Iâve seen a chap lose a testicle on the field of play because he got a bang of a hurley in the nuts. So fuck off with your I know more than you attitude.
Take, say, Martin Naughtonâs shot which hit Ger Cunningham in the face in the 1990 All-Ireland final. A shot like that from point blank range has as much and more chance of injuring somebody than Nash would have.
So, following your logic, why continue to allow that type of shot to be made?
Would you suggest banning free kicks in soccer given that the players are only 10 yards away?
Remember Ronald Koeman and Branco? Remember Murdo McLeod getting struck in the head by a Branco free kick in the 1990 World Cup?
Good for you , whatâs you point ? Thereâs an obvious way to reduce the danger aspect here , and theyâve taken action, im sorry if your disappointed
Your point is that you want to ban anything where thereâs a risk of injury. Which is clearly a completely ridiculous point.
[quote=âSidney, post: 884754, member: 183â]Take, say, Martin Naughtonâs shot which hit Ger Cunningham in the face in the 1990 All-Ireland final. A shot like that from point blank range has as much and more chance of injuring somebody than Nash would have.
So, following your logic, why continue to allow that type of shot to be made?
Would you suggest banning free kicks in soccer given that the players are only 10 yards away?
Remember Ronald Koeman and Branco? Remember Murdo McLeod getting struck in the head by a Branco free kick in the 1990 World Cup?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DVqMclCK4w
[/quote]
No, just do the common sense things. Making players take a penalty from a safe distance is a practical approach that no sensible person whoâs ever stood in front of somebody with that power would oppose. Hurling is more dangerous but there are ways to make it safer. Youâll still enjoy it and it wonât encourage fouling
No , thatâs your interpretation of what I am saying
Iâve seen loads of players loose teeth and one lose the sight of an an eye. Was delighted when mandatory helmets were introduced . You were probable peddling this daft argument
David Cuddy has Joe Quaids testicle on his mantelpiece.
Of course itâll encourage fouling. A goal from a 20 metre free will be almost impossible under the new rule.
No it wonât, canning Sheffiin Nash and co will still stick them and as I said, if that does become an issue reduce the defenders on the line to 2
Jockstraps. Chin angled down to cover throat. What will kill them?
The drive to the pitch is statistically more dangerous for lads their age.
Thatâs typical of you. Anyone who doesnât agree with you is peddling a daft argument. Fuck off with yourself.
Daft was probably the wrong word, stupid is more appropriate here
Go fuck yourself.
Yeah yeah yeah , take 4
From 20 metres with five or six players on the line? I donât think so. Itâll drastically reduce the amount scored at the very least.
If I was to make one change it would be to ban goalkeeperâs hurleys from being used. Only a goalkeeper has the ability to gain seven metres as the huge boss of the stick reduces the margin for error both in the lift and the strike.
In fact Iâd ban goalkeeperâs hurleys altogether, but thatâs a view Iâve held before Nash started hitting these type of frees.
[quote=âSidney, post: 884773, member: 183â]From 20 metres with five or six players on the line? I donât think so. Itâll drastically reduce the amount scored at the very least.
If I was to make one change it would be to ban goalkeeperâs hurleys from being used. Only a goalkeeper has the ability to gain seven metres as the huge boss of the stick reduces the margin for error both in the lift and the strike.
In fact Iâd ban goalkeeperâs hurleys altogether, but thatâs a view Iâve held before Nash started hitting these type of frees.[/quote]
It probably will reduce the amount scored that stands to reason , removing the GK Hurley might work, but I think that the game gets more skilful each year and you could see what Nash was doing being actively practised by young lads everywhere now , it would have become best practise to get the ball as close to goal before striking so not sure that would have made it safer. Original rule was badly phrased and the adjustment fixed it
Why are ye all missing the actual point on this proposed rule change on frees & penalties? It has nothing got to do with safety.
If you win a 21m free, then simply put the free should be taken from that yardage where the foul occurred.
The soccer argument by Sid is beyond stupid, a ref will not let a player move a free kick or penalty forward by up to 3 metres.
[quote=âcarryharry, post: 884778, member: 1517â]Why are ye all missing the actual point on this proposed rule change on frees & penalties? It has nothing got to do with safety.
If you win a 21m free, then simply put the free should be taken from that yardage where the foul occurred.
The soccer argument by Sid is beyond stupid, a ref will not let a player move a free kick or penalty forward by up to 3 metres.[/quote]
Youâve phrased that badly and seem to be implying that if a foul is committed, say 15 metres from goal, that a free should be taken from 15 metres out, even though I know that thatâs not what youâre suggesting.
If you want to go for a goal from a free, you have to throw the ball up in front of you. You canât place the ball on the 20 metre line and strike it from there and get any power behind it.
Even with a regular free out the pitch, players routinely gain three or four metres.
To go for a goal under the new rule, players will have to place the ball at least 24 metres out to be sure of not crossing the 20 metre line by the time they strike the ball.
Result: itâll now be almost impossible to score a goal from a â20 metre freeâ, and fouling will be encouraged. Those four metres will make all the difference.
Im glad you agree with me.