1. Fist Pass:
Proposal: Eliminate the â€œopen handedâ€ pass and return to fist pass only.
Rationale: It is accepted that the hand pass is being widely abused and is, consequently, impossible to implement on a consistent basis.
2. Catch from Kick-out:
Proposal: A free- kick to be awarded to a player making a catch between the 45 m lines directly from a kick-out. The free-kick is to be taken by the player who makes the catch unless he is injured prior to the free-kick being taken.
Rationale: It was felt that â€œhigh-fieldingâ€ , once one of the most highly acclaimed skills in the game, needs to be acknowledged and rewarded.
Proposal: The bounce in Football to be re-defined as: â€œFor a player to play the ball against the ground with his hand(s) and to catch it on return to his hand(s)â€ .
Rationale: It is considered by the committee that the current definition viz â€œFor a player to play the ball against the ground with his hand(s) and back to his hand(s) againâ€ has led to considerable ambiguity and inconsistencies in referee interpretation.
4. Penalty Kick
Proposal: The penalty should be taken from a spot which is located 11m. from the centre of the goal line.
Rationale: It was accepted that a disparity has developed between penalties in hurling and football; statistical evidence suggests that the relatively modest return from penalties in football leads to the conclusion that it pays to foul. It is considered that a penalty kick from the centre of the 13m line does not carry a sufficient level of deterrent, and is not the advantage to the attacking team that such should be.
Proposal: All kick-out to be taken from the 13m line, within the small rectangle.
Rationale: It was noted that there is considerable time delay at kick-outs and that â€œshortâ€ kick-outs following wides can be unsightly, and occasionally controversial. It was further considered that this may encourage â€œhigh fieldingâ€ , mentioned earlier in the proposal with regard to the introduction of the free-kick for the catch from a kick-out.
Proposal: That the hand-pass in hurling be defined as: â€œThe ball must be released and struck with a definite striking action of the handâ€ .
Rationale: With the speed of the game it is becoming increasingly difficult for referees to judge whether a player has thrown the ball or not. This definition will bring clarity to the judgment decision.
2. Rules 4.16 (a) & (b) â€“ Technical Fouls
Proposal: To replace the words â€œbefore the puck is takenâ€ with â€œbefore the ball is struckâ€ in Rule 4.16.
Rationale: Rule 4.11 and Rule 4.16 relate to the penalty puck and this proposal will simply ensure that the wording is consistent between both Rules.
Proposal: That the penalty under Rule 4.15 relating to taking the puck-out from outside the small rectangle be amended to:
(i) Cancel puck-out.
(ii) Throw in the ball on the defendersâ€™ 20m line opposite the scoring spaceâ€ .
Rationale: It is considered that the penalty for â€œfoulingâ€ a puck-out, i.e the award of a 65m free to the opposition is too severe.
Proposals affecting Both Games
The following proposals were put forward which affect both Football and Hurling.
Proposal: The referee shall indicate that advantage is being played by means of a â€œraised and extended armâ€ .
Rationale: Both committees considered the â€œAdvantage Ruleâ€ as currently defined. A â€œre-callâ€ mechanism was discussed but it was agreed that it would be impossible to implement. It was decided, therefore, that the proposal would be that a clearly-defined signal be used indicating that the referee had seen a foul, and was playing an advantage.
Proposal: Throw-ins should not take place closer than 13m from the side-line.
Rationale: It is considered that very often throw-in situations can become very unsightly, particularly when the side-line is pinning the players in a particular area.
3. Charge (Fair)
Proposal: Include the words â€œShoulder to shoulderâ€ rather than â€œside to sideâ€ in the definition of the Fair Charge.
Rationale: It is the contention of the committees that the words â€œside to sideâ€ are causing inconsistencies in the application of the rule and in some cases, legitimising what would appear to be foul play.
Proposal (from Football Committee): That a player who is in the act of kicking the ball could not be charged, in a manner otherwise considered to be fair.
Rationale: The opinion of the Committee is that a player in the act of kicking the ball is actually at his most vulnerable as he will only have one foot on the ground and therefore, a charge (even though otherwise fair) may be dangerous and should not be legitimate.
4. Boundary Line
Proposal: Amend the penalty for deliberately going outside the boundary lines to gain an advantage to â€œFree-puck/kick from where the foul occurredâ€ .
Rationale: It is considered that the current penalty of â€œCaution offender; order off for second cautionable offenceâ€ is too severe.
Proposal: That the half-time and full-time whistle not be blown until the ball has gone over any boundary line.
Rationale: On occasion controversy has arisen in the past when a referee has, correctly, blown the whistle for half or full time when a team is attacking and with a scoring opportunity.
6. Rule 4 â€“ Technical Fouls
Proposal: Amend Rule 4.9 relating to the â€œsmall rectangleâ€ to allow a player enter the rectangle once the ball has been played. The rule would not be amended with regard to Set Play situations.
Rationale: It is virtually impossible for referees and umpires to adjudicate correctly on this rule on all occasions.
All proposals were adopted by Ard Chomhairle for experimentation during the 2010 National League with a view to deciding as to whether they should be proposed to Congress as permanent changes.