Opportunity missed to take a passing interest
In the week after the start of the championships, all the talk was about the rules, not the games themselves.
This is unfortunate for it’s the games and the players that should be the focus of attention now, not the side issues.
All the trouble began when referees were instructed to implement the new handpass motion, proposed by the Connacht Council and passed at Congress last month in Newcastle, Co. Down.
The main problem is that a number of rule changes were experimented with during the League but not this rule.
Every five years, playing rules can be altered — only Annual Congress can introduce, delete or amend a rule.
And in the great democratic organisation that is the GAA, every club in the country is entitled to put forward motions through their county boards for consideration at Annual Congress.
A few years ago that privilege was extended, to include, among other bodies, provincial councils.
So this motion came forth from the Connacht Council. It was motion number 23 of a total of 123 motions at this year’s Congress.
It read that the existing rule (1.4e) Rules of football be amended so that the ball must be “played away with a) the fist b) the open hand(s) provided it involves a definite underhand striking action”.
Debate on motions in this year’s Congress — in so far as there was debate — was fast but not furious. There was little time to tease out the ramifications of the decisions taken. This led to much frustration which was well vented by no less a delegate than Jarlath Burns, the former Armagh midfielder.
Unfortunately, due to volcanic ash problems, this motion was just about done and dusted when I reached Newcastle. So I could have no input.
The Connacht motion got through and now it’s in the rule book.
What’s more it can’t be altered for five years at least.
So appeals to throw it out or wait until next year’s league to experiment with it, while sensible, won’t happen. The managers were beside themselves with frustration. I can see why. A game that’s all about skill shouldn’t be held to ransom by what’s essentially a rule that demands no skill. Indeed, in this era of fast hands and peripheral vision often derived from basketball, it can be highly frustrating for a good move to be penalised because of a perceived lack of a definite underhand striking action.
There has been frustration and confusion in the past fortnight, but what happens now?
I expect that every manager will be trying to get their hands on some referee or rule expert to define conclusively what constitutes a foul throw and what doesn’t. Croke Park weren’t much amused by all the criticism coming their way and they responded by outlining the efforts they made to communicate the message to the counties including dispatching referees to all quarters to explain the impending changes.
The message didn’t get through, thus the confusion and frustration of players, managers and fans alike.
I expect the explanation by communication to continue apace.
Why not compile a DVD of recent passes that were adjudged to be fouls and provide an explanation of same?
Also, I’d expect a toning down of overzealous interpretation of a “definite underhand striking action”. If that happens and as players adapt, the controversy should abate but never disappear.
A GREAT goal might be disallowed because of a dodgy pass that is purely a technical matter.
We saw that in the League when Conor Mortimer of Mayo scored what could well have been the goal of the year with a brilliant soccer-style volley only for the effort to be disallowed for a foul handpass in the build-up.
Now we have this “definite underhand striking action”. The obsession with “definite” and “underhand” caught many stakeholders off guard. It’s too late now to change it for another five years.
Now if only someone had the wit to put a motion to Congress on the pick up off the ground.
Why not have a “definite under-foot lifting” action as well.
Then we’d have great fun and consistency too!
