Will trial rules help or hinder hurling?

KILLINAN END

The Cathaoirleach of the Hurling Expert Advisory Group, John Meyler, said in his introductory message to the report that “our task was to ask, to listen, and then to decide”.

Assuming that all opinions got a fair hearing, it seems a reasonable approach. One of the problems with any such initiative is that, like democracy, it assumes that all involved are equally invested in the issues. The value is that it does give air to opinions and an opportunity for reflection.

Listening to ordinary hurling people, the salient gripe relates to the dearth of one-on-one possession contests. Of course, this is an inevitable tension as coaches will exert every effort to prevent one-on-one contests. They plan to create and exploit space, create overlaps, and develop relatively unopposed scoring opportunities. Admittedly, all this is happening at high speed so it’s not like players are doing all this at the lán of their ease. But the great increase in scoring rates suggests that scoring is somehow easier and the scope for scoring opportunities has broadened. Some of this comes from creativity and the elimination of tactical strategies that look fairly primitive in hindsight. But much of it is considered undesirable and founded on breaches of the rules, and relatively unregulated equipment – sliotar and hurley – which has evolved at rapid speed in recent decades.

The recommendations of the Expert Group are interesting rather than revolutionary. The handpass now requires “a clear and definite striking action” which in reality does not represent substantive change. ‘Clear’ and ‘definite’ appear to be performing the same function in the new definition. It still leaves the same onus on referees and their assessors to implement the existing rules, something which there has been no stomach to do in recent years.

Perhaps the existence of the report will urge those in authority to act in order to be seen to be supporting the report and its recommendations, but on the face of it the handpass change means little. Limiting consecutive handpasses is all well and good, but with the space created from a few passes, a hurley pass won’t overly challenge a player. Some handpasses in the game today seem to be done for the sake of doing it anyway. The inability to execute a legal handpass under pressure, as Seamus Flanagan referenced, would presumably force players and teams to consider alternatives such as letting the ball go a bit more.

An interesting aspect tucked away in the Stakeholder Consultation part of the report was the finding that players were the least critical of the current handpass regime. In the same way, turkeys would be the stakeholder least likely to organise the Christmas party. But the players’ view that a referee should be 100% certain before blowing for a thrown pass is a bridge too far. How about it being incumbent on the player to clearly demonstrate a legitimate handpass? This would put the burden of certainty on the thirty players rather than a referee who might be twenty yards away.

In essence, it is hard to see this having a material effect on the pattern of play created by short-passing. A bolder move for a trial period would have been to outlaw the handpass altogether. Yes, you’d have people predicting consequent rucks and melees but that’s only a failure of imagination. Players would adapt. Of course, quite what we’d end up with is another matter, but that’s the whole point of a trial period. Would a few trial games, such as happened in football, be worth considering?

Perhaps the oddest recommendation is to increase the number of permissible steps to six. In the Universal Themes part of the report the lack of enforcement of the steps rule was cited as a problem, one which itself was the source of further problems; players carrying the ball into contact, being wrapped up by defenders and multi-player rucks developing. The barstool view would be “ah sure, they’re all over-carrying anyway”. This may be true, but is extending the number of steps the answer? Does allowing extra steps not maintain the sport as a running game rather than a game where the ball is moved primarily by the hurley?

Perhaps the most needless recommendation is to reward a successful sideline cut with two points. The rationale was that “the sideline cut is a disappearing specialist skill” – this is clearly designed to encourage more attempts at scores. Perspective is needed here. Is an uncontested sideline cut worth more than Pádraic Maher’s point in the 2016 All-Ireland Final? Or Ciarán Carey’s great winner against Clare twenty years earlier? Or Éamonn Morrissey’s equaliser against Wexford in the 1993 Leinster Final? Is a sideline puck worth almost as much as a goal? Is it worth rewarding a scoring chance that can happen accidentally rather than one that is created under pressure? This one seems like a solution to a problem that does not exist.