Should the 'Nash' free be outlawed?

sasol

rebel girl 15 wrote: »

By virtue of the fact they waited until they were forced to do something about it, by the actions of O Keeffe rushing the penalty

So O'Neill didn't say it ?

Exactly as I thought.

rebel girl 15

sasol wrote: »

So O'Neill didn't say it ?

Exactly as I thought.

Actions speak louder than words - it was down on the minutes that it was agreed at management to look at the issue at Congress 2015 i.e. that it was fine for this years championship!

yellow50HX

sasol wrote: »

I fully agree in relation to TJ and King Henry, and you could also say the same about Davy, Declan Ryan , DJ and a few others. But none if those broke the rules to the extent that Nash did

The rule been broken was 4.25 - deliberate advancement of the ball

if we take your mantra on deliberate advancement of the ball then yes they have. you can't just roll out a notion that there are different degrees of rule breaking. your either breaking the rule or you are not. carrying the ball in your hand for 5 steps is a foul as is carrying it for 10 steps. whether your are moving the ball forward 2 meters or 10 meters its still the same foul

if anthony nash was breaking the rule, or davy fitz, or dj or practically every other free taker in the modern history would have been blown up for a foul.

can you tell me of anytime that nash has been penalised for any of his frees? i can't think or any, has every ref in the county been completely ignorant of this rule?

fact is that up until last nights ruling he wasn't and you can roll out the 4.25 rule as much as you want but he wasn't breaking it.

Gary Neville

sasol wrote: »

Really ? Can you tell me when O'Neill stated this ?

On Radio 1 - Monday Morning.

Here's an extract from Examiner Report by Peter O Dwyer - posted on their site at 3.27pm on 9th June :-

''Despite Loughnane’s calls for the issue to be addressed immediately, GAA President Liam O’ Neill this morning said that any rule change is not possible until congress meets.
“We can’t address it until congress,” he said on RTÉ Radio 1. “We can’t stop the championship halfway through and change the rules. We did try to address this at congress.
"The rule we tried to bring in would have affected all frees. We wanted it for 21-yard frees. Cork vehemently opposed it.
“What we want to do is have the ball placed somewhere outside the 21, ideally in the D somewhere and struck before the 20-metre line and we will address it at the next congress.”

case885

I cant wait to see Nash still smashing in goals, what then? Ban goalkeepers taking frees and penalties :rolleyes:

Gary Neville

rebel girl 15 wrote: »

By virtue of the fact they waited until they were forced to do something about it, by the actions of O Keeffe rushing the penalty

The whole thing is absurd.

We have had 3 different rules governing pernalties in 3 days.

(1) Sunday at 3PM - the rule that's been in effect for decades. Player lifts the ball on 20M line and hits in further in as it drops. Keeper and 2 defenders can't advance until the ball is struck. Barry Kelly understood and implemented the rules fully. He told Limerick and Tipp players not to advance until ball was struck (per Wayne MacNamara.

(2) Sunday c 4pm. John Ryan allowed O Keefe to advance. Pat Doherty (Assoc national match officials manager) and some other spokesman for GAA (not named by TSG) indicated after the match that Ryan was correct and unilaterally decided that a lift was a strike (Bizzare)

(3) Tues Evening - Management Committee recommends a different interpretation to central council. The nett effect is that penalties will have to be struck outside or on the 20M line thereby taking it further out than before Nash increased the distance of the lift.

it's being termed a different interpretation of the rules but in reality it's a new rule. It's moving back the position of the lift/free take. They changed the rule for the football penalty and brought it closer but didn't try to hood-wink members by calling it a new interpretation.

This is a blatant over-stepping of their mandate by Management Committee in collusion with central council. Liam O Neill indicated on Radio on Mon that they had to wait until congress to change the rules and couldn't do so mid season. He was right and should step in now and stop this nonsense.

This is a matter for congress and that's how we change our rules.

The justification used seems to be that an incompetent ref, John Ryan got the rules wrong and some parties retrospectively validated Ryan's error.

This is shameful conduct and is a blatant attempt to usurp the power of congress. To add insult to injury they are trying to fob us off by saying that it's a new interpretation of the rules. It's a new rule - plain and simple.

IMO - the management committee and central council have played a 3 card trick totally without justification. All that was required was to tell Doherty and whoever lied to TSG that they were well out of line. Ryan got it wrong and stand him down.

This is the 1st time I can recall where a rule was changed to reward cynical fouling. It's totally against the ethos of the game.

sasol

Gary Neville wrote: »

On Radio 1 - Monday Morning.

Here's an extract from Examiner Report by Peter O Dwyer - posted on their site at 3.27pm on 9th June :-

''Despite Loughnane’s calls for the issue to be addressed immediately, GAA President Liam O’ Neill this morning said that any rule change is not possible until congress meets.
“We can’t address it until congress,” he said on RTÉ Radio 1. “We can’t stop the championship halfway through and change the rules. We did try to address this at congress.
"The rule we tried to bring in would have affected all frees. We wanted it for 21-yard frees. Cork vehemently opposed it.
“What we want to do is have the ball placed somewhere outside the 21, ideally in the D somewhere and struck before the 20-metre line and we will address it at the next congress.”

I have read that three times and nowhere does O Neill say that what Nash did is within the rules.

The GAA have quite correctly sorted out the mess and we have most of Cork in meltdown. If Davy Fitz gave out as much as Bob Ryan has , in the past 24 hours , the venom that would have been directed in Fitzys direction would have been frightening. Yet this mess is entirely of Corks making.

O Neill never said what Nash was doing , was within the rules.

Nash was clearly , and deliberately , breaking rule 4.25 .

sasol

Gary Neville wrote: »

It's totally against the ethos of the game.

What Nash was doing was totally against the ethos of the game

yellow50HX

sasol wrote: »

I have read that three times and nowhere does O Neill say that what Nash did is within the rules.

The GAA have quite correctly sorted out the mess and we have most of Cork in meltdown. If Davy Fitz gave out as much as Bob Ryan has , in the past 24 hours , the venom that would have been directed in Fitzys direction would have been frightening. Yet this mess is entirely of Corks making.

O Neill never said what Nash was doing , was within the rules.

Nash was clearly , and deliberately , breaking rule 4.25 .

What will we do for the rest of the championship as clearly from you pointing out this all the refs that have been used in the games in which TJ Reid, Nash, Eoin Kelly and any other player that has used a similar free taking method must clearly not be up to the job.... :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Connorzee

Agree with Gary Neville above. Incompetant refereeing (and surprise surprise, inconsistent refereeing) by John Ryan is the cause of this. He should step down as referee and concentrate on the club games or get involved in camogie.

rebel girl 15

sasol wrote: »

I have read that three times and nowhere does O Neill say that what Nash did is within the rules.

The GAA have quite correctly sorted out the mess and we have most of Cork in meltdown. If Davy Fitz gave out as much as Bob Ryan has , in the past 24 hours , the venom that would have been directed in Fitzys direction would have been frightening. Yet this mess is entirely of Corks making.

O Neill never said what Nash was doing , was within the rules.

Nash was clearly , and deliberately , breaking rule 4.25 .

You are like a dog with a bone, so I would like you to clarify two things - explain to me 1) why we have had all this clarification on the interpretation of rules if this rule is there,then why are they not penalising Nash straight away, and 2) why NONE of the clarifications mention the rule you have decided use as a stick to beat Nash with, bear in mind, Nash not being the only player to use this technique? Can I ask, have you held any officership within a GAA club, or county board?


Gary, what's the difference between Central council and congress? Have you been to either one?? The roles are clearly defined,

the management committee have the power to SUGGEST, not implement these such interpretations. Then central council, made up of delegates from every county, would vote on said interpretation. So in your post, you are basically calling all the delegates from every county in Ireland, who do make up the majority of Congress delegates, now colluding outside of congress!


It is not a new rule, the current rule states that players must be 20m from the ball, so for that happen, then penalty must be struck from 20m away. There was no definition of what take meant, did it mean the lift or the strike, it has been defined as the strike. From that definition of taken meaning strike, players must remain 20m away until the ball is struck.

What haven't had three different rules, we had the first one which was interpreted to the second one, and the third one clarifying the situation.

Gary Neville

sasol wrote: »

What Nash was doing was totally against the ethos of the game

So improving technique and skill is against the ethos of the game - Cop yourself on man.
And would you ever give over with your nonsense about breaking rule 4.25. Many posters have already pointed out that if he was breaking any rules, it would have been flagged by now.

Are you stupid or just wumming ?

irelandrover

rockonollie wrote: »

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;



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



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.

Were THE rules changed recently. When i read them rule 4.16 reffering to à penalty stated players could move when the penalty was taken and 4.17 referring to a free stated they couldn't move until the free was struck. These are the rules I found on the GAA website.

rebel girl 15

Connorzee wrote: »

Agree with Gary Neville above. Incompetant refereeing (and surprise surprise, inconsistent refereeing) by John Ryan is the cause of this. He should step down as referee and concentrate on the club games or get involved in camogie.

I've to defend the referee here, no other referee pulled Nash before because of his style, no goalkeeper had ever rushed the penalty the moment Nash lifted the ball. He was caught in no man's land - Nash was legal, according to the letter of the law and more importantly precedence, and O Keeffe was legal because there was no definition of taken meaning to lift the ball or to strike the ball. He was damned if he did, damned if he didn't.

rebel girl 15

irelandrover wrote: »

Were THE rules changed recently. When i read them rule 4.16 reffering to à penalty stated players could move when the penalty was taken and 4.17 referring to a free stated they couldn't move until the free was struck. These are the rules I found on the GAA website.

No rule has been changed, they have been defined properly

irelandrover

rebel girl 15 wrote: »

No rule has been changed, they have been defined properly

They state that a penalty is taken from the 20m line. So when it leaves that line surely it is taken. No need to clarify a hit or strike?

yellow50HX

sasol wrote: »

What Nash was doing was totally against the ethos of the game

What utter nonsense.

If the ethos of the game is to try your hardest to score more then your opposition then I suppose you must be right.

As the game is hurling perhaps we should also ban kicking and hand passing as your not using the hurly to move the ball so as to keep the ethos of the game!!!

hurling_lad

yellow50HX wrote: »

if we take your mantra on deliberate advancement of the ball then yes they have. you can't just roll out a notion that there are different degrees of rule breaking. your either breaking the rule or you are not. carrying the ball in your hand for 5 steps is a foul as is carrying it for 10 steps. whether your are moving the ball forward 2 meters or 10 meters its still the same foul

if anthony nash was breaking the rule, or davy fitz, or dj or practically every other free taker in the modern history would have been blown up for a foul.

can you tell me of anytime that nash has been penalised for any of his frees? i can't think or any, has every ref in the county been completely ignorant of this rule?

fact is that up until last nights ruling he wasn't and you can roll out the 4.25 rule as much as you want but he wasn't breaking it.

We are going to see history made this weekend. The first ever penalty to be struck from on or outside the 21.

yellow50HX

rebel girl 15 wrote: »

I've to defend the referee here, no other referee pulled Nash before because of his style, no goalkeeper had ever rushed the penalty the moment Nash lifted the ball. He was caught in no man's land - Nash was legal, according to the letter of the law and more importantly precedence, and O Keeffe was legal because there was no definition of taken meaning to lift the ball or to strike the ball. He was damned if he did, damned if he didn't.

Well paddy Kelly did do the same in the final last year for a free outside the 21.

Stephen o keeffe admitted that he would try it if there was a peno. He knew that there might be a chance that the free might bring it forward if he tried in for a close in free but that the ref can't bring forward the ball any further then the 21. He didn't know if he was legal or not as in the tipp limerick game the players were told they couldn't move until the ball was struck. He reckoned he was chancing his arm but unless he got pulled up on it he had nothing to lose.

irelandrover

2.3 A penalty puck shall be taken at the centre point of the 20m line and the semi-circular arc, and only three defending players may stand on the goal-line. All other players, with the exception of the player taking the puck, shall be outside the 20m line, and shall not cross the 20m line or the arc until the ball has been struck. If a defending player(s) fouls before the ball is struck and a goal does not result, the referee shall allow the penalty puck to be retaken.

Reading this rule it is terribly written. Technically you only need to be outside the 20m line. It doesn't state that you have to be outside the arc. So you can stand in front of the ball.

Gary Neville

rebel girl 15 wrote: »

You are like a dog with a bone, so I would like you to clarify two things - explain to me 1) why we have had all this clarification on the interpretation of rules if this rule is there,then why are they not penalising Nash straight away, and 2) why NONE of the clarifications mention the rule you have decided use as a stick to beat Nash with, bear in mind, Nash not being the only player to use this technique? Can I ask, have you held any officership within a GAA club, or county board?


Gary, what's the difference between Central council and congress? Have you been to either one?? The roles are clearly defined,

the management committee have the power to SUGGEST, not implement these such interpretations. Then central council, made up of delegates from every county, would vote on said interpretation. So in your post, you are basically calling all the delegates from every county in Ireland, who do make up the majority of Congress delegates, now colluding outside of congress!


It is not a new rule, the current rule states that players must be 20m from the ball, so for that happen, then penalty must be struck from 20m away. There was no definition of what take meant, did it mean the lift or the strike, it has been defined as the strike. From that definition of taken meaning strike, players must remain 20m away until the ball is struck.

What haven't had three different rules, we had the first one which was interpreted to the second one, and the third one clarifying the situation.

I'm well aware of the functions of Congress and Central Council. The forum for rules changes is congress and clubs and members are consulted and given input into the decisions that shape the game. This works well and we've seen lively and informed debate although I wasn't happy with Cork's approach to Rule 42 and members opinions were ignored to a large exptent (but that's a different discussion)

This recommendation has been rushed through and there is no way that the implications can be debated properly as would be the case with congress.

IMO - it came about because of the failure by Johnny Ryan to implement the rules and some crazy retrospective validation of his decision with an inane suggestion that lifting =striking.

The rules have been there for a long time wrt penalties - the ball was placed and lifted on the 20M line and hit further in as it dropped.
The rules allowed for striking inside the 20M line and specifically forbid others apart from the free taker and 3 defenders to be inside the line when the ball was struck.

I can't believe that you are buying the inane suggestion that the rules are not being changed.

yellow50HX

hurling_lad wrote: »

We are going to see history made this weekend. The first ever penalty to be struck from on or outside the 21.

Yeah I would say its a really long time since someone did it from a standing stance. I could be wrong but I can only remember gary Kirby trying it that way but I think he might still have taken one forward step.

irelandrover

Gary Neville wrote: »

.

IMO - it came about because of the failure by Johnny Ryan to implement the rules and some crazy retrospective vindication of his decision with an inane suggestion that lifting =striking.

The rules have been there for a long time wrt penalties - the ball was placed and lifted on the 20M line and hit further in as it dropped.
The rules allowed for striking inside the 20M line and specifically forbid others apart from the free taker and 3 defenders to be inside the line when the ball was struck.

I can't believe that you are buying the inane suggestion that the rules are not being changed.

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

4.17 (a) For an opposing player to be nearer than 20m to the ball before a free puck is struck. (b) For an opposing player to be nearer than 13m to the ball before a side-line puck is struck. PENALTY FOR THE ABOVE FOULS - Free puck 13m more advantageous than the place of original puck - up to opponents’ 20m line.

4.16 relating to a penalty states players cannot move until the puck is taken.

2.3 A penalty puck shall be taken at the centre point of the 20m line and the semi-circular arc, and only three defending players may stand on the goal-line. All other players, with the exception of the p

Rule 2.3 states it is taken from the 20m line. Therefore reading the rules the penalty is taken once it leaves that line

sasol

rebel girl 15 wrote: »

You are like a dog with a bone, so I would like you to clarify two things - explain to me 1) why we have had all this clarification on the interpretation of rules if this rule is there,then why are they not penalising Nash straight away, and 2) why NONE of the clarifications mention the rule you have decided use as a stick to beat Nash with, bear in mind, Nash not being the only player to use this technique? Can I ask, have you held any officership within a GAA club, or county board?


Gary, what's the difference between Central council and congress? Have you been to either one?? The roles are clearly defined,

the management committee have the power to SUGGEST, not implement these such interpretations. Then central council, made up of delegates from every county, would vote on said interpretation. So in your post, you are basically calling all the delegates from every county in Ireland, who do make up the majority of Congress delegates, now colluding outside of congress!


It is not a new rule, the current rule states that players must be 20m from the ball, so for that happen, then penalty must be struck from 20m away. There was no definition of what take meant, did it mean the lift or the strike, it has been defined as the strike. From that definition of taken meaning strike, players must remain 20m away until the ball is struck.

What haven't had three different rules, we had the first one which was interpreted to the second one, and the third one clarifying the situation.

1) good question, and one that should be directed at Johnny Ryan, James McGratg and a few others. I think it is fair to say that the standard of hurling referee at the moment leaves a lot to be desired particularly in relation to enforcement of the rules as we have seen several times already this year

2) because rule 4.25 did not need to be clarified . You only clarify something if it is not clear or obvious. Rule 4.25 deals with deliberate advancement of the ball . Nash was deliberately advancing the ball - it really is that clear cut. Nash was throwing the ball forward between the lift and the strike , to gain an unfair advantage, by deliberately advancing the ball.

As you are well aware, I have quoted rule 4.25 to prove what Nash was doing was illegal. Nobody has been able to disprove this but have tried to divert the attention to try and justify this illegality by claiming it is a skill, because DJ did it - it is ok - all attempted defenses outside the rule book

Gary Neville

rebel girl 15 wrote: »

I've to defend the referee here, no other referee pulled Nash before because of his style, no goalkeeper had ever rushed the penalty the moment Nash lifted the ball. He was caught in no man's land - Nash was legal, according to the letter of the law and more importantly precedence, and O Keeffe was legal because there was no definition of taken meaning to lift the ball or to strike the ball. He was damned if he did, damned if he didn't.

Aw come off it. The rules provided for a fresh air and gave the player time to hit it on the ground before defenders could advance. If he hesitiated unduly they could charge out and play the ball. It was crystal clear that the ball had to be lifted and struck before defenders could advance. This notion of lift = strike was introduced Sunday Evening for some reason.

I'm beginning to think it was a set-up to allow the management committee to act and then rush it through central council on the basis that the confusion had to be cleared up and the current rules were not implementable (per Pat Doherty)

Gary Neville

sasol wrote: »

1) good question, and one that should be directed at Johnny Ryan, James McGratg and a few others. I think it is fair to say that the standard of hurling referee at the moment leaves a lot to be desired particularly in relation to enforcement of the rules as we have seen several times already this year

2) because rule 4.25 did not need to be clarified . You only clarify something if it is not clear or obvious. Rule 4.25 deals with deliberate advancement of the ball . Nash was deliberately advancing the ball - it really is that clear cut. Nash was throwing the ball forward between the lift and the strike , to gain an unfair advantage, by deliberately advancing the ball.

As you are well aware, I have quoted rule 4.25 to prove what Nash was doing was illegal. Nobody has been able to disprove this but have tried to divert the attention to try and justify this illegality by claiming it is a skill, because DJ did it - it is ok - all attempted defenses outside the rule book

God - not again. You're not going to let this go, are you ?

OK - You are spot on. Nash was breaking the rules (4.25) - Well spotted.

We were pretty sure that we had got away with it but I suppose some intrepid observer was bound to cotton on, sooner or later.

Now would you please let it rest.

sasol

Gary Neville wrote: »

OK - You are spot on. Nash was breaking the rules (4.25)

Thank you Gary

RGS

Now that the issue of 20 metre frees has been "SORTED"???!!!!! Central Council could still reject the proposal.

will we now have the same attention to other dead ball situations, if a 20 metre free must be struck on or behind the 20 metre line then it follows that a 65 must also be taken from the 65 metre line or behind it or is deliberately advancing the ball ahead of the 65 allowable,

The solution does not solve problems but only opens up new problems.

yellow50HX

Not sure how many on here have seen before but this was made back in the 50's or 60's. Anyway. Notice were the ball is placed, the deliberate moving forward of the ball and the position where the ball is hit.
As this was made for a training video and not done at full speed, in full game mode it is done faster so the momentum actually brings him further forward.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1v7DYeERHio

Here is another, note the position of the ball where it is placed and again where it is struck. Have a very close look at where Eoin Kelly is when the ball is struck.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LpKNPd8FeqM

Below is anthony Nashs 1st goal against Wexford. While Nash rises the ball higher then Kelly the final strike is almost at the same point just before the 14.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SraDNAEtq8M

This is Nashs goal v tipp earlier this year, as you can see he strikes this one just after the 14. I would say Nashs technique probably now gains him another meter over Eoin Kelly's and Christy rings.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6wdLzwXpSqk

As you can see moving the strike back to the 21 the peno will now be hit about back about 30% then normal. The above peno's have been in vogue for over 50 years yet when a player brings the ball further another 3 feet we now have to go back 7 meters. Now can someone tell me how this cannot be considered a rule change as opposed to a clarification.

Oh and sasol why has the way the ball is moved forward never been called as a foul before? According to you interpretion of the rule on the placement of the ball every single free in the videos above are illegal.

This issue will unfortunately rumble on for the summer so hopefully there will a well thought solution to be brought in the close season.

Grats

Get over it folks, it's over. It was good while it lasted. Nash was doing it for years and had perfected the skill. Thankfully some penalty takers adapted to the new style in a very short time. That, along with O'Keeffe's charge last Sunday forced the GAA to sort it out.

Lots of posters talking about the standard of reffing THIS YEAR! How quickly we forget the poor reffing just last year that had a huge bearing on results of matches but all conveniently swept under the carpet.

Let me recall for ye - Horgan, Shefflin, O'Dwyer, all sent off in error. Shane O'Neill should have been red carded in two matches and wasn't. Now there's poor reffing.

darragh_haven

sasol wrote: »

1) good question, and one that should be directed at Johnny Ryan, James McGratg and a few others. I think it is fair to say that the standard of hurling referee at the moment leaves a lot to be desired particularly in relation to enforcement of the rules as we have seen several times already this year

2) because rule 4.25 did not need to be clarified . You only clarify something if it is not clear or obvious. Rule 4.25 deals with deliberate advancement of the ball . Nash was deliberately advancing the ball - it really is that clear cut. Nash was throwing the ball forward between the lift and the strike , to gain an unfair advantage, by deliberately advancing the ball.

As you are well aware, I have quoted rule 4.25 to prove what Nash was doing was illegal. Nobody has been able to disprove this but have tried to divert the attention to try and justify this illegality by claiming it is a skill, because DJ did it - it is ok - all attempted defenses outside the rule book

For **** sake cop on. I, and several others, have pointed out to you that rule 4.25 saying it is it is illegal to advance the ball in where you place it for the free/penalty. As I pointed out the rule says from where the free "is to be taken"
Using your incorrect interpretation of the rule, every free taken in the history of hurling has been illegal due to the taker advancing the ball between the lift and the strike, be it 2 yards or 6 yards.
The rule 4.25 is stating that if a free is awarded on the 45 meter line, and the player tries to bring it forward to the 43 meter mark when placing the ball..... that is breaking rule 4.25
You obviously hate nash or/and cork, because you fail to acknowledge that every other free taker advanced the ball between the lift and the strike...... even though it is not breaking any rule

keane2097

darragh_haven wrote: »

The rule 4.25 is stating that if a free is awarded on the 45 meter line, and the player tries to bring it forward to the 43 meter mark when placing the ball..... that is breaking rule 4.25

This is obviously correct, I'm not sure why anyone is entertaining the dishonest deliberate misinterpretation being peddled ITT. Everyone here knows what 4.25 is about.

Mountainlad

Grats wrote: »

Get over it folks, it's over. It was good while it lasted. Nash was doing it for years and had perfected the skill. Thankfully some penalty takers adapted to the new style in a very short time. That, along with O'Keeffe's charge last Sunday forced the GAA to sort it out.

Lots of posters talking about the standard of reffing THIS YEAR! How quickly we forget the poor reffing just last year that had a huge bearing on results of matches but all conveniently swept under the carpet.

Let me recall for ye - Horgan, Shefflin, O'Dwyer, all sent off in error. Shane O'Neill should have been red carded in two matches and wasn't. Now there's poor reffing.

Get over it he says, and then lists a spate of incidents from last year.

Grats

Mountainlad wrote: »

Get over it he says, and then lists a spate of incidents from last year.

Only because posters listed a spate of incidents from YEARS ago!!! Conveniently forgetting just last year!

adrian522

Gary Neville wrote: »

The whole thing is absurd.

We have had 3 different rules governing pernalties in 3 days.

(1) Sunday at 3PM - the rule that's been in effect for decades. Player lifts the ball on 20M line and hits in further in as it drops. Keeper and 2 defenders can't advance until the ball is struck. Barry Kelly understood and implemented the rules fully. He told Limerick and Tipp players not to advance until ball was struck (per Wayne MacNamara.

(2) Sunday c 4pm. John Ryan allowed O Keefe to advance. Pat Doherty (Assoc national match officials manager) and some other spokesman for GAA (not named by TSG) indicated after the match that Ryan was correct and unilaterally decided that a lift was a strike (Bizzare)

(3) Tues Evening - Management Committee recommends a different interpretation to central council. The nett effect is that penalties will have to be struck outside or on the 20M line thereby taking it further out than before Nash increased the distance of the lift.

it's being termed a different interpretation of the rules but in reality it's a new rule. It's moving back the position of the lift/free take. They changed the rule for the football penalty and brought it closer but didn't try to hood-wink members by calling it a new interpretation.

This is a blatant over-stepping of their mandate by Management Committee in collusion with central council. Liam O Neill indicated on Radio on Mon that they had to wait until congress to change the rules and couldn't do so mid season. He was right and should step in now and stop this nonsense.

This is a matter for congress and that's how we change our rules.

The justification used seems to be that an incompetent ref, John Ryan got the rules wrong and some parties retrospectively validated Ryan's error.

This is shameful conduct and is a blatant attempt to usurp the power of congress. To add insult to injury they are trying to fob us off by saying that it's a new interpretation of the rules. It's a new rule - plain and simple.

IMO - the management committee and central council have played a 3 card trick totally without justification. All that was required was to tell Doherty and whoever lied to TSG that they were well out of line. Ryan got it wrong and stand him down.

This is the 1st time I can recall where a rule was changed to reward cynical fouling. It's totally against the ethos of the game.

In relation to 1 and 2 above surely either any penalty is in contravention of the rule that states that defenders must be 20 yards back when the ball is struck or the penalty is deemed taken once the lifting starts.

You can't have it both ways. i.e you can't say for the purposes of one rule the penalty was "taken" at the 20 meter line and for the purposes of another rule say the goalkeeper can't move off his line until the ball is struck.

That's my interpretation of it anyway. I also don't believe the referee made any mistake last Sunday. Seems pretty consistent with what Nash and other have been allowed to do. Not bizarre in the least.

mooonpie

IMO, it's a poorly thought out half baked response to the problem.

Just to be a complete pedant, let's say I get fouled 22m from goal, the "clarification" doesn't apply, right?

So I can, in theory, emulate Nash's style and actually strike the ball closer than I'm allowed to for a penalty or 20m free?

Why should a 20m free be any different than a free 22m out? or a free just inside/outside the arc? or a 65?

adrian522

mooonpie wrote: »

IMO, it's a poorly thought out half baked response to the problem.

Just to be a complete pedant, let's say I get fouled 22m from goal, the "clarification" doesn't apply, right?

So I can, in theory, emulate Nash's style and actually strike the ball closer than I'm allowed to for a penalty or 20m free?

Why should a 20m free be any different than a free 22m out? or a free just inside/outside the arc? or a 65?

Yeah, in theory the ref could "penalise" the defenders on the line for being within 20 meters when the free is taken, the penalty for which is to move the free closer to the goal, in this case to the 20 meter line and then the new "Clarification" would apply. Messy situation all round.

rockonollie

mooonpie wrote: »

IMO, it's a poorly thought out half baked response to the problem.

Just to be a complete pedant, let's say I get fouled 22m from goal, the "clarification" doesn't apply, right?

So I can, in theory, emulate Nash's style and actually strike the ball closer than I'm allowed to for a penalty or 20m free?

Why should a 20m free be any different than a free 22m out? or a free just inside/outside the arc? or a 65?

The new clarification was approved and they added a note to cover the possibility of a free from 22 yards out

(iii) No free may be struck from inside the 20m line other than as provided for in Exception stated in (2) above.

(Exception (2) refers to a player failing to rise the ball and it goes past the 20 meter line, where the player is still allowed to strike the ball on the ground)

What I find interesting, and either doesn't help the GAA's denial that this isn't targetting cork, or really shows how much the Leinster championship is ignored......the new rules are in effect starting this Sunday, when Cork and Clare play......I would assume that means that Wexford and Dublin on saturday night can use the old rules.


From GAA.ie

Central Council today approved the Interpretation of Rules as issued on Tuesday evening last June 10. They will come into effect on Sunday next June 14.

rockonollie

Nevermind......the 14th is Saturday.....someone in the GAA press office needs a desk calendar

RGS

Central Council today approved the Interpretation of Rules as issued on Tuesday evening last June 10. They will come into effect on Saturday next June 14.

***

Rules 2.2 Exceptions (i) and (ii), 2.3, 2.5, 4.16(b)

(1) The terms “taken” or “retaken” in Rules 2.2 Exceptions (i) and (ii) and 2.3 shall mean the ball being “struck”.

(2) 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.

(3) (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’

(4) 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).

***

Points to note

(I) Where a player taking a penalty or a 20m free strikes the ball from inside the 20m line, the penalty shall be as in Rule 4.25

(i) Cancel free puck or sideline puck
(ii) Throw in ball where the foul occurred, except as provided under
Exceptions (v) and (vi) of Rule 2.2

(ii) After a foul, play is restarted by a free puck or a throw in where the foul occurred (Rule 2.2 – Playing Rules of Hurling). Therefore, where play is re-started by a free puck, the ball must be struck at the point where the foul occurred. As in football, the player taking the free puck may bring the ball back as far as he wishes for the purposes of making a run before striking the ball.

(iii) No free may be struck from inside the 20m line other than as provided for in Exception stated in (2) above
Effective from Saturday, 14th June 2014.

Central council have approved the rule change however point (ii) has changed the way frees have been taken for the past 125 years. Every free taker will now have to take the ball back a couple of yards even for a standard lift and strike, you cant lift and strike in a static manner and hope to strike the ball 60/700 yards. If refs enforce this rule we will have numerous throw ins or will refs just ignore the rule for all frees otehr than those near the 20 metre line.

CHANGING RULES MID WAY THROUGH A CHAMPIONSHIP IS A TOTAL JOKE.

Connorzee

So what i surmise from the above is that we can still scoop it and just let the ball drop beyond the 13 and hit as a drop shot as its considered that the player failed to pick the ball up

sasol

Connorzee wrote: »

So what i surmise from the above is that we can still scoop it and just let the ball drop beyond the 13 and hit as a drop shot as its considered that the player failed to pick the ball up

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.


The ball is only allowed to marginally cross the 20m line. How do you propose it is thrown into the 13 ?

Why the obsession with trying to find a loophole? Why not take the free as was intended?

The GAA should be applauded for having the courage to take this action at this stage of the season. The easy thing to do, would have been to turn a blind eye until next congress.

Connorzee

"Marginal" is a loose term and relative... exactly how many metres is "marginal"?? If loopholes exist then it's up to the top brass to close them, until then, the aim of the game is to win, not to take part im afraid

sasol

Connorzee wrote: »

"Marginal" is a loose term and relative... exactly how many metres is "marginal"?? If loopholes exist then it's up to the top brass to close them, until then, the aim of the game is to win, not to take part im afraid

Marginal means small/slight/tiny . Suggesting to bring the ball inside 13m and not to governed by what I have quoted is ridiculous

Persistent challenging of loopholes would destroy the game, but thankfully this is not on most counties agenda's

rockonollie

Connorzee wrote: »

"Marginal" is a loose term and relative... exactly how many metres is "marginal"?? If loopholes exist then it's up to the top brass to close them, until then, the aim of the game is to win, not to take part im afraid

They don't have to......"Marginal" may be a loose term, but that also means that the decision on what's marginal is at the discretion of the referee, central council don't need to close any gaps.....if players decide to try the intentional drop-shot you mentioned, the refs will very quickly stamp it out.

zetecescort

http://youtu.be/TcBFfDhoNXc

Akrasia

The Pontiac wrote: »

Some people appear to have a difficult time grasping this, but you can't change the rules of hurling at a Tuesday night get-together - it has to go through Council first.

An absolute embarrassment for the GAA.

They had to change the rules before the Clare Cork game because if that game was decided because of another Anthony Nash free it would have brought the game into dis-repute

rockonollie

The Pontiac wrote: »

Some people appear to have a difficult time grasping this, but you can't change the rules of hurling at a Tuesday night get-together - it has to go through Council first.

An absolute embarrassment for the GAA.

The rule change is completely legal and by no means an embarrassment.....it was proposed and approved by central council, following the letter of the law.

Gary Neville

rockonollie wrote: »

The rule change is completely legal and by no means an embarrassment.....it was proposed and approved by central council, following the letter of the law.

Comments like this would be quite funny except for the fact that the Association is brought into disrepute by the actions of management committee.

You are correct in terming this as a rule change - the attempt to pawn it off as a different interpretation or a clarification is absurd and it surprises me that so may people are prepared to accept this.

The method of changing rules is quite clear - It must be done at congress as stated clearly by the President of the Association as late as Monday Morning.

The confusion created by TSG and Pat Doherty needed to be cleared up - however, this notion of lift = strike was a total 'red herring' and should have been kicked into touch without delay.

For some reason, a number of parties decided that the penalty style used by Reid, Nash & Ors was unsafe and should be stopped. They attempted to do so at congress but were blocked (entirely within the rules)

It's now entirely appropriate to question whether the 'confusion' was a diversionary tactic to circumvent the tried and trusted procedures for rule changes.

Martin567

Gary Neville still seems unable to understand!!

It's quite simple. The rules as they stood didn't make sense. In particular, it was unclear what 'taken' meant. Was a free 'taken' at the lift or at the strike?

If it was at the lift then neither keeper did anything wrong last Sunday (although I would still query Anthony Nash's throwing action). If it was at the strike then both keepers breached the rules.

This has now been clarified as it had to be. It is true that many players have been stealing ground for years and convention has allowed it to happen. Anthony Nash has forced this on the GAA as he was effectively taking the p**s with where he was striking the ball from. From the first time I saw his style in last year's final I said it was farcical and some change was always I inevitable.