Should the 'Nash' free be outlawed?

rockonollie

Martin567 wrote: »

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.

FYI....catching is prohibited, and it is not an assumed rule, it's clearly defined.

4.22 To foul a free puck by making a second attempt to lift the ball, to hop the
ball on thehurley, or to take the ball in the hand.

sasol

Nash is clearly breaking rule 4.25

Rule 4.25: To advance the ball deliberately from the place at which a free puck or side-line puck is to be
taken.

Penalty: (i) Cancel free puck or side-line puck.(ii) Throw in the ball where the foul occurred

rockonollie

sasol wrote: »

Nash is clearly breaking rule 4.25

Rule 4.25: To advance the ball deliberately from the place at which a free puck or side-line puck is to be
taken.

Penalty: (i) Cancel free puck or side-line puck.(ii) Throw in the ball where the foul occurred

That was the first rule brought up by the anti-Nash free camp, it was clarified very early that that rule refers to a player moving the ball forward before taking the free......for example, where a player kicks the ball forward a couple of yards while the ref isn't looking.

irish_goat

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?

With practice they could get right to the goal line and get to the ball before dropping. It'll end up at ridiculous lengths with players a couple of yards from goal and able to tap it in.

yellow50HX

Martin567 wrote: »

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.

This is true however the rule on the lift has been relaxed quite a bit over the years due to the way Dj and Eoin Kelly used it. It seemed that refs were not brave enough to call them on it so many players now use it as part of the their stroke. It is interesting to see how few players use the roll technique now when taking frees. I can't think of any current player that uses it.

MidlandBlowin

Pat McEneaney said on Radio Kerry tonight that the Waterford keeper was right to come out. That the rule at the mo states when they ball is lifted is when a defender can make a run

sasol

rockonollie wrote: »

That was the first rule brought up by the anti-Nash free camp, it was clarified very early that that rule refers to a player moving the ball forward before taking the free......for example, where a player kicks the ball forward a couple of yards while the ref isn't looking.

Where exactly does the rule state that the rule refers to a player moving the ball forward before taking the free ??

It says nothing of the sort. That is just a cover used by the cork folk to justify the rules been broken

Nash is in clear contravention of this rule

wow sierra

GAA PRESS RELEASE ;

Arising from concerns in relation to implementation of the Playing Rules of Hurling in respect of the taking of penalty pucks and free pucks from the 20 metres line, the Management Committee of the GAA will recommend Interpretation of Rules to Central Council to address these concerns.
It is envisaged that this process will be completed as quickly as possible and in advance of this weekend’s games.

just saw this on Twitter - is it just released now?

What does this mean? Will there be a meeting of Central council? Also if the issue is the Goalie moving and that's the only aspect they clarify it's ridiculous. The danger is caused by the taker advancing not the Goalie

yellow50HX

rockonollie wrote: »

That was the first rule brought up by the anti-Nash free camp, it was clarified very early that that rule refers to a player moving the ball forward before taking the free......for example, where a player kicks the ball forward a couple of yards while the ref isn't looking.

This is correct. Almost all players move the ball forward as they step into the shot. The only frees taken from a standing point with no forward motion are quick ones to nearby player.

rockonollie

MidlandBlowin wrote: »

Pat McEneaney said on Radio Kerry tonight that the Waterford keeper was right to come out. That the rule at the mo states when they ball is lifted is when a defender can make a run

Then Pat McEneaney needs a rule book......I quoted the rule already that states that a free is taken by lifting and then striking the ball.....and it is illegal for the players on the line to advance until the player strikes the ball.

The rule definitely needs to be addressed, something has to change, but i take great offense to refs blatently ignoring the rules and hiding behind the "interpretation" excuse.

yellow50HX

sasol wrote: »

Where exactly does the rule state that the rule refers to a player moving the ball forward before taking the free ??

It says nothing of the sort. That is just a cover used by the cork folk to justify the rules been broken

Nash is in clear contravention of this rule

If you were correct then every free taker in the country would have to change their style. All frees are hit in a forward motion as to correctly hit the ball you must step into it. If this was the case then almost every free taken should instead be a clash ball. This is even more so in the case of players like Paul Ryan and Shane dowling who step into the free.

rebel girl 15

Management Committee afe sitting down this week to clarify the interpretation of the rule and hope to have it ready for next weekends games

sasol

yellow50HX wrote: »

If you were correct then every free taker in the country would have to change their style. All frees are hit in a forward motion as to correctly hit the ball you must step into it. If this was the case then almost every free taken should instead be a clash ball. This is even more so in the case of players like Paul Ryan and Shane dowling who step into the free.

Nash deliberately advances the ball. That is exactly what rule 4.25 addresses.

You cannot just twist rules to give them a different interpretation to attempt and justify Nash breaking rule 4.25


Rule 4.25: To advance the ball deliberately from the place at which a free puck or side-line puck is to be
taken.

Penalty: (i) Cancel free puck or side-line puck.(ii) Throw in the ball where the foul occurred

rockonollie

sasol wrote: »

Rule 4.25: To advance the ball deliberately from the place at which a free puck or side-line puck is to be taken.

As has been said, this refers to the position of the ball before the free. Once he lifts the ball, he is in the process of taking the free....this is the exact and correct clarification given by the GAA when this issue first arised.

yellow50HX

wow sierra wrote: »

GAA PRESS RELEASE ;

just saw this on Twitter - is it just released now?

What does this mean? Will there be a meeting of Central council? Also if the issue is the Goalie moving and that's the only aspect they clarify it's ridiculous. The danger is caused by the taker advancing not the Goalie

Look the issue of safety has been made null and void by Stephen O'Keeffe and paddy Kelly. If the issue is safety then they would have to be booked for putting themselves in danger ( you can be booked in soccer for sticking your head into where it can be kicked).

Central council need to make a proper decision on this ASAP. As it stands a player can advance on the free taker as soon as they touch the ball. This effects all frees even taking a 65. If they decide it only effects peno's then players must stay on the goal line for 21 yard frees or frees awarded just outside the 21.

What needs to be clarified is the whole motion of the strike.

As it stands the lift AND strike is understood as the one motion. the motion of striking starts when the ball starts to move but finishes when the ball is hit. If you are hitting from the hand the strike actually starts from when the ball is released from your hand and thrown up. The same part of a free strike is when the ball is risen. If the strike is now to be defined as when the ball is struck goal wards then every player needs to be made aware that they need to take the ball back the same distance from where the free is awarded that they would normally rise it forward. In some cases this is only 1 step but in others it could well be more.

yellow50HX

sasol wrote: »

Nash deliberately advances the ball. That is exactly what rule 4.25 addresses.

You cannot just twist rules to give them a different interpretation to attempt and justify Nash breaking rule 4.25


Rule 4.25: To advance the ball deliberately from the place at which a free puck or side-line puck is to be
taken.

Penalty: (i) Cancel free puck or side-line puck.(ii) Throw in the ball where the foul occurred

Sorry your wrong. This rule is for the the placement of the free before the free is taken. As was pointed out by the refs the ball is in play from when it is 1st touched therefore the ball is advanced as part to the striking motion and so is in play as he moves forward. This was why the goalie was allowed to charge the free. If this were the case Nash would have been pulled on this several times as would every other free taker.

Royal Legend

Does Mr McEnenaneys interpretation mean that defenders can now charge down 65's?

wow sierra

To be honest I am most concerned about the "danger" of it being impossible to stop Sort of feel the Goalie was evening the odds. Anyway hope it gets sorted.

yellow50HX

Royal Legend wrote: »

Does Mr McEnenaneys interpretation mean that defenders can now charge down 65's?

Yes that seems to be the issue. As if you read the way it's done then every free can be charged down or hooked from the start of the free.

dastardly00

Royal Legend wrote: »

Does Mr McEnenaneys interpretation mean that defenders can now charge down 65's?

It'll be interesting to see if someone tries to run and charge down a 65 this weekend. The free taker should have plenty of time to rise and strike the sliotar, but it'll surely be very off-putting to have another player sprinting straight for you!!

yomtea98

You've got to love the anti-Cork brigade

sasol

yellow50HX wrote: »

Sorry your wrong. This rule is for the the placement of the free before the free is taken. As was pointed out by the refs the ball is in play from when it is 1st touched therefore the ball is advanced as part to the striking motion and so is in play as he moves forward. This was why the goalie was allowed to charge the free. If this were the case Nash would have been pulled on this several times as would every other free taker.

Entirely wrong. I will ask again : Where does the rule reference the placing of the ball ???

The answer is, it does not. It is entirely your biased opinion that that is what is intended.

The rule is for deliberately advancing. A rise and strike as part of a motion is not deliberately advancing. A rise, throw forward , and strike IS deliberately advancing.

RGS

The rule is for deliberately advancing. A rise and strike as part of a motion is not deliberately advancing. A rise, throw forward , and strike IS deliberately advancing.[/QUOTE]

I have to disagree.The ball was placed at the point identified by the ref. Therefore thats where the lift must be taken from.

Taking your interpretation of the rule all free takers deliberately advance the ball. You cant take a free without advancing the ball otherwise you wont get traction to strike the ball any distance.

This free taking technique has been going on since the early days of the association and now a refs committee are changing the rules.

yellow50HX

RGS wrote: »

The rule is for deliberately advancing. A rise and strike as part of a motion is not deliberately advancing. A rise, throw forward , and strike IS deliberately advancing.

I have to disagree.The ball was placed at the point identified by the ref. Therefore thats where the lift must be taken from.

Taking your interpretation of the rule all free takers deliberately advance the ball. You cant take a free without advancing the ball otherwise you wont get traction to strike the ball any distance.

This free taking technique has been going on since the early days of the association and now a refs committee are changing the rules.[/QUOTE]

Spot on

sasol

sasol wrote: »

Entirely wrong. I will ask again : Where does the rule reference the placing of the ball ???
.

Not able to answer.

Doesn't surprise me

purplepanda

A player is advancing the ball by lifting it, then having to make 4/5 steps to catch up with the ball, so that shouldn't mean that the defenders & or goalkeepers can't move towards the free taker to block the shot IMO.

As soon as the ball has moved ( or been lifted & advanced )a metre or more away from where the free is taken it is then already traveling towards the goal & the defence should be allowed to defend their goal from that very moment.

Clareman

purplepanda wrote: »

A player is advancing the ball by lifting it, then having to make 4/5 steps to catch up with the ball, so that shouldn't mean that the defenders & or goalkeepers can't move towards the free taker to block the shot IMO.

As soon as the ball has moved ( or been lifted & advanced )a metre or more away from where the free is taken it is then already traveling towards the goal & the defence should be allowed to defend their goal from that very moment.

Once the ball is moved towards the target then it should be considered in play in my opinion

yellow50HX

sasol wrote: »

Entirely wrong. I will ask again : Where does the rule reference the placing of the ball ???

The answer is, it does not. It is entirely your biased opinion that that is what is intended.

The rule is for deliberately advancing. A rise and strike as part of a motion is not deliberately advancing. A rise, throw forward , and strike IS deliberately advancing.

This actually getting back to crux of the issue and where confusion is coming from. When IS THE STRIKE?
For many people the ball is deemed to be struck when the ball is struck goalwards by the Hurley. In this case yes you are correct in that the ball is brought forward from where the ball was placed....

BUT...

The strike is not when the ball is struck goal wards but when it is 1st moved therefore it is play as it is advanced so it can't be deemed a foul.

Throwing the ball forward from a free is not a foul, reference rule 4.22
To foul a free puck by making a second attempt to lift the ball, to hop the ball on the hurley, or to take the ball in the hand.

The Nash free does not include, a second lift, hop or taking the ball in hand.

sasol

yellow50HX wrote: »

This actually getting back to crux of the issue and where confusion is coming from. When IS THE STRIKE?
For many people the ball is deemed to be struck when the ball is struck goalwards by the Hurley. In this case yes you are correct in that the ball is brought forward from where the ball was placed....

BUT...

The strike is not when the ball is struck goal wards but when it is 1st moved therefore it is play as it is advanced so it can't be deemed a foul.

Throwing the ball forward from a free is not a foul, reference rule 4.22
To foul a free puck by making a second attempt to lift the ball, to hop the ball on the hurley, or to take the ball in the hand.

The Nash free does not include, a second lift, hop or taking the ball in hand.

That is right - but Nash free does include deliberately advancing the ball. Directly in contravention of the rule I have already quoted

yellow50HX

sasol wrote: »

That is right - but Nash free does include deliberately advancing the ball. Directly in contravention of the rule I have already quoted

Where? Once the ball is moved it is in play, once in play it cannot be deemed to be advancing the ball.

Grats

The Nash style will stay until next year. Other counties have already copied it for that reason. And at least one other county has found a way of counteracting this type of penalty taking. According to officials the Nash penalty is within the current rules as is the O'Keeffe charge.

It was probably never anticipated that other mere mortals would ever develop the Nash skill so quickly or develop a plan to counteract it! Low and behold they did! What was classed as a brilliant skill which would have taken years to perfect is now being used by others in double quick time!

Interesting summer ahead!

yellow50HX

There is nothing to say that the Nash free is illegal. There is no mention of how far the ball can or cannot be brought forward. The ball just needs to lifted and struck.

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.
If a player taking a free puck or penalty fails
to lift the ball at the first attempt, or fails to strike it with the hurley, he must strike it on the ground without delay. Only when he delays, may a player of either side approach nearer than 20m. except in the case of penalties.

darragh_haven

sasol wrote: »

Nash deliberately advances the ball. That is exactly what rule 4.25 addresses.

You cannot just twist rules to give them a different interpretation to attempt and justify Nash breaking rule 4.25


Rule 4.25: To advance the ball deliberately from the place at which a free puck or side-line puck is to be
taken.

Penalty: (i) Cancel free puck or side-line puck.(ii) Throw in the ball where the foul occurred

Sasol. Look at the last 4 words of the rule 4.25 that you posted. It states "is to be taken"

darragh_haven

sasol wrote: »

Entirely wrong. I will ask again : Where does the rule reference the placing of the ball ???

See my above post in telation to this

yellow50HX

Grats wrote: »

The Nash style will stay until next year. Other counties have already copied it for that reason. And at least one other county has found a way of counteracting this type of penalty taking. According to officials the Nash penalty is within the current rules as is the O'Keeffe charge.

It was probably never anticipated that other mere mortals would ever develop the Nash skill so quickly or develop a plan to counteract it! Low and behold they did! What was classed as a brilliant skill which would have taken years to perfect is now being used by others in double quick time!

Interesting summer ahead!

To be honest I am surprised it wasn't used more at inter county level before. Martin Coleman and Anthony Nash had both been using it in club and college games for a number of years.

999/112

yellow50HX wrote: »

There is nothing to say that the Nash free is illegal. There is no mention of how far the ball can or cannot be brought forward. The ball just needs to lifted and struck.

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.
If a player taking a free puck or penalty fails
to lift the ball at the first attempt, or fails to strike it with the hurley, he must strike it on the ground without delay. Only when he delays, may a player of either side approach nearer than 20m. except in the case of penalties.

yellow50HX wrote: »

Where? Once the ball is moved it is in play, once in play it cannot be deemed to be advancing the ball.

So, "Nash" free/penalty takers & "O'Keefe" goalkeepers/defenders are both playing within the rules?

Grats

yellow50HX wrote: »

To be honest I am surprised it wasn't used more at inter county level before. Martin Coleman and Anthony Nash had both been using it in club and college games for a number of years.

Great to see others learning the skill in such a short time.

darragh_haven

999/112 wrote: »

So "Nash" free/penalty takers & "O'Keefe" goalkeepers/defenders are both playing within the rules?

My take on it is that Nash os within the rules. O'Keeffe depends on when he is allowed move. The lift or the strike?
With all the rules flying around, I don't have a scooby do.

yellow50HX

999/112 wrote: »

So, "Nash" free/penalty takers & "O'Keefe" goalkeepers/defenders are both playing within the rules?

Yes that seems to be what the refs are saying.

Martin567

darragh_haven wrote: »

Sasol. Look at the last 4 words of the rule 4.25 that you posted. It states "is to be taken"

But as it is "taken" from the 20m line then clearly everyone should be entitled to move once the ball is advanced beyond this line. Anything else is ridiculous.

yellow50HX

darragh_haven wrote: »

My take on it is that Nash os within the rules. O'Keeffe depends on when he is allowed move. The lift or the strike?

When the ball is moved its in play. So yes once the ball is moved it can be charged. Unless the definition of when the ball is play is changed then things will stay as they are.

darragh_haven

Martin567 wrote: »

But as it is "taken" from the 20m line then clearly everyone should be entitled to move once the ball is advanced beyond this line. Anything else is ridiculous.

Thats fine.. I was just responding to Sasol who said that the way Nash lifted it was breaking a rule. Which he is not. (even if it is against the "spirit" of the penalty)
I honestly don't know if you are allowed advance towards the penalty taker during the lift or not

yellow50HX

darragh_haven wrote: »

Thats fine.. I was just responding to Sasol who said that the way Nash lifted it was breaking a rule. Which he is not. (even if it is against the "spirit" of the penalty)
I honestly don't know if you are allowed advance towards the penalty taker during the lift or not

As it stands yes you can as once the ball has being moved and is being lifted it's in play.

Martin567

If the penalty is not "taken" until the strike then Nash (& many others) are in contravention of rule 4.25.

If it is "taken" at the lift to allow them to comply with 4.25 then everyone is entitled to move as the penalty has been "taken"!

yellow50HX

Martin567 wrote: »

If the penalty is not "taken" until the strike then Nash (& many others) are in contravention of rule 4.25.

If it is "taken" at the lift to allow them to comply with 4.25 then everyone is entitled to move as the penalty has been "taken"!

Yes this seems to be the case.

999/112

A bit of bedtime reading in this article;
http://thescore.thejournal.ie/cork-waterford-penalty-rules-review-1508619-Jun2014/

Goodnight!

zetecescort

Surely every footballer is guilty of
advancing the ball too when they trot forward 6 or 7 yards to give themselves a better angle?

TheCitizen

It really is disgraceful that the Cork Co. Board put a spanner in the efforts of congress to change the rule and outlaw Nash's penalty routine.

TheCitizen

Martin567 wrote: »

If the penalty is not "taken" until the strike then Nash (& many others) are in contravention of rule 4.25.

If it is "taken" at the lift to allow them to comply with 4.25 then everyone is entitled to move as the penalty has been "taken"!

Can an opposing player come from behind or from the side and just nudge Nash or whoever the taker is before he makes the strike?

rebel girl 15

TheCitizen wrote: »

It really is disgraceful that the Cork Co. Board put a spanner in the efforts of congress to change the rule and outlaw Nash's penalty routine.

Seriously??? Efforts of Congress? Wasn't Congress who were trying to change a rule, it was a motion from a county iirc. The official reason it didn't go to Congress was because the wording of the motion put forward would affect all frees and penalties, and it was pulled because of that.

The unofficial reason was because it was going to be defeated, and then the rule could not be changed without being at a Congress - think the timeframe is five years. So actually, the fact it didn't go to Congress means it can be changed and worked on, so a solution can be found