Should the 'Nash' free be outlawed?

lukin

I'm not trying to be controversial by digging up this thread but after the two penalties that were saved today doesn't it show the downside of the "Nash rule change"?
I actually think it was the correct decision to change the rule but now it seems to have had the opposite effect with it becoming too difficult to score from a penalty in hurling. A shame if it does because the fans lose out by not seeing more goals with players becoming reluctant to go for a goal from penalties from now on.
Maybe the rule needs further tweaking?

theteal

There's no advantage for the attacker. Keep the distance but just have the keeper in goal.

Realt Dearg Sec

lukin wrote: »

I'm not trying to be controversial by digging up this thread but after the two penalties that were saved today doesn't it show the downside of the "Nash rule change"?
I actually think it was the correct decision to change the rule but now it seems to have had the opposite effect with it becoming too difficult to score from a penalty in hurling. A shame if it does because the fans lose out by not seeing more goals with players becoming reluctant to go for a goal from penalties from now on.
Maybe the rule needs further tweaking?

I was suggesting the rule change on this thread that they ended up implementing but yes, it does need tweaking (benefited me today as a KK fan today mind you).

EDIT: What I meant to say was, come up with a line like the new penalty spot they brought in for football. Maybe about 17 or 18 yards out or whatever.

Clareman

Simple rule change, penalty is goalie vs. attacker only, everything else about the ball not going past the 21 should be kept.

washman3

Think it will be reduced to the keeper and 1 defender.
The black card also needs to be introduced. Murphy knew exactly what he was doing when he took down Bonner.

Akrasia

I dunno if a 1 on 1 penalty would be too unbalanced in favour of the attacking side

It might be best keep the existing law but instead of the ball having to be struck by the 21 yard line, the rule should allow the ball to be struck from a new 18 yard line

This will bring the situation back to the way it was before the Nash penalty, where most players lifted the ball and struck it about 3 yards beyond the line. Nash was striking it 7 or 8 yards beyond the line which was genuinely dangerous and would inevitably result in a serious injury if it became a standard practise.

bren2001

I was in favour of bringing in the new rule and I still am. For me a penalty should be the attackers advantage and should have a very good chance of scoring. If I got a penalty in the final, id just take the point now. Its pretty clear the two realistic options are.

A) A new 18 yard line (or whatever distance). Keep the 3 in goal and it essentially reverts back to what we pretty much had before.

Reduce the number of people in goal. 1 v 1 is too easy for the attacker. 2 on the line is more balanced in my opinion.

I'd be in favour of A.

mickmackey1

I don't think either pen yesterday was particularly well struck, Horgan showed how it should be done v Clare.

jaykay74

bren2001 wrote: »

I was in favour of bringing in the new rule and I still am. For me a penalty should be the attackers advantage and should have a very good chance of scoring. If I got a penalty in the final, id just take the point now. Its pretty clear the two realistic options are.

A) A new 18 yard line (or whatever distance). Keep the 3 in goal and it essentially reverts back to what we pretty much had before.

Reduce the number of people in goal. 1 v 1 is too easy for the attacker. 2 on the line is more balanced in my opinion.

I'd be in favour of A.

A as you suggest is the simplest solution and is basically as it was before the Nash style started and nobody had a problem with that 3 in goal and a new line X number of yards closer than the current line.

marco_polo

Whatever committee is looking at this should grab a group of top level freetakers and goalkeepers and have a few session to see which of the possible solutions has the best balance. I think 20m might be a shade too close for 1v1 and ot is definately too far for 1v3

keeponhurling

Would the black card be workable for hurling?

There was a lot of cynical fouling in yesterdays game, both senior and minor, as there is in most games.
Looks horrible to see a lad running at goal being rugby tackled down

zetecescort

keeponhurling wrote: »

Would the black card be workable for hurling?

There was a lot of cynical fouling in yesterdays game, both senior and minor, as there is in most games.
Looks horrible to see a lad running at goal being rugby tackled down

Manly game played by manly men etc etc.:rolleyes: no need for red and yellow cards, never mind black according to some.

marco_polo

keeponhurling wrote: »

Would the black card be workable for hurling?

There was a lot of cynical fouling in yesterdays game, both senior and minor, as there is in most games.
Looks horrible to see a lad running at goal being rugby tackled down

Would't mind seeing it trialed for say really cynical 1v1 fouls close to goal, but not like the way it is in football.

zombieHanalei

A dash-line at 17 metres past which the penalty taker is not permitted to encroach, and take the free from 20 metres as was the case up to the rule change.

This basically returns to what we had all along while putting a set (and clearly defined within the rules) limit on how far ahead the penalty taker can move forward.

Something had to be done, but unfortunately the new interpretation went too far in the other direction.

A penalty is supposed to present the fouled team with an opportunity to score a goal where the odds are stacked in their favour, the odds are now with the defensive team, but the Nash style was pushing the odds too far in favour of the attacking team; the attacking team should have a good chance of "goaling", it should not be an absolute certainty. Otherwise we should just do away with penalties and award a "penalty-goal" like they do in rugby with penalty-tries.

All they needed to do was set a limit on how far the taker could encroach, but they went too far unfortunately, problem still not solved.

fearruanua

During the whole nash debacle I was one of those who said the law had to be changed, before someone was killed, but not to the current rule.
Twice yesterday the kilkenny defenders rolled the dice by hauling down a tipperary forward and to be fair their decision was justified as both penalties were comfortably saved.
The line has to be moved a few yards closer as in football or what I personally would love to see is a 1 v 1 situation with the current rule of having to strike on or before the 21 yard line.

boxer.fan

20 metre, 1 v 1, with the shot taken from stationary position. i.e. no run up.

yellow50HX

boxer.fan wrote: »

20 metre, 1 v 1, with the shot taken from stationary position. i.e. no run up.

Not really a goer tbh as most players step into the ball, no set defined technique. We would end up with the same issue where not enough power is generated to score.

I think doing what they did in the football is the way tbh, bring the line further forward a few meters to where most players used to take it before roughly about on the 17-18 meter line and let players take back as far as they want to start.

zetecescort

yet another penalty saved in the u21 final but at least there is no need for a hearse on standby to clear the dead from the field

Depp

they've ruined the penalty aspect of the game in my opinion, taken the advantage of the penalty from the fouled team completely, really given the defender a ''license to foul'' think a 1v1 penalty option would be the fairest option they're impossible to score at the minute.

allthedoyles

zetecescort wrote: »

yet another penalty saved in the u21 final but at least there is no need for a hearse on standby to clear the dead from the field

Wexford awarded a penalty when losing by 5 points - goal chance was saved .

Same game and Wexford get a free just outside, and free-taker lobs the ball to another player who goes for goal and its saved ( he should have taken point )

Players need more education in tactics , and decisions whether to go for goal or point need to be made , on the spot depending on circumstances , like score difference / time left in game etc

corny

allthedoyles wrote: »

Wexford awarded a penalty when losing by 5 points - goal chance was saved .

Same game and Wexford get a free just outside, and free-taker lobs the ball to another player who goes for goal and its saved ( he should have taken point )

Players need more education in tactics , and decisions whether to go for goal or point need to be made , on the spot depending on circumstances , like score difference / time left in game etc

Wexford were chasing a game they were second best in. Going for goal was the only way they were going to get on terms.

If there was a score in it and they were on top you'd have a point but as it was they were right to take a chance.

zetecescort

looking like penalties will be one on one

http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/gaa/hurling/hurling-goalkeepers-set-to-face-penalties-alone-in-future-293627.html

dastardly00

Personally I don't mind what the ruling is, just as long as they tried out different scenarios to see what works, and what doesn't work. And according to the article, they have.

The committee, chaired by All-Ireland-winning Tipp manager Liam Sheedy, and also includes Kilkenny legend Pat Henderson and Clare icon Frank Lohan, have tried variations on the penalty behind closed doors in Semple Stadium on recent weekends, getting players to take penalties and close-in frees against three, two and one player on the goal-line.

shamco

We can expect loads of diving from now on. It was creeping in anyway but this will make it open season

zetecescort

shamco wrote: »

We can expect loads of diving from now on. It was creeping in anyway but this will make it open season

We can expect less pulling down of players through on goal too, which has crept into the game also.

999/112

Don't know anything about cricket, but this video is worth having a look at!

http://www.independent.ie/videos/sport/video-phillip-hughes-australian-batsman-dies-aged-25-30778868.html

The injury was from a ball that was thrown or "pitched", I think may be the correct term to use, by an opposing player.
In hurling, a good free/penalty taker would, I imagine, generate way more power in his shot.
The helmet/faceguard was not enough to protect the player from this impact.
RIP.

Mountainlad

999/112 wrote: »

Don't know anything about cricket, but this video is worth having a look at!

http://www.independent.ie/videos/sport/video-phillip-hughes-australian-batsman-dies-aged-25-30778868.html

The injury was from a ball that was thrown or "pitched", I think may be the correct term to use, by an opposing player.
In hurling, a good free/penalty taker would, I imagine, generate way more power in his shot.
The helmet/faceguard was not enough to protect the player from this impact.
RIP.

Sliotars wouldn't be as hard but point taken. He got hit in the neck I believe, and it damaged an artery that led to some bleeding in the brain or something to that effect.

Certainly does put the Nash penalty injury concerns in perspective.

zetecescort

one on one penalties to be trialled in provincial pre season competitions

dastardly00

In the Keogh Cup, Walsh Cup and Waterford Crystal Cup, if a penalty is awarded only the goalkeeper will be allowed to stay on the line. The penalty taker can still not advance inside the 21m line before striking the ball.

washman3

Obviously the penalty taker will be allowed to follow up a rebound.??
This new rule would give the advantage back to the taker, big time.
Couldn't imagine a keeper standing much of a chance on a one on one with Nash,Reid,Dowling or Callinan.

savannahkat

washman3 wrote: »

Obviously the penalty taker will be allowed to follow up a rebound.??
This new rule would give the advantage back to the taker, big time.
Couldn't imagine a keeper standing much of a chance on a one on one with Nash,Reid,Dowling or Callinan.

Callinan ???????????????????????????????????????????????????.

washman3

savannahkat wrote: »

Callinan ???????????????????????????????????????????????????.

Correction...
Canning..!!!:o:o