Should the 'Nash' free be outlawed?

bruschi

Whathefeck wrote: »

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.

It's not a tangent. The rules as they are now are completely contradictory and can be further exploited. It's as simple as that. How it came about or what was done before doesn't excuse that the rules are totally flawed

Whathefeck

paddy no 11 wrote: »

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.

In your opinion.
Why 19 yards? How will you measure it. How will a forward get momentum from the shot.

Listen we can go around and around on this and never convince either camp. I belive this is motivated by those who want to get away with fouling near the goal. You and others think it is a rule or health and safety issue. I think those are just smoke screens hiding more cynical reason from some promoting the change. We have had one of the best most entertaining championship in years and I think we should try to emulate it in the future. If you think differently that is where we will have to agree to differ.

paddy no 11

Whathefeck wrote: »

In your opinion.
Why 19 yards? How will you measure it. How will a forward get momentum from the shot.

Listen we can go around and around on this and never convince either camp. I belive this is motivated by those who want to get away with fouling near the goal. You and others think it is a rule or health and safety issue. I think those are just smoke screens hiding more cynical reason from some promoting the change. We have had one of the best most entertaining championship in years and I think we should try to emulate it in the future. If you think differently that is where we will have to agree to differ.

The bit highlighted is just bonkers. Total paranoia imo. The exploitation of the rule came from nash and others. There is no team in hurling who want to consistently give away penalties, never has been as far as im aware.

I wouldnt go down the H&S route myself, as you have said it will probably lead to fully body protection or some nonsense in the end. I just want to see decent striking of the ball from about 19 yards, whats currently happening is taking the pi*s

Mountainlad

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.

To be honest, I would be advocating the forwards getting every advantage they can when the defender commits a cynical foul. And I appreciate the skill involved in what Nash does, it is a skill in fairness that is very undermined.

Now I don't think it's realistic to say that someone could ever reach the ball on time to throw it into the small square, but that said you do make a fair argument there that technically they could do it and get away with it. I don't want to see the amount of penalties converted decrease much though, would like that to be taken into account when bringing in a rule chane.

Martin567

Mountainlad wrote: »

To be honest, I would be advocating the forwards getting every advantage they can when the defender commits a cynical foul. And I appreciate the skill involved in what Nash does, it is a skill in fairness that is very undermined.

Now I don't think it's realistic to say that someone could ever reach the ball on time to throw it into the small square, but that said you do make a fair argument there that technically they could do it and get away with it. I don't want to see the amount of penalties converted decrease much though, would like that to be taken into account when bringing in a rule chane.

Whatever about penalties, every 21 yard free is certainly not the result of a cynical foul by one of the backs.

I agree that it is unlikely that a player could reach the small square to hit it on the full. But they could throw it forward lower and hit a bouncing ball on the run from inside the small square while those on the line wouldn't be permitted to move. I presume you think the players on the line could move once the ball bounces but is that specified somewhere in the rules? I'm only playing Devil's Advocate here but my point is serious. The rules are defective as none of these things are properly dealt with in the rulebook.

marco_polo

I think some sort of steps rule after the lift might be the best middle ground, I definately think that no advance past the 21 yard line would be far too advantageous to the defending team with 3 in the goal, likewise if the attacker is striking from 13 yards out unchallenged.

Mountainlad

Martin567 wrote: »

Whatever about penalties, every 21 yard free is certainly not the result of a cynical foul by one of the backs.

I agree that it is unlikely that a player could reach the small square to hit it on the full. But they could throw it forward lower and hit a bouncing ball on the run from inside the small square while those on the line wouldn't be permitted to move. I presume you think the players on the line could move once the ball bounces but is that specified somewhere in the rules? I'm only playing Devil's Advocate here but my point is serious. The rules are defective as none of these things are properly dealt with in the rulebook.

I would have assumed that. When someone fluffs a pickup for a free are you allowed charge? Don't think your allowed touch the ball but maybe move closer? There seems to be an awful lot left down to interpretation.

Depp

if the nash free is outlawed because its dangerous to shoot from that distance whats next, outlawing shots inside the 21 yard square, cause thats the same thing.

rockonollie

Clearly out of hand now lads.......

http://gaabanter.ie/video-anthony-nash-scores-goal-21-yard-line/

999/112

Well done Stephen, move when the ball is played [lifted].

yellow50HX

I would have to say NO. Was at the match today and was behind the goals for the peno will have to have proper look on the Sunday game tonight but it did look like the Waterford goalie started his run at the same time as Nash so it should have been retaken.

As someone who has played in goals in hurling and also stood in for close in frees when playing the backs I have a fair idea of how hard a ball can be smacked in club matches never mind at inter county. I also have taken close in free and a few peno's over the years so unlike many armchair analysts I think I have a better outlook on the issue so bear with me.

1) The "Nash" style shot is not new in the game it's just that very few have actually manged to master it. The 1st time I saw it was in the late 90's by Tipps Declan Ryan and Kieran Hero Murphy. I don't remember anyone complaining then about it. I remember vaguely Ryan saying he saw a fella doing before and tried to do it himself. So it's not a new thing.

2) it is actually a very hard thing to do as you need to move quite fast in a sideways motion in order to get into the correct position to hit the ball correctly (try doing it at speed). This requires quite a bit of corridination otherwise you end up tangling your legs and end up in a heap. I tried doing it a few times when I was younger but I wasn't able to time it quite right. My style was closer to rains or tj reids as I'm a citouge and play forehand as opposed to Nashs back hand style.

3) very few close in frees are hit from a standing stance as it is much harder to generate the power to go for goal. Almost all close in frees in which the player is going for goal are hit from a running style to gather the max speed. This has been the case for years from ring and Doyle to Fenton Carey and right up to Davy Fitz, Eoin Kelly and so on. The majority of 21 yard frees are hit just before the 14 usually around 15-17 meters out. Nash gets his forward and usually hit on the 14 so he is probably only gaining 2-3 meters on the average.

4) size makes a big difference, anthony Nash is not that big a guy he is about 5-10 so when compared to someone like joe canning or Henry shefflin he is a disadvantage as they can generate more power through their swing and can cover more of the ground with less steps. This means that their 2-3 forward steps can bring the ball further then his. So in order for a smaller fella to generate the same power he needs to swing faster so this required the ball to travel further to get in the right position for a bigger wind up. Taller players are also able to use longer Hurleys so can generate more power.

5) safety. I don't like seeing lads getting hurt but the safety concern being brought up against Nash is rubbish. What is there to stop a fella in open play smashing the ball as hard as he can from point blank? Nothing. Like I said before I have played I goal and I wouldn't have done so if I wasn't prepared to get whacked. Also the notion that the keepers fear it has been smashed twice now. The Clare goalie came out the charge it down last year and the Waterford keeper did it again today. So if Nash has to hit the ball outside the 21 then the keeper has to stay on the line. If players were so worried about getting hit then they wouldn't be brave enough to charge it down.

6) the Hurley, much is made of the goalie having a bigger boss but this is not as big a factor as you would think. It is only in recent years that goalies have actually used the same hurly for puck outs and and for shot stopping prior to that they would have used a light hurly with a big boss and a heavy one for puck outs and frees. Nowadays most keepers use the same hurly for every thing as they have gotten used to it and practice with one hurly. It is not actually the width of a hurly that matters it's being able to hit the sweet spot. A smaller boss hurly can be used for frees easy enough as a big boss one. There is nothing to say the keeper has a peno hurly in his pack. You can make the boss the same width but extra weight can be added by making the boss thicker and by making handle longer you can generate far more power. Once you can hit the sweet spot it doesn't matter how wide the boss is. Also the wider boss creates more drag when passing through the air.

Martin567

999/112 wrote: »

Well done Stephen, move when the ball is played [lifted].

Agree 100%. Just saw it for the first time. The Waterford keeper didn't leave his line until Nash lifted the ball. Fair is fair. Either both can move forward or neither. I'm delighted to hear that the referees have confirmed Stephen O'Keeffe did nothing wrong. This might prompt a well needed look at the rulebook soon!

allthedoyles

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxiJmVI2R2A

KrustyUCC

Martin567 wrote: »

Agree 100%. Just saw it for the first time. The Waterford keeper didn't leave his line until Nash lifted the ball. Fair is fair. Either both can move forward or neither. I'm delighted to hear that the referees have confirmed Stephen O'Keeffe did nothing wrong. This might prompt a well needed look at the rulebook soon!

Problem is so many contradictions in rule book

seems that GAA are forgetting Lift part tough

For all free pucks, including penalties, the ball
may be struck with the hurley in either of two
ways:
(a) Lift the ball with the hurley at the first
attempt and strike it with the hurley.
(b) Strike the ball on the ground.

It doesn't say to strike at the first attempt and strike it with the hurley is deemed to be struck

Definitely going to need more clarification from Croke Park

zetecescort

So can players charge normal frees too?

KrustyUCC

that the question now

from that interpretation of the free/penalty having been "struck" when it is lifted and not lifted and strike, there is nothing to stop any player from charging any free

marco_polo

Rather than properly addressing the situation one way or another, the half assed attempt attempt at temporarily "solving" the issue via a reinterpretation of the strike rule has made a complete farce of 21 yard frees.

KrustyUCC

yes it has as we now have usual way being superseeded by new interpretation

problem is now that by re-writing "struck" you are effecting lots of rules

Fireball07

It has to be sorted soon.


Tbh it is a bit of a ridiculous situation that a 21-yard free can be taking from 13/14 metres out... it's a huge advantage. In football, frees are supposed to be taking from a certain mark. But obviously players do need some sort of run-up.


But you can't have players charging down every free either. It needs to be fully clarified one way or the other.

yellow50HX

KrustyUCC wrote: »

that the question now

from that interpretation of the free/penalty having been "struck" when it is lifted and not lifted and strike, there is nothing to stop any player from charging any free

Yeah looks like that will happen from now on. I know if I was a manager I would have a man in front of every free and get him to charge the taker as soon as the ball is lifted. I think they might have opened a can of worms with this "clarification".

Martin567

What is farcical is a player being allowed to bring the ball 10 yards closer to goal while the players on the line are forced to stand still. Stephen O'Keeffe did exactly what I believed all defenders should be allowed to do in the interests of fairness.

I would have no problem with players charging every free. As long as they start 20m away and don't move until the taker lifts the ball, it won't make any difference. They won't get anywhere near the striker so long as he takes the free in a conventional manner.

KrustyUCC

that's ok for conventional frees Martin but not for close in ones

Martin567 is 2 pts down deep in stoppage time

you get awarded a free on the 21 line

you need a goal to win it

whats to stop opposition from having 15 on line and as soon as you lift the ball 14 players charging out on you?

sure As long as they start 20m away and don't move until the taker lifts the ball, it won't make any difference.

You take free in conventional manner but you don't have a snow balls chance to score goal you need with new interpretation

marco_polo

On another note (and I am certainly not singling out O'Keefe, if memory serves my own county Clare aren't innocent of this either earlier this year), but once again today Nash was targeted for some rough treatment while up the field taking a penalty, which is bang out of order imo. I know that lads do silly stuff in the heat of the moment when pumped up etc, but it really isn't nice to see.

From what I have seen in interviews etc, he seems like one of the nicest most genuine guys playing intercounty hurling and I don't think he deserves any of that nonsense.

allthedoyles

allthedoyles wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxiJmVI2R2A

So they are allowed to charge it down now?

KrustyUCC

KrustyUCC wrote: »

that's ok for conventional frees Martin but not for close in ones

Martin567 is 2 pts down deep in stoppage time

you get awarded a free on the 21 line

you need a goal to win it

whats to stop opposition from having 15 on line and as soon as you lift the ball 14 players charging out on you?

sure As long as they start 20m away and don't move until the taker lifts the ball, it won't make any difference.

You take free in conventional manner but you don't have a snow balls chance to score goal you need with new interpretation

Well if a team is going to be utterly retarded they could have everyone charge out while the free-taker pases to someone 5 yards out.

marco_polo

Deleted User wrote: »

So they are allowed to charge it down now?

Yep according to the Sunday game refs are interpreting the "strike" as beginning once the player lifts the ball.

Clareman

I think allowing the defenders attack the ball once it's touched, or brought past the 21 is a great idea, nullifies the whole thing.

rockonollie

My only problem with it is the huge contradiction......the initial argument against the Nash-style free was the danger it posed to players on the line because the ball is being struck so close to them that they wouldn't have time to react.

How is being 2 yards from the ball when it's struck going to fix that issue?

Jjjjjjjbarry

rockonollie wrote: »

My only problem with it is the huge contradiction......the initial argument against the Nash-style free was the danger it posed to players on the line because the ball is being struck so close to them that they wouldn't have time to react.

How is being 2 yards from the ball when it's struck going to fix that issue?

Because it will stop Nash doing it and make precision over power the best way to score. Might take a few more bruises on keepers for the message to sink in though

Nash Bridges

I don't think any rule change is needed, this was by far the most interesting incident in an otherwise mediocre match. If anyone tries exaggerated "Nash" style penalties, they should be open to being charged down as happened yesterday.

However the nearest Stephen O'Keeffe got was still approx 4 yards away when he was struck, and he timed it perfectly. If Nash were to go slightly shorter next time the goalie would be stuck in no mans land 8ish yards from both the goal line and the striker of the ball. That would leave no time to react to make a save and also leave only 2 men on the line.

I can't wait until Cork are awarded another penalty to see how this develops. Hopefully the Clare full back line will be in a clumsy mood next Sunday afternoon.

Realt Dearg Sec

Jjjjjjjbarry wrote: »

Because it will stop Nash doing it and make precision over power the best way to score. Might take a few more bruises on keepers for the message to sink in though

If it was just bruises people were worried about then what was the safety problem to begin with? I play junior F hurling and I've had a massive welt on my leg stopping a penalty from the line. The whole problem was that the Nash free was going to cause a serious injury and had to be stamped out BEFORE that happened. I don't see how that's solved by this solution. Unless safety wasn't the issue to begin with. Personally I've never been all that concerned about the safety side of it anyway, rather with the way it tips the balance too far in favour of the penalty taker. This does seem to even it out, and probably will make it less attractive to take the Nash penalty. The image of Nash actually complaining to the ref over the keeper coming off his line was comical. Takes some neck to blatantly play with the rules of the game and then whinge when someone else does the same thing.

Grats

I was against this style of penalty taking from the beginning and suggested that it was only a matter of time before another player/county took it further, which they have and more luck to them. Did those in favour think that the rest of the hurling world aren't as cute and were wiling to stand back and admire Nash? Had they not moved as quick as they have in either copying Nash or charging him down Cork would have it all to themselves, as they hoped for. Their whole game plan is to win handy close in frees and call on Nash. They did it in the replay against Clare and have continued since.

It's a shame Croke Park didn't take action as it is getting more cynical by the day.

eigrod

Grats wrote: »

Their whole game plan is to win handy close in frees and call on Nash.

They put over 28 points against Waterford, but yeah, that's their game plan alright :rolleyes:

paddy no 11

Bout time someone stood up (literally) to these antics. Hopefully fellas just go back to striking the ball properly now that this nonsense throw has been counteracted. Rules are not their to be exploited, players should play within the spirit of the game. If thats an end to it i'll be happy for one.

GrandSoftDay

Nash Bridges wrote: »

I don't think any rule change is needed, this was by far the most interesting incident in an otherwise mediocre match. If anyone tries exaggerated "Nash" style penalties, they should be open to being charged down as happened yesterday.

However the nearest Stephen O'Keeffe got was still approx 4 yards away when he was struck, and he timed it perfectly. If Nash were to go slightly shorter next time the goalie would be stuck in no mans land 8ish yards from both the goal line and the striker of the ball. That would leave no time to react to make a save and also leave only 2 men on the line.

I can't wait until Cork are awarded another penalty to see how this develops. Hopefully the Clare full back line will be in a clumsy mood next Sunday afternoon.

The Clare back line won't need to be clumsy if Pa Cronin is on the inside line, spends most of his time falling over.

JIdontknow

Heres the bruise from the block for anyone interested...

http://www.joe.ie/pic-of-the-day/pic-just-look-at-the-bruise-on-stephen-okeefes-leg-after-he-stopped-an-anthony-nash-penalty-with-it/

Grats

eigrod wrote: »

They put over 28 points against Waterford, but yeah, that's their game plan alright :rolleyes:

They didn't need penalties yesterday, watch them when they do. There's a whole debate going on on various social media about their diving.

eigrod

Grats wrote: »

There's a whole debate going on on various social media about their diving.

Oh right....it must be true so if there's a debate on social media about it.

Grats

eigrod wrote: »

Oh right....it must be true so if there's a debate on social media about it.

Correct, glad you agree considering what county you support!

sabhail

That looks v painful... confirms my view that anyone who plays hurling is brave!

rebel girl 15

keep the thread on topic lads, it's not about how the free/penalty came about, but the style of striking with it. Any more off topic posts will be deleted and the poster banned

twinytwo

Martin567 wrote: »

What is farcical is a player being allowed to bring the ball 10 yards closer to goal while the players on the line are forced to stand still. Stephen O'Keeffe did exactly what I believed all defenders should be allowed to do in the interests of fairness.

I would have no problem with players charging every free. As long as they start 20m away and don't move until the taker lifts the ball, it won't make any difference. They won't get anywhere near the striker so long as he takes the free in a conventional manner.

And yet if he had hurt himself, everyone would have blamed Nash. Rather than the keeper used his body to block the shot. I mean god forbid hurling is gone soft enough as it is, with straight on shoulders being given as frees because the guy with ball ends up on his ass.

TCDStudent1

rockonollie wrote: »

My only problem with it is the huge contradiction......the initial argument against the Nash-style free was the danger it posed to players on the line because the ball is being struck so close to them that they wouldn't have time to react.

How is being 2 yards from the ball when it's struck going to fix that issue?

Unfortunately, it doesnt. And one wonder what damage could be caused if the goalkeeper was struck in a more delicate body part.

yellow50HX

paddy no 11 wrote: »

Bout time someone stood up (literally) to these antics. Hopefully fellas just go back to striking the ball properly now that this nonsense throw has been counteracted. Rules are not their to be exploited, players should play within the spirit of the game. If thats an end to it i'll be happy for one.

What's wrong with the way it is hit? It's it meant to be a Pelenty not an easy tap over point. It is there to penalise a team for making a foul close to the goal. If you don't like them then don't give away stupid frees in front of goal. When was the last time you saw a peno or any other close in free where the player is clearly going for goal not brought forward? Every player uses the forward lift and run method to generate more power on their shot. Tj Reid, Eoin Kelly, dj Carey and pat Horgan all change the way they take shots in order to bring the ball forward and generate more power.

What a lot of people forget is that a peno in hurling is not actually a peno it is a 21 yard free where there are only 3 people in goals. The reason the hurling peno is actually taken from the 21 and not the 13 is because it is brought further in to the goal by the taker. It's only a few years ago that the football peno was brought forward as it was deemed to hard to score from the 13.

RGS

What is rather strange is that the refs committee are making the rules and now annual congress.
rule states frees taken by lifting and striking now refs have stated lifting is striking.
we can now have the free taker being hooked and/or blocked thats a total joke.

For example:==a 20 metre semi penalty is awarded, a defender stands on the edge of the D--free taker lifts the ball and the defender sprints towards the free taker and could get in a block or hook. Is that what we want to see, free takers being hooked.

if defenders are allowed charge when ball lifted then so can the attackers and we could see attackers and defenders colliding inside the 13 metre line.

It could also lead to a new attacking ploy: free taker lifts the ball and a team mate grabs the ball and strikes out of his hand from the 13 metre line.

This refs committee interpretation, in IMO, is totally in contradiction with the rules as written.

Who gave the refs committee the power to make these decisions?

As i have maintained for a long time the easiest rule change is to move the 20 metre line out to 25 metres--problem solved.

A simple solution is required not the contrived interpretation issued by the refs committee.

irish_goat

Not a hurling player here so could someone else hazard a guess as to what the maximum distance you reckon a player could cover using this method?

yellow50HX

RGS wrote: »

What is rather strange is that the refs committee are making the rules and now annual congress.
rule states frees taken by lifting and striking now refs have stated lifting is striking.
we can now have the free taker being hooked and/or blocked thats a total joke.

For example:==a 20 metre semi penalty is awarded, a defender stands on the edge of the D--free taker lifts the ball and the defender sprints towards the free taker and could get in a block or hook. Is that what we want to see, free takers being hooked.

if defenders are allowed charge when ball lifted then so can the attackers and we could see attackers and defenders colliding inside the 13 metre line.

It could also lead to a new attacking ploy: free taker lifts the ball and a team mate grabs the ball and strikes out of his hand from the 13 metre line.

This refs committee interpretation, in IMO, is totally in contradiction with the rules as written.

Who gave the refs committee the power to make these decisions?

As i have maintained for a long time the easiest rule change is to move the 20 metre line out to 25 metres--problem solved.

A simple solution is required not the contrived interpretation issued by the refs committee.

This may sound a simple solution but why should the attacking team be penalised and the team that commits the foul be rewarded by having the ball moved further away from goal?

I remember as a young lad being at a hurling camp and I asked why a hurling peno was taken from the 21 and a football from the 13? I was told it was because when taking a hurling peno the ball was brought forward by the taker so that by the time he hit it he was almost as close as the 13. The coach ( can't remember his name) then showed us how the lift the ball forward, run in and smash it low into the net as this was how a hurling peno should be taken. I'd anthony Nash was only in nappies at the time. Ever since the that was how I took all my frees in hurling.

For ones out the field I would usually step in about 2 steps and when going for goal I would take 3, one of my club mates would take about 5. We were never called up on them. I only stopped playing about 2 years ago so it would say I was using the same technique for about 25 years, granted I'm no Nash but the way I took frees was never an issue when I was playing and I saw plenty of fellas using the Nash style over the years it's just that very few were as high profile or could hit the ball as hard.

rockonollie

RGS wrote: »

What is rather strange is that the refs committee are making the rules and now annual congress.
rule states frees taken by lifting and striking now refs have stated lifting is striking.
we can now have the free taker being hooked and/or blocked thats a total joke.

For example:==a 20 metre semi penalty is awarded, a defender stands on the edge of the D--free taker lifts the ball and the defender sprints towards the free taker and could get in a block or hook. Is that what we want to see, free takers being hooked.

if defenders are allowed charge when ball lifted then so can the attackers and we could see attackers and defenders colliding inside the 13 metre line.

It could also lead to a new attacking ploy: free taker lifts the ball and a team mate grabs the ball and strikes out of his hand from the 13 metre line.

This refs committee interpretation, in IMO, is totally in contradiction with the rules as written.

Who gave the refs committee the power to make these decisions?

As i have maintained for a long time the easiest rule change is to move the 20 metre line out to 25 metres--problem solved.

A simple solution is required not the contrived interpretation issued by the refs committee.

They can decide on interpretations of rules......but they're really pushing it here....

The rules clearly specify that there is a difference between the lift and the strike;

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

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

(b) Strike the ball on the ground.

And they clearly state that the players on goal cannot advance;

4.16 (a) For a player on the team defending a penalty puck, with the exception of the three defending players on the goal-line, to be inside the 20m line or the semi-circle before the ball is struck.

(b) For any of the three players defending a penalty on the goal-line to move nearer than 20m to the ball before the ball is struck.
PENALTY - If a goal is not scored, the referee shall
allow the penalty puck to be retaken.

I'm not a supporter of the Nash-style free, but the referees do not have the power to change the rules, any attempt to say that this is an interpretation is a farce.

Martin567

It surely should be pointed out that Anthony Nash uses a three part action: Lift, throw & strike.

Just because the throw is not referred to in the rules, it is assumed to be legal. Why not lift, catch & strike? Catching is not mentioned in the rules so it should be legal also. People may think that's ridiculous but you either follow the exact letter of the law or you don't.

yellow50HX

irish_goat wrote: »

Not a hurling player here so could someone else hazard a guess as to what the maximum distance you reckon a player could cover using this method?

It's down to timing. In order to get yourself into the correct body position you need to turn sideways. This is why players usually only take 1-2 steps before hitting the ball. In order to cover the distance you need to run forward in a sideways montion which is not easy so this limits how much ground you can cover. Players like Nash that use a back hand style need to turn their torso much to the side in order to hit the ball correctly but this really depends on what height you make the connection. The higher the ball the more turned you need to be.

There is much more movement in this type of shot so it needs a lot more coordination so there is more likely to be a mistake like in last years all ireland when Nash got his timing wrong and ended up hitting the ball off the ground.

Up to yesterday I would have said that the max distance was about 10 meters by a tall player say someone like joe canning or Paul Ryan but with defenders being given the go ahead to charge the free taker now I would say it needs to be hit after 4-5 meters in order to get the best connection before it's charged down.