Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Private profiles - please note that profiles marked as private will soon be public. This will facilitate moderation so mods can view users' warning histories. All of your posts across the site will appear on your profile page (including PI, RI). Groups posts will remain private except to users who have access to the same Groups as you. Thread here
Some important site news, please read here. Thanks!

The Mark

  • 22-05-2021 2:45pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 1,877 ✭✭✭ flasher0030


    Just a quick question that someone may have the answer for.

    Rule is that is the recipient puts up their hand, they are calling a mark. And they then have a certain amount of time to get their shot away. I think it's 15 seconds now; but not sure about that.

    But if you take a situation where, say a half back has roamed up to the forwards. He calls a marks, takes a few seconds then to steady himself. He's about to take the 4 or 5 steps to get his shot away, and he has second thoughts. Not very confident about the shot. Spots a teammate making a run towards him.
    Question - can he just play the dink pass to the forward, or does he have to actually take a shot on goal seeing as he called the mark.


Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 6,198 ✭✭✭ dobman88


    Just a quick question that someone may have the answer for.

    Rule is that is the recipient puts up their hand, they are calling a mark. And they then have a certain amount of time to get their shot away. I think it's 15 seconds now; but not sure about that.

    But if you take a situation where, say a half back has roamed up to the forwards. He calls a marks, takes a few seconds then to steady himself. He's about to take the 4 or 5 steps to get his shot away, and he has second thoughts. Not very confident about the shot. Spots a teammate making a run towards him.
    Question - can he just play the dink pass to the forward, or does he have to actually take a shot on goal seeing as he called the mark.

    He can just play a pass.

    That's one of the reasons I hate the it (and I'm a forward). I can just make a catch, put the hand up and pick a pass if I want. It's taking the art of defending out of the game.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,061 ✭✭✭ Boom__Boom


    Just a quick question that someone may have the answer for.

    Rule is that is the recipient puts up their hand, they are calling a mark. And they then have a certain amount of time to get their shot away. I think it's 15 seconds now; but not sure about that.

    But if you take a situation where, say a half back has roamed up to the forwards. He calls a marks, takes a few seconds then to steady himself. He's about to take the 4 or 5 steps to get his shot away, and he has second thoughts. Not very confident about the shot. Spots a teammate making a run towards him.
    Question - can he just play the dink pass to the forward, or does he have to actually take a shot on goal seeing as he called the mark.

    Tommy Walsh did this late on in the game against Galway last weekend. He won a mark but was at a bit of an angle to the posts. Spotted Paudie Clifford [I think it was] unmarked on around the 20 metre line right in front of the posts. Tommy popped it to Paudie who popped it over.

    I really wouldn't be surprised if down the road [probably when the current Standing Rules Committee move on ] if the offensive mark is binned. Seems few if any are in favour of it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,198 ✭✭✭ dobman88




  • Registered Users Posts: 1,877 ✭✭✭ flasher0030


    Thanks for the replies and clearing that up.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,391 ✭✭✭ recyclebin


    Hopefully the forward mark gets binned at the end of the year! Why should some who catches a ball get a free shot at goal?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,726 ✭✭✭ WesternZulu


    I think a few auld lads hoped the mark would lead to catch and kick football but it has been awful. Slows down the game too much; there is absolutely no skill involved in taking a low risk ball into the chest to win a free.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,463 ✭✭✭ HBC08


    Not a massive fan of it but it doesn't bother me too much either.
    I can't understand why no team has really exploited it yet.A bit of practice,drills and preplanned moves could get you 10 or 12 points a game.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,749 ✭✭✭ Coillte_Bhoy


    I think a few auld lads hoped the mark would lead to catch and kick football but it has been awful. Slows down the game too much; there is absolutely no skill involved in taking a low risk ball into the chest to win a free.

    If it was for catching a ball over your head id be all in favour of it but as it is now, it adds nothing to the game imo


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,393 ✭✭✭ Jaden


    It's having the opposite effect of what it was supposed to do. Chest high catch from a 20 metre kick pass = free shot.

    It is an abomination and needs to die in a fire.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,889 ✭✭✭ MayoAreMagic


    Im actually a supporter of the idea of the offensive mark. I just think the current interpretation is over-zealous. Keep it simple a la the other mark. Ball needs to travel in from outside the 45 and into the 20. Thats it.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 20,791 ✭✭✭✭ Strumms


    If high fielding is now a lesser used skill / facet / tactic it’s because the game has naturally evolved that way, no other reason... it’s now a faster game with greater emphasis on minding the ball and moving it as effectively yet more safely to be in range of a point or goal scoring opportunity....changing the rules because a bunch of knuckle draggers in suits in Croke Park, or some ballygobackwards parish hall mob think football players should be made to kick and field more regularly is micromanaging or attempting to micromanage the game....from offices... brain dead stuff...

    If team A beat team B by 4-18: 1-11 ? So what ? They have developed their relevant skill sets to be 16 points better than the team that opposes them. That’s to be applauded...


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    HBC08 wrote: »
    Not a massive fan of it but it doesn't bother me too much either.
    I can't understand why no team has really exploited it yet.A bit of practice,drills and preplanned moves could get you 10 or 12 points a game.

    Exactly.

    Fair enough if you're Dublin, you can win either way.

    But the chasing pack?. They've been presented with a new angle and it just shows how amateur GAA management is.
    Glorified Junior A managers: "Do a few laps, we'll do some non game simulation skills and then play a match".

    You would think at the top level some basic things like kickouts, marks would be worked on but I'm not seeing it across the board.. makes life for Dublin even easier.


  • Registered Users Posts: 520 ✭✭✭ Shaunoc


    I suppose not on topic one bit, but goal scoring from palming / fisting the ball in makes me wince

    The mark while well intentioned needs refinement


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,726 ✭✭✭ WesternZulu


    Shaunoc wrote: »
    I suppose not on topic one bit, but goal scoring from palming / fisting the ball in makes me wince

    The mark while well intentioned needs refinement

    I agree, I would favour a rule that says you can only punch a ball into the net if it comes from a kick pass. I think a goal scored from a fist from a long high ball is something worth preserving.

    Still though it's not half as bad as back in the 70's when you could fist pass the ball into the net. It looked absolutely horrible!


  • Registered Users Posts: 22,991 ✭✭✭✭ blanch152


    I agree, I would favour a rule that says you can only punch a ball into the net if it comes from a kick pass. I think a goal scored from a fist from a long high ball is something worth preserving.

    Still though it's not half as bad as back in the 70's when you could fist pass the ball into the net. It looked absolutely horrible!

    That rule was changed to stop Kerry and Dublin dominating.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,889 ✭✭✭ MayoAreMagic


    blanch152 wrote: »
    That rule was changed to stop Kerry and Dublin dominating.

    Actually it was changed because it was too easy to fist pass it into the goal, which was in turn, taking away from the game. Also, at the time kerry were dominating the game - alone.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,889 ✭✭✭ MayoAreMagic


    Strumms wrote: »
    If high fielding is now a lesser used skill / facet / tactic it’s because the game has naturally evolved that way, no other reason... it’s now a faster game with greater emphasis on minding the ball and moving it as effectively yet more safely to be in range of a point or goal scoring opportunity....changing the rules because a bunch of knuckle draggers in suits in Croke Park, or some ballygobackwards parish hall mob think football players should be made to kick and field more regularly is micromanaging or attempting to micromanage the game....from offices... brain dead stuff...

    If team A beat team B by 4-18: 1-11 ? So what ? They have developed their relevant skill sets to be 16 points better than the team that opposes them. That’s to be applauded...

    It is a lesser used skill because teams have found ways to cheat it truth be told. The target man forward caught a ball and he was generally surrounded, tackled by 3 lads at once and fouled into overcarrying. These fouls are hard to classify and observe in real time so teams get away with it. That isnt development.
    This is turn was forcing target men out of the game. Football was becoming a game for basically one body type. That isnt a good thing. It also reduces the level of tactical approcahes managers can use.

    It is akin to the old passback tactic in soccer, prior to the rule, where teams used it to spoil the oppositions play rather than beat it.

    The game should include as many people as it can. If the advanced mark was designed to just remove that eyesore of 3 defenders fouling a guy once he wins the ball then it would have done its job. I dont know why they decided to add in more parts to it. In doing so they have make a mess of it. If it was implemented just for the thing it was need for - like the original mark, it would add to the game.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,526 ✭✭✭ ArielAtom


    The mark is an abomination. We will see 6'10" lads standing there fielding and kicking for goal if we are not careful. Do we really want to see AFL type rules dominating the game?


Advertisement