National Forum

Martin Breheny Article On Advanced Mark.

(Oldest Posts First) - Go To The Latest Post


Martin Breheny's article today on the advanced mark, where he questions how Congress voted it through by a large majority without even debating it & the difficulties referees will have in implementing it.
Well expressing surprise at what goes on at Congress is laughable. When a body such as Congress votes down a motion on transparency by an overwhelming majority & nobody within the GAA hierarchy or the GAA media questions it, well you know at that stage that they can do as they wish & are no longer answerable to anyone. They voted against transparency as they didn't want their own counties or other counties or ordinary members knowing how they voted, as they often follow their own preference rather than the policy adopted by their counties. They do this so as to gain favour & support in their climb up the GAA ladder. Often the GAA itself want something to pass & Congress will always oblige in the hope of seeking favour. The contempt shown to all GAA members by voting against the motion on transparency was their way of sending the message out that they & they alone are in charge.
Most club members have a complete disconnect with Congress & the delegates & many are shoe horned in at club & county AGM's as people have lost interest. Nowadays most club members couldn't even tell you who their county board delegates are as they disconnect from what they see as the political shenanigans.
When some county is relegated or dropped down to Tier Two, or lose a league or All Ireland final, Congress won't be held accountable, it will be some poor referee who is implementing the policy they couldn't be arsed about debating.
"Something is rotten in the state of Denmark".

moc.dna (Galway) - Posts: 1212 - 22/01/2020 09:45:11    2261496

Link

The advance mark has the potential to drastically alter the game for the worse.

The big fear will be that this year, it'll have only a small impact, with maybe only one or two marks per game. But that over time teams will learn to exploit it to its fullest potential. Teenage players in development squads now will be experts at exploiting this rule when they hit senior in 7/8 years time if the rule remains.

Other concerns are that it'll slow the game down and that the amount of goals/goal chances will decrease. I think it is fairly obvious that both of these will happen, and that they'll become more evident the longer we have this rule.

Like I said above, the big fear is that it will have minimal impact this coming season, and that will have a couple of decent fetches and that it'll be declared a great success and it's negative impact will only be seen down the road.

I hate the idea of giving a team a free for catching a pass into their chest from 30m or so.

The GAA have started down this path of attempting to alter the game back to catch and kick though and seem hell bent on trying to turn back time.

MesAmis (Dublin) - Posts: 13705 - 22/01/2020 10:33:24    2261513

Link

Also if an advanced mark is made close to goal, inside the the large square say, it seems if the player decides to play on everyone has to stop and watch him slam the ball into the net unimpeded which seems like a really stupid idea.

Taken from an article in the Examiner:

Before Christmas, it was explained that a player who has 'won' a mark inside the large rectangle could be tackled immediately if he had chosen not to claim it by raising his hand.

However, it has now been confirmed that while a player who does not claim any advanced mark can play on immediately, he may not be challenged for the ball until he carries the ball up to a maximum of four consecutive steps or holds the ball for no longer than the time needed to take four steps and/or makes one act of kicking, hand-passing, bouncing or toe-tapping the ball.

I really hope that isn't true.

MesAmis (Dublin) - Posts: 13705 - 22/01/2020 11:56:40    2261529

Link

The rubber stamping of the b championship too was a disgrace

inisfwee (USA) - Posts: 7 - 22/01/2020 13:17:43    2261542

Link

Replying To moc.dna:  "Martin Breheny's article today on the advanced mark, where he questions how Congress voted it through by a large majority without even debating it & the difficulties referees will have in implementing it.
Well expressing surprise at what goes on at Congress is laughable. When a body such as Congress votes down a motion on transparency by an overwhelming majority & nobody within the GAA hierarchy or the GAA media questions it, well you know at that stage that they can do as they wish & are no longer answerable to anyone. They voted against transparency as they didn't want their own counties or other counties or ordinary members knowing how they voted, as they often follow their own preference rather than the policy adopted by their counties. They do this so as to gain favour & support in their climb up the GAA ladder. Often the GAA itself want something to pass & Congress will always oblige in the hope of seeking favour. The contempt shown to all GAA members by voting against the motion on transparency was their way of sending the message out that they & they alone are in charge.
Most club members have a complete disconnect with Congress & the delegates & many are shoe horned in at club & county AGM's as people have lost interest. Nowadays most club members couldn't even tell you who their county board delegates are as they disconnect from what they see as the political shenanigans.
When some county is relegated or dropped down to Tier Two, or lose a league or All Ireland final, Congress won't be held accountable, it will be some poor referee who is implementing the policy they couldn't be arsed about debating.
"Something is rotten in the state of Denmark"."
Your argument here doesn't seem to stack up. If delegates are instructed on how to vote by their county before going to Congress then there is little point having any debate at Congress, the delegates won't be changing their mind anyway.
And while the merits of transparency in voting can be debated, one of the benefits of secret ballot is that nobody knows how anyone voted so it's harder to buy votes.
Having said all that I think the new mark rule puts too much extra work on the referees, and it's also very hard for players claiming the mark to be sure if the kick was taken from inside or outside the 45. The club final on Sunday was yet another example of why new rules need to be looked at but this rule is unlikely to be the right solution.

Soma (UK) - Posts: 2630 - 22/01/2020 13:33:50    2261547

Link

Replying To MesAmis:  "The advance mark has the potential to drastically alter the game for the worse.

The big fear will be that this year, it'll have only a small impact, with maybe only one or two marks per game. But that over time teams will learn to exploit it to its fullest potential. Teenage players in development squads now will be experts at exploiting this rule when they hit senior in 7/8 years time if the rule remains.

Other concerns are that it'll slow the game down and that the amount of goals/goal chances will decrease. I think it is fairly obvious that both of these will happen, and that they'll become more evident the longer we have this rule.

Like I said above, the big fear is that it will have minimal impact this coming season, and that will have a couple of decent fetches and that it'll be declared a great success and it's negative impact will only be seen down the road.

I hate the idea of giving a team a free for catching a pass into their chest from 30m or so.

The GAA have started down this path of attempting to alter the game back to catch and kick though and seem hell bent on trying to turn back time."
The worst thing is that it doesn't even have to be a pass to the chest, if a player catches it at his ankles before it hits the ground it's still a mark. On a side note, I was at the FBD final on Saturday and during the game Damian Comer caught a pass which was delivered inside the 45, he stopped and put his hand up to claim a mark, which of course it wasn't. He stood and held onto the ball while Ros players tackled him. After a few seconds the red blew the whistle and gave a hop ball, which Galway won possession from. Surely that should have been a free out for over carrying? How did the ref decide it was a hop ball? Comer obviously misunderstood the rule.

Douglas_44 (Roscommon) - Posts: 225 - 22/01/2020 14:19:06    2261560

Link

Replying To MesAmis:  "Also if an advanced mark is made close to goal, inside the the large square say, it seems if the player decides to play on everyone has to stop and watch him slam the ball into the net unimpeded which seems like a really stupid idea.

Taken from an article in the Examiner:

Before Christmas, it was explained that a player who has 'won' a mark inside the large rectangle could be tackled immediately if he had chosen not to claim it by raising his hand.

However, it has now been confirmed that while a player who does not claim any advanced mark can play on immediately, he may not be challenged for the ball until he carries the ball up to a maximum of four consecutive steps or holds the ball for no longer than the time needed to take four steps and/or makes one act of kicking, hand-passing, bouncing or toe-tapping the ball.

I really hope that isn't true."
If this is true then every mark in or around the penalty area will end up in a goal chance. Why would a player call for a mark when they will get 4 free unchallenged steps. Crazy some of the ideas that come out of Croke Park & congress. Hoping its not true.

cluichethar (Mayo) - Posts: 454 - 22/01/2020 15:11:56    2261581

Link

this was in the examiner again yesterday and yes that is still the rule, cant challenge the player. Wonder does that include blocking the kick, if the forward takes 2 or 3 steps and kicks, is blocking the kick a foul?
If defenders catch the ball in, they can also claim a mark.
the time for mark from the kickout had been increased from 5secs to 15secs..thats too long

tommy132 (Mayo) - Posts: 600 - 22/01/2020 15:35:59    2261584

Link

How did everyone think it went last night? Wasn't used an awful lot.

TheImmortal (USA) - Posts: 24 - 26/01/2020 10:15:22    2262409

Link

The advanced mark is an abomination and Congress at this stage is nothing more than a rubber stamping body for the wishes of a hierarchy within the GAA that have influenced football and that continue to influence football very much for the worst . Tier Two is a pup that was sold to the people under false pretences .

Greengrass (Louth) - Posts: 6031 - 26/01/2020 13:14:19    2262470

Link

Thankfully there weren't too many marks called/given in the games last night but I thought the ones that were didn't add much to the games. The reward for making a fairly routine catch with your back to goal is excessive. When players and squads adapt to it properly it could become very difficult to defend against and undermine interplay between forwards. Why bother working on clever forward play when you can rely on a couple of brawny freetakers?

Pericles (Mayo) - Posts: 2521 - 26/01/2020 18:06:20    2262558

Link

I agree with most of the comments here. This rule is a disaster. Totally changes our game and not for the better. Wasn't used much at the weekend but if a top team really zone in this they can make hay with it. If it had to be an overhead catch you'd say something.

Is this 100% nailed on for the championship now? Any possibility of getting it thrown out?

tomhealycork (Cork) - Posts: 80 - 28/01/2020 16:02:16    2263235

Link

Im a bit bemused by the confusion on the advanced mark. Especially the comments of Tomas O Shea at the weekend. I'm reliably informed by a referee who has undertaken a referees seminar a few weeks ago that - for the Advanced Mark - that a player may be tackled immediately. for the Mark from a kick out there is the 4 steps (or the time it would take to take 4 steps) rule. One thing I don't know. Can a mark be taken off the ground (within the 15 seconds allowed).

fearcliste (Wexford) - Posts: 178 - 28/01/2020 16:15:15    2263237

Link

Replying To fearcliste:  "Im a bit bemused by the confusion on the advanced mark. Especially the comments of Tomas O Shea at the weekend. I'm reliably informed by a referee who has undertaken a referees seminar a few weeks ago that - for the Advanced Mark - that a player may be tackled immediately. for the Mark from a kick out there is the 4 steps (or the time it would take to take 4 steps) rule. One thing I don't know. Can a mark be taken off the ground (within the 15 seconds allowed)."
I am equally bemused that a ref doesn't understand the rule and would advise that ref to go back to seminar as the rule is that the player may not be tackled for 4 steps if he decides to play on rather than take the mark for both kick out and advanced mark.

link

Offside_Rule (Antrim) - Posts: 4058 - 28/01/2020 17:53:46    2263262

Link

Here is a better link as has both Mark and Advanced. The exception to the 4 step rule for tackling is if inside the rectangle.

link

Offside_Rule (Antrim) - Posts: 4058 - 28/01/2020 18:29:30    2263273

Link

I really hate this rule! Is it up to the player or the ref to call it? In Ros Laois game Sunday, Laois full forward caught the ball at edge of large rectangle and turned for goal immediately, but the ref blew for the mark and stopped the game, lucky for us as he would have been through one on one otherwise!

Douglas_44 (Roscommon) - Posts: 225 - 28/01/2020 21:23:14    2263329

Link

When a player takes too many steps and scores a goal is this not the fault of the ref for letting it stand? In hurling they take 10 or 11 steps sometimes, its ridiculous. The advanced mark is going to bollox-up the Summer, will be very entertaining for the neutrals.

suckvalleypaddy (Galway) - Posts: 1667 - 28/01/2020 21:48:05    2263340

Link

Replying To fearcliste:  "Im a bit bemused by the confusion on the advanced mark. Especially the comments of Tomas O Shea at the weekend. I'm reliably informed by a referee who has undertaken a referees seminar a few weeks ago that - for the Advanced Mark - that a player may be tackled immediately. for the Mark from a kick out there is the 4 steps (or the time it would take to take 4 steps) rule. One thing I don't know. Can a mark be taken off the ground (within the 15 seconds allowed)."
Wow, if true it's some indictment, a referee that attends a referees seminar & they don't even know the rule, hard to actually believe, but no real surprise. After the announcement of the Tier 2 competition, the GAA couldn't answer a number of questions posed on the different rulings for days afterwards. They presented something without every eventuality being dealt with. Makey up rules.

moc.dna (Galway) - Posts: 1212 - 29/01/2020 00:59:51    2263386

Link

Replying To Offside_Rule:  "I am equally bemused that a ref doesn't understand the rule and would advise that ref to go back to seminar as the rule is that the player may not be tackled for 4 steps if he decides to play on rather than take the mark for both kick out and advanced mark.

link"
The link you posted covers the Mark from a kickout - the date on it is 2016. I am stating again the rule for the ADVANCED MARK is that the player May be tackled immediately. I am quite bemused that you would post a 3 year old link!!

fearcliste (Wexford) - Posts: 178 - 29/01/2020 13:11:56    2263489

Link

Replying To fearcliste:  "
Replying To Offside_Rule:  "I am equally bemused that a ref doesn't understand the rule and would advise that ref to go back to seminar as the rule is that the player may not be tackled for 4 steps if he decides to play on rather than take the mark for both kick out and advanced mark.

link"
The link you posted covers the Mark from a kickout - the date on it is 2016. I am stating again the rule for the ADVANCED MARK is that the player May be tackled immediately. I am quite bemused that you would post a 3 year old link!!"
You appear to be correct. The programme for the Dublin/Kerry game had an explanatory piece which backs up your view.
But I can find no clarification of this on Gaa.ie which is odd. The link above is to the Cuala website.

Aibrean (Kerry) - Posts: 263 - 29/01/2020 17:00:50    2263552

Link