Gaelic football is crap- and needs to change ASAP

[AustinPowers]

True enough Bunker but I'd say a lot less neutrals go to games any more

But surely that is  partly  down to  entry fees?  It's expensive enough  to follow your own county (or club, even ) these days without heading to neutral games as Well

[seafoid]

The GAA needs to change the rule of Gaelic football- its becoming so tedious and boring. Every game over the country is played the same way. Keep the ball, puke football. How can we change it?

Turn it off and watch hurling, ya can't play 'keep the ball' or wind down the clock

The problem is we have coached this from intercounty down to club level as it brings results, possession of the controls the game, bringing in a possession clock is really hard to officiate with all the other rules, be more gurning from the sidelines and behind the fence

It didn't work for Derry in Croke Park
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osIgk4k2P6Y

[lenny]

The GAA needs to change the rule of Gaelic football- its becoming so tedious and boring. Every game over the country is played the same way. Keep the ball, puke football. How can we change it?

Turn it off and watch hurling, ya can't play 'keep the ball' or wind down the clock

The problem is we have coached this from intercounty down to club level as it brings results, possession of the controls the game, bringing in a possession clock is really hard to officiate with all the other rules, be more gurning from the sidelines and behind the fence

It didn't work for Derry in Croke Park
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osIgk4k2P6Y

Didn't work for Derry but it worked really well for Galway who were even more defensive than Derry on the day and Derry just couldn't break down that defensive Galway wall.

[general_lee]

The GAA needs to change the rule of Gaelic football- its becoming so tedious and boring. Every game over the country is played the same way. Keep the ball, puke football. How can we change it?

Go and watch ladies football or juvenile football

[Ash Smoker]

True enough Bunker but I'd say a lot less neutrals go to games any more

People pack out soccer stadiums to watch the players stroll around and roll the ball back and forth to each other for 90 minutes.

[Rossfan]

True enough Bunker but I'd say a lot less neutrals go to games any more

People pack out soccer stadiums to watch the players stroll around and roll the ball back and forth to each other for 90 minutes.

How many are neutral?
What percentage of massive urban populations go to those games?
Not to mention non stop media glorification etc etc

[Keyser soze]

The issue is that referees allow mass fouling which is not within the rules of the game but punish individual indiscretions harshly.

So in scenario A a forward gets the ball and is surrounded by multiple players holding and slapping at him, invariably the player on the ball gets blown up for overcarrying. Any sensible interpretation of the current rules dictates that this is a free in but that's not how it is currently reffed.

In scenario B a forward gets the ball and is 1 on 1 with a defender. In this case any contact from the defender no matter how slight that results in the attacking player being held up, [or if he's smart, going to ground], will inevitably result in a free in. The attacking player in this case is also allowed a large degree of latitude in number of steps taken.

It therefore makes sense if you are a manager to minimize, if not eradicate, the amount of times your players are in a 1 to 1 situation and make sure that you get loads of bodies back to surround attacking players as you have the advantage in this case.

If however surrounding a player and fouling him resulted in a free in, as it should in many cases, combined with allowing a more robust tackle in a 1 to 1 situation there would not be the incentive for managers to instruct players to pack their defence.

To me the way the game is reffed is completely counterintuitive and is largely responsible for the spectacle we see at the minute. 

This isn't a pop at the refereeing fraternity btw they are obviously been coached to interpret the rules in this manner.

[Milltown Row2]

The issue is that referees allow mass fouling which is not within the rules of the game but punish individual indiscretions harshly.

So in scenario A a forward gets the ball and is surrounded by multiple players holding and slapping at him, invariably the player on the ball gets blown up for overcarrying. Any sensible interpretation of the current rules dictates that this is a free in but that's not how it is currently reffed.

In scenario B a forward gets the ball and is 1 on 1 with a defender. In this case any contact from the defender no matter how slight that results in the attacking player being held up, [or if he's smart, going to ground], will inevitably result in a free in. The attacking player in this case is also allowed a large degree of latitude in number of steps taken.

It therefore makes sense if you are a manager to minimize, if not eradicate, the amount of times your players are in a 1 to 1 situation and make sure that you get loads of bodies back to surround attacking players as you have the advantage in this case.

If however surrounding a player and fouling him resulted in a free in, as it should in many cases, combined with allowing a more robust tackle in a 1 to 1 situation there would not be the incentive for managers to instruct players to pack their defence.

To me the way the game is reffed is completely counterintuitive and is largely responsible for the spectacle we see at the minute. 

This isn't a pop at the refereeing fraternity btw they are obviously been coached to interpret the rules in this manner.

WTF!!

Ive highlighted what you have written... Holding and slapping is always a foul, I don't know any ref that see's that any different, holding is a foul and slapping someone is a foul, the difference is if they are not being pulled or they are slapping the ball then its not a foul, you can crowd him out and its up to the player to drop the ball as he's not trying to play it, overcarrying

Then you go on to say any contact and the ref blows a foul? Football bar a shoulder to shoulder is non contact so if the contact is trying to play the ball then its ok, another contact its a foul, the reality is simple though, its not your opinion that counts, because you are not refereeing the game.

No one is being coached to allow frees and call for no 'frees'

[Armagh18]

The issue is that referees allow mass fouling which is not within the rules of the game but punish individual indiscretions harshly.

So in scenario A a forward gets the ball and is surrounded by multiple players holding and slapping at him, invariably the player on the ball gets blown up for overcarrying. Any sensible interpretation of the current rules dictates that this is a free in but that's not how it is currently reffed.

In scenario B a forward gets the ball and is 1 on 1 with a defender. In this case any contact from the defender no matter how slight that results in the attacking player being held up, [or if he's smart, going to ground], will inevitably result in a free in. The attacking player in this case is also allowed a large degree of latitude in number of steps taken.

It therefore makes sense if you are a manager to minimize, if not eradicate, the amount of times your players are in a 1 to 1 situation and make sure that you get loads of bodies back to surround attacking players as you have the advantage in this case.

If however surrounding a player and fouling him resulted in a free in, as it should in many cases, combined with allowing a more robust tackle in a 1 to 1 situation there would not be the incentive for managers to instruct players to pack their defence.

To me the way the game is reffed is completely counterintuitive and is largely responsible for the spectacle we see at the minute. 

This isn't a pop at the refereeing fraternity btw they are obviously been coached to interpret the rules in this manner.

Good point, not something I've really thought of before

[Keyser soze]

The issue is that referees allow mass fouling which is not within the rules of the game but punish individual indiscretions harshly.

So in scenario A a forward gets the ball and is surrounded by multiple players holding and slapping at him, invariably the player on the ball gets blown up for overcarrying. Any sensible interpretation of the current rules dictates that this is a free in but that's not how it is currently reffed.

In scenario B a forward gets the ball and is 1 on 1 with a defender. In this case any contact from the defender no matter how slight that results in the attacking player being held up, [or if he's smart, going to ground], will inevitably result in a free in. The attacking player in this case is also allowed a large degree of latitude in number of steps taken.

It therefore makes sense if you are a manager to minimize, if not eradicate, the amount of times your players are in a 1 to 1 situation and make sure that you get loads of bodies back to surround attacking players as you have the advantage in this case.

If however surrounding a player and fouling him resulted in a free in, as it should in many cases, combined with allowing a more robust tackle in a 1 to 1 situation there would not be the incentive for managers to instruct players to pack their defence.

To me the way the game is reffed is completely counterintuitive and is largely responsible for the spectacle we see at the minute. 

This isn't a pop at the refereeing fraternity btw they are obviously been coached to interpret the rules in this manner.

WTF!!

Ive highlighted what you have written... Holding and slapping is always a foul, I don't know any ref that see's that any different, holding is a foul and slapping someone is a foul, the difference is if they are not being pulled or they are slapping the ball then its not a foul, you can crowd him out and its up to the player to drop the ball as he's not trying to play it, overcarrying

Then you go on to say any contact and the ref blows a foul? Football bar a shoulder to shoulder is non contact so if the contact is trying to play the ball then its ok, another contact its a foul, the reality is simple though, its not your opinion that counts, because you are not refereeing the game.

No one is being coached to allow frees and call for no 'frees'

The referee is always right.

[Milltown Row2]

The issue is that referees allow mass fouling which is not within the rules of the game but punish individual indiscretions harshly.

So in scenario A a forward gets the ball and is surrounded by multiple players holding and slapping at him, invariably the player on the ball gets blown up for overcarrying. Any sensible interpretation of the current rules dictates that this is a free in but that's not how it is currently reffed.

In scenario B a forward gets the ball and is 1 on 1 with a defender. In this case any contact from the defender no matter how slight that results in the attacking player being held up, [or if he's smart, going to ground], will inevitably result in a free in. The attacking player in this case is also allowed a large degree of latitude in number of steps taken.

It therefore makes sense if you are a manager to minimize, if not eradicate, the amount of times your players are in a 1 to 1 situation and make sure that you get loads of bodies back to surround attacking players as you have the advantage in this case.

If however surrounding a player and fouling him resulted in a free in, as it should in many cases, combined with allowing a more robust tackle in a 1 to 1 situation there would not be the incentive for managers to instruct players to pack their defence.

To me the way the game is reffed is completely counterintuitive and is largely responsible for the spectacle we see at the minute. 

This isn't a pop at the refereeing fraternity btw they are obviously been coached to interpret the rules in this manner.

WTF!!

Ive highlighted what you have written... Holding and slapping is always a foul, I don't know any ref that see's that any different, holding is a foul and slapping someone is a foul, the difference is if they are not being pulled or they are slapping the ball then its not a foul, you can crowd him out and its up to the player to drop the ball as he's not trying to play it, overcarrying

Then you go on to say any contact and the ref blows a foul? Football bar a shoulder to shoulder is non contact so if the contact is trying to play the ball then its ok, another contact its a foul, the reality is simple though, its not your opinion that counts, because you are not refereeing the game.

No one is being coached to allow frees and call for no 'frees'

The referee is always right.

Whether he's your right or your wrong he's at least brave enough to do the course and call it as he sees it. You claim these scenarios are standard. I'll claim they aren't. Who's right?

[Armagh Cúchulainns]

As a coach and referee, I've said for ages, people are trying to 'rule' their way into making the game more appeaseable for people.
Why spend time trying to draw up rules about numbers of handpasses, players in zones, backward passes?

One, well 2 changes which would work an absolute treat as far as I can see would be games played at 13 aside and removal of the forward mark.

- Addresses concerns about dropping men back as too much space to cover with 2 players less
- Harder on teams that rely on group tackling
- Rewards an attack minded team and also players who can make space and win ball, especially with ball kicked in earlier as a result of the space

Would be worth trialling it in a competition that actually means something to coaches and players i.e the Mac Rory Cup schools competition and the other provincial bodys comps

[befair]

As a coach and referee, I've said for ages, people are trying to 'rule' their way into making the game more appeaseable for people.
Why spend time trying to draw up rules about numbers of handpasses, players in zones, backward passes?

One, well 2 changes which would work an absolute treat as far as I can see would be games played at 13 aside and removal of the forward mark.

- Addresses concerns about dropping men back as too much space to cover with 2 players less
- Harder on teams that rely on group tackling
- Rewards an attack minded team and also players who can make space and win ball, especially with ball kicked in earlier as a result of the space

Would be worth trialling it in a competition that actually means something to coaches and players i.e the Mac Rory Cup schools competition and the other provincial bodys comps

Agree with this; 13-a-side would also make it easier for smaller clubs/counties to compete. A small club might have 13 decent players, less likely to have 15

[Armagh18]

As a coach and referee, I've said for ages, people are trying to 'rule' their way into making the game more appeaseable for people.
Why spend time trying to draw up rules about numbers of handpasses, players in zones, backward passes?

One, well 2 changes which would work an absolute treat as far as I can see would be games played at 13 aside and removal of the forward mark.

- Addresses concerns about dropping men back as too much space to cover with 2 players less
- Harder on teams that rely on group tackling
- Rewards an attack minded team and also players who can make space and win ball, especially with ball kicked in earlier as a result of the space

Would be worth trialling it in a competition that actually means something to coaches and players i.e the Mac Rory Cup schools competition and the other provincial bodys comps

Agree with this; 13-a-side would also make it easier for smaller clubs/counties to compete. A small club might have 13 decent players, less likely to have 15

13 a-side is tough going on a big pitch, would certainly be worth trying though

[Milltown Row2]

As a coach and referee, I've said for ages, people are trying to 'rule' their way into making the game more appeaseable for people.
Why spend time trying to draw up rules about numbers of handpasses, players in zones, backward passes?

One, well 2 changes which would work an absolute treat as far as I can see would be games played at 13 aside and removal of the forward mark.

- Addresses concerns about dropping men back as too much space to cover with 2 players less
- Harder on teams that rely on group tackling
- Rewards an attack minded team and also players who can make space and win ball, especially with ball kicked in earlier as a result of the space

Would be worth trialling it in a competition that actually means something to coaches and players i.e the Mac Rory Cup schools competition and the other provincial bodys comps

Agree with this; 13-a-side would also make it easier for smaller clubs/counties to compete. A small club might have 13 decent players, less likely to have 15

13 a-side is tough going on a big pitch, would certainly be worth trying though

Roll on subs might help