Share
29th February 2016
06:16pm GMT
The Mark 'When a player catches the ball cleanly from a Kick-Out without it touching the ground, on or past the 45m line nearest the Kick-Out point, he shall be awarded ‘a Mark’ by the Referee. The player awarded a ‘Mark’ shall have the options of (a) Taking a free kick or (b) Playing on immediately.'Why? What the hell is the purpose of this?
Let's pretend for a second that it isn't completely irrational and illogical to go changing rules and suggesting overhauls of an age-old game because a few traditionalist old-timers don't like that tactics and conditioning have come into the sport.
Let's pretend like this 'standing committee on playing rules' nonsense isn't being influenced by knee-jerk reactions that they're seeing on social media by people who'd rather complain about a match than just watch it.
Let's pretend like a short kick-out really is as offensive as it's made out to be.
If you can just about plead ignorance to the fact that we have a group of people actually trying to change a sport because they don't like it that Donegal were successful with a counter-attacking game plan, then you can begin to look at just how mindless the practical elements to the mark really are.
The idea that a free kick is going to speed up the game is laughable.
For a start, it stops the game.
Players will impede on the catcher, make no doubt about that. If he's allowed to play on immediately, then no manager is going to let their men take a chance by giving the catcher the right of way and no referee can police that properly. He'll be hounded until the ref orders the opposition back. By that stage, the game is broken up as normal.
If we're giving teams a free kick and free time to have a look at their attack from the middle of the field with no interruptions (and they can get that by catching the ball at chest height by running to the wing by the way so save us this 'art of high fielding' bullshit), then you have to expect teams to set up even more conservatively. If I'm managing a side and I know there's a chance that we'll have to back off a kicker and let him scan our defence, I'm going to make damn sure he has no other option but to go short and we can take it from there. Imagine how that cautiousness will progress over the year(s).
On what planet would any team playing against a superior midfield want to kick any ball high and into that middle-third melting pot? If you concede marks from your own kick-out, opposition attacks will have a free kick in your half and one of two things will happen as a result.
Either you'll revert even more religiously to a short kick-out game plan.
Or you'll set up even more conservatively from set plays because you don't want to be picked apart. Who would?
Unfortunately - and it's not just with the GAA, it's with most sport - the majority of teams set up first and foremost not to lose. They don't set up to win. Don't lose, don't take any risks and then see where it goes. Let them make the mistakes. Jose Mourinho is one of the best coaches in the world because of it, Floyd Mayweather is one of the greatest boxers of all time and Joe Schmidt won two Six Nations championships with Ireland playing conservatively. Playing percentages. Playing smart.
So all of these rule changes in any sport - even something as unnecessary as a mark - will be met with several urgent plots to counteract it. Only the very best actually use such rulings to their advantage. Very few try to exploit the perks of them. Most just want to make sure they don't get caught out by them. Most want to learn straight away how they can nullify it.
From a practical standpoint, the mark offers no real value to anyone trying to overcome what they call 'negative football'.
Logically, it makes even less sense.
It's beyond the realms of comprehension that we not only have people chronically complaining for the sake of it about moves that last longer than 10 seconds, but we have a whole committee actively designed to satisfy those people and rage war against a hand pass.
You have Sean Boylan on said committee who openly talks about trying to overcome the defensive trend in Gaelic Football and suggesting four-point penalty kicks to be awarded for cynical fouls in the last minute of games - anywhere on the field. That's someone contributing to a body who suggest rule changes to the sport.
You have Jarlath Burns, the chairman, declaring the 'death of Gaelic Football' when Derry sets up conservatively against Dublin to make sure the game isn't over after 20 minutes again.
Whatever about their opinions, their logic shouldn't be lost. Especially when it comes to changing a game that has been serving a country and now the world better and better.
Especially when it comes to introducing a rule that really serves no purpose whatsoever. It's change for the sake of change.
It's change for the sake of a few moaners who have lost sight of what it is to compete.Explore more on these topics:
