|
Why wouldn't you compete if your under the ball even if you can't catch it you would try knocking it down to a team mate. By your logic let the opposition gain possession and retreat doesn't make much sense.
dubarra (Wicklow) - Posts:263 - 19/06/2017 11:25:31
What I mean about non contesting in the middle is that you are not allowed to compete for the ball once it has been marked.
Contest in the middle was two fold, first in the air and then on the ground but now the second part of the contest has been removed. I'd argue that the removal of the second bit of the contest makes the high fielding less spectacular. Just an opinion but for me it dilutes the skill of high fielding.
If you are less than 50/50 before the kick most players won't even try and break the ball but cede possession and let the mark be taken and retreat a few yards to get into a defensive position. This will become more common the longer the mark is in as it's the smart move to make. Before you may have still tried to compete because you knew that you had two bites at the cherry so to speak.
MesAmis (Dublin) - Posts: 13707 - 19/06/2017 11:54:16
2001715
Link
0
|
|
Why couldn't they call the "Mark" the "Michael", why does mark getting special treatment
PyatPree (Cork) - Posts: 376 - 19/06/2017 20:24:33
2002093
Link
1
|
|
Replying To PyatPree: "Why couldn't they call the "Mark" the "Michael", why does mark getting special treatment" Suppose a player taking the Mark sounds better than a player taking the Mickey.
Offside_Rule (Antrim) - Posts: 4058 - 19/06/2017 20:36:28
2002105
Link
1
|
|
Replying To MesAmis: "Again what? Its the exact opposite, everyone competes for the high ball instead of looking to break it because you either gain posession/free or you end up in the same position without the ball. Any uncontested kickouts would not have suddenly been contested in the air if the mark is removed, they instead would hold up the man who caught it discouraging catching.
Anyone speaking out against the mark at this stage really mustn't watch must club football because you can see the difference over such a large sample size.
Iamlegion666 (Monaghan) - Posts:136 - 18/06/2017 18:20:41
My point is fairly simple. The mark isn't making a huge impact either negatively or positively from what I've seen. It's an ineffectual rule that doesn't really add or take much, except for shortening the contest in the middle.
It discourages kicking long against strong fielders whereas before you might still go long as you could still tackle the fielder when he came down. Last night the Meath keeper started to go short against a strong fielding Kildare midfield for example.
I've watched plenty of football and the majority of marks I've seen have been uncontested. I don't believe that uncontested catches are an amazing skill that deserves a free kick awarded." You are talking nonsense. You say an uncontested mark isnt a great skill that deserves reward. But sure if the catch is uncontested the player will just play on anyways so where is the reward ? You are contradicting yourself. The beauty of the mark is that it rewards the contested catch.
Malonemagic (Laois) - Posts: 766 - 19/06/2017 20:53:20
2002119
Link
0
|
|
Love it. Really benefited galway in the league. It's a great rule, here to stay.
galwaydublin (Galway) - Posts: 226 - 19/06/2017 21:20:16
2002135
Link
0
|
|
Replying To Malonemagic: " Replying To MesAmis: "Again what? Its the exact opposite, everyone competes for the high ball instead of looking to break it because you either gain posession/free or you end up in the same position without the ball. Any uncontested kickouts would not have suddenly been contested in the air if the mark is removed, they instead would hold up the man who caught it discouraging catching.
Anyone speaking out against the mark at this stage really mustn't watch must club football because you can see the difference over such a large sample size.
Iamlegion666 (Monaghan) - Posts:136 - 18/06/2017 18:20:41
My point is fairly simple. The mark isn't making a huge impact either negatively or positively from what I've seen. It's an ineffectual rule that doesn't really add or take much, except for shortening the contest in the middle.
It discourages kicking long against strong fielders whereas before you might still go long as you could still tackle the fielder when he came down. Last night the Meath keeper started to go short against a strong fielding Kildare midfield for example.
I've watched plenty of football and the majority of marks I've seen have been uncontested. I don't believe that uncontested catches are an amazing skill that deserves a free kick awarded." You are talking nonsense. You say an uncontested mark isnt a great skill that deserves reward. But sure if the catch is uncontested the player will just play on anyways so where is the reward ? You are contradicting yourself. The beauty of the mark is that it rewards the contested catch."
It hasn't made a difference really. I seen one scenario where it worked well. One of Tyrones catches yesterday on the wing where the player would have been pushed out of play because he had the mark he wasnt. It was a great run and catch (right on the edge) where he could then play the ball in.
I havent seen a resurgence of the big man in midfield or the Anthony Tohill type catch. Instead it beift the half fprward/half back more that anything. Not a bad rule change but not revolutionary either.
dstuction (Donegal) - Posts: 1209 - 19/06/2017 21:20:47
2002138
Link
1
|
|
You are talking nonsense. You say an uncontested mark isnt a great skill that deserves reward. But sure if the catch is uncontested the player will just play on anyways so where is the reward ? You are contradicting yourself. The beauty of the mark is that it rewards the contested catch.
Malonemagic (Laois) - Posts:526 - 19/06/2017 20:53:20
It isn't nonsense. There is still a reward for an uncontested catch as the player can stop and take the free kick, which happens as they don't always play on. If the player decides to play on he cannot be tackled until he plays the ball. That is a major reward for performing one of the easiest and most basic skills of the game.
The mark does of course reward the contested catch but it also takes away from what used to be the contest for the ball. As the second part of the contest, the challenge for the ball when the players come down, has been completely taken away which in my opinion makes the overall contest less spectacular.
MesAmis (Dublin) - Posts: 13707 - 20/06/2017 08:18:19
2002290
Link
0
|
|
Replying To MesAmis: "You are talking nonsense. You say an uncontested mark isnt a great skill that deserves reward. But sure if the catch is uncontested the player will just play on anyways so where is the reward ? You are contradicting yourself. The beauty of the mark is that it rewards the contested catch.
Malonemagic (Laois) - Posts:526 - 19/06/2017 20:53:20
It isn't nonsense. There is still a reward for an uncontested catch as the player can stop and take the free kick, which happens as they don't always play on. If the player decides to play on he cannot be tackled until he plays the ball. That is a major reward for performing one of the easiest and most basic skills of the game.
The mark does of course reward the contested catch but it also takes away from what used to be the contest for the ball. As the second part of the contest, the challenge for the ball when the players come down, has been completely taken away which in my opinion makes the overall contest less spectacular." Just wondering if your opposition to this is still as strong as ever? Kevin Feeley, Colm Cavanagh, Enda Smith and many more have really added to GF as a spectacle this year. I find it odd the Mickey Harte is still opposed to it given that they definitely play for it and benefit from it. Credit to the rules committee and Jarlath Burns for getting it through. Time to end the debate on it and move on?
Sindar (Roscommon) - Posts: 348 - 16/07/2017 17:36:09
2017513
Link
1
|
|
Replying To jonno: "What are people's opinions on the Mark?
I wasn't sure on it at first because I thought it would cause interruption and some confusion, however watching some of the games this year I'd say it's a major success- makes a change for the rule makers to get something right.
Looking forward to plenty more high fielding throughout the year" Put it this way if your David Moran it'll work in your favour but if you're a small little fella it won't be much of an advantage..
Tbh I think it's a bit of a hames really implementing it properly another example would be the Black Card.
At club level so many Refs get it totally wrong looks like it's here to stay regardless so we may aswell get used to it
Cankylunt (Dublin) - Posts: 30 - 17/07/2017 18:53:03
2018335
Link
0
|
|
Replying To MesAmis: "You are talking nonsense. You say an uncontested mark isnt a great skill that deserves reward. But sure if the catch is uncontested the player will just play on anyways so where is the reward ? You are contradicting yourself. The beauty of the mark is that it rewards the contested catch.
Malonemagic (Laois) - Posts:526 - 19/06/2017 20:53:20
It isn't nonsense. There is still a reward for an uncontested catch as the player can stop and take the free kick, which happens as they don't always play on. If the player decides to play on he cannot be tackled until he plays the ball. That is a major reward for performing one of the easiest and most basic skills of the game.
The mark does of course reward the contested catch but it also takes away from what used to be the contest for the ball. As the second part of the contest, the challenge for the ball when the players come down, has been completely taken away which in my opinion makes the overall contest less spectacular." The Mark is just another in a number of rules which have been brought in that dilute the skills necessary to play Gaelic football. High fielding was always a delight to see but the ability to do something with the ball after getting it was another skill. Brian Mullins, Jack O'Se, McGuigan, Kieran McManus are cases in point. Remember one Cork player who could field with anyone but was lacking in the skill necessary to play on. Brought the kick-out to the 13 m line, but most do not kick it long anyway. Free from the hands to speed things up, and sideline kicks from the hands basically eliminated a beautiful skill. Change for the sake of change. Glad the powers that be do not have the nerve to attempt to alter the ruling rules.
Gaa Fan (USA) - Posts: 749 - 17/07/2017 19:48:02
2018348
Link
1
|