Penalty change

paddy no 11

I hear in hurling the distance from goal is to be changed to prevent people throwing the ball to the 14 and scoring too easy etc.

Can we just not leave it as is and limit the number of steps to 1.5 steps as you would with a normal free.

Moving it further back benefits cynicism, leaving things as they are just allows nash and Michael fennnely et al to take advantage.

Just ensure that things are done the way they have been for a hundred years and all will be ok.

Kavrocks

paddy no 11 wrote: »

Can we just not leave it as is and limit the number of steps to 1.5 steps as you would with a normal free.

The number of steps for a normal free is not limited to 1.5.

culbaire666

Can the GAA just get ref's to make sure the ball is struck on the 20m line.If the penalty taker wants to take a run up leave him place the ball a couple of meters back for the 20m line.

dastardly00

paddy no 11 wrote: »

I hear in hurling the distance from goal is to be changed to prevent people throwing the ball to the 14 and scoring too easy etc.

Can we just not leave it as is and limit the number of steps to 1.5 steps as you would with a normal free.

Moving it further back benefits cynicism, leaving things as they are just allows nash and Michael fennnely et al to take advantage.

Just ensure that things are done the way they have been for a hundred years and all will be ok.

Why did you mention Michael Fennelly? I can't remember him taking penalties/21 yard frees in the same way as Anthony Nash.

Inner City Hedgehog

This rule change is total stupidity. It's basically changing a rule because one player has got too good at a certain skill.

steyrtrek

Remember that a penalty is still a free so if they limit run up to 1.5 steps or move back so strike is actually on line will the same rule will have to be applied for all frees , ie 65 ect,,,just asking...

bren2001

culbaire666 wrote: »

Can the GAA just get ref's to make sure the ball is struck on the 20m line.If the penalty taker wants to take a run up leave him place the ball a couple of meters back for the 20m line.

I was under the illusion that this was what the rule change was. Going by Pat Dalys comments (taken from the Independent):

"It's now proposed to state clearly that the ball can be no closer than 20 metres from the goal-line when it's struck. It will be up to the striker to decide how much further out he wants to place the ball in order to get momentum from tossing it forward but the strike must be made no closer than the 20-metre line,"

If this isn't the proposal, what is?

hardybuck

Inner City Hedgehog wrote: »

This rule change is total stupidity. It's basically changing a rule because one player has got too good at a certain skill.

It's changing a rule because one player has found a way to bring it in much closer than the intended distance, and will be followed by others.

It's a 14 metre free for a reason. Bringing it closer increases the risk of someone getting badly hurt. It's only a matter of time before someone gets a ball in the throat, or another lad gets a Joe Quaid type injury.

Inner City Hedgehog

hardybuck wrote: »

It's changing a rule because one player has found a way to bring it in much closer than the intended distance, and will be followed by others.

It's a 14 metre free for a reason. Bringing it closer increases the risk of someone getting badly hurt. It's only a matter of time before someone gets a ball in the throat, or another lad gets a Joe Quaid type injury.

No frees are taken from the 13 metre line (14 yards). 20 metres is the closest a free can be placed.

Every player in the history of the game who has taken a free has done what Nash does. The degree to which they do it is irrelevant.

This rule to change is purely to prevent one player because he's become too good at a skill.

Every time somebody goes out on a hurling pitch they risk being badly hurt.

That goes for any contact sport.

rockonollie

1.5 steps???......i take frees and even when standing over the ball striking from distance, i take 3 steps

hardybuck

Inner City Hedgehog wrote: »

No frees are taken from the 13 metre line (14 yards). 20 metres is the closest a free can be placed.

Every player in the history of the game who has taken a free has done what Nash does. The degree to which they do it is irrelevant.

This rule to change is purely to prevent one player because he's become too good at a skill.

Every time somebody goes out on a hurling pitch they risk being badly hurt.

That goes for any contact sport.

Sorry, you're right about distance, but my point remains the same. Players used to bring it in a bit, but he's taken it to a new level.

Players go out with a risk of getting hurt, but where we can make a minor change to help safeguard players, why not go ahead and do it? We forced lads to wear helmets even though many people didn't like it.

Also, we made a rule change a couple of years ago where we forced lads to take the sideline cut from the line. I know the rule has been relaxed a bit recently, but it was partly because lads were acting the maggot bringing the ball in way to far.

If you want to be paranoid and feel persecuted about it go ahead. Nash will only be around for a few years, the rule will hopefully benefit players for years to come. Maybe he'll do the same as O'Sullivan did with the helmet rule, throw his toys out of the pram and retire.

zetecescort

Why is it that in hurling they are trying to make it harder to score a goal from a penalty yet in football they moved the penalty spot from 14 to 12m from goal?

Would have no problem with making the shot be hit from the 20m line but the number of defenders should be reduced IMO.

Connorzee

So now scoring a 20 yard free would be virtually impossible..... meaning defenders will be encouraged to take men down by any means necessary to stop a goal. Brilliant. The GAA are absolutely clueless.

hardybuck

Do you remember Paul Flynn scoring from a 40 yard free against Cork!

Plenty of 21 yard frees are scored with 10 men on the line.

hans aus dtschl

Ah lads, be honest and call it like it is.

The H&S argument is fairly flimsy when you consider the injuries that can be got from:
Blocking down
Overhead Pull
A forward shooting from open play
etc etc etc

This was brought about because Nash mastered that skill (that many before him had also mastered: DJ Carey, Christy Ring, Davy Fitz).

PS looking forward to the championship, where I'll read on here that all rules are made to suit Cork :pac:
#smallfish

Grats

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

Ah lads, be honest and call it like it is.

The H&S argument is fairly flimsy when you consider the injuries that can be got from:
Blocking down
Overhead Pull
A forward shooting from open play
etc etc etc

This was brought about because Nash mastered that skill (that many before him had also mastered: DJ Carey, Christy Ring, Davy Fitz).

PS looking forward to the championship, where I'll read on here that all rules are made to suit Cork :pac:
#smallfish

Uncle Frank will pull one out of the hat yet!

keane2097

You have to laugh at the idea that the GAA are involved in some conspiracy to screw the Cork hurlers over considering they must be one of the most well looked after teams in the country when it comes to have decisions go their way.

bren2001

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

Ah lads, be honest and call it like it is.

The H&S argument is fairly flimsy when you consider the injuries that can be got from:
Blocking down
Overhead Pull
A forward shooting from open play
etc etc etc

This was brought about because Nash mastered that skill (that many before him had also mastered: DJ Carey, Christy Ring, Davy Fitz).

PS looking forward to the championship, where I'll read on here that all rules are made to suit Cork :pac:
#smallfish

The issue was highlighted due to Nash, I don't think many will argue that. Most people (outside of Cork maybe) thought Nash gained an unfair advantage (while staying inside the laws of the game) by moving closer to the goal by the amount that he did. The rules are changing to reflect that, there was nothing stopping any other team trying it.

I don't think it is a particularly difficult skill to master. Tried it myself in the local park and got it pretty quickly (nowhere near the level Nash could do it obviously).

hans aus dtschl

keane2097 wrote: »

You have to laugh at the idea that the GAA are involved in some conspiracy to screw the Cork hurlers over considering they must be one of the most well looked after teams in the country when it comes to have decisions go their way.

lol

Here we go again. It seems that people on this forum genuinely believe "the GAA look after Cork more than others".

Plenty of teams have got breaks against Cork down through the years. Eoin Kelly Waterford and Colm Cooper Kerry getting last minute equalizer free's, Clare getting extra time added on in the drawn final... you win some, you lose some...Dublin have an advantage not having to travel for matches, but you know what, they won because they were the best this year. And Clare won because they were the best. It doesn't come down to "who the GAA wants to facilitate".

That kind of talk is ultimately either gamesmanship (Davy Fitz: it worked!) or lazy excuse-making for lack of performance.

The Nash thing, it's strange for the GAA to react with a rule-change to something which heretofore affected one player. If they reform the rule by putting less people on the line, or award a 65 free with the value of 3 points, despite favouring the attacking side, it's still just papering over the fact that the "Health and safety" argument is fairly bogus.

bren2001, Nash managed a 40% success rate over the two finals. So the idea that there is an unfair advantage being given to the attacking side is a little strange, no? 5 21 yard frees given, presumably that's because of defenders fouling forwards, and a 40% scoring ratio. An unfair advantage???
If you gave me as a defender the option of pulling my man down when he's clear on goal, and gaining a 60% chance of him not scoring thereafter, I'd fancy those odds.

bren2001

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

bren2001, Nash managed a 40% success rate over the two finals. So the idea that there is an unfair advantage being given to the attacking side is a little strange, no? 5 21 yard frees given, presumably that's because of defenders fouling forwards, and a 40% scoring ratio. An unfair advantage???
If you gave me as a defender the option of pulling my man down when he's clear on goal, and gaining a 60% chance of him not scoring thereafter, I'd fancy those odds.

Measuring the success rate over two games and making a statistic from that it utterly meaningless. You also don't provide the statistic of the conversion rate of frees taken on the 21 by people using the conventional technique. Even if it was 90% score rate, I would always pull the attacker down if he was through on goal, it is harder to score from a 21 than from open play when you are through. However, that is not the point I made, the black card may start to address this.

Most free takers will lift on the 21 and strike maybe 17-18 yards from goal. Nash's technique enabled him to strike from 13 yards. While most players just stick it over the bar (in the early parts of the game) Nash's technique enabled him to be so close to goal that it was worth the risk of missing. The extra yards is his "unfair advantage", of course, it was in the rules of the game at the time so there was nothing unfair about it.

I and many others believe that the ball should be struck by a certain point. In this case, the ball should be struck by the 21. This is the case with sidelines (although it has been relaxed a fair bit) and can be seen in other sports. I think it should be extended to all frees, where the referee lays a mark and the ball must be struck by that point but can be struck before it.

Innish_Rebel

bren2001 wrote: »

Measuring the success rate over two games and making a statistic from that it utterly meaningless. You also don't provide the statistic of the conversion rate of frees taken on the 21 by people using the conventional technique. Even if it was 90% score rate, I would always pull the attacker down if he was through on goal, it is harder to score from a 21 than from open play when you are through. However, that is not the point I made, the black card may start to address this.

Most free takers will lift on the 21 and strike maybe 17-18 yards from goal. Nash's technique enabled him to strike from 13 yards. While most players just stick it over the bar (in the early parts of the game) Nash's technique enabled him to be so close to goal that it was worth the risk of missing. The extra yards is his "unfair advantage", of course, it was in the rules of the game at the time so there was nothing unfair about it.

I and many others believe that the ball should be struck by a certain point. In this case, the ball should be struck by the 21. This is the case with sidelines (although it has been relaxed a fair bit) and can be seen in other sports. I think it should be extended to all frees, where the referee lays a mark and the ball must be struck by that point but can be struck before it.

Fair enough - but the point that the ball should be struck by the 21 - I don't think I have ever in my life witnessed a penalty in hurling struck from 21 (bar the odd U12 where the taker rolls the sliotar game - and maybe my last Junior B game :):)). A penalty taker runs onto the ball and advances it before striking. In Nash's case he advances it further than most - so do we now bring in a rule that a ball cannot be advanced beyond a certain line prior to being struck? Another line on the pitch for penalties???

I would definitely say as a defender at heart if a penalty cannot be struck from inside the 21 I would always foul rather than give a shot at goal as the number of penalties scored from 21y out with 3 on the line would drop drastically...

bren2001

Innish_Rebel wrote: »

Fair enough - but the point that the ball should be struck by the 21 - I don't think I have ever in my life witnessed a penalty in hurling struck from 21 (bar the odd U12 where the taker rolls the sliotar game - and maybe my last Junior B game :):)). A penalty taker runs onto the ball and advances it before striking. In Nash's case he advances it further than most - so do we now bring in a rule that a ball cannot be advanced beyond a certain line prior to being struck? Another line on the pitch for penalties???

I would definitely say as a defender at heart if a penalty cannot be struck from inside the 21 I would always foul rather than give a shot at goal as the number of penalties scored from 21y out with 3 on the line would drop drastically...

I have rarely seen the ball struck by the 21. When I used to take the free's (mainly in football) I would take as many steps forward as I thought I would get away with. It was within the rules.

I have no issue with a defender running with the ball and then striking it, you lose a lot of power if you stand. You don't need to add a new line to implement the rule that it must be struck by a certain point. IMO the taker could start as far back as they wanted as long as the ball is struck by the 21.

What I like about the rule, is that it can give the advantage to the attacker in some instances while maintaining a level playing field for all frees. The advantage to the attacker of "strike by" as opposed to taking the free from the place of the foul is on windy days, fouling people out by the sideline on the 21. It can be quite hard to score from there (when its windy) and plenty of times I've looked over my shoulder to see 2 opponents screaming for the ball and Ive just pulled yer mans jersey, given the free, then they miss. With the "strike by" rule you could walk back to the 40 with the ball and turn it into a better scoring position.

paddy no 11

Scoring from 21 yards is surely a superior skill to what nash does so I don't accept this nash perfected it thing.


IMO his strike is outside the spirit of the game, not going to try and define that but there ye go. He's taking the mick, end of.

RGS

No 20 metre or any free is taken without the player throwing the ball forward, its virtually impossible to lift a ball on the 20 metre line and strike it, even over the bar from the 20 metre line.

A roll lift will put the striker a metre inside the line.

so all scored frees will be cancelled unless the striker moves the ball back 2 or 3 metres.

Simpler rule would be to move the line out to 25m.

www.ballygarvangaa.ie Hurling Skills - Free Puck ----interesting footage no player took the free from the spot were the ball was placed.

IMO the bigger issue is the fat that freetakers are fouling the ball by "soloing" the ball forward and not lifting and striking.

Grats

The rule was been broken for years. Posters referred to various penalty takers taking too many steps forward. Nash took it to a new "level". Something had to he done. On a related point, attention needs to be focused on time wasting when a goal keeper has to journey the length if the pitch to take a penalty. For that reason alone Clare deserved a draw in the All Ireland.

joebloggs32

There is another massive loophole in the rule.

It is stated that the goalkeeper and defenders on the line may not move off it until the ball is struck. Therefore the penalty taker in theory could 'lift' the ball and let it land to the ground, following the ball all the way in to the goal, before pulling jus a few yards away from the goal line with the defenders rooted to the goal line until the pull/strike

angelfire9

joebloggs32 wrote: »

There is another massive loophole in the rule.

It is stated that the goalkeeper and defenders on the line may not move off it until the ball is struck. Therefore the penalty taker in theory could 'lift' the ball and let it land to the ground, following the ball all the way in to the goal, before pulling jus a few yards away from the goal line with the defenders rooted to the goal line until the pull/strike

Sure the ball is struck from the moment of the lift is it not?
I wear the number 1 I'd better start reading these blasted rules

zetecescort

angelfire9 wrote: »

Sure the ball is struck from the moment of the lift is it not?
I wear the number 1 I'd better start reading these blasted rules

then why not charge normal frees?

hans aus dtschl

Grats wrote: »

The rule was been broken for years. Posters referred to various penalty takers taking too many steps forward. Nash took it to a new "level". Something had to he done. On a related point, attention needs to be focused on time wasting when a goal keeper has to journey the length if the pitch to take a penalty. For that reason alone Clare deserved a draw in the All Ireland.

lol sorry what?
Did Cork deserve a draw with Dublin because Cluxton takes the frees?
And another thing, Cluxton wasn't shouldered and harassed all the way up to take the frees either. Have a think on that, what what actually "needs" to be done.

While Tipp and KK tore lumps out of each other we were all told "it's a mans game for men who are manly men...yadda yadda". Presumably it's a different game when someone's hitting the ball "too hard" lol.

Look, I'll happily visit the issue that fellas are taking too much gain out of placed ball and clamp down on that. I've no doubt the rules need to be cleared up. But by the same token we're not talking about something that's a prevalent issue and it's not something new by any means.

Personally, I'm OK with the idea of the ball "having to be struck by" but you'd definitely need to quantify it. Because if it "has to be struck by the 21" with three men on the line it's open season for defenders to foul.

I've also heard people suggest a 65 worth 3 points and maybe that's an option?

Either way, my overall issue is with the fundamental idea of clamping down on the penalty-taking player rather than the penalty-conceding player. We had a super championship last year with fellas cutting through full back lines (which Cork were also on the receiving end of!) and I personally would be disappointed to see that stop.

Grats

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

lol sorry what?
Did Cork deserve a draw with Dublin because Cluxton takes the frees?
And another thing, Cluxton wasn't shouldered and harassed all the way up to take the frees either. Have a think on that, what what actually "needs" to be done.

While Tipp and KK tore lumps out of each other we were all told "it's a mans game for men who are manly men...yadda yadda". Presumably it's a different game when someone's hitting the ball "too hard" lol.

Look, I'll happily visit the issue that fellas are taking too much gain out of placed ball and clamp down on that. I've no doubt the rules need to be cleared up. But by the same token we're not talking about something that's a prevalent issue and it's not something new by any means.

Personally, I'm OK with the idea of the ball "having to be struck by" but you'd definitely need to quantify it. Because if it "has to be struck by the 21" with three men on the line it's open season for defenders to foul.

I've also heard people suggest a 65 worth 3 points and maybe that's an option?

Either way, my overall issue is with the fundamental idea of clamping down on the penalty-taking player rather than the penalty-conceding player. We had a super championship last year with fellas cutting through full back lines (which Cork were also on the receiving end of!) and I personally would be disappointed to see that stop.

Dublin were way better than ye and Clare well deserved their win. Odd that you should mention tearing lumps out of each other since the main culprit last year was Shane O'Neill. Unfortunately the rules weren't applied there either. The penalty rule has to be clarified, again due to Cork "cuteness"! If ye had your way Nash would just run all the way into the net!

zetecescort

would have thought the Galway branch of the HSA would have posted complaining about Shane Dowlings penalty on Saturday, especially when it was against their fellow countymen.

sasol

It's important that cheating is nipped in the bud.