Congress will be asked to rule on ‘Anthony Nash effect’

Extending match bans across all levels of competition and making any act of racism on the field of play an automatic red card offence are among the headline motions that will go before next month’s GAA Congress in Croke Park.

The GAA are also intent on dealing with what has been dubbed “the Anthony Nash rule” by prohibiting hurlers from deliberately advancing the ball from the place at which a free, penalty or sideline puck “is to be struck from”.

Motion 40 – one of 63 approved for Congress on February 21st-22nd – has been drafted by the GAA’s standing committee on playing rules, which includes Kilkenny hurling manager Brian Cody and former Cork goalkeeper Donal Óg Cusack.

The timing of the motion is inevitably linked with hurling goalkeeper Nash, who when taking all Cork’s close-in frees in last year’s championship, would flick the sliotar several metres in front of him before striking it.

This created an anomaly, as the opposing goalkeeper and defenders were, under rule, meant to be 20-metres from the player striking the ball.

Now any advancing of the sliotar beyond the place from where the free is to be struck from would be outlawed.

Motions
"This motion came from the standing committee on the playing rules," noted GAA director general Páraic Duffy, in outlining the main Congress motions. "So I had no personal involvement in this whatsoever.

“It is clearly an attempt to ensure penalty pucks are struck from the spot where they are awarded – in the case of penalties the 20-metre line. That’s the reason behind it.”

If the motion is passed – and it will require a two-thirds majority to do so – should the player be judged to have moved past the point where the sliotar was to be struck from, the free will be cancelled, and the sliotar thrown up.

Duffy admitted it will demand some level of interpretation from the referee, but not significantly: however, it remains to be seen how far the player striking the sliotar will move it past the point where it must be struck, in order to gain the kind of forward momentum so well demonstrated by Nash last summer.

The standing committee on the playing rules is also looking for another amendment to the hurling rules – with motion 41 – by making it a red card offence to “to behave in any way which is dangerous to an opponent, including to deliberately pull on, take hold of a faceguard or any other part of an opponent’s helmet”. Currently, such an offence only warrants a yellow card.

Motion 42 – again coming from the standing committee on the playing rules – is aimed directly at tackling racism on the field of play.

If that motion is passed, “to act by deed, word or gesture of a racist, sectarian or anti-inclusion/diversity nature against an opponent” will become an immediate red card offence.

Such actions were deemed to have discredited the Association, but were not easily addressed on the field of the play; this motion allows the match referee to make an immediate decision, provided he, or another of the match officials, actually hears the offence.

"There was a certain level of criticism last year, that there needed to be a rule to allow the referee to take action," said Duffy, "and I think this is a response to that. If the referee is aware of an incident on the pitch, he can take action at the time rather than wait until the game is over, put in a report and start the whole process. It is a more instant reaction to a serious incident.

Racism
"I think any incidents of racism or a sectarian issue does damage the reputation of the GAA, but to be fair the Association has tried to deal with them up until now. What this does is give the possibility of the incident being dealt with on the day."

Duffy described motion 35 – which looks to extend match bans to all club competitions, not just intercounty league and championship, as currently exists – as perhaps the most radical, or at least the most difficult to frame.

Essentially, the fixed penalty for a second repeat infraction (ie being ordered off) will result in a one-match suspension, in the same code, and at the same level of competition. There are some exceptions, and in some cases where the match suspensions must be served in alternative competitions, while time bans will still remain for the more serious offences.

“It’s an issue of fairness, really,” said Duffy. “At the moment, if you get a four-week suspension, at the wrong time of the year, you could actually miss four games.

“If you get it at the “right” time of the year you might miss one game. So I think match suspensions as opposed to time-based are fairer. and it has proved that way at inter-county level.”