Should the 'Nash' free be outlawed?

Grats

Well, I posted my reasons for banning this type of penalty taking and it has partly come to a head now after the League Final yesterday. I mentioned in my previous post that should this continue what's to stop another penalty taker advancing even more towards goal before striking. We are most likely to see this happening more during the summer.

It's a classic case of break/bend the rules for one and then the avalanche starts. We're stuck with it now for this year after some crazy nit picking by an official apparently. Let the floodgates open!

PTH2009

I don't think any goalkeeper can stop this type of penalty without injuring themselves.

Clareman

rockonollie wrote: »

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)

A penalty should be advantage attacker not defender, I think it's too difficult to score against 3 players, maybe bring it down to 2 players.

999/112

Clareman wrote: »

A penalty should be advantage attacker not defender, I think it's too difficult to score against 3 players, maybe bring it down to 2 players.

Every team will "play" for a penalty/21yd free... :rolleyes: it's happening already!

washman3

Watched U-14 and U-16s stay back after training last week and they were practising it. They all thought it was great 'fun'.
I was actually amazed at how well most of them have it perfected.!!

On a side note, I have heard of many club players around the country that have being taking penos and 20 metre frees like this for years, even long before the helmet and faceguard became compulsory. Declan Nash has perfected it on a national stage, thus the furore about it.
Any proposed solution will cause even greater controversy.

keane2097

h2005 wrote: »

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?

lol, "7 yards of reaction time"!

I'm not sure how you could less of an argument - what am I meant to say - "your argument isn't in English"!?

h2005

keane2097 wrote: »

lol, "7 yards of reaction time"!

I'm not sure how you could less of an argument - what am I meant to say - "your argument isn't in English"!?

It is mate. It's not my fault it's beyond your reading abilities.

keane2097

h2005 wrote: »

It is mate. It's not my fault it's beyond your reading abilities.

A yard is not a measurement of time, hope this helps.

Realt Dearg Sec

keane2097 wrote: »

A yard is not a measurement of time, hope this helps.

Yeah, but it takes a ball less time to travel 14 yards than to travel 21 yards, so by bringing it in 7 yards, he reduces the amount of time someone has to react to the shot. That seemed fairly obvious from the dude's post, you're just being obtuse. As he said, why on earth do you think Nash (and TJ Reid as well) are bringing the ball forward? It's to make it harder to stop, obviously...

Whathefeck

999/112 wrote: »

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

How do you make that out?

Have you never seen a close range shot hit with momentum from open play? One on one against the keeper with the fullback beaten happens regularly from play in both club and county games and can be hit with as much force as a Nash free and from closer in

keane2097

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

Yeah, but it takes a ball less time to travel 14 yards than to travel 21 yards, so by bringing it in 7 yards, he reduces the amount of time someone has to react to the shot. That seemed fairly obvious from the dude's post, you're just being obtuse. As he said, why on earth do you think Nash (and TJ Reid as well) are bringing the ball forward? It's to make it harder to stop, obviously...

The point I originally made is that there is no evidence that the sliotar struck from 14 yards would do critical damage while the sliotar struck from 21 yards wouldn't.

I'm also pretty sceptical as to how much - in an actual unit of time preferably - more window to react a person has based on 7 yards of extra distance. Isn't a sliotar struck at like 100mph?

What are we gaining here - a tenth of a second extra?

How well can a human react and adjust the position of their throat in an extra tenth of a second? Does it make any difference at all?

If you can't answer these very simple questions, then the entire health and safety argument is just pulled from a rear end because it sounds vaguely plausible.

Like I said, if you want to peddle that argument, it's up to you to prove you have one.

I suspect no one will be arsed to try because no one is genuinely worried about peoples' safety in this argument.

h2005

keane2097 wrote: »

A yard is not a measurement of time, hope this helps.

How do you calculate reaction time? I take it physics isn't one of your strong points.

keane2097

h2005 wrote: »

How do you calculate reaction time? I take it physics isn't one of your strong points.

Please, by all means, give me your take on the physics involved.

rockonollie

Clareman wrote: »

A penalty should be advantage attacker not defender, I think it's too difficult to score against 3 players, maybe bring it down to 2 players.

I'd love to see the actual stats.......but from all my years of watching hurling, with 3 men on the goal, i would estimate it's still about a 70-80% success rate when an attacker goes for goal from a penalty.

h2005

keane2097 wrote: »

Please, by all means, give me your take on the physics involved.

Distance/speed = time
Lets say the sliothar is moving at 100mph then
21 yards reaction time is 0.4295
14 yards reaction time is 0.2864
Did you manage to follow that?

keane2097

h2005 wrote: »

Distance/speed = time
Lets say the sliothar is moving at 100mph then
21 yards reaction time is 0.4295
14 yards reaction time is 0.2864
Did you manage to follow that?

Let's presume I have.

Is there any more to the argument?

Martin567

Whathefeck wrote: »

How do you make that out?

Have you never seen a close range shot hit with momentum from open play? One on one against the keeper with the fullback beaten happens regularly from play in both club and county games and can be hit with as much force as a Nash free and from closer in

I don't think I've ever seen a player straight through on goal strike it like Anthony Nash or TJ Reid would strike a penalty/free. He will normally run in closer and hit it to one side of the keeper.

The big difference in open play is that he won't be aiming straight at the goalkeeper. From a penalty, or particularly a free, the sliotar will be far more likely to hit and injure someone since there will be more players on the line. I would have thought that to be fairly obvious to most people!

h2005

keane2097 wrote: »

Let's presume I have.

Is there any more to the argument?

Make your own arguments mate I'm done.

keane2097

h2005 wrote: »

Make your own arguments mate I'm done.

Grand - you've established that the free being taken from the 21 instead of the 14 results in ~an extra 0.1 seconds for the sliotar to reach the goal.

We are unable to make an statement on whether this has any material health and safety impact based on anything bar guessing at this point.

This is the current state of the health and safety argument and this is exactly where I suspect it to remain.

As an aside, I will say it puzzles me a bit that people with such bleeding hearts and concerns over the lives that will be lost to Nash-style free taking don't have a bit more "get up and go" about them when it comes to actually bothering to flesh out the argument.

willietherock

Martin567 wrote: »

I don't think I've ever seen a player straight through on goal strike it like Anthony Nash or TJ Reid would strike a penalty/free. He will normally run in closer and hit it to one side of the keeper.

The big difference in open play is that he won't be aiming straight at the goalkeeper. From a penalty, or particularly a free, the sliotar will be far more likely to hit and injure someone since there will be more players on the line. I would have thought that to be fairly obvious to most people!

Yes obviously Anthony Nash aims for the keeper. :rolleyes:
Keep up the great insights

Whathefeck

Martin567 wrote: »

I don't think I've ever seen a player straight through on goal strike it like Anthony Nash or TJ Reid would strike a penalty/free. He will normally run in closer and hit it to one side of the keeper.

The big difference in open play is that he won't be aiming straight at the goalkeeper. From a penalty, or particularly a free, the sliotar will be far more likely to hit and injure someone since there will be more players on the line. I would have thought that to be fairly obvious to most people!

Why will a freetaker be aiming it at the keeper any more then someone from open play? In fact when a forward is coming in from the side the keeper has the angle narrowed and the best chance is to blast it as hard as you can at the keeper and hopes it gets through.

As for not seeing anyone strike it from open play like Nash? So what. The momentum a forward gains from a run previous to a point blank strike of the ball at goal and keeper can equal or surpass anything Nash can do.

Grats

The debate is over for twelve months. Nothing will change for this year. Let the rest get in on the act for the intervening period. It's not that difficult to do the Nash penalty, Reid has perfected it in just a few weeks without using a goalies hurl!

Martin567

Whathefeck wrote: »

Why will a freetaker be aiming it at the keeper any more then someone from open play? In fact when a forward is coming in from the side the keeper has the angle narrowed and the best chance is to blast it as hard as you can at the keeper and hopes it gets through.

As for not seeing anyone strike it from open play like Nash? So what. The momentum a forward gains from a run previous to a point blank strike of the ball at goal and keeper can equal or surpass anything Nash can do.

I thought my previous post was perfectly clear. Obviously not! Where did I say anything about a freetaker aiming at the keeper? From a free/penalty there are a number of players on the line so it is far more likely to be aimed straight at one of them than a shot in general play would be straight at the keeper.

I don't agree that, in general play, the optimum strategy would ever be to aim straight at the keeper and hope for the best!

Martin567

willietherock wrote: »

Yes obviously Anthony Nash aims for the keeper. :rolleyes:
Keep up the great insights

Strange post. Bears no relation to anything I previously said.

Whathefeck

Martin567 wrote: »

I thought my previous post was perfectly clear. Obviously not! Where did I say anything about a freetaker aiming at the keeper? From a free/penalty there are a number of players on the line so it is far more likely to be aimed straight at one of them than a shot in general play would be straight at the keeper.

I don't agree that, in general play, the optimum strategy would ever be to aim straight at the keeper and hope for the best!

So because there are more people on the line there is more chance of hitting a player?
Similarly a forward coming from an angle and closer in has an even higher chance of hitting the goalie.

Martin567

Whathefeck wrote: »

So because there are more people on the line there is more chance of hitting a player?
Similarly a forward coming from an angle and closer in has an even higher chance of hitting the goalie.

Does 1+1=2?

On average, a forward coming in from the side would have some pressure on him and would be doing well to generate half the speed of Anthony Nash's strike or TJ Reid's second on Sunday.

premierstone

Whathefeck wrote: »

So because there are more people on the line there is more chance of hitting a player?

I would have thought that was undisputable and perfect logic, 3 is more than one!

Whathefeck

premierstone wrote: »

I would have thought that was undisputable and perfect logic, 3 is more than one!

Did you chose to ignore the fact that a player coming at the goalie from an angle and much closer in has an even higher chance of hitting the goalie?

premierstone

Whathefeck wrote: »

Did you chose to ignore the fact that a player coming at the goalie from an angle and much closer in has an even higher chance of hitting the goalie?

What player in the history of the game, is capable of hitting the ball anywhere near as hard as a penalty on the run with defenders chasing him?

Whathefeck

Martin567 wrote: »

Does 1+1=2?

On average, a forward coming in from the side would have some pressure on him and would be doing well to generate half the speed of Anthony Nash's strike or TJ Reid's second on Sunday.

So on average? What about the times they are not average shots in games up and down the country. Is health and safety not important in these cases? From point blank range the shot could be even harder then Nashs

Martin567

Whathefeck wrote: »

So on average? What about the times they are not average shots in games up and down the country. Is health and safety not important in these cases? From point blank range the shot could be even harder then Nashs

Of course health & safety is always important. There's always some risk and it can never be completely eliminated. I just think the risk is far greater from a free/penalty struck from the 13m line.

Whathefeck

Martin567 wrote: »

Of course health & safety is always important. There's always some risk and it can never be completely eliminated. I just think the risk is far greater from a free/penalty struck from the 13m line.

But I explained how its not.
A forward, through on goal, coming from the side, has a far greater chance of hitting the goalie, with a harder shot and less chance of the goalie protecting himself then from a 21 m free.

You either care about health and safety or you dont. Unless of course this health and safety issue is not the real reason for this proposed rule change.

Martin567

Whathefeck wrote: »

But I explained how its not.
A forward, through on goal, coming from the side, has a far greater chance of hitting the goalie, with a harder shot and less chance of the goalie protecting himself then from a 21 m free.

You either care about health and safety or you dont. Unless of course this health and safety issue is not the real reason for this proposed rule change.

It won't be a harder shot as has been explained several times earlier by both me and another poster!!

I've always argued against the current situation. What do you think the real reason is? Some vendetta against Anthony Nash? I'm from Kilkenny, we benefited from it twice on Sunday and I'm still arguing against it!

As has been explained many times earlier in this thread, the rules as they stand don't make sense and are both illogical and unfair.

Whathefeck

Martin567 wrote: »

It won't be a harder shot as has been explained several times earlier by both me and another poster!!

I've always argued against the current situation. What do you think the real reason is? Some vendetta against Anthony Nash? I'm from Kilkenny, we benefited from it twice on Sunday and I'm still arguing against it!

As has been explained many times earlier in this thread, the rules as they stand don't make sense and are both illogical and unfair.

So a shot from just outside the small square by an unopposed forward doesnt have the potential to be harder then a Nash free? Sounds like bs to me.

By the way any team that drags defenders down on the way through to goal stands to benefit from this rule change. Do you think KK are ever guilty of that?

999/112

Martin567 wrote: »

Of course health & safety is always important. There's always some risk and it can never be completely eliminated. I just think the risk is far greater from a free/penalty struck from the 13m line.

A risk is reduced/eliminated by introducing "control measures". In this case the control measure will be a new/amended rule. What, exactly that will be, remains to be seen.... 'till next year!

Martin567

Whathefeck wrote: »

So a shot from just outside the small square by an unopposed forward doesnt have the potential to be harder then a Nash free? Sounds like bs to me.

By the way any team that drags defenders down on the way through to goal stands to benefit from this rule change. Do you think KK are ever guilty of that?

A forward will never be completely unopposed. He won't have all day to hit it like with a penalty. Look at Nash's or TJ Reid's second on Sunday. I would struggle to think of any goal ever scored from general play where the shot was as hard as either of those!

The issue at the moment is that the current rules don't make sense. Of course, Kilkenny are sometimes guilty of dragging down a player on the way through to goal. It happened with JJ Delaney against Johnny Glynn in the semi final against Galway.

Whathefeck

Martin567 wrote: »

A forward will never be completely unopposed. He won't have all day to hit it like with a penalty. Look at Nash's or TJ Reid's second on Sunday. I would struggle to think of any goal ever scored from general play where the shot was as hard as either of those!

The issue at the moment is that the current rules don't make sense. Of course, Kilkenny are sometimes guilty of dragging down a player on the way through to goal. It happened with JJ Delaney against Johnny Glynn in the semi final against Galway.

The bit in bold is I`m afraid complete rubbish. In the last junior b game I played I ended up being one on one with the goalkeeper with out a defender any way close to me and I shot a rasper of a shot that would have put Nashs frees in the shade. Luckily the goalie survived this time but I cant quarantee his safety the next time I take to the field.

rockonollie

999/112 wrote: »

A risk is reduced/eliminated by introducing "control measures". In this case the control measure will be a new/amended rule. What, exactly that will be, remains to be seen.... 'till next year!

But that's a slippery slope......if the ban this type of penalty because the shots are too hard and keepers/defenders don't have time to react.......then next year comes the argument that forwards shouldn't be allowed take any shots from inside the 14 yard line.

I'm not going to get into the debate of which is more powerful/more dangerous......that fact remains the same that the arguments you are using now against this type of penalty can equally be applied to any close-range shots.

premierstone

Whathefeck wrote: »

The bit in bold is I`m afraid complete rubbish. In the last junior b game I played I ended up being one on one with the goalkeeper with out a defender any way close to me and I shot a rasper of a shot that would have put Nashs frees in the shade. Luckily the goalie survived this time but I cant quarantee his safety the next time I take to the field.

If you were that close and one on one with the keeper and you hit the ball that hard ( which you didn't I can guarantee) then it explains why you are playing Junior B, try placing it next time

Whathefeck

premierstone wrote: »

If you were that close and one on one with the keeper and you hit the ball that hard ( which you didn't I can guarantee) then it explains why you are playing Junior B, try placing it next time

You can quarantee? How can you do that if you werent there?
The point is that anyone shooting from 14m or closer could potentially put the goalie at risk. Therefore if we are genuinly interested in protecting our players all shots from close in should be banned.

Warper

at least 90% of "an unopposed forwards" shot would be of lesser force than a Nash/Reid penalty, lets not kid ourselves here. This sort of penalty strike will only become more prevalent if something isnt done about it. Generally hurling is not a dangerous sport but these type of penalties are. No one is criticising the mandatory use of helmets now

savannahkat

Whathefeck wrote: »

The bit in bold is I`m afraid complete rubbish. In the last junior b game I played I ended up being one on one with the goalkeeper with out a defender any way close to me and I shot a rasper of a shot that would have put Nashs frees in the shade. Luckily the goalie survived this time but I cant quarantee his safety the next time I take to the field.

Ya cant be much of a forward if you blast the ball at the goalkeeper iffen you managed to get through, dee iday is to bury the ball in the net and not in the goalkeeper. Ya get 3 pints for putting it in the net , I pint for putting it over the bar and no pints except maybe a pint of Guinness from the yobs in the club house ifffen yu hit the goalie.:D

Grats

savannahkat wrote: »

Ya cant be much of a forward if you blast the ball at the goalkeeper iffen you managed to get through, dee iday is to bury the ball in the net and not in the goalkeeper. Ya get 3 pints for putting it in the net , I pint for putting it over the bar and no pints except maybe a pint of Guinness from the yobs in the club house ifffen yu hit the goalie.:D

Excellent!

Whathefeck

Warper wrote: »

at least 90% of "an unopposed forwards" shot would be of lesser force than a Nash/Reid penalty, lets not kid ourselves here. This sort of penalty strike will only become more prevalent if something isnt done about it. Generally hurling is not a dangerous sport but these type of penalties are. No one is criticising the mandatory use of helmets now

This type of strike was always prevalent from Ring to DJ to Davy etc.
So if this is indeed a health and safety issue how is it that 10% of shots which are as strong as Nashs from a shorter range is an acceptable figure when that probably equals the shots a team would get from 21s and penalties?
If this really is about health and safety it should be down to zero. One dangerous stroke is acceptable but another needs to be erradicated?

Whathefeck

rockonollie wrote: »

But that's a slippery slope......if the ban this type of penalty because the shots are too hard and keepers/defenders don't have time to react.......then next year comes the argument that forwards shouldn't be allowed take any shots from inside the 14 yard line.

I'm not going to get into the debate of which is more powerful/more dangerous......that fact remains the same that the arguments you are using now against this type of penalty can equally be applied to any close-range shots.

Exactly.

paddy no 11

Im over a hundred years no body has been killed by a sliotar as far as i know, couple of cases of players losing a bollock. Thats about as bad as we should let things get - its only a matter of time before someone gets it in the throat imo (think what the H&S mentalists will do then)

Even if you do want to ignore the safety thing, from a skill perspective rising on the21 and striking fromthe 19 is a far better skill than the "nash" thing, i dont buy this its a great skill talk for a second. Proper striking with power and accuracy is a skill throwing to the 13 and just relying on proximity to goal to score is plain dull imo. I dont go hurling to see a turkey shoot.

Whathefeck

paddy no 11 wrote: »

Im over a hundred years no body has been killed by a sliotar as far as i know, couple of cases of players losing a bollock. Thats about as bad as we should let things get - its only a matter of time before someone gets it in the throat imo (think what the H&S mentalists will do then)

Even if you do want to ignore the safety thing, from a skill perspective rising on the21 and striking fromthe 19 is a far better skill than the "nash" thing, i dont buy this its a great skill talk for a second. Proper striking with power and accuracy is a skill throwing to the 13 and just relying on proximity to goal to score is plain dull imo. I dont go hurling to see a turkey shoot.

Striking on the 19?
Have you seen DJ, Ring, Davy Fitz and countless others hitting a 21? They took it a lot closer then 19 and no deaths like you said for 100 years. You better dig Ring up and tell him what he described as a great skill of the game is only a turkey shoot.

Still no answer to what the implications of a rule change will be to all close range shots which is the crux of the matter. As has already been said the same arguments can and will be applied to them.

bruschi

Whathefeck wrote: »

Striking on the 19?
Have you seen DJ, Ring, Davy Fitz and countless others hitting a 21? They took it a lot closer then 19 and no deaths like you said for 100 years. You better dig Ring up and tell him what he described as a great skill of the game is only a turkey shoot.

Still no answer to what the implications of a rule change will be to all close range shots which is the crux of the matter. As has already been said the same arguments can and will be applied to them.

no its not. its the crux of the tangent you are taking it on.

the rules, as they stand, are not logical. there is nothing to stop a freetaker throwing the ball further than the 13m line. they can throw it forward to the small square as the rules currently stand, and the defenders, as the rules stands, are actually in breach of the rules. the rules state that the defenders have to stay 20m away from where the ball is struck. so by this reasoning, they cannot leave the line, but yet when the ball is struck they are less than 20m from it.

the rules need to be amended and corrected, whatever way they want to do it. If others want to bring a health and safety issue into it, they can. I want to see the rules change because as it stands, there is scope for further ridiculousness in taking frees/penalties. The rules do not make sense and need to be amended.

Whathefeck

bruschi wrote: »

no its not. its the crux of the tangent you are taking it on.

the rules, as they stand, are not logical. there is nothing to stop a freetaker throwing the ball further than the 13m line. they can throw it forward to the small square as the rules currently stand, and the defenders, as the rules stands, are actually in breach of the rules. the rules state that the defenders have to stay 20m away from where the ball is struck. so by this reasoning, they cannot leave the line, but yet when the ball is struck they are less than 20m from it.

the rules need to be amended and corrected, whatever way they want to do it. If others want to bring a health and safety issue into it, they can. I want to see the rules change because as it stands, there is scope for further ridiculousness in taking frees/penalties. The rules do not make sense and need to be amended.

Your answer to my tangent is to go on one of your own? This rule operated perfectly well and still does and wasnt ridiculous then and isnt now. There was no rule issue when Ring, DJ, Davy etc were doing it. The only reason this has come up is because Davy made a health and safety issue of it to make it easier for defenders to haul down attackers and not to be properly penalised for it.

paddy no 11

Just because other people exploited this in the past doesnt make it ok or doesnt mean it should be accepted as the norm. Its a nonsense and you can dig ring up yourself and tell him that.

You dont even have to go down the H&S route, striking from 19 yards out is a better skill simple as that.