National Forum

Kickouts Beyond the 20m Line

(Oldest Posts First) - Go To The Latest Post


It's an interesting idea taking part of the pitch out of play at certain times. There have been calls over recent times to reduce the number of players in a team to 13 to reduce congestion on the pitch and give players more room to play. This seems to suggest that we will go the opposite way and congest the play more at kick-outs. I wonder if an 'off-side' rule will be the next change considered.

neverright (Roscommon) - Posts: 1224 - 02/10/2017 17:42:28    2052506

Link

Replying To zinny:  "What it does introduce consistency - it's almost impossible for a referee to measure 13m. At least with a free the ref could step it out if needed but not with a kickout. So no more arguments. It won't make much difference other than no more arguments."
So you think a short kickout is far more of a problem in Gaelic football than verbally abusing an individual, as officials are given a rule to police that but to my knowledge no ref has brandished a black card as they say it's impossible to determine under the time as it stands.
it's amazing the clamour of these ex players condemning short kickouts as an ill of the game yet the vast majority of them are commending sledging or verbal abuse of skillfull players to try stop them playing well and actually go as far as to say it's part and parcel of the game.

hill16no1man (Dublin) - Posts: 12665 - 02/10/2017 18:40:41    2052524

Link

Replying To hill16no1man:  "So you think a short kickout is far more of a problem in Gaelic football than verbally abusing an individual, as officials are given a rule to police that but to my knowledge no ref has brandished a black card as they say it's impossible to determine under the time as it stands.
it's amazing the clamour of these ex players condemning short kickouts as an ill of the game yet the vast majority of them are commending sledging or verbal abuse of skillfull players to try stop them playing well and actually go as far as to say it's part and parcel of the game."
I don't see the association between the two except one had an obvious solution and the other has none. The referee has to hear himself what is said and judge it verbal abuse which of course is not defined. Would you like a rule whereby the player who was abused could tell the ref and the player who apparently offended gets a black card? I suppose that would work as all the players are such honest individuals.

zinny (Wexford) - Posts: 428 - 03/10/2017 00:23:18    2052596

Link

Replying To zinny:  "I don't see the association between the two except one had an obvious solution and the other has none. The referee has to hear himself what is said and judge it verbal abuse which of course is not defined. Would you like a rule whereby the player who was abused could tell the ref and the player who apparently offended gets a black card? I suppose that would work as all the players are such honest individuals."
I disagree zinny, there are 7 officials at each game & therefore all the responsibility should not have to fall on the referee. Even as a spectator I can hear some of the stuff that goes on & if I can then surely the officials can.

On top of that there are many instances during games when we have all seen the referee moving the ball forward for "dissension". If the referee can hear that then surely the 7 officials can hear abuse & yet I have never seen a black card given for it.

MuckrossHead (Donegal) - Posts: 4667 - 03/10/2017 09:24:23    2052616

Link

Getting way off point here

FootblockREF (Monaghan) - Posts: 192 - 03/10/2017 10:04:35    2052623

Link

Replying To zinny:  "I don't see the association between the two except one had an obvious solution and the other has none. The referee has to hear himself what is said and judge it verbal abuse which of course is not defined. Would you like a rule whereby the player who was abused could tell the ref and the player who apparently offended gets a black card? I suppose that would work as all the players are such honest individuals."
the association is that one is a real problem in the game
and the other is not, there was nothing wrong with finding a player from a kickout and using your head,
its just ex old school midfielders pushing for something they used to do.
there is something wrong with verbally abusing somebody, yet they wont change the rule to sort that.
they made the rule knowing they wouldnt ever use it on the verbal abuse, yet we all go to matches and see it happening,
an individual is hardly asking the opposition player what he had for breakfast, they have no reason to be talking to the opposition as it is
so its quite obvious to everyone whats going on, when a ref or linesman sees two players on the ground in many instances there is one culprit and one victim yet they give two yellow cards without any proof that both players committed an offence, they didnt have to see both players doing wrong there so why should they have to hear word for word a verbal abuse case.

hill16no1man (Dublin) - Posts: 12665 - 03/10/2017 10:29:02    2052630

Link

Replying To FootblockREF:  "Getting way off point here"
not really as this is a nusiance rule for kickouts to stop the game evolving and looking to go back in time
what was wrong with having a few different kickout options, it made the game more intriguing knowing the opposition to a kickout had to either push up or come up with a plan,forcing an old school drive it as far as you can will only congest an area and if anything see 6 or 7 players collide time after time, what was entertaining about that,its only replicating the scrums we see in hurling where they end up having to throw the ball in because its messy. theres actual problems in the game like verbal abuse and targetting of players that they dont try and stop with rules.

hill16no1man (Dublin) - Posts: 12665 - 03/10/2017 10:34:54    2052633

Link