It’s never a good thing when the referee becomes a major talking point after a big match. I’m always reluctant to make a ref the centre of attention because everyone makes mistakes and that’s part of the deal when players take to the field. You accept decisions, right or wrong. Otherwise, it’s impossible.
Thomas Walsh was stepping into a maelstrom last weekend: a capacity crowd, the Munster title on the line and an unbelievably tight contest between Cork and Limerick.
It’s a very hard job at the best of times and we don’t have enough referees, so I’m slow to criticise, especially as he is usually very good. But it’s extraordinary to hear so much talk about “letting the play flow” and how great the refereeing was, when so much was let go.
Fouls are fouls and when they’re not penalised, that is unfair on the hurler who has been prevented from playing by an opponent breaking the rules.
You will regularly have situations that are too close or very hard to call but last week went beyond that. There were clear fouls that went unpunished. Frees are frees as well. They’re not an eyesore. They’re a fair penalty for breaking rules and there is a skill involved in putting them over the bar.
The “contract” for everyone on the pitch is the rule book. That’s what is agreed as the basis of the contest. “Letting it flow” is always at someone’s expense and that creates frustration and confusion.
What’s a player meant to do when his hurley or arm is being held? If he doesn’t get his free, he’s under pressure from the threat of being done for over-carrying. He then has to drop the ball and often ends up wrestling and jostling with the fellah who has been fouling him. What does that add to the game?
We had a flashpoint at half-time during the Munster final when the two management teams wanted to confront the referee. They had already been barracking him – and each other – throughout the first half. His relaxed approach to enforcing rules meant that neither side knew what was going to be penalised and that was bound to create uncertainty at best, and anarchy at worst.
What happened on the sideline at half-time is arguably the direct result of not enforcing the rule book during the match.
The Football Review Committee (FRC) rules have transformed football. Last year, I took the unusual decision not to go to the All-Ireland football final. The game had become unwatchable and was neither enjoyable nor interesting.
Yet, a year later football is flourishing and has arguably been more entertaining than hurling for the first time in years.
I believe a good few of those rule amendments have relevance to hurling and should be introduced. It is only the evidence of a partial championship and things might change, but equally there have been innovations that have irrefutably improved football.
I’ll start with sideline behaviour. What happened in the Gaelic Grounds isn’t unique. Tensions regularly surface on the sideline, even if this was an extreme example.
When Armagh played Tyrone in the Ulster semi-final in April, Kieran McGeeney kicked a flag on the line and was yellow carded with Tyrone being awarded a 20m free. The Armagh manager then had to watch as Darren McCurry opted to bring the ball outside the 40m arc, kicking a two-point free.
Dissent by players when a free is awarded against their team is punishable by bringing it 50 metres forward. Footballers have to hand the ball back to opponents when a free is given. Despite a lot of pushback, this has worked well.
[ Cian Lynch: ‘Hurling is so instinctive, it’s an art form, it’s an expression’Opens in new window ]
These sanctions have had a radical impact and referees have spoken about how much easier is to get on with officiating when there’s not a constant chorus of complaint, at times verging on verbal abuse from players and the sideline. I would introduce it immediately.
The same applies to gamesmanship when obstructing opponents from taking the free or delaying your own restarts.
I mentioned last week that the hooter/clock would be a great introduction because it would take timekeeping away from referees and so remove their discretion. John Kiely queried the time added on at the end of the match but I had no issue with that. There had been plenty of other stoppages after the one minute was flagged by James Owens.
I was surprised that Kiely didn’t focus more on the single minute played in the first half of extra time when they had the wind behind them and the referee had to be replaced.
The hooter would address the situation where we’re here a week later debating whether or not the correct time was played.
Cork had paid their dues on this. There’s a photo of Dr Con Murphy and Jimmy Barry-Murphy on the line in the 2013 final. Time is clearly up on the big screen, and the two boys are more or less ready to embrace before play continues and Clare’s Domhnall O’Donovan equalises.
Anyway, Limerick had total control over that passage of play. Peter Casey over-carried the ball in their last attack when even if he had moved it on, the time was up. From the free, Nickie Quaid fumbled the ball out for a 65, which must be taken according to the rules. It’s a general point but players’ mistakes cost teams far more than referees’ mistakes.
Many of the FRC changes don’t apply to hurling but there are a couple that could be adopted. There’s no need to require a puckout to go a minimum distance but I would follow the example of banning passes back to the goalkeeper. This would cut out short, one-two puckouts with the nearest back and put much greater pressure on receiving defenders. This would facilitate a high press and with it, jeopardy potentially leading to goal chances.
In my view there is also a place for the “solo-and-go”. This would allow a player to tap a free to himself and set off on a run, which the opposition couldn’t challenge for 4m. I would regulate it by stipulating that anyone availing of this would not be allowed to handpass the ball.
This would broaden the range of penalties and encourage attacking movement.
The throw-in has become an embarrassment with all the pushing and shoving and posturing. Thomas Walsh literally had to jump out of the way of it when starting the Munster final. As in football, there should be two players in the middle at the start with the other two on opposite sidelines.
There’s no obvious argument for incentivising scores from distance because we have enough of those already. But I would revisit the FRC’s parallel recommendation – later withdrawn – that a goal be revalued to four and maybe even five points.
In my lifetime, rugby has revised the try from three to four to five points to maintain some sort of balance. Hurling needs to reorientate towards committing more players to attack and drawing them away from the middle third, which is almost too congested to referee properly.
We see a lot of contesting in that middle third but fewer goals than used to be the case. I’m not saying go back to 14 one-on-ones but try to stretch the play a bit more.
Do we need this tactical change? We need to consider it, as I’m not sure I’m happy with the direction of the game.
Maybe it’s time for an HRC to look at all of this as a package. I don’t know if William Maher’s role as national head of hurling would include something like this given all of his developmental responsibilities. If not, I would appoint a committee similar to the FRC with a remit broader than just rules.
It could also look at whether the current condensed season has been in the game’s best interest.
The game is still a lot better than it was when I played it but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be regularly monitored – and modified – for potential improvement.
