National Forum

Introducing The Mark

(Oldest Posts First) - Go To The Latest Post


Replying To mayotyroneman:  "Oh god lads listen to yourselves!! It's a stupid rule. The gaa has now introduced it for the third time!!!! That's three attempts to bring in a rule that is absolutely useless. It brings nothing to the game. When Mick o Connell fielded high catches in the seventies he was set upon by tacklers. For gods sake that's the game! We all had to deal with that when we played the game. Enough of this nonsensical rule!"
My sentiments exactly. This was tried before and dropped, has no one learned anything?. The real problem is the excess of hand passing in football.
Much better to restrict the hand pass, including passing back to the goalkeeper.

thelongridge (Offaly) - Posts: 1879 - 13/01/2017 11:49:16    1945417

Link

A really good diving block is a great skill. It always gets the crowd going, much more so than a high catch in fact. It's really annoying when a player executes a brilliant diving block but the ball rebounds to the opposition and they then get another shot away.

I propose that we now reward this skill with a free kick! A much more difficult skill than an uncontested catch into your chest in anyways, which we now reward with a free kick!!

MesAmis (Dublin) - Posts: 13802 - 13/01/2017 11:56:08    1945420

Link

Replying To mayotyroneman:  "Royal you are deluding yourself. We have tried this stupid rule three times now. How often do we have to go back and keep trying to introduce something that is useless. We had three throw ups in breffni pk yesterday after players delayed when they won the mark. How does that add to the flow of the game? Then with each throw up an offence is immediately committed when a posse of players are not 13 metres away from the contested ball. It's a joke and needs to go"
Player doesn't have to stop if he catches the ball he can play on "In order to signify that he wishes to take a free-kick, the player who catches the ball and has been awarded a "mark" by the referee should stop playing. If he does not obviously stop then it should be taken that he is "playing on"."

But who reads the rules? there will be very few of these in the league awarded and it will be canned for championship.

arock (Dublin) - Posts: 4954 - 13/01/2017 13:49:20    1945449

Link

Replying To tirawleybaron:  "Mark is a good idea if introduced with a few other:
1. Kick out must pass the 45
2. Teams can only have 2 players standing between the 45's when the kick out is taken

Failing that it should also be a rule after any dead ball- free/sideline kicked into the scoring area that is caught cleanly results in a free kick at goal

Better still, introduce a "rugby style" tackle and use an oval ball and now we are getting somewhere"
1) and 2) is like what what I had -
as for the rest of your comment, I do also like the AFL myself -
there has to be something said for the incentive to get rid of the ball/ keep it moving - otherwise, take the rugby tackle and CONCEDE a free.

omahant (USA) - Posts: 3246 - 13/01/2017 23:13:44    1945580

Link

The mark is a farce along with black card .

Dellboypolecat (Tyrone) - Posts: 15069 - 19/01/2017 21:05:10    1947166

Link

I think the MARK idea is half baked - there is not a proper mechanism to bring back and ensure the midflelder soars into the sky.
First question - is that the goal ? - if no, get rid of the mark - if yes, then force it by rule -
Say, on kickouts, 6 backs/6 forwards/1 goalkeeper behind each 45, 4 midfielders contest the kickout which must cross the 45 -
To retain possession, kick out team MUST field the ball before it touches the ground -
Otherwise, other team gets a free from where the ball bounces - this breaks up the blanket defence as well.

Also, how effective is no back pass to the GOALIE, when you can to the full back instead - say, no backpasses at all or one in a passing sequences.
Opinions ?

omahant (USA) - Posts: 3246 - 21/01/2017 16:56:02    1947573

Link

Replying To omahant:  "I think the MARK idea is half baked - there is not a proper mechanism to bring back and ensure the midflelder soars into the sky.
First question - is that the goal ? - if no, get rid of the mark - if yes, then force it by rule -
Say, on kickouts, 6 backs/6 forwards/1 goalkeeper behind each 45, 4 midfielders contest the kickout which must cross the 45 -
To retain possession, kick out team MUST field the ball before it touches the ground -
Otherwise, other team gets a free from where the ball bounces - this breaks up the blanket defence as well.

Also, how effective is no back pass to the GOALIE, when you can to the full back instead - say, no backpasses at all or one in a passing sequences.
Opinions ?"
Balls of an idea. What happens if a player is at the by line and has no other option but to pass backwards. Your encouraging teams to just hit the ball forward with no purpose to it.

I've a bit of a radical suggestion....why don't we scrap the black card, scrap the mark and leave the rules alone.

gotmilk (Fermanagh) - Posts: 4971 - 21/01/2017 19:58:58    1947600

Link

Havn't seen much of the mark at any games so far and unless this miraculously takes off in the league it will prove to be just another silly expirament.

Dubh_linn (Dublin) - Posts: 2313 - 23/01/2017 19:03:50    1948191

Link

Replying To gotmilk:  "Balls of an idea. What happens if a player is at the by line and has no other option but to pass backwards. Your encouraging teams to just hit the ball forward with no purpose to it.

I've a bit of a radical suggestion....why don't we scrap the black card, scrap the mark and leave the rules alone."
Re: your by-line example - yes, needing to kick up field might discourage players from being stuck at the by line or similar situations - reminds me of Aussie AFL rule where players must release the ball before being grounded - whether a good passing opportunity exists or not, the rule remains the same - cough up the ball or give away a free.

omahant (USA) - Posts: 3246 - 23/01/2017 20:50:37    1948229

Link

Everyone now has had a good chance to see this in action and get used to playing with it as well. What's the general view at this stage? Are there any county sides out there benefitting more than others because they have high fielders?

Soma (UK) - Posts: 2630 - 20/03/2017 14:58:37    1969126

Link

To be honest it has made little or no difference. When a player catches the kick out he normally wants to get it forward as quick as possible before the blanket defence get a chance to organize. The mark doesn't really help in that regard. I don't think it has done any harm either, just not made a great impact. The vast majority of kick-outs are short ones anyway.

Green_Gold (Donegal) - Posts: 1906 - 20/03/2017 15:07:08    1969130

Link

Replying To Soma:  "Everyone now has had a good chance to see this in action and get used to playing with it as well. What's the general view at this stage? Are there any county sides out there benefitting more than others because they have high fielders?"
From what I've seen it has had zero impact on the game. Most marks I've seen have been caught into the chest on the run uncontested.

Even the high fielding doesn't look as well as it did as we are now missing the second movement where the player either turns and goes or burst back the way the kick came and heads for goal. Sure the player now is guaranteed possession but the mark delays the game ever so slightly and, in my opinion, that delay takes a little from the natural flow of the game.

MesAmis (Dublin) - Posts: 13802 - 20/03/2017 15:13:00    1969134

Link

I am not sure what it has added to the games I have seen so far this year. I've seen some guys hear the whistle after they fielded and then stopped when in fact they had no one around them and in normal circumstances would have been away with the ball but instead they have slowed the game and allowed players to get back. I have also seen a bit of confusion over when the ref was awarding the mark as the ball hadn't actually went over the 45 and also opposition players being closer that the permitted 10m distance from the kick when taken. And then there is the fact that if you play on you are supposed to have your normal 4 steps or solo/bounce of the ball before you can be tackled by the opposition - again I have seen cases of guys not calling the mark and being tackled before they should be but not getting the free they are supposed to.

I am not 100% sure of what the purpose of introducing it was (as I think it is actually encouraging more breaking ball/crowding out and slowing the natural flow of the game as MesAmis says) and haven't been impressed by it to think it is a required addition.

Offside_Rule (Antrim) - Posts: 4058 - 20/03/2017 15:42:20    1969150

Link

Any one gets a chance to see the Down Kildare game again Kevin Feely gave an exhibition of fetching and as a hugely accurate kicker of the ball sets up great deliveries. I think its had a very positive impact.

thehoops (Kildare) - Posts: 69 - 20/03/2017 16:04:12    1969161

Link

Replying To Green_Gold:  "To be honest it has made little or no difference. When a player catches the kick out he normally wants to get it forward as quick as possible before the blanket defence get a chance to organize. The mark doesn't really help in that regard. I don't think it has done any harm either, just not made a great impact. The vast majority of kick-outs are short ones anyway."
agree that it has not made a big difference, but the only things that it has stop is when there has being a good catch and 3/4 players stand around him and don't allow him to play

madbull (Westmeath) - Posts: 195 - 20/03/2017 16:42:42    1969183

Link

I have liked the impact of it so far. It allows the fielder to turn and give a quick ball in most of the time I have watched it, or they just run on.

Monaghan08 (Monaghan) - Posts: 188 - 20/03/2017 16:46:31    1969186

Link

I don't understand all the negativity to The Mark. As with any new rule change it seems people are determined to bring it down if at all possible. Football has seen very few significant rule changes over the years. I remember when the free from the hands was introduced - all the negativity. Anyone suggesting we go back?
At the very worst The Mark doesn't affect the game at all and it definitely does not slow the game down in any way. Players and officials needed a few games to get used to it and it is working well. It was never meant ot be revolutionary, just a small reward for a player cathcing a kickout even if it is into the chest. All commentary seems to be based on inter-county evidence. Try going to a few club games, of which there are many more of, and watch it in action. Mark awarded then play restarts immediately

Sindar (Roscommon) - Posts: 348 - 24/03/2017 10:37:31    1970639

Link

Replying To GreenandRed:  "Needs time for players and officials to get used to it. Cynically I thought that it will slow the game down. Didn't realise it can result in a free kick or advantage for the player making the mark. Could be a good introduction to the game but difficult to ref when a player wants the advantage or apply the 5 seconds free kick rule.

There's" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.gaa.ie/football/news/the-mark-rule-explained/"
There's nothing difficult to referee about it. The Mark is always awarded when the player makes the clean catch outside the 45 from a kickout by the ref blowing for it. Some seem to be confused and think that the player must then accept the mark by "obviously stopping". That's not correct. By "obvioulsy stopping" he is choosing to take the free kick option. If he plays on immediately he still has the mark and is therefore protected by it in that he cannot be tackled until he has taken 4 steps.

Sindar (Roscommon) - Posts: 348 - 24/03/2017 19:10:43    1970799

Link

Replying To mayotyroneman:  "It's a complete joke of a rule. There were 5 marks in the Tyrone Cavan game three of them then resulted a throw up. How does that help high fielding or the flow of the game? For each of the 5 "catches" they were all no higher than chest high. It's a complete joke. Yet another stupid rule introduced by a committee"
Sounds like the players didn't know the rule. It's very clear. You have 5 seconds to play the ball otherwise it's a throw ball. The whole idea being that the game is not slowed down!!

Sindar (Roscommon) - Posts: 348 - 24/03/2017 19:13:38    1970801

Link