International concepts help home game evolve

GAELIC GAMES: Before considering their merits perhaps the most appropriate reaction to the upcoming playing rules' experiments is relief they are there at all. Nearly five years ago at the 2000 annual congress, the main focus of attention was on the recommendations of the football development committee, which came down in flames after months of heated debate.

But slipped in on the same afternoon was a provision that illustrated to a greater degree the supremacy of the conservatives in Galway that weekend. Proposed by Tyrone, a motion was accepted that would ban all experimenting with the playing rules for 10 years. It won a sizeable majority and as a statement of opposition to change proved fairly robust in the following years.

Changes to the playing rules within the GAA can only be made every five years so the 10-year moratorium would primarily affect next year's Congress, which is designated for discussion of the rules. So it was only in the nick of time motion 13 got passed last April in Killarney. Without it, there would be no motions on the playing rules possible at the 2005 Congress and consequently no experimenting either.

At the heart of the great debate are two contrasting views of Gaelic football (hurling tends not to be subject to as much experimentation): one, it's not broken so why inconvenience everyone by trying to fix it, and in opposition that evolution and change are vital in the rules of most sports and have been particularly so in football down the decades.

Over the years Gaelic games have literally moved the goalposts (eliminating the "behind" posts - familiar from International Rules - on either side of the goal), incrementally thinned the numbers on the playing field and radically changed the scoring system (from the days when one goal outweighed any number of points).

To suggest it had reached a plateau of contentment was a truly bold concept for the new millennium. It was also impossible to uphold given some relevant rules, for instance those concerning discipline, aren't part of the Playing Rules as published. It would have been particularly ironic if at a time when the science of coaching and games development has progressed to impressive levels, such a fundamental tool as the ability to experiment had been thrown away.

All that aside, there shouldn't be too much to antagonise conservatives in what is proposed.

There has been some comment to the effect the pick-up is a great skill and its removal diminishes the game. The quick chip into the hands is a skill and, as was pointed out yesterday, it will still be possible and is likely to be used because it gives the player on the ball an advantage to take possession quickly. But otherwise Mick O'Dwyer was right. The pick-up as frequently practised leads to scrappy rucks and also exposes the player attempting it to potentially dangerous challenges.

Awarding two points for the sideline cut in hurling is an idea unlikely to cause too much of a stir. It places a premium on one of the game's skills and would - if adopted permanently - encourage players to acquire and practise the ability.

The third headline proposal, the sin bin, is more ambiguous. It has been a popular suggestion in recent times, particularly after the success of its introduction in rugby. But in that game the loss of a player for 10 minutes is a genuine risk. Teams judge themselves by how much scoring damage they can inflict with their opponents down to 14 men. Neither football nor hurling has any set-piece play and so the opportunity to tie opponents down and make the extra man count isn't as obvious.

It's also been known for teams to win All-Ireland finals a man down for considerable periods of time. Coping with 14 for 10 minutes doesn't look daunting but on the positive side the miscreant is punished even if there weren't enough takers for the harsher sanction that the player shown the yellow card would not be allowed back on but could be replaced by a team-mate.

In relation to discipline there are some welcome additions to the categories of red-card offences, including some generally associated with rugby such as biting and gouging plus spitting and provoking a brawl or free-for-all by inciting or taunting other players.

Two ideas that were rejected are the tackle and the mark. The argument that the mark slows down the game has its merits but given the maul that often takes place when a high fielder returns to earth, it's debatable whether it would slow things down to any greater extent than already happens.

The tackle is the most surprising omission from the list of experiments. Although it has its staunch advocates, the current tackle is riddled with ambiguities. When Dessie Farrell says the players are most concerned about inconsistency of interpretation it has to be taken into account that referees are dealt a bad hand when it comes to adjudicating fouls in contact situations.

A number of players and managers have lent their support to the idea of a defined tackle on the man, like in International Rules and it would have been worth a trial.

One of the reservations about this was that it would move Gaelic football too close to the Australian or international game and there's no doubt that such concerns exist. It's hard to know why. International Rules is for many people a better game than Gaelic football on the basis of empirical considerations such as the unambiguous tackle, which encourages players to move the ball, and its speed of movement. They're reasons why the international series attracts spectators who wouldn't be traditional followers of Gaelic games.

Already concepts have been imported from the international game. Kicks from the hand have speeded up football and helped it evolve. It continues to evolve and will be all the stronger for that. ... smoran@irish-times.ie