forced to play against opponents much better than them and therefore the only real option they have is the blanket defence.

If the championship is split into divisins you get more matches between teams of equal quality and less need to use the blanket defence.

The blanket defence is not a phase and something that can be got rid of by natural progression of the sport.It's been around for over a decade and it's got worse not better in that time.

robbiezero

I think it should have been trialled first, but in terms of high fielding I think it is just putting into law what has largely been in practice in recent years where ref's have tended to give the high fielder a soft free if he was in anyway surrounded, so I think that the impact will be minimal in terms of contested high fielding.

Where it will be interesting to view will be with the "short"-ish kickout. Keepers especially Cluxton can now hit half forwards into the chest on the run outside the 45 quite easily so this may be the area where the rule has the biggest impact.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

StupidLikeAFox

robbiezero wrote: »

Where it will be interesting to view will be with the "short"-ish kickout. Keepers especially Cluxton can now hit half forwards into the chest on the run outside the 45 quite easily so this may be the area where the rule has the biggest impact.

In this scenario there will be no advantage to the player by taking the mark, so he will just keep playing on.

Also, comparisons with Aussie Rules are redundant - most of the marks taken in Aussie rules which slow down the game are the ten yard pass to an unmarked player, a scenario which won't arise here.