Should the 'Nash' free be outlawed?

Amprodude

When a full forward gets the ball he shoots at 170mph past Nash and he isn't complaining. Why doesn't he go out to the 20 yard line and shoot for the safety of Nash? Nash has perfected a skill that no other player can emulate. I hope he keeps getting goals out of it and silence his critics.

Hanalei

Amprodude wrote: »

When a full forward gets the ball he shoots at 170mph past Nash and he isn't complaining. Why doesn't he go out to the 20 yard line and shoot for the safety of Nash? Nash has perfected a skill that no other player can emulate. I hope he keeps getting goals out of it and silence his critics.

If the full forward is allowed take the shot uncontested then you have a point. I hope it doesn't need to be explained why open play is not the same as a dead ball situation.

keane2097

I think my overall feeling on this whole thing is that the way Nash takes these frees is ultimately ****ing class from a spectator POV and in terms of skill is very impressive as well.

Agree that the rule at the moment is pretty incoherent, but I think that in cleaning it up the skill itself shouldn't be discouraged, because it's a positive thing in the game.

131spanner

Let's say, for arguments sake, the rule was changed to the ball is fair game once it's lifted.

In terms of spectacle, imagine the defending keeper and 3 or 4 of his teammates rushing out to meet the free taker on the 13 yard line, ending up only 7 or 8 yards apart when the ball is struck? Now THAT's something I'd like to see

thinkstoomuch1

Hanalei wrote: »

If the full forward is allowed take the shot uncontested then you have a point. I hope it doesn't need to be explained why open play is not the same as a dead ball situation.

That doesnt stand up to scruitny all the time


Two examples
Cork v limerick challenge saturday eveing


Ghrame mulchay pile driver of a goal,one v one
15 yards from nash ,no defender near the lad


Then same player had a chance goal,no one near him same distance from nash,uncontested as our lads way of there men and brillant save from nash

Seamus callans goal chance v limerick that he hit wide was closer again


People are much safer with nash as they expect him to go for goals


Again no injury to any player

Safety argument has no real credence at all

thinkstoomuch1

Amprodude wrote: »

When a full forward gets the ball he shoots at 170mph past Nash and he isn't complaining. Why doesn't he go out to the 20 yard line and shoot for the safety of Nash? Nash has perfected a skill that no other player can emulate. I hope he keeps getting goals out of it and silence his critics.

Amazing scences in charville saturday

Him and walsh two main standoust in a tame game


Majority both fans were in awe,and delight with nash two goals
I met a lad that travelled all the way from wexford just to watch nash.A club goal keeper he told me

Thats what nash is .An inspiration.Bringing our great game with that wonderful skill to new levels

131spanner

Great skill and whatever else you want but the current rules allows far, far too great of advantage to the free-taker.

As the game stands, he's operating within the rules and fair play to him, he has every right to. That doesn't change the fact that the rules need to be changed.

As mentioned earlier in the thread, if the rules remain unchanged there's nothing stopping a free-taker from refining it to striking a 21 yard free 10 yards from goal and still no budge from the defenders.

Once the ball is lifted, it should be fair game. Or else it must be struck at the 21, lifted further back if necessary.

Hanalei

thinkstoomuch1 wrote: »

That doesnt stand up to scruitny all the time


Two examples
Cork v limerick challenge saturday eveing


Ghrame mulchay pile driver of a goal,one v one
15 yards from nash ,no defender near the lad


Then same player had a chance goal,no one near him same distance from nash,uncontested as our lads way of there men and brillant save from nash

Seamus callans goal chance v limerick that he hit wide was closer again

Sorry but your counter argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny at all.

None of those three cases were uncontested, Nash was allowed advance on the attacker if he chose to do so. Just like Nicky Quaid was allowed to advance on the Cork attackers in open play if he chose to do so.

No defender near a forward does not mean uncontested, in means bad defending. Cork backs were allowed to contest Mulcahy, they just did a bad job of it.

There is no such thing as uncontested in open play, it's a free for all.

People are much safer with nash as they expect him to go for goals


Again no injury to any player

Safety argument has no real credence at all

I can only speak for myself but I have never spoken of this in terms of it being a safety issue. I have only ever argued that it is fundamentally unfair that a player taking a penalty is allowed advance as far as he wants while the defence are not allowed move from their line at all. Said it before and I'll say it again; either penalty taker and defence both stay behind their line, or both are allowed advance as far as they want once the sliothar is touched.

I have never spoken of this as a safety issue, however former Limerick goalkeeper Joe Quaid will testify that there is always a degree of risk when defending a penalty, took a penalty to the gentlemans area in 1997 and had to have a testicle removed. There's always a small risk.

But again I'll reiterate, I couldn't give a damn about this in terms of a safety issue; it's a fairness issue.

Martin567

keane2097 wrote: »

I think my overall feeling on this whole thing is that the way Nash takes these frees is ultimately ****ing class from a spectator POV and in terms of skill is very impressive as well.

Agree that the rule at the moment is pretty incoherent, but I think that in cleaning it up the skill itself shouldn't be discouraged, because it's a positive thing in the game.

I don't agree at all. Again, this is not criticising Nash who is entitled to keep doing it until it is clamped down upon.

What he is doing is lift, balance, throw & strike while running at speed. It is certainly skillful and no doubt requires a lot of practice. But from the first time I saw it in the final last year, the one word that came into my head to describe it was 'farcical'. It is also completely disproportionate that a forward can throw himself to the ground around the 20m line, with no threat of a goal, and the reward is being allowed to strike the ball from inside the 13m line with a saucepan hurley while every other player has to stand aside.

131spanner

Martin567 wrote: »

It is also completely disproportionate that a forward can throw himself to the ground around the 20m line, with no threat of a goal, and the reward is being allowed to strike the ball from inside the 13m line with a saucepan hurley while every other player has to stand aside.

+1 on that specifically.

elefant

Clareman wrote: »

In theory, a player could rise the ball 20 meters, be 1 meter out and then hit it without a defender being allowed at it.

Be gas if someone tried this against Cork just to prove a point. Lob the ball way up in the air, jog into the small square and pelt it on the volley from 5 yards out. I'm sure there are lads out there skillful enough to manage it.

thinkstoomuch1

But sure we could point how numerous injuries and health risks they are in the game hurling ,if you want Absoulte No Risk.Everything has a risk every walk of life.Its the conversion of that risk to reality matters.

Anyone even having their dinnear carries a risk etc chewing food,but a minute risk ,and that doesnt mean you dont eat.


Nash as you know by being their at the match had huge risk as ,whether he contested it or not ,mulchay was yards up to him and took the shot .What protection had nash.None.


In a penalty at least 7 or 8 lads ,can stand in goal and as a unit offer each other protection.
Harder to do that in open play when a defender is beaten ,and then one v one a goalie.


Also if people want to worry bout saftety and whats right and wrong etc,then Nash must get protection as limerick deliberaty hit him ,o grady of the ball ,saturday running up the field.Huge risk to a player.
People are targetting nash running up before he even hits the sliohar or half way up the field .
Thats a fairness or safety issue which ever way you want to look at it.

131spanner

We've pretty much concluded that health and safety is not the biggest problem, it's the unfair advantage given to the attacker.

I've yet to hear an argument that convincingly justifies not changing the rules in relation to this aspect of the free taking style.

bruschi

131spanner wrote: »

We've pretty much concluded that health and safety is not the biggest problem, it's the unfair advantage given to the attacker.

I've yet to hear an argument that convincingly justifies not changing the rules in relation to this aspect of the free taking style.

he's from Cork. that surely justifies it.

Hanalei

131spanner wrote: »

We've pretty much concluded that health and safety is not the biggest problem, it's the unfair advantage given to the attacker.

I've yet to hear an argument that convincingly justifies not changing the rules in relation to this aspect of the free taking style.

Yet he keeps trying to convince himself and anyone that will read/listen that safety concerns are the primary cause of people's objections.

I find it bizarre because I know he is 100% not a troll or a wum, he's a good poster. But his selective vision in this thread is farcical. I made it very clear in my post that safety was not the issue, yet his response yet again harps on about imaginary people making their argument based on safety grounds.

Browney7

I love how nothing is ever said about the defending team fouling in all of this debate. If you stop a certain goal by means outside the rules you deserve to be punished.

People say there's no cynicism in hurling but there is an amount of pulling and dragging when a player is through on goal. As spectators and players you want to see goals but I do think the rule in its current form is daft and needs tweeking. Maybe that you can advance a penalty but not a 21?

Hanalei

But they already are punished by having a penalty awarded against them.

Allowing the penalty taker to half the distance without having the right to charge it down is just punishing them twice.

thinkstoomuch1

There is and has been cleary a view in thread that Nash issue was a safety issure,so my point regards safety is ,with praise of the skill,killing two birds with the one stone in that argument.


I was replying orignally to your post re Amproude that hes post scoring goals 170mph forward close in ,wasnt the same as nash.


My points proven by clear fact in games,not just opionion ,show that forwards have a disinct advantage and can go as far in as they want and just one v one oddds are very much favour attacker and the safety risk is the same ,and that as a penalty situation ,has better odds save it ,as they can line the goal .


The reason nash has a conversion rate that is high is down to pure venom and skillset than anything else in hes shot.Nash has done exactly the same skill for ten years at club and not a whisper and people knew of it.


Example 3.
Limericks downes beat eoin keane to a ball,sauntered up to nash ,and was so close he could of kissed nash If he wanted to .
He then with a gorgeous deceptive flick ,tapped it past nash and goal .
Honan had a similr goal in the replay distance wise last year.
So what happens next,we mark an aera for all 15 players to not being able score goal ,if inside that zone in interest of fairness,equailty and safety, and give keepers a better chance of saving shots and do away with this one man wtich hunt against one of the Greatest goalies to ever grace the game ,and penailse all 15 lads who do "up close and Personal"scenario when they bear down on goal and is just them and a goalies ,and not just one player for doing it,when in that scenario ,he has other players to protect him and help save that shot.

What about Martin Naughton,going in on a goal , shot that hit of Ger cunningham 1990 final,the helment .He was very close to the lad.No danger even mentioned.
That wont and shouldnt happen ,as then it takes from the game,just like changing the rules would to nash .
There is no rule break as a poster cleary techinically said 3 pages aprox back.

As I mentioned,which again some clearly are ignoring,picking and choosing what they want to see,a huge issue that is directly linked to nash penalties ,is now prevalent .

HE is getting awful ofF the ball punishment in games ,at times running up to take a penalty or after it running back to goal,and its Farcial ,as its like American footbatll ,block the runner so to speak.


A great player as I said in cork thread ,Dodge is for limerick but that was Awful horrendous blatant attack v nash of the ball saturday,when the lad was just doing hes job.

It happened against tipp ,where he was hindered of the ball ,in he run back up the ptich,no where to be fair as bad as saturday thought.
Dodge was lucky it was a challenge and it wasnt on tv.


Nash had really really awful trea ment of the field with this nash motion ,now players will target the poor lad on the field ,in hes run up the ptich.Give the poor lad a break.


To the poster,with the wonderful statement im from cork so im having a biased view.Ah please,is that all you can add to the argument.
I have many times many threads went against cork when the need was there and dont hold red eye tained glasses.Many here would know that and from the league revamp thread.

My agenda ,is fairness and equaily and protect greatest skills in the games,this is one.


What next ,will they try and do in the same football ,and say that a big ball in close frees is just as dangerous,as watch the space,that art of goal scoring is going to become more prevalent in years by .
Michael meehan done it last year against cork,blistering shot beat 11 cork lads goal ,in all ireland qualifer .


Dan mac eoin has done it ,such power and venom and velocity ,in close frees at club level with ilen rovers down the years ,and done it last week against Roscommon at u21 .

Hes starts doing it regulary and others at senior down jhe line ,Will they be an out cry like this.


I am not the only poster to back nash ,and ,many that do aint from cork,just to prove it Keane 2097 is a kerryman,our greatest rivals ,but hes view is based on what a great skill set it is.

To just paint my view as a cork bias,i think thats more of a reflection of others than me with respect ,as If Cork are wrong I will and have said in the past .

Hanalei

thinkstoomuch1 wrote: »

There is and has been cleary a view in thread that Nash issue was a safety issure,so my point regards safety is ,with praise of the skill,killing two birds with the one stone in that argument.

Quote the last post that objects to the Nash post on safety grounds; you're the only one to have brought up the safety issue in the last 3 or 4 pages. Nobody else is talking about it as a safety issue.

Martin567

Is it just me or is the post two above this one utterly incoherent and incomprehensible?

Amprodude

People worried about players safety. All they have to do is step out of the way.

131spanner

Amprodude wrote: »

People worried about plauers safety. All they have to do is step out of the way.

Is there a solution as simple that will rectify the advantage given to the attacker?

Realt Dearg Sec

131spanner wrote: »

Is there a solution as simple that will rectify the advantage given to the attacker?

Someone already provided a perfectly simple solution pages and pages ago. I think it was Blue note, who suggested the man taking the free be allowed place the ball where he wants, but must strike the ball before reaching the 21. Everything after that has just been rambling because it quite obviously solves every problem to do with safety and excessive advantage, while still encouraging the perfection of a very impressive skill.

thinkstoomuch1

Martin567 wrote: »

The main nub of the issue is that the rules as they stand make no sense.

Someone else posted earlier in the thread the detailed rule which states it is an offence to "take" the free from a point closer than the line it is supposed to be taken from. This raises the question at what point is the free/penalty "taken"? If it is only "taken" when he strikes the ball then Nash (and every other penalty taker) are constantly in breach. If it is "taken" when he lifts the ball then every other player should be entitled to move the instant the ball is lifted. It's either one or the other. Anthony Nash can't have it both ways. The big difference with his technique is that there is a 2-3 second gap between the lift & strike, far greater than any other player.

There will always be a certain risk attached to being struck by an opponent's shot. It can never be eliminated entirely. But it is wrong of Nash to try to say it is no different to a full forward striking out of his hand. Firstly, a full forward in that situation will be pressurised by other players. He won't be striking with both feet in the air while everyone else has to stand and watch. Also, in general play there will only be one person in the goal and the striker will be aiming at either side of the keeper rather than straight at him. Anthony Nash is hitting a small object at ferocious speed straight into a packed goal. The players on the line are sitting ducks and are depending on dumb luck to avoid serious injury.

Haneli that last paragaph ,you should be able to read it there.
With the greatest ,and I geuinely nicest possible way mean this ,to you ,Please Dont hold me the ransom ,ie future post this or that.If you have the respect you say, you do for me as a poster,dont try and dicate what you want and do not want me to do .


.IN future I would recommend you check over the thread and read posts if you want to find where what was said.
I aint going to re quote .All you had to do was look over the few pages.



With respect ,imoYour trying to set the tempo of the debate here,clearing ignoring O grady incident saturday and other issues I highlited.You claim me to be trying to convince ,people for Nash.


Your clearly trying to convince ,people your view ,and saying me and others are farcial ,just as we dont share you view.



What did you make of the??o grady incident with nash run up the ptich to take the penalty????No side tracking,as thats directly linked to Nash skill.How amazing ,no one has discussed that ,incident ,or wanted to know more bout it .
I thought morales here in Nash oppoinstion were aboup Fairness and Equailty re Nash.Surely whats good for the goose is good for the gander.



If you werent at it that match,
Its mentioned in the Eveining Echo,and to be fair, Corkdidnt make a big deal of it.O grady is lucky it was a challenge game and doge is hugely respected as a player.


Debate all my points please,and dont try and go off other tangents,i said safety but proximity also in having unfair advantage for for forward also and. People say nothing bout it.I gave clear examples.And Again ,a keeper has other players to help him .A goalies one v one doesnt .Your orignal point that you tried to dismiss Amprtroude post,is what I had issue with and I debated that.

As I said, in referencing the match saturday,you know what I mean with those 3 examples .

Aside from the safety I mentioned clearly three limerick goals Were Extreme Proximty to Nash ,and so was shot he somehow managaned to save,and much closer to nash .
And he had no chance of saving them .
And stop this uncontested or contesting lark,fact remains ,3 times muclay was as close ,even close at times to nash he is to anyone when he takes a sho .
And that last save was a pile driver at nash straight for him.


The safety issue ,lets be clear ,was always issue in thread,i should know,i debated against it .And Nash said it in the paper-thursday,so surely its a live issue .
And this is the Nash thread yeah.
I get the feeling your going away from it ,as it has zero credence.

He more than explains the techincal side of it also for lads like you in the paper.

THAT safety point has diminished a bit ,as people realised ,that it didnt hold up but its still there .

Hanalei wrote: »

Not true, he knows full well he could injure someone, it goes without saying that he obviously doesn't want to injure anyone.

There is always a very small chance of injury in a penalty/close range free situation. Just ask Joe Quaid (Limerick goalkeeper 1994-2002), in a league game against Laois in 1997 a penalty hit him straight in the genitals and the damage was so bad he had to have a testicle removed.

Like I said, there's always a very small chance, but Nash's technique increases that risk significantly, it's hard enough to react in time to a conventionally struck penalty, never mind one where the taker is gaining 10 yards!

Just for the record, I'm not one citing safety reasons, I believe it is fundamentally unfair for a player to advance 10 yards when the defence are not allowed to do so.

Exactly 4 pages back ,within your paramoters you asked for.Hope that helps
Its hard to know exactly ,where you stand with the safety argument.You say your not citing it ,yet you make points saying its dangerous,in your words ,risk is Raised Signifcantly.

.Now youre on record saying safety is an issue.But again that not your major grievancE.It is either heads or tails.It cant be both.Or are running with the hare and chasing with the hound when it suits.

So again back to my examples ,huge risk to Nash saturday with Not one but 3 Mulchay shots.Should we put forward a Forwards motion now.No we shouldnt .
Same with nash

You also said that Nash knows he couid injure someone ,but doesnt want to .That is im sorry hypercritcal,lets be frank .

If he didnt want to injure a player ,cleary he wouldnt want to injure any player,why would he do it,if he thought he could.The man is human .If he thought there was greater risk than a forward doing it to him he would stop.Fact is ,as History shows ,risk is same as other parts of the game,in some less even.


As he clearly said in paper he doesnt buy safety issue as anything greater than whats in the game.Yet you seem quite happy ,to speak for the man,in that post,and said he knows he could injure a player.How does he know ???two incidents you name in how many years of hurling.Can you give me 30?

You would struggle to get ten .
If it was such a safety issue or if its so wrong why was there a load of parents with young kids queing up with them to get Nash sign autographs from both teams after the match..And why is he a Hero in there eyes.Why did that club gk I met from wexford travel to watch him.Majority have zero problems with it.
Like the Tayoto add,there always one though,in this case a few that object.


He duly obliged ,30 minutes at least he stayed,didnt even go to the changing room and change gear, he stood drowned wet and cold,signing and taking photos .A Gentleman ,to the bone.He deserves better.As it was posted here,if he was from wicklow ,he would be a hero .

But hes from a big county.And fear is an awful thing as that poster said it perfectly .



Double strikes v tipp and limkerick in challenges ,and one in the league,that 5 so far this year.Cant wait for championship,for Nash skill alone.
Sky sports hopefully do a cork game,and bring hes skillset to a world wide audience.That would entice new fans to watch hurling.


Theres the article below
http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/gaa/nash-rues-no-win-situation-on-rule-changes-266396.html

Im going to knowlan park saturday ,and cant wait to see nash in action v wexford in a challenge.

Great news for the Kilkenny fans ,as they may be lucky enough to say one of the greatest skills in the game was done in there ptich,and as it is not against them,they might even enjoy it .

And other posters have now just mentioned safety,so youre Wrong,i aint the only poster brining it up.

131spanner

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

...the man taking the free be allowed place the ball where he wants, but must strike the ball before reaching the 21.

It'd make the most sense. Any other rule just makes the gap between the 21 and the goal-line a no mans land.

I've no doubt Nash or any other free taker of his skill would still be well able to dispatch them from the 21

Martin567

Two posts above me again!!

English? Gibberish? Anyone's guess is as good as mine.

thinkstoomuch1

Martin567 wrote: »

Two posts above me again!!

English? Gibberish? Anyone's guess is as good as mine.

Martin I always had respect your posts,even I may not agree with.


If your going to deface someone post in value at least,pllease have the courtsey to name me,than
Use the indecent way ,rubbish two post above me crap,when its clear you mean me


Again debate points ,leave out the rest,if you can

The last post is more of a reflection of you than me


Thanks

thinkstoomuch1

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

Someone already provided a perfectly simple solution pages and pages ago. I think it was Blue note, who suggested the man taking the free be allowed place the ball where he wants, but must strike the ball before reaching the 21. Everything after that has just been rambling because it quite obviously solves every problem to do with safety and excessive advantage, while still encouraging the perfection of a very impressive skill.

Thats a fair point .

elefant

What's this rubbish about some lad hitting him a belt on the way up the pitch to take a free?

Talk about a strawman argument. It has pretty much nothing at all to do with the issue.

bruschi

another point to throw in, a goalkeepers oversized (and often illegal) hurl should not be allowed to be used for penalties. it makes it far easier to do what some players are doing these days throwing it forward and meeting it on the volley.

also, for some reason Cork posters are taking thsi very personally as if somehow all of this is some conspiracy against them. if it makes ye happy, I moaned for years about DJ when he took penalties or frees against Wexford, and how he held the ball on the hurl for too long on frees and how he threw it forward on penalties.

there is a clear conflict in the definition of the rule for free/penalty taking, and regardless of how the discussion has now been started, it needs to be fixed.

elefant

thinkstoomuch1 wrote: »

I also mentioned o grady incident you failed to ackmwlege

It has everything to do with this as he cant run up the field but hes targetted

How exactly does that have anything to do with whether this type of free should be outlawed? Is this an argument for or against it?

Anonymou

Its catching on lads, TJ Reid just brought his penalty in the league final into the 13 yard line, I wonder what will be made of it?

Davys Fits

Reids penalty should have been stopped. It did not have the impact of a Nash shot.

nice_guy80

should be banned.
ball should be struck before the 21 line

two of them scored today!

zetecescort

will be interesting to hear what Eddie Keher makes of it now that KK have somebody to do it.

TouchingVirus

zetecescort wrote: »

will be interesting to hear what Eddie Keher makes of it now that KK have somebody to do it.

Wasn't a bad implementation to be fair, no stopping it

Gentleman Off The Pitch

zetecescort wrote: »

will be interesting to hear what Eddie Keher makes of it now that KK have somebody to do it.

It appears that, as usual, some people didn't bother listening to what Keher said and took only what they wanted from it. From "Eddie Keher’s concerns for ‘dangerous’ Anthony Nash frees" on the thescore.ie

"I have mixed feelings on it,” Keher said at an event in Kerry yesterday. “It’s a fantastic skill. I wouldn’t like it to be an Anthony Nash thing as such but I think it’s dangerous. With the present hurleys they’re using and with the present sliothar someone’s going to get a belt in the throat or worse.

“I think we’re sitting there waiting but it’s going to happen. It could happen this year. Other players are learning to do it now, it’s not going to be solely Cork. I see TJ Reid doing it now and Lester Ryan with Kilkenny. Anyone can get injured, not only anyone playing against Cork.

h2005

Just waiting for someone to lose a testicle or get it in the throat. Only a matter of time.

keane2097

Unless someone can show me a study that says getting a sliotar in the throat from 21 yards is safe but getting one from 14 yards isn't this whole side of the argument is a nonsense.

h2005

keane2097 wrote: »

Unless someone can show me a study that says getting a sliotar in the throat from 21 yards is safe but getting one from 14 yards isn't this whole side of the argument is a nonsense.

Having a third more reaction time isn't nonsense. Ever heard the term point blank range? You know velocity decreases over distance?

willietherock

zetecescort wrote: »

will be interesting to hear what Eddie Keher makes of it now that KK have somebody to do it.

As long as TJ keeps finding the net it will be deemed "manly" sooner rather than later.

keane2097

h2005 wrote: »

Having a third more reaction time isn't nonsense. Ever heard the term point blank range? You know velocity decreases over distance?

Unless you can show that 21 yards is safe and 14 isn't you have no argument.

The idea of being hit in the throat by a sliotar from 21 yards being safe is pretty lolworthy IMO.

willietherock

keane2097 wrote: »

Unless you can show that 21 yards is safe and 14 isn't you have no argument.

The idea of being hit in the throat by a sliotar from 21 yards being safe is pretty lolworthy IMO.

Don't forget that other old guff that close range shots from play be some mystery aren't highly dangerous.

h2005

keane2097 wrote: »

Unless you can show that 21 yards is safe and 14 isn't you have no argument.

The idea of being hit in the throat by a sliotar from 21 yards being safe is pretty lolworthy IMO.

You know repeatedly saying someone doesn't have an argument doesn't make it true. There is 7 yards of reaction time in the difference so of course it's safer why the **** would he be throwing the ball the extra 7 yards otherwise?

Anonymou

Davys Fits wrote: »

Reids penalty should have been stopped. It did not have the impact of a Nash shot.

He still brought into the 13 yard line, doesn't make a difference whether he can strike it as hard as Nash or it was a bad strike.

999/112

willietherock wrote: »

Don't forget that other old guff that close range shots from play be some mystery aren't highly dangerous.

Unmarked, no pressure on free/penalty taker ... Same momentum isn't in the strike from open play!

mickmackey1

As someone previously said, Nash could theoretically scoop the ball the full 21 yards and then tap it into the net! That should be the end of the debate, ball must be 21 yards out when struck.

dastardly00

zetecescort wrote: »

will be interesting to hear what Eddie Keher makes of it now that KK have somebody to do it.

What a stupid post.

Clareman

3 simple rule changes that would clear everything up

Once the ball breaks the plan of the 21 yard line defenders are allowed attack it, but the free taker is allowed place the ball as far back (parallel to the sideline) as they want.
Players shouldn't be allowed change hurley for 1 play, so the defenders aren't allowed use goalies hurleys.
Penalties should be goalie vs. attacker (i.e. 1 person on the line), again, once the ball is beyond the 21 it's fair game.

rockonollie

Clareman wrote: »

3 simple rule changes that would clear everything up

Once the ball breaks the plan of the 21 yard line defenders are allowed attack it, but the free taker is allowed place the ball as far back (parallel to the sideline) as they want.
Players shouldn't be allowed change hurley for 1 play, so the defenders aren't allowed use goalies hurleys.
Penalties should be goalie vs. attacker (i.e. 1 person on the line), again, once the ball is beyond the 21 it's fair game.

That's crazy, it would be a goal every time......no goal-keeper can cover the full goal from a penalty (even if it is hit before the 21-yard line)