Should the 'Nash' free be outlawed?

eigrod

rebel girl 15 wrote: »

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

It really annoys me that Cork are blamed for everything these days and the likes of Loughnane are given free reign on The Sunday Game to throw unfounded allegations around without someone from Cork County Board present to defend the allegations. These allegations then gain traction and have everybody believing them.

999/112

TheCitizen wrote: »

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?

Or run in behind him after the "lift" and hook him?

A very interesting weekend ahead!

TheCitizen

rebel girl 15 wrote: »

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

I was listening to the radio there and Sean O'Rourke was interviewing Christy O'Connor the former Clare 'keeper. in the course of the interview O'Rourke, putting a point to O'Connor, said something along the lines of that Cork put a "spoke" in the wheel of changing this penalty ruling. Is that true did Cork try to prevent the rule being changed?

Which county brought forward the "motion" that you are referring to?

TheCitizen

999/112 wrote: »

Or run in behind him after the "lift" and hook him?

A very interesting weekend ahead!

What I would do is instruct every player on the pitch to charge at nash from every angle, the second he lifts the ball.

rebel girl 15

TheCitizen wrote: »

I was listening to the radio there and Sean O'Rourke was interviewing Christy O'Connor the former Clare 'keeper. in the course of the interview O'Rourke, putting a point to O'Connor, said something along the lines of that Cork put a "spoke" in the wheel of changing this penalty ruling. Is that true did Cork try to prevent the rule being changed?

Which county brought forward the "motion" that you are referring to?

Bob Ryan came out to the press saying to take the motion off the clar, and then to have a proper debate about the game, and fix anything that needs fixing. Problem is that people take the first snippet and forget about the second. It was management that decided to take it out - I've got a copy of the minutes in which the decision to take it out - as I've stated above - is written.

Wasn't a county - was the standing committee on Playing Rules that brought it forward, and I can see exactly from the wording of it how it would have caused hassle.

adrian522

To be fair they had the entire time from September to now to sort this out and it was ignored, now they are left in a panic needing to do something before the weekend, what a mess.

TheCitizen

rebel girl 15 wrote: »

Bob Ryan came out to the press saying to take the motion off the clar, and then to have a proper debate about the game, and fix anything that needs fixing. Problem is that people take the first snippet and forget about the second. It was management that decided to take it out - I've got a copy of the minutes in which the decision to take it out - as I've stated above - is written.

Wasn't a county - was the standing committee on Playing Rules that brought it forward, and I can see exactly from the wording of it how it would have caused hassle.

So Cork delayed the change of the rule, because it may have been difficult to implement? Whatever the technicalities were, they ended up doing nothing and they've got a right mess on their hands now.


Nash is still carrying on with his penalty routine regardless, opposing players will have to take action themselves to combat it.

keane2097

sasol wrote: »

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

Are you deliberately being pedantic and misinterpreting the rule you're quoting to make a point or do you genuinely not get why it doesn't say what you're claiming it says?

Grats

It's only becoming a real issue now because the rest have caught up on Cork and indeed past them out at this stage. Cuteness is not confined to any one single entity.

sasol

keane2097 wrote: »

Are you deliberately being pedantic and misinterpreting the rule you're quoting to make a point or do you genuinely not get why it doesn't say what you're claiming it says?

I am not claiming anything. The rule is there in black and white for all to see

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

The rule addresses deliberate advancement of the ball. Whether you choose to accept it or not, this is what Nash is doing.

Grats

sasol wrote: »

I am not claiming anything. The rule is there in black and white for all to see

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

The rule addresses deliberate advancement of the ball. Whether you choose to accept it or not, this is what Nash is doing.

Fair enough and although that aspect had been ignored up to now it only appeared in lights due to the over-stealing of yards as Nash did. Now the focus will be on a free taker taking just the usual few steps to power home a shot, but from 19/20 yards not 14!

rebel girl 15

sasol wrote: »

I am not claiming anything. The rule is there in black and white for all to see

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

The rule addresses deliberate advancement of the ball. Whether you choose to accept it or not, this is what Nash is doing.

Its not black and white - that is the problem! You are trying to interpret the rule to make it fit your argument - it doesn't. Explain to me how one would manage to deliberately advance the sliotar at a sideline puck? Have a look at rule 4.21. The rule has always governed the placement of the ball, not the advancement of it. The ball is always advanced from the spot in which it has been placed - that is basic mechanics of taking a free in hurling. The issue now is how far Nash is putting it up. I've never seen a player pulled back for striking the bar two or three yards away from the spot - so by your interpretation, that rule has been constantly ignored - whereas the interpretation that is used, and has always been used is that the rule governs the placement of the ball for a free/sideline puck. Now if that rule did not have sideline puck, then I'd agree it would be open for interpretation, but given the research you will have done on 4.21 - you can see it is impossible to deliberately advance the sliotar from a sideline puck using the hurley like you would a free, as that would be considered playing the ball twice.

Funny how people come out with this rule for the penalties, yet say nothing about the method of striking when players used balance the sliotar on their hurley for two or three steps when taking a free that is far more prevalent when technically its not correct. Nash's style is technically more correct, a lift and strike, rather than a lift, balance and then strike

Martin567

sasol wrote: »

I am not claiming anything. The rule is there in black and white for all to see

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

The rule addresses deliberate advancement of the ball. Whether you choose to accept it or not, this is what Nash is doing.

This is surely correct. A free is defined as lift & strike in the rules. Nash (& others) have a third action, either throw or carry. Some people are saying that this is permitted as the rulebook doesn't explicitly prohibit it. But the fact remains that they are performing a third action that the rules don't recognise at all as being part of the process of taking a free.

Some people want to go by the strict letter of the law when it suits and by some other convention of standard practice when the rules don't suit.

Martin567

rebel girl 15 wrote: »

Funny how people come out with this rule for the penalties, yet say nothing about the method of striking when players used balance the sliotar on their hurley for two or three steps when taking a free that is far more prevalent when technically its not correct. Nash's style is technically more correct, a lift and strike, rather than a lift, balance and then strike

Nash's style is not a lift & strike, not even close. He is clearly at least 2 steps beyond the line, with the sliotar balanced on his hurl, when he then throws it way forward and runs after it.

sasol

rebel girl 15 wrote: »

Its not black and white - that is the problem! You are trying to interpret the rule to make it fit your argument - it doesn't. Explain to me how one would manage to deliberately advance the sliotar at a sideline puck? Have a look at rule 4.21. The rule has always governed the placement of the ball, not the advancement of it. The ball is always advanced from the spot in which it has been placed - that is basic mechanics of taking a free in hurling. The issue now is how far Nash is putting it up. I've never seen a player pulled back for striking the bar two or three yards away from the spot - so by your interpretation, that rule has been constantly ignored - whereas the interpretation that is used, and has always been used is that the rule governs the placement of the ball for a free/sideline puck. Now if that rule did not have sideline puck, then I'd agree it would be open for interpretation, but given the research you will have done on 4.21 - you can see it is impossible to deliberately advance the sliotar from a sideline puck using the hurley like you would a free, as that would be considered playing the ball twice.

Funny how people come out with this rule for the penalties, yet say nothing about the method of striking when players used balance the sliotar on their hurley for two or three steps when taking a free that is far more prevalent when technically its not correct. Nash's style is technically more correct, a lift and strike, rather than a lift, balance and then strike

I have quoted the full rule, which includes sideline puck , this argument as you well know, is not about sideline pucks. I don't mean to be smart, but debating side line pucks is irrelevant here.

My interpretation of this rule is that it is intended to prevent deliberate advancement of the ball. There are a number of ways this can be done, including placing the ball 5 yards in front of the designated spot, or doing what Nash is doing and stealing several yards by throwing the ball forward - I don't expect you to agree with me, because it suits the Cork agenda not to.

Nash's style is not a lift and strike. That is the crux of the issue here.

Nash's style is lift, throw forward 10 yards , and strike. The 10 yards that Nash throws forward is deliberate,not part of a natural motion, and is dealt with in rule 4.25

rebs23

It is completey unfair to label or personalise this as the "Nash" penalty. Look there are many other penalty takers opting for the same type of strike and it has been going on for years, from Christy Ring to DJ Carey to ....
The amount of conspiracies about Cork is absolutely amazing.

Grats

rebel girl 15 wrote: »

Its not black and white - that is the problem! You are trying to interpret the rule to make it fit your argument - it doesn't. Explain to me how one would manage to deliberately advance the sliotar at a sideline puck? Have a look at rule 4.21. The rule has always governed the placement of the ball, not the advancement of it. The ball is always advanced from the spot in which it has been placed - that is basic mechanics of taking a free in hurling. The issue now is how far Nash is putting it up. I've never seen a player pulled back for striking the bar two or three yards away from the spot - so by your interpretation, that rule has been constantly ignored - whereas the interpretation that is used, and has always been used is that the rule governs the placement of the ball for a free/sideline puck. Now if that rule did not have sideline puck, then I'd agree it would be open for interpretation, but given the research you will have done on 4.21 - you can see it is impossible to deliberately advance the sliotar from a sideline puck using the hurley like you would a free, as that would be considered playing the ball twice.

Funny how people come out with this rule for the penalties, yet say nothing about the method of striking when players used balance the sliotar on their hurley for two or three steps when taking a free that is far more prevalent when technically its not correct. Nash's style is technically more correct, a lift and strike, rather than a lift, balance and then strike

I referred to players taking a few steps in my last post. And as I said, nobody had a problem with it until too many steps/ yards, as is ten or more, were stolen. What we witnessed last Sunday was always going to happen and the sooner it finally gets sorted the better. It's a complete farce at this stage. The powers that be ought to have had the courage to deal with it and force the objectors to challenge it.

rebel girl 15

sasol wrote: »

I have quoted the full rule, which includes sideline puck , this argument as you well know, is not about sideline pucks. I don't mean to be smart, but debating side line pucks is irrelevant here.

But that is the issue - if the rule was to look at advancement of the ball by moving it using the hurley, i.e. what Nash is doing then sideline puck would not be in the rule as it would contradict 4.21. You cannot ever just pick out one rule to suit yourself, you have to look at the implications of the rule and how it relates to others, which you are not doing. Your interpretation of the rule is contrary to the interpretation that has always been there - your interpretation leaves out the sideline ball bit because it suits you to do so but you cannot leave it out as it is linked. Because you cannot deliberately advance the ball using the hurley for a sideline puck, you have to interpret the rule as it being the placement on the ground of the ball. It is a loophole that needs to be closed

Thing is, if your interpretation is right, then why isn't it used?? Why hasn't it ever been used?? Why hasn't this whole thing with Nash been stopped? Because that is not the interpretation of the rule. If you would read the proposed motion that was in to change that rule, where there was two wording changes, not one, you would see how it is being interpreted. I'm not being smart or anything, but I've refereed both men's and women's games, as well as being on a committee to work through the ladies football rulebook to close loopholes like that. You can't pick the parts of the rulebook to suit yourself with looking at the bigger picture - I can see where you are coming from, but a lot of people need to take their glasses off and look at the full thing. One rule is not used in isolation, the sideline ball piece backs up the current interpretation of the ball being moved by hand forward - which is the crux of your argument.

eigrod

sasol wrote: »

I am not claiming anything. The rule is there in black and white for all to see

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

The rule addresses deliberate advancement of the ball. Whether you choose to accept it or not, this is what Nash is doing.

If the rule addressed the issue, then referees would be able to stop Nash (and others) form doing it.

Fact is, the rules don't address it, therefore referees have been unable to stop it - they accept that Nash (and others) are not breaking the rule as it is currently written.

Pat McEnaney has admitted the rule requires clarification and change, so I don't know how you can claim a greater understanding of the rule than him.

sasol

rebel girl 15 wrote: »

But that is the issue - if the rule was to look at advancement of the ball by moving it using the hurley, i.e. what Nash is doing then sideline puck would not be in the rule as it would contradict 4.21. You cannot ever just pick out one rule to suit yourself, you have to look at the implications of the rule and how it relates to others, which you are not doing. Your interpretation of the rule is contrary to the interpretation that has always been there - your interpretation leaves out the sideline ball bit because it suits you to do so but you cannot leave it out as it is linked. Because you cannot deliberately advance the ball using the hurley for a sideline puck, you have to interpret the rule as it being the placement on the ground of the ball. It is a loophole that needs to be closed

Thing is, if your interpretation is right, then why isn't it used?? Why hasn't it ever been used?? Why hasn't this whole thing with Nash been stopped? Because that is not the interpretation of the rule. If you would read the proposed motion that was in to change that rule, where there was two wording changes, not one, you would see how it is being interpreted. I'm not being smart or anything, but I've refereed both men's and women's games, as well as being on a committee to work through the ladies football rulebook to close loopholes like that. You can't pick the parts of the rulebook to suit yourself with looking at the bigger picture - I can see where you are coming from, but a lot of people need to take their glasses off and look at the full thing. One rule is not used in isolation, the sideline ball piece backs up the current interpretation of the ball being moved by hand forward - which is the crux of your argument.

What relevance has Rule 4.21 to this ? My intrepration leaves out the sideline bit because it has nothing whatsoever to do with this.

In the past there could certainly have been arguments about the style of penatly by Davy Fitz, Declan Ryan, DJ Carey, amongest others, but none of those stole as many yards as Nash.

Nash has, literally, taken it a step or two, too far. You could not even attempt to make the argument that it is part of a natural strking motion. You could not make the argument that it is a lift and strike. And to be fair to Nash, TJ Reid and a few others have joined in on the act also, so it is not just Nash.

Nash lifts, throws and stikes. That is deliberate advancement of the ball, it contravenes Rule 4.25 and it is entirely against the spirit of the way penalty's were intended to be taken.

Rule 4.21 To play the ball again after taking a free/penalty/sideline puck before another playerhas played it, unless the ball rebounds off the
goal-posts or crossbar.

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

paddy no 11

Thats nonsense, you can advance the sideline by hand and you can advance a free puck by hand or by the current throwing technique. Just bacause you cant throw a sideline forward doesnt mean that part of the rule cant be applied to a free puck. Or is the important word in that rule.

rebel girl 15

paddy no 11 wrote: »

Thats nonsense, you can advance the sideline by hand and you can advance a free puck by hand or by the current throwing technique. Just bacause you cant throw a sideline forward doesnt mean that part of the rule cant be applied to a free puck. Or is the important word in that rule.

Nonsense? So explain to me, how a rule supposedly in black and white has NEVER been used to stop Nash? That is because the interpretation is placement of the ball and not where it is struck! The piece about the sideline ball there is why both have to cover advancement of placement!

If it was to be struck, then 2.5 would be clear on where it should be struck from - it says lift and strike, doesn't say the strike has to be two yards from the placement or 10 yards.

The interpretation of that rule is placement by hand, and not through the lift - because if it wasn't then this whole thing would have been mute ages ago!!

Gary Neville

Good God, Sasol, would you ever let this go.

If there was any possoble way that the exisiting rules could be interpreted to stop the Nash type penalty, then they would surely have done so. You are the only one I've come accross that claims that Nash is breaking the rules. Everyone else is out of step with my Johnny.

They have now tried an inane new interpretation - claiming that the lifting is now striking when Rule 2.5 clearly states that they are seperate and distinct movements. It provides for a lift and a 'fresh air' and then allows a time for the player to hit it from the ground before the defenders can charge out.
I don't care what mental gymnastics McEananey and Doherty are engaging in - there is no way that any reasonable interpretation of the existing rules allows defenders to advance before the ball is struck. O Keefe broke the rules as did Kelly - Nash didn't.

Martin567

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.

The mind boggles as to how Anthony Nash could have felt in any way hard done by on Sunday. He & others have been exploiting confusion in the rules over the past year yet he had the brass neck to complain when an opposition goalkeeper did likewise to counteract him.

Per the above & the interpretation from rebel girl, he is not contravening Rule 4.25 since the sliotar is placed on the 20m line. This then is the spot from which the free is being taken.

However, he doesn't strike the ball until he gets inside the 13m line and he doesn't want anyone else to move until this moment as apparently the free is not actually taken until the strike. Therefore there are two separate definitions of the spot where the free has been taken from which are 8m and at least 2 seconds apart.

How does he manage to get from the spot where the ball is placed to the spot where he strikes? He does so by a throwing action which is not envisaged at all by the rules and falls completely outside the definition of how a free is supposed to be taken. It is not remotely a natural action caused by momentum or anything else. It is a deliberate throw used for no other reason than to get much closer to the goal.

paddy no 11

The reason it hasnt been pulled before is that no body has taken this to the extent nash has (as only about a dozen people have pointed out previously) and GAA has never had such exposure with TV and the number of games are through the roof with club, u-21 being shown and the back door system. Fellas done this before but it might have been once or twice a year so there was no major outcry. Nash (and others) are taking the pish it needs to stop and rules are there imo. Deliberate advancement of the ball simple.

Martin567

rebel girl 15 wrote: »

it says lift and strike

Yes, that is exactly what is says! Not lift, throw & strike.

riffmongous

It's just getting more and more farcial, it's going to look like a hockey penalty corner next :rolleyes:

Gary Neville

Martin567 wrote: »

The mind boggles as to how Anthony Nash could have felt in any way hard done by on Sunday. He & others have been exploiting confusion in the rules over the past year yet he had the brass neck to complain when an opposition goalkeeper did likewise to counteract him.

Per the above & the interpretation from rebel girl, he is not contravening Rule 4.25 since the sliotar is placed on the 20m line. This then is the spot from which the free is being taken.

However, he doesn't strike the ball until he gets inside the 13m line and he doesn't want anyone else to move until this moment as apparently the free is not actually taken until the strike. Therefore there are two separate definitions of the spot where the free has been taken from which are 8m and at least 2 seconds apart.

How does he manage to get from the spot where the ball is placed to the spot where he strikes? He does so by a throwing action which is not envisaged at all by the rules and falls completely outside the definition of how a free is supposed to be taken. It is not remotely a natural action caused by momentum or anything else. It is a deliberate throw used for no other reason than to get much closer to the goal.

Good man yourself, Martin. Would you ever make contact with Messrs McEananey and Doherty and the lads in the Management Committee and you'll save them some amount of grief.

You might be available to do a slot with Gerlock on TSG - that would be fairly informative for the rest of the nation. I wouldn't bother contacting Sky though, If I were you.

999/112

Question is, if Clare are awarded a 21yd free/penalty next weekend, how will the Cork players defend it?

Martin567

Gary Neville wrote: »

Good man yourself, Martin. Would you ever make contact with Messrs McEananey and Doherty and the lads in the Management Committee and you'll save them some amount of grief.

You might be available to do a slot with Gerlock on TSG - that would be fairly informative for the rest of the nation. I wouldn't bother contacting Sky though, If I were you.

Bizarre! You're unable to contradict me so you resort to insults instead.

sasol

Gary Neville wrote: »

You are the only one I've come accross that claims that Nash is breaking the rules.
.

Really ?

I have clearly showed the rule that Nash is breaking. If you don't choose to accept, then that is ok.

It's very simple, Nash is deliberately advancing the ball. He is breaking the rules.

TBH it is sad to see some people defending this so much. Regardless of the rules, what he is doing is way outside the spirit of the game and how penaltys were intended.

sasol

999/112 wrote: »

Question is, if Clare are awarded a 21yd free/penalty next weekend, how will the Cork players defend it?

I'd fully expect them to charge it down a la O Keeffe.

But given the bitterness portrayed at the validity of Nash's frees been challenged, I would also expect them to charge down every other free.

The GAA need to sort this out now

rockonollie

The terms “taken” or “retaken” in Rules 2.2 Exceptions (i) and (ii) and 2.3 shall mean the ball being “struck”.
•A player taking a penalty or a 20m free puck, may bring the ball back up to seven metres from the 20m line for the purposes of making a traditional run at the ball, but shall strike the ball on or outside the 20m line but not inside it.
• Exception: In the context of Rule 2.5, if a player taking a penalty or free puck on the actual 20m line fails to lift the ball at the first attempt or fails to strike it with the hurley, and that action causes the ball to marginally cross inside the 20m line, the player, as provided for in this Rule, shall be allowed to strike the ball on the ground without delay.
• (a) The players defending a penalty or free puck awarded on the centre point of the 20m line shall stand on their goal-line and may not move towards the 20m line until the ball has been actually struck. ‘Lifting’ the ball with the hurley does not constitute ‘striking the ball’.
• (b) The players defending a free puck awarded on the 20m line at a point other than on the centre point of that line shall stand a minimum of 20m from the point of award of the free and may not move closer to that point of award until the ball has been actually struck. ‘Lifting’ the ball with the hurley does not constitute ‘striking the ball’
•This Interpretation shall, in accordance with Rule 3.43, Official Guide Part 1, have the force of Rule until Congress 2015, when the issues will be further addressed by way of Motion(s).

If approved this will put an end to the whole thing

TheCitizen

sasol wrote: »

Really ?

I have clearly showed the rule that Nash is breaking. If you don't choose to accept, then that is ok.

It's very simple, Nash is deliberately advancing the ball. He is breaking the rules.

TBH it is sad to see some people defending this so much. Regardless of the rules, what he is doing is way outside the spirit of the game and how penaltys were intended.

Naked tribalism appears to be blinding some people to what Nash has been at. If he and Cork had any class they would desist from doing it further, regardless of whether there's a grey area around it or not, and then the GAA can make a definitive ruling on it without being rushed into making a judgement.

Boom__Boom

in slow-motion

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxAnopvJA24

yellow50HX

TheCitizen wrote: »

So Cork delayed the change of the rule, because it may have been difficult to implement? Whatever the technicalities were, they ended up doing nothing and they've got a right mess on their hands now.


Nash is still carrying on with his penalty routine regardless, opposing players will have to take action themselves to combat it.

As is TJ Reid from KK, Eoin Kelly from Laois and Paul dermody of Kildare. All the Kilkenny lads like Eddie keher have gone very quite lately once TJ started taking close in frees.

sasol

The recommendation made tonight will put an end to this nonsense.

Should the Nash free be Outlawed ?
It just has

yellow50HX

Grats wrote: »

Fair enough and although that aspect had been ignored up to now it only appeared in lights due to the over-stealing of yards as Nash did. Now the focus will be on a free taker taking just the usual few steps to power home a shot, but from 19/20 yards not 14!

Ah Jaysus lads your completely missing the point. "The usual few steps" what usual few steps?. There is nothing in the rules stating the amount of steps a player can take. If you are deemed to be deliberately moving the ball forward from a free then not only should anthony Nash but also players like Shane dowling whose free style involves lifting a moving forward a few yards.

rockonollie

sasol wrote: »

The recommendation made tonight will put an end to this nonsense.

Should the Nash free be Outlawed ?
It just has

He can still advance the ball.......or "throw it" forward as you suggested, but still has to hit it before the 20 meter line

yellow50HX

sasol wrote: »

I have quoted the full rule, which includes sideline puck , this argument as you well know, is not about sideline pucks. I don't mean to be smart, but debating side line pucks is irrelevant here.

My interpretation of this rule is that it is intended to prevent deliberate advancement of the ball. There are a number of ways this can be done, including placing the ball 5 yards in front of the designated spot, or doing what Nash is doing and stealing several yards by throwing the ball forward - I don't expect you to agree with me, because it suits the Cork agenda not to.

Nash's style is not a lift and strike. That is the crux of the issue here.

Nash's style is lift, throw forward 10 yards , and strike. The 10 yards that Nash throws forward is deliberate,not part of a natural motion, and is dealt with in rule 4.25

Ok a few questions for you?

Do you or have you ever played hurling and if so did you ever take frees? Reason is ask is tell me how you would take a peno?

What is the natural motion of of a strike?

The rule you keep quoting 4.25 is for the placing of the ball for a free. How does a ball flying through the air that is deemed in play be considered advancing the free AFTER it has deemed to be taken?

rockonollie

yellow50HX wrote: »

Ok a few questions for you?

Do you or have you ever played hurling and if so did you ever take frees? Reason is ask is tell me how you would take a peno?

What is the natural motion of of a strike?

The rule you keep quoting 4.25 is for the placing of the ball for a free. How does a ball flying through the air that is deemed in play be considered advancing the free AFTER it has deemed to be taken?

Don't even bother yellow......flogging a dead horse

Grats

yellow50HX wrote: »

Ah Jaysus lads your completely missing the point. "The usual few steps" what usual few steps?. There is nothing in the rules stating the amount of steps a player can take. If you are deemed to be deliberately moving the ball forward from a free then not only should anthony Nash but also players like Shane dowling whose free style involves lifting a moving forward a few yards.

Do you know of any player who takes a penalty from a standing position? Do they not normally move forward as they lift and strike! That's the few steps I'm referring to. There was never a problem with that but because of Nash those few steps will be banned also.

Eddie Keher is proven correct as things turned out. Of course he went quiet as he was been demonised by certain quarters for expressing his view. He anticipated what could happen and like many others wasn't listened to. Kilkenny, Kildare, Laois and other counties were quite happy I would imagine to have Croke Park deal with the issue. When the GAA chickened out wouldn't they have been right fools to stand back, do nothing, wait until next year and allow Cork an unfair advantage?

The Nash Penalty will be counteracted by the O'Keeffe Rule! Fair play wins out.

Figsy32

sasol wrote: »

The recommendation made tonight will put an end to this nonsense.

Should the Nash free be Outlawed ?
It just has

If anything the 'Nash free' has been endorsed by the proposal.

The proposed rule specifically allows for that style of strike by giving him the option of placing the sliotar back up to 7 yards.

In one way I think it's a fair balance between rectifying the health and safety risks previously held, while acknowledging and allowing for the immense skill of Nash's style.

A couple of points though.. The proposal mentions nothing about frees that are not on the 21. In theory, is a free from 22 yards out subject to the rules and interpretation we saw on Sunday?

I'd also question whether just the goalkeeper should now be allowed in goal for penalties if this is strictly enforced. Regardless of what has been said previously on this thread, EVERY penalty is eventually struck (not lifted) from well within the 21 (people seem to ignore this when disparaging Nash.)

I'd suspect this proposal could therefore make it much harder to score from penalties so maybe a further change could be needed, as the advantage should be on favour of the attacking team.

Grats

Well done O'Keeffe, only for ya nothing would have been done until next year. Also credit to the other penalty takers who adapted the skill in such a short period of time. Apparently Nash has perfected over a number of years so well done to the new recruits. Ye forced the GAA's hands.

almostover

Found this on the RTE.ie and it was posted only 15-20 mins ago:

GAA Statement in full:
The Management Committee of the GAA has asked Central Council to consider and adjudicate on the following recommendations for Interpretations of Rule in relation to the Playing Rules of Hurling 2.2 Exceptions (i) and (ii), 2.3, 2.5 and 4.16(b)
The terms “taken” or “retaken” in Rules 2.2 Exceptions (i) and (ii) and 2.3 shall mean the ball being “struck”.
A player taking a penalty or a 20m free puck, may bring the ball back up to seven metres from the 20m line for the purposes of making a traditional run at the ball, but shall strike the ball on or outside the 20m line but not inside it.
Exception: In the context of Rule 2.5, if a player taking a penalty or free puck on the actual 20m line fails to lift the ball at the first attempt or fails to strike it with the hurley, and that action causes the ball to marginally cross inside the 20m line, the player, as provided for in this Rule, shall be allowed to strike the ball on the ground without delay.
(a) The players defending a penalty or free puck awarded on the centre point of the 20m line shall stand on their goal-line and may not move towards the 20m line until the ball has been actually struck. ‘Lifting’ the ball with the hurley does not constitute ‘striking the ball’.
(b) The players defending a free puck awarded on the 20m line at a point other than on the centre point of that line shall stand a minimum of 20m from the point of award of the free and may not move closer to that point of award until the ball has been actually struck. ‘Lifting’ the ball with the hurley does not constitute ‘striking the ball’.

Professey Chin

And posted here an hour and a half ago. RTE are robbing from boards :pac:

Connorzee

We'll need a black card next year to stop cynical fouling... What a **** up the GAA have made of the whole thing.

yellow50HX

almostover wrote: »

Found this on the RTE.ie and it was posted only 15-20 mins ago:

GAA Statement in full:
The Management Committee of the GAA has asked Central Council to consider and adjudicate on the following recommendations for Interpretations of Rule in relation to the Playing Rules of Hurling 2.2 Exceptions (i) and (ii), 2.3, 2.5 and 4.16(b)
The terms “taken” or “retaken” in Rules 2.2 Exceptions (i) and (ii) and 2.3 shall mean the ball being “struck”.
A player taking a penalty or a 20m free puck, may bring the ball back up to seven metres from the 20m line for the purposes of making a traditional run at the ball, but shall strike the ball on or outside the 20m line but not inside it.
Exception: In the context of Rule 2.5, if a player taking a penalty or free puck on the actual 20m line fails to lift the ball at the first attempt or fails to strike it with the hurley, and that action causes the ball to marginally cross inside the 20m line, the player, as provided for in this Rule, shall be allowed to strike the ball on the ground without delay.
(a) The players defending a penalty or free puck awarded on the centre point of the 20m line shall stand on their goal-line and may not move towards the 20m line until the ball has been actually struck. ‘Lifting’ the ball with the hurley does not constitute ‘striking the ball’.
(b) The players defending a free puck awarded on the 20m line at a point other than on the centre point of that line shall stand a minimum of 20m from the point of award of the free and may not move closer to that point of award until the ball has been actually struck. ‘Lifting’ the ball with the hurley does not constitute ‘striking the ball’.

I have no issue with any of this it in fact it makes a lot of sense and does clear up a lot....

BUT... And this is a big BUT...

What happens when free is awarded out side the 21? Was chatting to few lads in the cork county board and contrary to the public image they never had an issue with the proposed change brought forward last year. They problem then and what can see happening again is that it only referees to peno's and 21 yard frees.

Theoretically the ref can award a free in 22 yards out. The ball can then be placed just outside the 21 but a can be lifted from there but still struck inside the 21.
This still allows all frees to be charged from the moment the ball it touched.

Typical half arsed solution. They should also have included that all frees must be struck before the 21 or more sensibly that a free must be struck from the point the free is awarded but players can move the ball back from the point it is awarded from to allow the free taker to run or step into the shot.

yellow50HX

sasol wrote: »

The recommendation made tonight will put an end to this nonsense.

Should the Nash free be Outlawed ?
It just has

No it hasn't all that has changed is that the ball must now be struck at the point the free is awarded. Nash can still lift and run in up to 7 meters before hitting it.

adrian522

yellow50HX wrote: »

No it hasn't all that has changed is that the ball must now be struck at the point the free is awarded. Nash can still lift and run in up to 7 meters before hitting it.

Don't think people would have too much of an issue with that, be interesting where penalty takers elect to place the ball. About 2 yards back I reckon.