Cork GAA Discussion Thread

Slobbery

999/112 wrote: »

Now we are led to believe that Stephen O'Keefe did not break any rule as he left the goal line as the ball was lifted[played].

If Clare are awarded a penalty/21 yd free in the semi-final, will somebody defending the Cork goal "rush" the striker of that penalty/free?
We may find out in less than a week!

I think that the 'rush' is only effective if the taker uses the extended pick up

Forthright

Twiceasnice97 wrote: »

while it is the letter of the law it is not the spirit of the law so to speak for nash to do what he is doing.

It's also not in the spirit of the game to verbally abuse officials and opposition players but it doesn't stop Crazy Davy from doing it.

setanta1984

Slobbery wrote: »

I think that the 'rush' is only effective if the taker uses the extended pick up

It would be extremely off putting to have one or even more people charging at you like a freight train, anywhere on the pitch, regardless of whether the charger actually makes any contact with the ball or player.
A free taker is essentially stationary, a free /penalty is supposed to favour the attacker and penalise the defending team, allowing a charge removes the psychological advantage from the taker.

I think for penalties/21's the defending team should not be allowed advance beyond the small square. Still gives scope to step out a couple of yards, removes the charging carry on. When you look at the Kelly save last year which started the conversation he is only a stride beyond the square anyway, had he been on the edge he'd have still saved it.

Gary Neville

Saw this on PROC :-

Rule 2.5: For all free pucks, including penalties, the ball may be stuck with the hurley in either of two ways:

(a) Lift the ball with the hurley at the first attempt and strike it with the hurley.

(b) Strike the ball on the ground.

If a player taking a free or penalty fails to lift the ball at the first attempt, or fails to strike it with the hurley, he must strike it on the ground without delay. Only when he delays may a player of either side approach nearer than 20m except in the case of penalties.

Rule 4.16 (b) For any of the three players defending a penalty on the goal-line to move nearer than 20m to the ball before the ball is struck.

PENALTY for such an infringement: if a goal is not scored, the referee shall allow the penalty puck to be retaken.

There it is in black and white in the rule book, a lift is not a strike, a lift has been defined in rule 2.5 as being a separate action to a strike. So therefore the rule 4.16 (b) is contravened if one of the three players defending the penalty moves within 20m of the penalty taker prior to it being struck not lifted as defined in rule 2.5.

Hidalgo

Slobbery wrote: »

I think that the 'rush' is only effective if the taker uses the extended pick up

If Clare do get a penalty next weekend and if Tony Kelly takes it, I'd expect him to lift and lob the ball forward similar to Nash. He may not get the same distance but in a recent challenge V KK, he did it.

If Colin Ryan is the taker, I'd guess a more traditional lift and strike will be used

Mountainlad

Did ye win yesterday? Not sure the way some people are carrying on

The Pontiac

Mountainlad wrote: »

Did ye win yesterday? Not sure the way some people are carrying on

What are talking about "way some people are carrying on" ?

You sound like a bitter Waterford man. Sore loser?

ShamoBuc

Gary Neville wrote: »

Saw this on PROC :-

Rule 2.5: For all free pucks, including penalties, the ball may be stuck with the hurley in either of two ways:

(a) Lift the ball with the hurley at the first attempt and strike it with the hurley.

(b) Strike the ball on the ground.

If a player taking a free or penalty fails to lift the ball at the first attempt, or fails to strike it with the hurley, he must strike it on the ground without delay. Only when he delays may a player of either side approach nearer than 20m except in the case of penalties.

Rule 4.16 (b) For any of the three players defending a penalty on the goal-line to move nearer than 20m to the ball before the ball is struck.

PENALTY for such an infringement: if a goal is not scored, the referee shall allow the penalty puck to be retaken.

There it is in black and white in the rule book, a lift is not a strike, a lift has been defined in rule 2.5 as being a separate action to a strike. So therefore the rule 4.16 (b) is contravened if one of the three players defending the penalty moves within 20m of the penalty taker prior to it being struck not lifted as defined in rule 2.5.

That seems to make sense. Some people argue that when Nash hits it the players on the line are closer than 20 metres, but apparently that doesn't contravene any rule as they didn't move closer.

I do think that someone is going to get seriously hurt 'rushing' one of these types of pens. Safer to be on the line I think.

Mountainlad

The Pontiac wrote: »

What are talking about "way some people are carrying on" ?

You sound like a bitter Waterford man. Sore loser?

The last two pages are lads having a cut at each other getting wound up by an inconsequential (though deserved red card) and the penalty incident. Maybe next time Nash should try a normal style? A keeper running off his line might work to his advantage.

The rule is broken, there's a clear contradiction in it. Can I just ask, do you genuinely think you would all be so vehemently for this style of Penalty if Cork didn't have a player who can do it whereas say Tony Kelly was the best in the Country?

Everyone arguing, on both sides, is so rigidly for one or the other. It's either definitely fair game under every rational or else Nash should be in jail. The reality is that there are pros and cons. I would believe that a penalty should advantage an attacker, the defender is being penalised. Also there is great skill in what Nash does, its hard to do. It is a bit of a farce though from a 21 being able to throw it in to the 13.

Also, I'm not really sure of the safety issue but I think Id rather err on the side of caution then wait to see what happens when some one gets a bullet in the chest or throat. It needs to be sorted but won't be until next year, and if Liam O Neill is to be blamed Cork have to take a fair share of the blame for that.

But sure what do I know, I'm just a bitter Waterford man.

citykat

Aw FFS ye’re not still whingeing about Nash’s peno. I was looking at this all last night wondering did Cork actually win this match. Ye’re after giving the deise the mother and father of a beating and all ye talk about is one incident which in the grand scheme of things is trivial. Ye should take a wander over to the deise thread and sample the despondency. You call yourselves the rebels; sounds more like whiners to me. Get over it. Move on. You have a match against Clare in six days time. If I was you that’s what I’d be talking about.

The Pontiac

There's no one whingeing. We're discussing the 'ruling'.

And we'll continue to discuss it, as it could now become a major issue in this year's championship.

Get over yourself's!

ShamoBuc

citykat wrote: »

Aw FFS ye’re not still whingeing about Nash’s peno. I was looking at this all last night wondering did Cork actually win this match. Ye’re after giving the deise the mother and father of a beating and all ye talk about is one incident which in the grand scheme of things is trivial. Ye should take a wander over to the deise thread and sample the despondency. You call yourselves the rebels; sounds more like whiners to me. Get over it. Move on. You have a match against Clare in six days time. If I was you that’s what I’d be talking about.

Well, we are in the Cork thread and we will talk about anything we want - its the rebel thing to do after all.
If you don't like it, go whine about it somewhere else, there's a good little KittyKat.;)

Hidalgo

ShamoBuc wrote: »

That seems to make sense. Some people argue that when Nash hits it the players on the line are closer than 20 metres, but apparently that doesn't contravene any rule as they didn't move closer.

I do think that someone is going to get seriously hurt 'rushing' one of these types of pens. Safer to be on the line I think.

You could actually be safer by rushing, if you can sprint out fast enough. Getting hit from 3 yards away might do less damage than from 12-13. The ball won't have reached its max speed in those first couple of yards.

Heard on the radio that one of Nash's pens was clocked in at 149mph. Serious power.

ShamoBuc

Hidalgo wrote: »

You could actually be safer by rushing, if you can sprint out fast enough. Getting hit from 3 yards away might do less damage than from 12-13. The ball won't have reached its max speed in those first couple of yards.

Heard on the radio that one of Nash's pens was clocked in at 149mph. Serious power.

Maybe, but most shots are saved on the line using a Hurley, not your body. Did you see the PIC in the Waterford thread of his leg? Nasty.

rebel girl 15

ShamoBuc wrote: »

Maybe, but most shots are saved on the line using a Hurley, not your body. Did you see the PIC in the Waterford thread of his leg? Nasty.

I'd as big a bruise on my leg after getting a slap of a Hurley during a game - there is an inherent risk involved in playing and even more so playing in goals, lads know they can get hit in the body. Cummins mentions it a number of times, he wanted to get within a yard or two of the strike, so it has no angle on it and take the hit on the body

ShamoBuc

rebel girl 15 wrote: »

I'd as big a bruise on my leg after getting a slap of a Hurley during a game - there is an inherent risk involved in playing and even more so playing in goals, lads know they can get hit in the body. Cummins mentions it a number of times, he wanted to get within a yard or two of the strike, so it has no angle on it and take the hit on the body

I wonder how many penalties he saved with his Hurley and how many with his body.? The power generated from a Nash type one is far more than one generated than when he comes out to meet a fella running in on goal, usually a shortened grip type shot with defender close behind.

Mountainlad

Forgot to mention was great to see Paudie Sullivan back, nobody wants to see players out of action with the kind of injury he had.

ShamoBuc

Mountainlad wrote: »

Forgot to mention was great to see Paudie Sullivan back, nobody wants to see players out of action with the kind of injury he had.

It certainly was. He had a club match with Cloyne and scored about 4 points last week. Great to see him back as he is a very tidy hurler. He has the determination to go straight for goal, something Cork badly need.

ShamoBuc

It will be interesting to see the outcome of the interpretation of rules
from Central Council, they hope it will be sorted by the weekend

Hidalgo

Gary Neville wrote: »

Saw this on PROC :-

Rule 2.5: For all free pucks, including penalties, the ball may be stuck with the hurley in either of two ways:

(a) Lift the ball with the hurley at the first attempt and strike it with the hurley.

(b) Strike the ball on the ground.

If a player taking a free or penalty fails to lift the ball at the first attempt, or fails to strike it with the hurley, he must strike it on the ground without delay. Only when he delays may a player of either side approach nearer than 20m except in the case of penalties.

Rule 4.16 (b) For any of the three players defending a penalty on the goal-line to move nearer than 20m to the ball before the ball is struck.

PENALTY for such an infringement: if a goal is not scored, the referee shall allow the penalty puck to be retaken.

There it is in black and white in the rule book, a lift is not a strike, a lift has been defined in rule 2.5 as being a separate action to a strike. So therefore the rule 4.16 (b) is contravened if one of the three players defending the penalty moves within 20m of the penalty taker prior to it being struck not lifted as defined in rule 2.5.

That part is black & white as you state, regarding which part is exactly the strike.

Not so however with regard to moving off the line.

Rule 2.3 A penalty puck shall be taken at the centre
point of the 20m line and the semi-circular arc,
and only three defending players may stand
on the goal-line

This is rule 2.3 from the football code. More clear cut
A penalty kick shall be taken from the ground
at the centre point of the 13m line, and only
the defending goalkeeper may stand on the
goal-line. All other players, with the exception
of the player taking the kick, shall be outside
the 20m line and the arc, be at least 13m from
the ball, and shall not cross the 20m line or
the arc until the ball has been kicked. The
goalkeeper may move along his line, but may
not advance from the goal-line until the ball
has been kicked. If a defending player fouls
before the ball is kicked and a goal does not
result, the referee shall allow the penalty kick
to be retaken.

The bit in bold should be in the hurling rulebook to cut out any possibility of confusion as in the hurling rulebook, it only states that 3 are allowed on the line, it doesn't clarify at what point they are allowed advance.

I took the above from
http://thescore.thejournal.ie/cork-waterford-penalty-rules-review-1508619-Jun2014/ there's also a link to both rulebooks.

It's going to be interesting to see what decision is made, they don't have time on their side to mull it over as they will need to have it clarified by next Sunday

Gary Neville

The kernel of the issue, for me, is :-

Rule 2.5 clearly indicates that a lift is not a strike. It provides for when a player does a 'fresh air' and gives him a time frame to hit it on the ground before the light brigade can charge.

Rule 4.16(b) prohibits the 3 lads on the goal line to advance before the strike.

It now looks as if they have instructed refs to regard the lifting as the strike for penalites so a 'fresh-air' (wrt penners) isn't provided for.

If there was a distinction between striking the ball from penalites and other frees, then the rules would obviously have clearly stated this. That's bog standard common sense.

They wanted to change the rule at congress but Cork seemed to be able to stymie this so now it looks as if they have changed the interpretation.
Cork were adamant that Kelly contravened the rules last year in the AI final and if Cork were wrong then it would have been pointed out.

Someone has tried a 3 card trick but now they will have to explain - hence the delay. When you find yourself in a hole, you stop digging, some lads over at HQ are full steam ahead in a clapped out JCB.

It's not on to be trying to cod us Cork Lads by trying to turn a lift into a strike - Nobody in the GAA knows more about strikes than Cork/Frank Murphy.

eigrod

I agree with you Gary Neville. It is quite clear that the GAA & Pat McAneaney have been making things up as they go along over the last week or so. The rule needed to be tidied up over the Winter and they failed to do so - they had plenty warning about it. Now players like Stephen O Keefe are (rightly) exploiting the vacuum that exists.

There is no doubt in my mind that if Pat Horgan took that penalty in a more conventional style and if Stephen O Keefe charged it down, then it would have been a re-take.

By the way, I have total admiration for Stephen O Keefe for coming up with, and executing, that idea. He has really put it up to the GAA to sort this out, once and for all, but I think some more chaos could ensue in the meantime.

Hidalgo

Gary Neville wrote: »

The kernel of the issue, for me, is :-

Rule 2.5 clearly indicates that a lift is not a strike. It provides for when a player does a 'fresh air' and gives him a time frame to hit it on the ground before the light brigade can charge.

Rule 4.16(b) prohibits the 3 lads on the goal line to advance before the strike.

It now looks as if they have instructed refs to regard the lifting as the strike for penalites so a 'fresh-air' (wrt penners) isn't provided for.

If there was a distinction between striking the ball from penalites and other frees, then the rules would obviously have clearly stated this. That's bog standard common sense.

They wanted to change the rule at congress but Cork seemed to be able to stymie this so now it looks as if they have changed the interpretation.
Cork were adamant that Kelly contravened the rules last year in the AI final and if Cork were wrong then it would have been pointed out.

Someone has tried a 3 card trick but now they will have to explain - hence the delay.

It's not on to be trying to cod us Cork Lads by trying to turn a lift into a strike - Nobody in the GAA knows more about strikes than Cork/Frank Murphy.

) For any of the three players defending a
penalty on the goal-line to move nearer than
20m to the ball before the penalty puck is
taken.

That's 4.16(b). Does this not go back to an argument from last yrs All Irl when Kelly advanced, the penalty isn't struck from a 20m distance to the 3 on the line, more 13m. To keep within the rule, should O' Keefe and co not have been backing into the Killinan End last Sunday

Or, could the above ruling be interpreted as remaining on the line pre lift? which is what is now the story

It certainly appears as if this idea that the lift=strike is something pulled out of thin air recently.
It's certainly going to be interesting to see what 'solution' is proposed in the next 2-3 days.

My guess would be some sort of a half assed 'Irish solution to Irish problem'

Gary Neville

It's a shame that Thinkstoomuch1 hasn't been posting for a while. He's still registered and last activity is shown at 22.30 yesterday, so it looks like he still logs on.

He's been a top poster here and the level on information he supplied is sorely missed IMO. Hope he'll reconsider and start posting again.

D'Agger

Gary Neville wrote: »

It's a shame that Thinkstoomuch1 hasn't been posting for a while. He's still registered and last activity is shown at 22.30 yesterday, so it looks like he still logs on.

He's been a top poster here and the level on information he supplied is sorely missed IMO. Hope he'll reconsider and start posting again.

Have you tried dropping him a PM instead of repeatedly noting his absence on the thread?

Gary Neville

Hidalgo wrote: »

) For any of the three players defending a
penalty on the goal-line to move nearer than
20m to the ball before the penalty puck is
taken.

That's 4.16(b). Does this not go back to an argument from last yrs All Irl when Kelly advanced, the penalty isn't struck from a 20m distance to the 3 on the line, more 13m. To keep within the rule, should O' Keefe and co not have been backing into the Killinan End last Sunday

Or, could the above ruling be interpreted as remaining on the line pre lift? which is what is now the story

It certainly appears as if this idea that the lift=strike is something pulled out of thin air recently.
It's certainly going to be interesting to see what 'solution' is proposed in the next 2-3 days.

My guess would be some sort of a half assed 'Irish solution to Irish problem'

Yeah - I'm really looking forward to seeing how they attempt to extract themsleves from 'another fine mess'

They will still have to explain Rule 2.5 which makes a crystal clear distinction between the lift and strike. ie - you can lift and and attempt a stike, fail to connect but then get a sec or two to pull on the ground. Then it's regarded as struck and the cavalry can charge.

Journos/commentators are bound to ask awkward questions. ( I don't mean the drivel you get from the likes of Cahill and Loughnane)

I think of the Management Committee discussing this and have visions of Homer and Barney skulling Duffs in Mo's and working their way through a problem or Captain Blackadder and Baldrick hatching a cunning plan.

Hidalgo

eigrod wrote: »

I agree with you Gary Neville. It is quite clear that the GAA & Pat McAneaney have been making things up as they go along over the last week or so. The rule needed to be tidied up over the Winter and they failed to do so - they had plenty warning about it. Now players like Stephen O Keefe are (rightly) exploiting the vacuum that exists.

There is no doubt in my mind that if Pat Horgan took that penalty in a more conventional style and if Stephen O Keefe charged it down, then it would have been a re-take.

By the way, I have total admiration for Stephen O Keefe for coming up with, and executing, that idea. He has really put it up to the GAA to sort this out, once and for all, but I think some more chaos could ensue in the meantime.

Fair play to O' Keefe is right. One camera angle was from down the Cork goal. From this viewpoint, you could see O' Keefe ready to sprint full tilt as soon as Nash began the lift.

I suppose the main benefit was that it happened in what became a forgone conclusion of a game, had it been a tight affair and say Cork lost by a pt, then there would have been uproar.

Hidalgo

Gary Neville wrote: »

Yeah - I'm really looking forward to seeing how they attempt to extract themsleves from 'another fine mess'

They will still have to explain Rule 2.5 which makes a crystal clear distinction between the lift and strike. ie - you can lift and and attempt a stike, fail to connect but then get a sec or two to pull on the ground. Then it's regarded as struck and the cavalry can charge.

Journos/commentators are bound to ask awkward questions. ( I don't mean the drivel you get from the likes of Cahill and Loughnane)

I think of the Management Committee discussing this and have visions of Homer and Barney skulling Duffs in Mo's and working their way through a problem or Captain Blackadder and Baldrick hatching a cunning plan.

Do we know if all referees got together and made a group decision to make lift as first part of the strike, or is that just the Sunday Game panel assuming so?

Gary Neville

D'Agger wrote: »

Have you tried dropping him a PM instead of repeatedly noting his absence on the thread?

No reply.

I've posted on this in the hope it might persuade him to post again but it's up to him and this is my last comment on it. I rate him the most insightful poster on this thread and it's poorer in his absense - your intemperate reply suggests you regard my posts on this as tiresome but that's up to you. End of ......

D'Agger

Gary Neville wrote: »

No reply.

I've posted on this in the hope it might persuade him to post again but it's up to him and this is my last comment on it. I rate him the most insightful poster on this thread and it's poorer in his absense - your intemperate reply suggests you regard my posts on this as tiresome but that's up to you. End of ......

Not in the slightest - I'm simply stating that it may be better for you to PM him rather than continue to post about it on the thread when he doesn't seem to be responding. I'd classify it as logical over intemperate tbh