(Oldest Posts First) - Go To The Latest Post
|
There was a bit of a discussion on a previous subject about the proposed penalty and/sin bin for a cynical foul where a clear goal chances has been clearly prevented. My own view is that it is not a big problem in hurling. There is already a penalty awarded for a foul inside the large square. I really think we are nit-picking if we think we need to change this. Seeking_silver (Limerick) - Posts: 411 - 27/02/2021 13:16:56 2332892 Link 0 |
|
I agree. Penalty and yellow card is the current rule for inside the large square. That suffices imo. Adding in a sin bin just doubles up the penalty. Thats unjust. I think soccer have acknowledged this. Its no longer a red card for a last man foul in the box. Its a penalty and yellow.
Tadhg2020 (Limerick) - Posts: 15 - 27/02/2021 14:36:33 2332897 Link 0 |
|
Why was the deliberate foul committed in the first place ? To stop a goal chance. It is so simple. Create the goal chance again by awarding a penalty. I don't care if the foul takes place on the half way line. That will stop it pronto as a high percentage of penalties will be scored. No need please for anymore cards. Give the offender a yellow and if he repeats send him off. Canuck (Waterford) - Posts: 2660 - 27/02/2021 15:19:06 2332903 Link 1 |
|
Why was the deliberate foul committed in the first place ? To stop a goal chance. It is so simple. Create the goal chance again by awarding a penalty. I don't care if the foul takes place on the half way line. That will stop it pronto as a high percentage of penalties will be scored. No need please for anymore cards. Give the offender a yellow and if he repeats send him off. Canuck (Waterford) - Posts: 2660 - 27/02/2021 15:27:55 2332906 Link 0 |
|
A good debate at congress and a good result. Surely a trial is worthwhile. ZUL10 (Clare) - Posts: 693 - 27/02/2021 15:42:21 2332907 Link 1 |
|
I agree with most of that, but for me the real reason that many don't want change is because they don't want to admit that these changes are needed, or deludedly believe that they're not needed.
Galway9801 (Galway) - Posts: 1708 - 27/02/2021 15:45:02 2332909 Link 0 |
|
Its the double penalty for the offence that I'm against. The rule book allows for a penalty to be awarded for a foul in the large square all fouls have the potential to deny a goal scoring opportunity not just a pull down The sin bin plus a penalty is too much. One or the other. The rules must be fair and just to both sides. The pull down wasn't invented in 2020. It has been prevalent in the game a long long time. To lay the blame for its introduction and use on todays teams is disingenuous in the extreme. Tadhg2020 (Limerick) - Posts: 15 - 27/02/2021 15:59:04 2332914 Link 1 |
|
Excellent about time, no place for this in any team sport, cynical fouling just promotes thuggery and is anti-skill. arock (Dublin) - Posts: 4896 - 27/02/2021 17:03:43 2332931 Link 2 |
|
Maybe its needed time will tell. But I'd like to know are they going to clamp down more on forwards simply putting their heads down and quite simply barging forward? Far too much of it going on. That said one of the biggest culprits will not be playing this year. Bon (Kildare) - Posts: 1909 - 27/02/2021 18:25:49 2332947 Link 0 |
|
Too much of a penalty for an offence. A penalty and a 10 min sin bin is way too harsh . And it still won't work. If my team is up 3 or 4 points with a minute to go or 5 mins to go or maybe even 10 yo go im stopping the forward by any means possible bloodyban (Limerick) - Posts: 1710 - 27/02/2021 18:39:28 2332949 Link 0 |
|
I agree with you. Penalty and yellow. Forget the sin. The card because if he repeats he needs to be warming a seat.
Canuck (Waterford) - Posts: 2660 - 27/02/2021 18:58:13 2332954 Link 0 |
|
I believe about 75% of the players didn't want any rule changes. If the players are ok with the game why is it being changed they are the ones putting in all the time and effort? gatha (Kilkenny) - Posts: 318 - 27/02/2021 19:47:35 2332964 Link 0 |
|
Time will tell indeed. I think its going to cause a lot of needless controversy and will be exploited to the full by forwards and coaches.The same coaches who have been busy telling defenders over the last few years not to concede a goal at all costs will now get busy telling their forwards to grab their opponents hurl and go to ground as quickly as possible because the rewards are great .Some wont have a lot to learn anyway as they're already deadly at it
UtahBlaine (Galway) - Posts: 147 - 27/02/2021 20:17:26 2332973 Link 0 |
|
What relevance are players' opinions? Majority of them don't know the rules. Players will play whatever the rules. Cynicism reached a new level last year, this is a welcome addition. Claretandblue (Westmeath) - Posts: 1489 - 27/02/2021 20:27:55 2332976 Link 0 |
|
From a Galway point of view, the rule that will cause a lot of controversy is the one that stipulates that the maximum number of senior and intermediate clubs in a county championship is 16. We have 23 senior hurling clubs in Galway. Arguably it is 4 or 5 too many but how a county organises its own club championship and how many teams it has in its club championship should be a matter for itself to decide and neither Croke Park nor anyone else from outside the county should have a say in it. We had a wonderful club championship last year, lots of very evenly contested games and very few games with wide margin winners. I think this rule will be met with stiff resistance from clubs and rightly so. Personally I would favour reducing the number of senior clubs we have to 20 or possibly even to 18 but I think 16 is too drastic a reduction. Even if it means forgoing participation in the All Ireland club hurling championship, I think the clubs in Galway should decide on how their championship is run and should not be dictated to by outside forces. PoolSturgeon (Galway) - Posts: 1903 - 27/02/2021 20:39:23 2332978 Link 1 |
|
Why were any rules changed in the last hundred years and did any players ever agree with them? Do you think that Ger Loughnane, Jamise O' Connor, Michael Duignan, Jackie Tyrell, John Mullane etc. and all the other who now want a change would be for it in their playing days. The last people to expect non bias from are players when it comers to rules. There contribution is to play they game within the rules governing the game. Their time and effort (which is huge) needs to be recognized in other ways and we will get rule opinion from them after they retire.
Canuck (Waterford) - Posts: 2660 - 27/02/2021 20:52:52 2332979 Link 1 |
|
Whole point is to deter people from doing it. Hopefully there will be no singing because people will remember they are playing hurling not rugby.
Viking66 (Wexford) - Posts: 11863 - 27/02/2021 21:20:58 2332983 Link 0 |
|
And a penalty for the offence inside the 20m line and D wouldnt deter people from pulling down, tripping or carelessly striking with the Hurley? Of course it would. The sin bin on top of thst is a double sanction for the same offence and the reason why this rule will not be retained. Secondly the wording is too vague. What is a goal scoring opportunity? The motion is too vague. Is it last defender beaten? It doesn't say. All possessions inside the 20m line and D are pretty much goal scoring opportunities in hurling. Being issue that needs to be tidied up. Then there are the three fouls listed in the motion, namely, pull down, tripping of opponent and careless striking with the hurl. What type of trip? Is it a deliberate trip or accidental?it doesn't say and has to imo. Forwards are very good at creating contact and tripping up. Now they have massive incentive to do so. The trip that this rule applies to has to be clearly defined otherwise its open to interpretation and thus controversial application or non application. What does careless striking of the opponent with the hurl mean? All striking of the opponent was a red card. Has that now been downgraded. This part is really vague and requires further attention. The whole rule needs amendment if it is to be fit for purpose. If a rule change is to survive regarding cynical play it needs to be clearly defined and not open to interpretation. It needs to address the issue at hand while being fair and just. A penalty and yellow card for any cynical foul by the last defender does that. A penalty plus yellow card for any foul in the large square and a free plus sin bin for any cynical foul outside the large box does that. A penalty plus a yellow card will be resented by all teams and gotten rid of as soon as possible. It will be resisted and railed against in a similar manner to the black card in football. Refs will be reluctant to use it and inconsistent in its use when they do. Teams will be relegated by decisions that went against them in games while similar offences were deemed a free and yellow card at the other end. They made an unpopular rule change unsupportable by any team due to its harshness and therefore is doomed to fail. Tadhg2020 (Limerick) - Posts: 15 - 27/02/2021 22:15:32 2332991 Link 1 |
|
Well look what my county player Danny Sutcliff did in tripping a player with hurl! Shocking, up to now you can do serious damage in the name of stopping a player, not anymore hopefully. Some tackles are dangerous Joe Canning was cleaned out and badly hurt by an idiotic challenge. Seems to me if a forward has a ball he is fair game. Time to stamp on this. Ten minutes on side is a wonderful way to hurt a team, it will be gone in a year. arock (Dublin) - Posts: 4896 - 27/02/2021 22:25:48 2332997 Link 0 |
|
Sinbinning
Viking66 (Wexford) - Posts: 11863 - 27/02/2021 22:42:14 2333003 Link 0 |