GAELIC GAMES NEWS:THERE WON'T be any tweaking of the GAA's experimental playing rules ahead of Congress in April, where they'll be voted on – individually – to determine whether they're carried forward.

Given the first weekend of the Allianz National Football League went off with the minimum of fuss regarding the implementation of the rules, it would appear some if not all will become a permanent feature of the game.

Some managers and players had made suggestions in recent weeks about how certain rules should or could be modified, but according to Séamus Woods, who chaired the Football Rules Committee that drew up the proposals, they are, at least for now, set in stone.

“The proposals that will go to Congress will be as are,” says Woods. “As in adopted by Central Council, in December, and are now in the public domain. If you think about it, referees have been trained, players have been programmed, along with managers and coaches, etc. So to start making adjustments midstream would be impractical, unless it was something minuscule.”

Last year, the experimental disciplinary rules regarding yellow-card offences were slightly modified ahead of Congress in an effort to increase the chances of them being voted into the rules. That resulted from the considerable fuss created by players and managers during the league, although as it turned, those rules were ultimately seen as just a little too radical to be written into rule. (Although approved by 177-100, the proposals failed by eight votes to secure the necessary two-thirds majority.) These playing rules, so far, haven’t caused nearly as much fuss:

“From my perspective, from day one, there was nothing revolutionary about these proposals,” says Woods.

“They are simply evolutionary. The game has been evolving, over the last decade or so, and this is some evolution in the playing rules to take account of that. And that was the very prompting of them. So far we’d be content that it’s almost been a seamless transition.”

Among the concerns raised by managers regarding the experimental rules was to do with the conclusion of play, at both half-time and full-time, whereby the referee cannot now blow up for time until the ball has gone out over the boundary line. The suggestion there was that the game would be better served if the referee some way signalled it was to be the last play of the game – but according to Woods that would go against the purpose of the proposal. “That was never going to happen. If the referee does give that indication, that in itself is an invitation for the team in possession to put the ball dead, cynically. That wasn’t the purpose, and referees have been instructed not to give any information, or confirmation, to any player, or any team, that the whistle is about to go.

“As it is, when there is additional time at the end of a match, it is always announced there is at least two minutes, or at least three minutes.

“During the course of that certain things can happen. You could have substitutions, or injury, so that two minutes becomes four, or the three become five, or whatever. But there is no indication to anybody that that is the case, so that avoids the cynical, or self-interested tactic of just putting the ball dead, as happens in rugby.

“That shouldn’t happen here, and referees, at their weekend seminar two weeks ago, in preparation for the National Leagues, were specifically instructed that there was to be no such indication given. That would deface the proposal. We don’t want that cynical ending of the game.”

The experimental rule regarding the catch from the kick-out – more popularly known as the “mark” – was already the subject of some clarification from Croke Park, where it was pointed out that a free kick will not automatically be the result of a clean catch – if advantage exists. It’s still early days, but again it appears the new rule has had minimal impact on the game, for better or for worse; and that, says Woods, was the expectation.

“What we wanted to see happen was that the referee plays advantage when the player, who fields the ball, has the space and time to either deliver it, or run with it. Just the same as he implements it in any other free or foul situation. In the case of high fielding, we’re asking the referee to make the same judgment.

“The reality is the “marks” are comparatively few in number. But the purpose of the exercise, with this particular proposal, was to propagate, to cultivate, that great skill, and to eliminate the situation where the person who accomplished the skill was, within seconds, being penalised for holding the ball too long. And there were regular instances of that in recent years.”