Pundits fear new ruling will spark cynicism

Hurling personalities on both sides of the Anthony Nash rule debate have raised concerns that the new interpretation may lead to more cynical fouling.

Kilkenny legend Eddie Keher was happy to see “the danger” taken out of the new style of penalties and 20 metre frees.

He had seen the manoeuvre become fashionable in Kilkenny with TJ Reid and his own Rower-Inistioge club.

“I can’t emphasis enough that there was anything against Anthony Nash. It was a fantastic skill but there was a danger in it and it was becoming more obvious as the season wore on. They were all doing it — it wasn’t just Anthony Nash. In our own club, Kieran Joyce’s brother Conor was doing it as well and he’s a big fellow. It was going to cause injury and I’m glad the GAA grasped it and did something about it. I don’t know how they did it because we were all told it couldn’t be done without Congress.”

However, Keher admits the chances of scoring a penalty have been greatly reduced now and may encourage defences to foul more inside the 20m line.

“Dónal Óg (Cusack) mentioned the idea of one player on the goal-line for penalties. It’s worth a discussion not just for the attacking team but the defending one too when 10 players on the line for a 21-yard free can get in each other’s way. Maybe two guys on the line for them, each with one side of the goal to defend, is worth having a look at. But it has struck me that the penalty taker should have a pretty good chance of scoring and a further discussion is necessary with penalty takers and goalkeepers about that.”

Limerick freetaker Shane Dowling believes the interpretation will work in favour of the defending side and has given them an incentive to foul.

“I was always led to believe that a penalty should be an advantage for the attacking team; this (rule change) makes it very difficult to score a goal, which hands the advantage to the defending team, rewards fouling to prevent a goal-scoring opportunity.

“If someone is bearing down on goal now it makes it easy for a defender to decide to give a tug of the jersey or whatever — you’re going to see more fouls now in that situation, defenders will be happy to give away a penalty to save a goal.

“Whenever I’ve been on the line defending a penalty the referee always instructed us that we had to stay on the line ‘til the ball was struck or it would be retaken. There was confusion about that, especially after Stephen O’Keeffe rushed out last Sunday; that needed to be cleared up but not like this, this gives an incentive now to defenders to foul. I can understand the safety concerns, at underage especially, and maybe they could have legislated for that but I don’t think it was going to happen at senior inter-county level. They were just panicked into making a new rule after the weekend, I think they rushed into it.”

Dowling added: “I’m going to have to go away and practice now this new rule, see if it’s actually possible to goal from the 20m line or outside, but I doubt it.”

Like Keher, former Cork goalkeeper Martin Coleman Snr had supported the decision to stop Nash’s deadball method. However, he too believes the odds are now stacked against the penalty and free taker scoring a goal.

“I don’t agree with elements of this new rule. A penalty is a penalty and the person that is taking it should stand and hit it and have only the goalkeeper to beat. It should be one-on-one. If a forward is bearing down on goal and it has goal written all over it and the next thing he is hit, the reward for that team then is to get the sliotar from a dead-ball situation past three men. That is not an advantage.”

Coleman can also see more defenders bringing down forwards as a result of the interpretation. He’s critical of the decision to introduce the rule change now.

“It is a disgrace they are changing the rules mid-championship. It reflects poorly in Croke Park. They knew this issue was there for a while, Anthony Nash has been doing this for two years.”

* Additional reporting by Diarmuid O’Flynn and Eoghan Cormican

Debating the issue

PROS

Health and safety: Risk to defending players greatly reduced by the new interpretation.

Spirit of the rule: It’s been abused for years but this is probably what the original rule intended — as flawed as it now appears.

Fair to all: Teams who can’t replicate Anthony Nash style won’t be discriminated against.

No more heroes: It started and stopped with Stephen O’Keeffe last Sunday.

Clarity: A lift is not a strike. Our minds weren’t playing tricks on us.

CONS

Cynicism: The punishment for cynical fouls past the 20m line hardly fits the crime now. It now pays to take down the attacker.

No penalty: The conversion rate is sure to go down with all players now asked to take their penalties and frees further from the goal.

Inconsistency: Call it what you want but this is a rule change in a championship already underway.

It got personal: The GAA can say it wasn’t about Nash and what he’s inspired. Who else then?

Feasibility: If referee is asked to check the penalty/free-taker doesn’t cross the 20m line, will umpires be told to check that the defenders don’t leave the goal-line. As a ball is fired in their direction? Maybe linesmen are required too.

- By John Fogarty