Joe Brolly

[BennyHarp]

Yes LeoMc, I completely agree but this isn't about Joe Brolly or any other pundit. Some lads are trying to make out we'd all be happy with the current state of football only for a few high profile pundits moaning, we wouldn't. What Brolly said about Grimley was a disgrace and I couldn't care less what Joe thinks. He'll have his opinions and I'll broadly agree with some and disagree with others. But you're right insofar as we can't hammer coaches for being somewhat cavalier and then if they get beaten hammer them for going ultra defensive.

I don't envy current IC managers now as they have amazing talent at their disposal but they only have two cup competitions to play in (the provincial and all Ireland championships). Most have little hope of winning either and all but a handful have a chance of winning the main one. Therefore I'm not surprised that managers now use the league to fine tune a system that will make them competitive and stave off the daft criticism they receive when beaten by a team that could and possibly should beat them most days.

I've been on here a good bit complaining about defensive football but if I was given an IC job tomorrow would I play traditional football? Highly unlikely if I'm honest, certainly not unless I had a top 5 team. But one of the reasons for that is I wouldn't last two years playing traditional football unless I was winning. If I (or a lot of coaches) were given time you might be able to work on a more positive system that would also be a winning one but nobody wants a winning team 3 years from now, they want one now.

I wasn't trying to blame Joe for the ills of the current game per se, just using him as an example of the pressure the IC Manager is under.
I would not be in favour of short term fixes and knee-jerk tinkering with the rules as whatever the changes the IC Manager will look to exploit them to the limit. The fixes have to be more long term, better structured seasons giving more regular football, better coaching of referees to implement the current rules consistently and better coaching of coaches and coaching officers.

You can't coach physics Leo. This is one time where the rule makers need to intervene

Who taught you that little buzz phrase? You certainly enjoy using it. Unfortunately, though, like most buzz phrases it means nothing. Just because Dublin can't break down a crowded defence doesn't mean others can't. You don't just give up and whinge to change the rules because the bad boys aren't playing properly!

[INDIANA]

Yes LeoMc, I completely agree but this isn't about Joe Brolly or any other pundit. Some lads are trying to make out we'd all be happy with the current state of football only for a few high profile pundits moaning, we wouldn't. What Brolly said about Grimley was a disgrace and I couldn't care less what Joe thinks. He'll have his opinions and I'll broadly agree with some and disagree with others. But you're right insofar as we can't hammer coaches for being somewhat cavalier and then if they get beaten hammer them for going ultra defensive.

I don't envy current IC managers now as they have amazing talent at their disposal but they only have two cup competitions to play in (the provincial and all Ireland championships). Most have little hope of winning either and all but a handful have a chance of winning the main one. Therefore I'm not surprised that managers now use the league to fine tune a system that will make them competitive and stave off the daft criticism they receive when beaten by a team that could and possibly should beat them most days.

I've been on here a good bit complaining about defensive football but if I was given an IC job tomorrow would I play traditional football? Highly unlikely if I'm honest, certainly not unless I had a top 5 team. But one of the reasons for that is I wouldn't last two years playing traditional football unless I was winning. If I (or a lot of coaches) were given time you might be able to work on a more positive system that would also be a winning one but nobody wants a winning team 3 years from now, they want one now.

I wasn't trying to blame Joe for the ills of the current game per se, just using him as an example of the pressure the IC Manager is under.
I would not be in favour of short term fixes and knee-jerk tinkering with the rules as whatever the changes the IC Manager will look to exploit them to the limit. The fixes have to be more long term, better structured seasons giving more regular football, better coaching of referees to implement the current rules consistently and better coaching of coaches and coaching officers.

You can't coach physics Leo. This is one time where the rule makers need to intervene

Who taught you that little buzz phrase? You certainly enjoy using it. Unfortunately, though, like most buzz phrases it means nothing. Just because Dublin can't break down a crowded defence doesn't mean others can't. You don't just give up and whinge to change the rules because the bad boys aren't playing properly!

Dublin can break down any defence in fairness. Just look at the talent we have for God's sake. Nobody can beat us for conditioning either  (they might match us for conditioning if you are lucky but they certainly won't be fitter)- you'd only have to watch our club sides to see that.
Gavin got his tactics wrong last year trying to play football which is a sad situation for the game.
As regards physics in a confined space where a football can only be propelled a certain distance and the opposition including a goalie have 14 men behind the ball. Yes physics becomes a reality of life rather then a buzz word.

Face facts Benny you're afraid the rule-makers will give Gaelic Football it's soul back. It might even bring the art of defence back which has been sadly lost due to these tactics.

[Fear ón Srath Bán]

Brolly's suggestion, far from being 'simple', is actually simply farcical.

For the first time ever in Gaelic Games, the whole complexion of a game would be changed, where teams will have to reconfigure (potentially quite often) on the park during the game to a set of predefined zonal rules. The potential for ridicule is boundless, for almost all concerned.

One suggestion that has been mooted before, and which should be given a fair wind before any of the more radical 'cures' are considered, would be to reduce the team size to 13-a-side.

Advantages: 1. no minor or major surgery to playing rules involved (with the sole exception of the number of initial players on the park); 2. the 'blanket defence' potency is dramatically reduced, purely by dint of the insufficient number of players to block up all channels of attack; 3. fitness levels of the players these days are light years ahead of what they were when the rules were drawn up, and for that reason alone the numbers involved should be reviewed regardless, since the playing parks have not increased in size; 4. With fewer players on the park, and the consequent greater distance between players of the same team, on average, the ratio of hand-passing to kicking should similarly diminish as a consequence; and 5. So easy to try it out, with no major readjustments of the players' mindsets involved.

[INDIANA]

Brolly's suggestion, far from being 'simple', is actually simply farcical.

For the first time ever in Gaelic Games, the whole complexion of a game would be changed, where teams will have to reconfigure (potentially quite often) on the park during the game to a set of predefined zonal rules. The potential for ridicule is boundless, for almost all concerned.

One suggestion that has been mooted before, and which should be given a fair wind before any of the more radical 'cures' are considered, would be to reduce the team size to 13-a-side.

Advantages: 1. no minor or major surgery to playing rules involved (with the sole exception of the number of initial players on the park); 2. the 'blanket defence' potency is dramatically reduced, purely by dint of the insufficient number of players to block up all channels of attack; 3. fitness levels of the players these days are light years ahead of what they were when the rules were drawn up, and for that reason alone the numbers involved should be reviewed regardless, since the playing parks have not increased in size; 4. With fewer players on the park, and the consequent greater distance between players of the same team, on average, the ratio of hand-passing to kicking should similarly diminish as a consequence; and 5. So easy to try it out, with no major readjustments of the players' mindsets involved.

you reduce the game to 13 a side it is not Gaelic Football anymore in my view.

You're also reducing participation numbers which gives an  advantage to rival sports. Its why Rugby Union rejected it in 2009

[Fear ón Srath Bán]

you reduce the game to 13 a side it is not Gaelic Football anymore in my view.

So, a reduction in blanket defending and an increase in foot passing, and it's not Gaelic Football any more? Jeez, make your mind up!

You're also reducing participation numbers which gives an  advantage to rival sports. Its why Rugby Union rejected it in 2009

A little bit of imagination should be employed to mitigate the impact of reduced numbers in that respect, like the same number of subs, or even increase the number of subs, etc.

[INDIANA]

you reduce the game to 13 a side it is not Gaelic Football anymore in my view.

So, a reduction in blanket defending and an increase in foot passing, and it's not Gaelic Football any more? Jeez, make your mind up!

You're also reducing participation numbers which gives an  advantage to rival sports. Its why Rugby Union rejected it in 2009

A little bit of imagination should be employed to mitigate the impact of reduced numbers in that respect, like the same number of subs, or even increase the number of subs, etc.

We don't need 13 a  side to eradicate the problem. Just a tweaking of the rules.

[muppet]

you reduce the game to 13 a side it is not Gaelic Football anymore in my view.

So, a reduction in blanket defending and an increase in foot passing, and it's not Gaelic Football any more? Jeez, make your mind up!

You're also reducing participation numbers which gives an  advantage to rival sports. Its why Rugby Union rejected it in 2009

A little bit of imagination should be employed to mitigate the impact of reduced numbers in that respect, like the same number of subs, or even increase the number of subs, etc.

We don't need 13 a  side to eradicate the problem. Just a tweaking of the rules.

The Mayo County U-21 Championship used to be 13 a side. TBH you would hardly notice as long as you were fit.

[Fear ón Srath Bán]

We don't need 13 a  side to eradicate the problem. Just a tweaking of the rules.

Brolly's harebrained suggestion is not a tweak.

[INDIANA]

We don't need 13 a  side to eradicate the problem. Just a tweaking of the rules.

Brolly's harebrained suggestion is not a tweak.

Its a reasonable idea that's worth a trial.

[6th sam]

Brolly's suggestion, far from being 'simple', is actually simply farcical.

For the first time ever in Gaelic Games, the whole complexion of a game would be changed, where teams will have to reconfigure (potentially quite often) on the park during the game to a set of predefined zonal rules. The potential for ridicule is boundless, for almost all concerned.

One suggestion that has been mooted before, and which should be given a fair wind before any of the more radical 'cures' are considered, would be to reduce the team size to 13-a-side.

Advantages: 1. no minor or major surgery to playing rules involved (with the sole exception of the number of initial players on the park); 2. the 'blanket defence' potency is dramatically reduced, purely by dint of the insufficient number of players to block up all channels of attack; 3. fitness levels of the players these days are light years ahead of what they were when the rules were drawn up, and for that reason alone the numbers involved should be reviewed regardless, since the playing parks have not increased in size; 4. With fewer players on the park, and the consequent greater distance between players of the same team, on average, the ratio of hand-passing to kicking should similarly diminish as a consequence; and 5. So easy to try it out, with no major readjustments of the players' mindsets involved.

Other advantages:
Less contact injuries
Easier for small clubs to get teams out
Small clubs can aim for 13 a side at underage, as opposed to many clubs playing 11 , 9 a side or amalgamating at underage leaving them poorly prepared for 15 a side football.
More competition for places on the team, thereby improving commitment
Cost savings for clubs and especially in preparation of county teams
Less pitch wear
No requirement for several clubs to increase their current pitch size as per correspondence to clubs last year re regulation pitch size

In my opinion changing to 13 a side will revitalise smaller clubs , which are the lifeblood of the association, while actually improving competitiveness and standards in bigger clubs. Regarding comparing the concerns re retaining numbers as per rugby, the infrastructure of the two sports is entirely different . In the GAA heartlands of Down there are over 40 Gaa clubs covering even the most rural areas, compared to ~3 rugby clubs.
Gaa participation is most under threat by the potential folding of smaller clubs, and unpredictable unfilled fixtures . Changing our games to 13 a side makes it easier for teams to field. In East down , the Reserve league changed to 13 a side two years ago, and this appears to have improved the number of teams entering and the amount of games played.
Demographic changes and several other factors including recent rule changes are going to make it more difficult for smaller clubs to field 15 a side teams, and reducing to 13 a side would not only improve the game itself, it could secure and revitalise many small clubs currently under pressure

[Fear ón Srath Bán]

Good points 6th sam, and fully agreed.

As muppet says, was barely perceptible when their (Mayo) U21s adopted same, so it's not like it hasn't been tried before at all, in proper competition.

[brokencrossbar1]

Yerra make the field 10 metres wider and 20 metres longer. That would sort it all out.

[yellowcard]

Brollys idea should only be one idea being considered. I wouldn't flatly rule it out but there are committees set up to deal with these ideas and surely they are at least as well equipped as Brolly in coming forward with suitable proposals. Was this an idea Brolly himself dreamed up or did somebody else present it to him in the knowledge that it would get plenty of airtime once Brolly had got his teeth into it?? Was he asked to trial it in training or why did he feel the need to have done this?? He was largely responsible for the introduction of the black card, it will be interesting to see if the GAA adopt any or all of these new proposals as he seems to be setting the whole agenda for how the GAA is run. If there were enough forward thinking GAA administrators particularly in relation to fixtures overhaul and rule changes there would be no need for Brolly to be setting the agenda but the powers that be are far too slow to embrace or recognise the need for change.

[Jinxy]

I had a good idea for a rule change.
It's in this thread somewhere.
Can't remember what it was exactly, but it was good.

[Zulu]

Brolly's suggestion, far from being 'simple', is actually simply farcical.

For the first time ever in Gaelic Games, the whole complexion of a game would be changed, where teams will have to reconfigure (potentially quite often) on the park during the game to a set of predefined zonal rules. The potential for ridicule is boundless, for almost all concerned.

One suggestion that has been mooted before, and which should be given a fair wind before any of the more radical 'cures' are considered, would be to reduce the team size to 13-a-side.

Advantages: 1. no minor or major surgery to playing rules involved (with the sole exception of the number of initial players on the park); 2. the 'blanket defence' potency is dramatically reduced, purely by dint of the insufficient number of players to block up all channels of attack; 3. fitness levels of the players these days are light years ahead of what they were when the rules were drawn up, and for that reason alone the numbers involved should be reviewed regardless, since the playing parks have not increased in size; 4. With fewer players on the park, and the consequent greater distance between players of the same team, on average, the ratio of hand-passing to kicking should similarly diminish as a consequence; and 5. So easy to try it out, with no major readjustments of the players' mindsets involved.

While Brolly's suggestion may have flaws the only way to see how works is to trial it and it is certainly worth that. We often play 13 a side in Britain and whatever else it does it doesn't make the blanket defence, especially the extreme versions, redundant. I don't think the problems in the game would be much impacted by having 13 behind the ball as opposed to 15. An this would be harder to trial than Brolly's idea as you'd possibly be impacting on the number of people who can play, panel sizes, substitution regulations etc. I'd leave things for now but I'd certainly be open to all suggestions for trial periods to see how we go. The real thing we need to change though is attitudes - view the game more positively and all would be fine. View a football match as a grim choking match to the death and perhaps there is nothing we can do to free the game.