Food for thought
Article - https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/beat-the-clock/ (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/beat-the-clock/)
QuoteIn the early 1950s, basketball contests were too frequently boring, slow-moving, low-scoring affairs in which one team grabbed an early lead and then spent the rest of the game simply holding on to the ball until the clock ran out.
The league predictably tinkered with the rules a bit (primarily by expanding the lane from six feet to twelve feet in width, thereby reducing congestion under the basket and forcing teams to rely more on distance shooting), but by 1954 the NBA's economic viability was in serious trouble as paying customers began walking out of some dreadfully dull games. The New York Times reported that "professional basketball's existence was in jeopardy" as fans became disgusted with the "continual stalling and intentional fouling," losing interest as teams sometimes required half an hour to play out the final four minutes of a contest. As John Taylor wrote in The Rivalry, his survey of the "golden age of basketball":
[The] game was still frequently boring, degenerating all too often into what were known as "freeze-and-foul" contests, with the team in the lead playing possession ball to run out the clock and the losing team fouling to try to recover, the game stopping each time it succeeded. In one notorious example of "stall ball," as it was also known, on November 22, 1950, between the Minneapolis Lakers and the Fort Wayne Zollner Pistons, the final score was 19-18. The Pistons coach, Murray Mendenhall, had decided not to run the ball but simply to hold it and wait until the end of the game to score the winning point. He succeeded, but fans were reading newspapers in the stands; some walked out and demanded their money back, others swore never to buy another ticket to a professional basketball game.
The solution to this dilemma was another rule change, one which might seem simple and obvious to today's fans, but which was revolutionary for professional basketball at the time. Danny Biasone, the owner of the NBA's Syracuse Nationals franchise, argued that the league needed to place a limit on how long a team could hold the ball, thereby preventing one side from stubbornly hanging onto the ball until they were fouled (or until the clock ran out) and forcing both teams to play the game at a faster pace.
The implementation of this change — what Taylor described as "the single most important innovation in basketball since James Naismith invented the game" — was the 24-second clock. From 1954 onwards, every time a team gained possession of the basketball during a game, they had to attempt a shot within 24 seconds or turn the ball over to the other team — no more hanging on to the ball for minutes on end to run out the clock or force the other side to commit fouls.
The new rule was implemented a little crudely at first (typically by giving a recruit a stopwatch and having him stand on a sideline and yell "Time!" whenever 24 seconds elapsed during a possession), but by the end of the season all the teams in the NBA had set up 24-second shot clocks around their courts that made the timers visible to players, officials, and fans. The innovation was an immediate and obvious success: In 1953 and 1954 combined, only three times did a team score as many as 100 points in a playoff game; in the 1955 playoffs alone, one or both teams scored 100 points or more in over half the contests (eleven out of twenty-one games), and over the course of those two years attendance at NBA games jumped by 50 percent.
Mayo's wide count would probably increase by 10/15 at least if this rule was brought in.
A shot clock would ruin Dublin's keep ball tactics when in front. Congress unlikely to bring anything in that would upset Dublin either.
It's not a credible idea. It could only be put forward by people who have either never watched basketball or never watched gaelic football.
If this was brought into gaelic football, every single kickout would be uncontested. The team on the defence would bring every player back into their own 45m and try force their opponents to shoot long from distance. Rinse and repeat.
It would not only encourage a defensive set up, it would demand an ultra defensive set up.
Would solve a lot of problems , though might have an unintended consequence of teams sitting back ultra defensively to play the 24 secs out.
There are also practical issues at club level , as you would need an extra official or run the risk of further overloading referees.
I think 3 very simple easily implemented rules should be 13 a side , and no back passes inside /into own half , kick outs must go beyond 45
Quote from: Hound on March 04, 2019, 01:00:41 PM
It's not a credible idea. It could only be put forward by people who have either never watched basketball or never watched gaelic football.
If this was brought into gaelic football, every single kickout would be uncontested. The team on the defence would bring every player back into their own 45m and try force their opponents to shoot long from distance. Rinse and repeat.
It would not only encourage a defensive set up, it would demand an ultra defensive set up.
I was at an NBA game 6 weeks ago, I played the game but I just don't understand that point.
God forbid we have change that might affect Dublin. The game is dying, crowds are dying away. It's very similar to Basketball in the early 50s in that regard. The more pressure put on players the more turnovers, turnovers leads to excitement. Dublin's current style of football is not exciting. The game is not exciting.
Quote from: Dinny Breen on March 04, 2019, 01:14:38 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 04, 2019, 01:00:41 PM
It's not a credible idea. It could only be put forward by people who have either never watched basketball or never watched gaelic football.
If this was brought into gaelic football, every single kickout would be uncontested. The team on the defence would bring every player back into their own 45m and try force their opponents to shoot long from distance. Rinse and repeat.
It would not only encourage a defensive set up, it would demand an ultra defensive set up.
I was at an NBA game 6 weeks ago, I played the game but I just don't understand that point.
God forbid we have change that might affect Dublin. The game is dying, crowds are dying away. It's very similar to Basketball in the early 50s in that regard. The more pressure put on players the more turnovers, turnovers leads to excitement. Dublin's current style of football is not exciting. The game is not exciting.
A change that might affect Dublin! FFS. You're a one trick pony.
If you can't see this would be a stupid rule that would encourage ultra defensive tactics, then fair play.
How would it lead to turnovers if every defender is inside the 45m trying to force the opposition to shoot from a mad distance?
It would mean that like in basketball, the vast majority of turnovers would arise from blocked or missed shots. There'd be zero tackling outside the 45m, because there'd be little or no benefit in pressurising high when the opposition have to shoot in a few seconds anyway.
Anyone who thinks Dublin's style of football is a problem is a gombeen. Kerry v Dublin has been the best game of 2019, two teams playing football.
Quote from: Dinny Breen on March 04, 2019, 01:14:38 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 04, 2019, 01:00:41 PM
It's not a credible idea. It could only be put forward by people who have either never watched basketball or never watched gaelic football.
If this was brought into gaelic football, every single kickout would be uncontested. The team on the defence would bring every player back into their own 45m and try force their opponents to shoot long from distance. Rinse and repeat.
It would not only encourage a defensive set up, it would demand an ultra defensive set up.
I was at an NBA game 6 weeks ago, I played the game but I just don't understand that point.
God forbid we have change that might affect Dublin. The game is dying, crowds are dying away. It's very similar to Basketball in the early 50s in that regard. The more pressure put on players the more turnovers, turnovers leads to excitement. Dublin's current style of football is not exciting. The game is not exciting.
If teams didn't play so defensive Dublin wouldn't play so much keep ball. A shot clock would only encourage teams to drop deep and the team in possession would be forced to shoot even if the chance wasn't really on. Like limiting the handpass this rule would only benefit teams who play negative football. It's not a coincidence that the best matches I've seen have been between Dublin Kerry and Mayo in the last decade. None of whom play with a blanket defence. I'd reduce teams to 13 a side to create more space on the pitch and make it harder for teams to st up with such negative tactics
Quote from: Dinny Breen on March 04, 2019, 01:14:38 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 04, 2019, 01:00:41 PM
It's not a credible idea. It could only be put forward by people who have either never watched basketball or never watched gaelic football.
If this was brought into gaelic football, every single kickout would be uncontested. The team on the defence would bring every player back into their own 45m and try force their opponents to shoot long from distance. Rinse and repeat.
It would not only encourage a defensive set up, it would demand an ultra defensive set up.
I was at an NBA game 6 weeks ago, I played the game but I just don't understand that point.
God forbid we have change that might affect Dublin. The game is dying, crowds are dying away. It's very similar to Basketball in the early 50s in that regard. The more pressure put on players the more turnovers, turnovers leads to excitement. Dublin's current style of football is not exciting. The game is not exciting.
Dinny forget about how it would or wouldn't affect the game. Look at it from a infrastructure point of view.
How big do you think the clock would need to be?
Where would it be positioned?
How much do you think installation of shot clocks at pitches would cost?
Who would pay for their installation up and down the country?
What contingency have you got for when the clock fails? Postpone matches in an all ready congested calendar?
Another Dublin centric thread.
:D
Terrible idea that would only encourage very defensive tactics and repeat plays over and over.
I'd agree with someone above who mentioned trialling 13 a side. Players have got so fit that there is less room on the field and much more congested play. I also wouldn't be against not being allowed to kick the ball back into your own half when on the attack.
I still think at county level we could also look at enforcing each team having to keep 3/4 players in each half of the field during the games. This could be monitored by the side line official and easy enough to spot. I'm not sure it would be practical at club level, though blanket defences aren't just as bad there (but do still happen).
You have X amount of time to move the ball, quickest way to move the ball is by kicking it.
For the purists
1. Less hand passing
2. More kicking
3. More catching
4. More long range scores
5. More dropped shots which will lead to the ball being in play more
6. More shots period
Of course the flat earthers are always afraid of change.
Of course logistics would be an issue but if youth basketball in Ireland can have a shot clock then any sport can. If you don't open your eyes you will never be able to see...
Btw for the usual grunters I never said I was in favour but I have obviously have a more open mind the myopic Dublin supporters....must be all the fake All-Irelands that make them so angry...they know...
Simps.
Levy fines on the County Board if:
- more than 12 of your players are in your own half at any one time
- your handpasses exceed, say, 100 in a game
- you are Dublin
- you upset Joe Brolly
- Martin Breheny features your county in a Chicken Licken type article
Quote from: Redhand Santa on March 04, 2019, 02:04:02 PM
I still think at county level we could also look at enforcing each team having to keep 3/4 players in each half of the field during the games. This could be monitored by the side line official and easy enough to spot. I'm not sure it would be practical at club level, though blanket defences aren't just as bad there (but do still happen).
I think 3 forwards inside the 45m line might be worth a shot. Easy enough to manage as there's a clear line. I wouldn't put a restriction on defenders. If a team wants to gamble with bringing an extra body forward and leave 2 v 3 at the back, then let them at it.
You'd need to decide with sin bins and red cards as to whether that reduces the 3 man limit. I'd be inclined not to reduce it, so you really feel the effect of losing the man.
Quote from: Dinny Breen on March 04, 2019, 02:44:24 PM
Btw for the usual grunters I never said I was in favour but I have obviously have a more open mind the myopic Dublin supporters....must be all the fake All-Irelands that make them so angry...they know...
Yeah, it's just Dublin supporters against this ridiculous idea...
Although I see your distancing yourself from it now! Maybe, you've decided to think it through.
Grunter!! Getting a tad grumpy in oul age Dinny
Quote from: Hound on March 04, 2019, 02:53:28 PM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on March 04, 2019, 02:44:24 PM
Btw for the usual grunters I never said I was in favour but I have obviously have a more open mind the myopic Dublin supporters....must be all the fake All-Irelands that make them so angry...they know...
Yeah, it's just Dublin supporters against this ridiculous idea...
Although I see your distancing yourself from it now! Maybe, you've decided to think it through.
Grunter!! Getting a tad grumpy in oul age Dinny
Ridiculous idea! hardly considering it's been doing the rounds for years. Now giving Dublin millions and not splitting them up, doesn't get more ridiculous than that in fairness, oh wait letting Dublin use Croke for league matches since 2011.......The GAA is full of ridiculous ideas but one to actually improve the game as a spectacle certainly isn't...
If teams were to go ultra defensive, then how would they score? The shot clock will run out on them. Having said that, don't think it's the best idea. Something has to be done about the keep ball though. A number of teams are adopting it now.
Dinny I get the idea of bringing change in to make it better but I think that a shot clock isn't the way for it. As someone who has played basketball and still do as best as I can it is easier to implement in it as it is a transition sport over short distances and is more 'play' orientated. Smaller numbers and more control make it easier to manage and implement. I think the idea of reducing numbers might work and I have always been an advocate of 'team fouls' using the basketball analogy. If a team can be punished for cumulative fouls then there is a huge incentive for teams to actually go at each other and attack....8-10 fouls a half....21 yard free....
Quote from: Dinny Breen on March 04, 2019, 02:58:27 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 04, 2019, 02:53:28 PM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on March 04, 2019, 02:44:24 PM
Btw for the usual grunters I never said I was in favour but I have obviously have a more open mind the myopic Dublin supporters....must be all the fake All-Irelands that make them so angry...they know...
Yeah, it's just Dublin supporters against this ridiculous idea...
Although I see your distancing yourself from it now! Maybe, you've decided to think it through.
Grunter!! Getting a tad grumpy in oul age Dinny
Ridiculous idea! hardly considering it's been doing the rounds for years. Now giving Dublin millions and not splitting them up, doesn't get more ridiculous than that in fairness, oh wait letting Dublin use Croke for league matches since 2011.......The GAA is full of ridiculous ideas but one to actually improve the game as a spectacle certainly isn't...
Ewan....
How about this?
Shot clock of 1 minute.
At least 3 players have to be in the opposition 45 at all times.
5 hand passes before you have to kick.
Quote from: priceyreilly on March 04, 2019, 04:54:56 PM
How about this?
Shot clock of 1 minute.
At least 3 players have to be in the opposition 45 at all times.
5 hand passes before you have to kick.
Is that you Barry Hearn?
The 3 men in the 45 thing is impossible to police. Clock might be worth a try though.
No back pass to the keeper I'd recommend. Won't solve all ills, but it'll help.
Firstly let's implement the 4 step rule in toto. No letting ball carriers take 10 or 12 steps just because they're being tackled.
Also penalise all fouling by ball carriers.
And there HAS to be restrictions on consecutive throwpasses.
Also black card/sinbin for the cynical tactical fouls by forwards to stop a team breaking fast from defence.
The same for not handing over the ball when it's a free against you or standing in the way to prevent a quick free.
I always thought the simplest thing to do is enforce the steps rule so turnover is easier so ball has to be moved quicker and no more than one player tackling a player eliminating the point of the blanket.
Bc1 , like the idea of cumulative fouls being penalised. Would really open things up and would be easily policed by referees and also by managers and team mates who will no longer tolerate conceding cheap fouls.
Any changes have to be manageable for single referees at all levels
Quote from: Hound on March 04, 2019, 01:00:41 PM
It's not a credible idea. It could only be put forward by people who have either never watched basketball or never watched gaelic football.
If this was brought into gaelic football, every single kickout would be uncontested. The team on the defence would bring every player back into their own 45m and try force their opponents to shoot long from distance. Rinse and repeat.
It would not only encourage a defensive set up, it would demand an ultra defensive set up.
I'm surprised it took only 4 posts before someone spoke sense and realised how much of a huge negative effect it would have. I'll be honest I only read the 1st 6 posts but it's mad how people think everything in the gaa is about Dublin.
This is not a cut at fermanagh, they are having a great year and all the best to them but for me how they are playing is atrocious in terms of a spectacle. If everyone played like this the game would be dead. Again I fully respect fermanagh and they've such a small pool of players and resources that they are doing what best for them and being very successful but this is an issue that nobody trys to fix if we want a better game to watch and take part in.
Quote from: BennyCake on March 04, 2019, 05:01:01 PM
Quote from: priceyreilly on March 04, 2019, 04:54:56 PM
How about this?
Shot clock of 1 minute.
At least 3 players have to be in the opposition 45 at all times.
5 hand passes before you have to kick.
Is that you Barry Hearn?
The 3 men in the 45 thing is impossible to police. Clock might be worth a try though.
No back pass to the keeper I'd recommend. Won't solve all ills, but it'll help.
Enforcing 3 or 4 men in the 45 becomes trivially easy to police by simply giving 3-4 designated attackers / defenders on each team a different jersey, like the goalkeeper. There are a few small annoyances the rule would cause e.g. a player having to stop chasing the ball because it has gone back behind the 45, but frankly those would be a very small price to pay for ending the blanket defence in a single stroke.
Quote from: Sionnach on March 04, 2019, 09:54:00 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on March 04, 2019, 05:01:01 PM
Quote from: priceyreilly on March 04, 2019, 04:54:56 PM
How about this?
Shot clock of 1 minute.
At least 3 players have to be in the opposition 45 at all times.
5 hand passes before you have to kick.
Is that you Barry Hearn?
The 3 men in the 45 thing is impossible to police. Clock might be worth a try though.
No back pass to the keeper I'd recommend. Won't solve all ills, but it'll help.
Enforcing 3 or 4 men in the 45 becomes trivially easy to police by simply giving 3-4 designated attackers / defenders on each team a different jersey, like the goalkeeper. There are a few small annoyances the rule would cause e.g. a player having to stop chasing the ball because it has gone back behind the 45, but frankly those would be a very small price to pay for ending the blanket defence in a single stroke.
I think you just like disagreeing with Armagh men
Nothing like over-complicating things! If teams had less players, you wouldn't need to keep 3/4 players in the opposing half. That's the simplest solution and less strife for officials. It's no wonder the refs get so much wrong.
Are we not totally missing the point here?
We are trying to force the winning team go into an area packed with bodies rather than holding on to possession and trying to draw the defending team out.
Surely we should be stopping the defending team from all sitting inside their own 45
Quote from: Never beat the deeler on March 05, 2019, 01:51:12 AM
Are we not totally missing the point here?
We are trying to force the winning team go into an area packed with bodies rather than holding on to possession and trying to draw the defending team out.
Surely we should be stopping the defending team from all sitting inside their own 45
You have to look at this problem laterally.
What basketball's shotclock, and halfway line, does is place the onus on the team with the ball to attack. Rugby league's 5th tackle the same. NFL's 4th down the same.
By restricting the potential for endless ball retention, it changes the dynamic of how both teams approach the game. A team whose sole intention is to minimise the number of attacks they face, runs into the problem that they'll face a much larger number of attacks. It's surely only natural at this point yo ensure that these attacks are snuffed out as far away from their own goal as possible; hence they'll step up a little. Then maybe a little more. Whereas a more attack minded team would surely be required to include a regular long ball option in their arsenal; it is the ultimate plan B - so coaches would be forced - against their current "better judgement" to train players in delivering longer passes.
——
FWIW I reckons fionntomnach's concept has serious legs. It is so simple that is bloody clever.
In terms if implementation, it would need accompanied by a strict edict, across all matches from u10 club to AISF, that referees will book and send off anyone and everyone who accuses them of poor time management / bias / cheating. Everyone would need to get on board with the fact that this rule is not designed not to reward defence, but to penalise a lack of attacking intent. It requires a cultural change among our robotic players and paranoid managers. The quickest way to see that change through is with red cards. Everywhere.
Quote from: BennyCake on March 04, 2019, 11:40:44 PM
Quote from: Sionnach on March 04, 2019, 09:54:00 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on March 04, 2019, 05:01:01 PM
Quote from: priceyreilly on March 04, 2019, 04:54:56 PM
How about this?
Shot clock of 1 minute.
At least 3 players have to be in the opposition 45 at all times.
5 hand passes before you have to kick.
Is that you Barry Hearn?
The 3 men in the 45 thing is impossible to police. Clock might be worth a try though.
No back pass to the keeper I'd recommend. Won't solve all ills, but it'll help.
Enforcing 3 or 4 men in the 45 becomes trivially easy to police by simply giving 3-4 designated attackers / defenders on each team a different jersey, like the goalkeeper. There are a few small annoyances the rule would cause e.g. a player having to stop chasing the ball because it has gone back behind the 45, but frankly those would be a very small price to pay for ending the blanket defence in a single stroke.
I think you just like disagreeing with Armagh men
Nothing like over-complicating things! If teams had less players, you wouldn't need to keep 3/4 players in the opposing half. That's the simplest solution and less strife for officials. It's no wonder the refs get so much wrong.
It's a very simple change, not sure what's so complicated about designating 3-4 attackers and giving them different jerseys like the 'keeper. With the different jerseys, there's no reason why referees would have any difficulty at all enforcing that rule, and I don't see any major disadvantages to it. Packed defences are the problem, so why not simply ban them?
I do think 13-a-side is worth discussing though as a matter of fact.
Having to keep a number of players in the oppositions half isnt a runner IMHO. How daft would it look for a half back to hare up the field to join an attack but the half forward cant go with him because he has to stay in the opposition half. Even worse what if 2 or three defenders do this?
Fionn's concept is excellent and would work at intercounty level however at club level it could cause issues given it is at the referees discretion. As it is a grey area no doubt some of our whistle blowers would be on their usual power trip.
So what's the punishment if the third player steps over the 50 yard line?
What's to stop a player falling down 'injured' just outside the 50 to prevent play resuming? It'll be a great way of stopping the momentum. More effective than a normal feigning of injury, as presumably the play cannot start until 3 players are inside the opposing 50. Plus, you can't book or send off that 'injured' player.
It'd be a weird sight if a winning team is down to say 12 players, last minute of an AI. The losing team can put 15 into the other half for one last hurrah, while the defending/leading team can only have 9. And imagine the ball being rifled to the net, while 3 of your players are way up the field standing all alone, scratching their arses, and watching an AI title slip away.
Nah, just doesn't work for me.
The answer to Gaelic football's problems is going to come from Gaelic football, not from implementing some other sport's rule in a bastardised GAA version.
I've tried to point out even just simple problems with the Shot Clock but those who try an advocate it are just blind to its limitations. They don't seem to understand Gaelic football. And they fact they keep harping on about shows a really dangerous lack of intelligence. Imagine these people in a position of power. Scary.
If you were restricting the players in each half the rule would have to be that each team has to keep 3/4 players in each half of the field at any one time. You couldn't have it that one team could attack with 15 players and the other team only allowed to defend with 12 players. Some rule that prevents teams from dragging 13/14 bodies back is the only way you are going to stop the blanket defence.
I also think 13 a side is needed to free up space and create a better spectacle.
The only way you'd ensure 3 players in each half is to employ 2 more officials on each 50, who job it is just to watch that only.
Less players is the answer. Officials are overwhelmed with rules as it is.
I think less players would work and I always enjoyed 13 aside games. However I feel its too big a shift away from the 15 aside game that we have. It also doesn't sit well with me that we would be basically reducing the participation of our game. I can see the merits in it, especially for smaller clubs that are already struggling for numbers. I'm just not convinced it is the best solution to solve the issues that are being discussed.
The shot clock for me is something that would be nearly impossible to implement, especially at club level. I don't think it would work either. Numerous posters have stated this already, but enforcement of the steps rule would go a long way to addressing some of these issues. But it would need to be in conjunction with an acceptance of a cleaner tackle. I think the recent more lax approach to the steps rule is the acceptance of half fouls and half pulls in the game. We all know when playing you can pull and haul the man a bit but not too much. If you strictly enforce the steps rule, you have to give the benefit of the doubt to the attacker in these scenarios. It was standard practice at underage, that your coach would be telling you count the solos and then tackle the ball to dispossess the opponent. I have never ever heard that at senior level. Its all about just getting the man stopped. Its a bit of chicken and egg. I'm not sure what came first but for me these 2 things are feeding each other, and if they were penalized regularly it would lead to a better came and a better spectacle with an increase in importance in the skills of both attacking/soloing and tackling.
Quote from: Dinny Breen on March 04, 2019, 02:58:27 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 04, 2019, 02:53:28 PM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on March 04, 2019, 02:44:24 PM
Btw for the usual grunters I never said I was in favour but I have obviously have a more open mind the myopic Dublin supporters....must be all the fake All-Irelands that make them so angry...they know...
Yeah, it's just Dublin supporters against this ridiculous idea...
Although I see your distancing yourself from it now! Maybe, you've decided to think it through.
Grunter!! Getting a tad grumpy in oul age Dinny
Ridiculous idea! hardly considering it's been doing the rounds for years. Now giving Dublin millions and not splitting them up, doesn't get more ridiculous than that in fairness, oh wait letting Dublin use Croke for league matches since 2011.......The GAA is full of ridiculous ideas but one to actually improve the game as a spectacle certainly isn't...
it's a hard sell though,
an idea to improve the game as a spectacle is to make it more basketball like?
As always when discussions turn to rules I'm very much in the camp of implementing the current rules properly before we go for more radical ideas. The steps rule and handpass rule are abused 100's of times in every game giving a massive advantage to the player in possession. Enforcing these two rules alone would make it much more difficult to retain possession which I think most would agree is the root of the problems with gaelic football.
On the other ideas:
Shot clock - I wouldn't be in favour of this....Brokencrossbar outlined the negatives earlier and I'd concur with most of that.
Restriction of players within the 45 - this could be a good idea. Lineman's main objective should be policing this (one linesman to be on each 45)....not worrying about who the ball hit last on the way out. 95% of line balls are obvious anyway. Breach of this - free from the top of the D AND possibly retain possession after the shot is taken.
13 a side - I think this is a case of a sledgehammer when a scalpel is needed. I'd only entertain it as a last resort.
Restriction of consecutive handpasses - handpassing isn't always a bad thing....many examples of fantastic goals scored after moves involving multiple handpasses. Again a blunt instrument to fix a nuanced problem so I'd be against unless all else fails.
Dublin - it's unfortunate that everyone is obsessed by Dublin and whether rule chages will suit them or curb them and using that as reason to support or not. My feeling is no matter what rule changes you make, Dublin will probably adapt quicker than the rest. I also think some posts that criticised Dublin's style of play are way off the mark. Dublin adjust to who they are playing and are brilliant at it. If you play a blanket defence....they'll pick it apart and then keep possession (some of what Sherlock has brought to their forward play from basketball is really interesting....McManamon along the end line springs to mind). If you go toe to toe with you they'll relish that challenge also. They're not a great team because of their tactics - they're a great team because they can adapt to any tactics. Obviously laden down with talent and a huge support structure but seriously well coached.
Quote from: BennyCake on March 05, 2019, 10:47:51 AM
The only way you'd ensure 3 players in each half is to employ 2 more officials on each 50, who job it is just to watch that only.
Less players is the answer. Officials are overwhelmed with rules as it is.
Repeating myself now, but you have 3-4 designated attackers and the same number of designated defenders out of the 15 players on the team (designated defenders are needed otherwise the backs could run off up the field with their markers unable to follow). Designated attackers can't interfere with play behind the 45, designated defenders can't interfere with play in front of the 45. They wear a different jersey, as goalkeepers do, to make it easy to distinguish them from their teammates. So there is no reason why referees would have trouble with telling them from the other players any more than they have trouble telling goalkeepers from outfield players. It's a simple and easily enforceable rule that immediately ends the problem of 15-man packed defences.
Quote from: Sionnach on March 05, 2019, 06:49:29 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on March 05, 2019, 10:47:51 AM
The only way you'd ensure 3 players in each half is to employ 2 more officials on each 50, who job it is just to watch that only.
Less players is the answer. Officials are overwhelmed with rules as it is.
Repeating myself now, but you have 3-4 designated attackers and the same number of designated defenders out of the 15 players on the team (designated defenders are needed otherwise the backs could run off up the field with their markers unable to follow). Designated attackers can't interfere with play behind the 45, designated defenders can't interfere with play in front of the 45. QuoteThey wear a different jersey, as goalkeepers do, to make it easy to distinguish them from their teammates.
So there is no reason why referees would have trouble with telling them from the other players any more than they have trouble telling goalkeepers from outfield players. It's a simple and easily enforceable rule that immediately ends the problem of 15-man packed defences.
So the Dubs can have their defenders in red, mf in white and forwards in blue? All the jackeen supporters can will be delighted!
Quote from: Over the Bar on March 05, 2019, 07:17:05 PM
Quote from: Sionnach on March 05, 2019, 06:49:29 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on March 05, 2019, 10:47:51 AM
The only way you'd ensure 3 players in each half is to employ 2 more officials on each 50, who job it is just to watch that only.
Less players is the answer. Officials are overwhelmed with rules as it is.
Repeating myself now, but you have 3-4 designated attackers and the same number of designated defenders out of the 15 players on the team (designated defenders are needed otherwise the backs could run off up the field with their markers unable to follow). Designated attackers can't interfere with play behind the 45, designated defenders can't interfere with play in front of the 45. QuoteThey wear a different jersey, as goalkeepers do, to make it easy to distinguish them from their teammates.
So there is no reason why referees would have trouble with telling them from the other players any more than they have trouble telling goalkeepers from outfield players. It's a simple and easily enforceable rule that immediately ends the problem of 15-man packed defences.
So the Dubs can have their defenders in red, mf in white and forwards in blue? All the jackeen supporters can will be delighted!
O' Neills can hardly cope with getting Jersey orders right when there all the same ...God help us having to order different colours in one kit....club identity issue... really a load of bollocks to even suggest it
Quote from: delgany on March 05, 2019, 07:21:05 PM
Quote from: Over the Bar on March 05, 2019, 07:17:05 PM
Quote from: Sionnach on March 05, 2019, 06:49:29 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on March 05, 2019, 10:47:51 AM
The only way you'd ensure 3 players in each half is to employ 2 more officials on each 50, who job it is just to watch that only.
Less players is the answer. Officials are overwhelmed with rules as it is.
Repeating myself now, but you have 3-4 designated attackers and the same number of designated defenders out of the 15 players on the team (designated defenders are needed otherwise the backs could run off up the field with their markers unable to follow). Designated attackers can't interfere with play behind the 45, designated defenders can't interfere with play in front of the 45. QuoteThey wear a different jersey, as goalkeepers do, to make it easy to distinguish them from their teammates.
So there is no reason why referees would have trouble with telling them from the other players any more than they have trouble telling goalkeepers from outfield players. It's a simple and easily enforceable rule that immediately ends the problem of 15-man packed defences.
So the Dubs can have their defenders in red, mf in white and forwards in blue? All the jackeen supporters can will be delighted!
O' Neills can hardly cope with getting Jersey orders right when there all the same ...God help us having to order different colours in one kit....club identity issue... really a load of bollocks to even suggest it
Ah come on now it's hardly some sort of titanic organisational feat. You only need one extra kind of jersey in addition to the 'keeper's jersey - the one for use by both your designated attackers and defenders (their zones are separated from each other by the area between the 45s, so they don't need different jerseys from each other, it's going to be fairly obvious if a designated forward comes all the way back to the defensive zone and gets involved).
Anyway jersey colours are only one option for marking out the 3-4 designated attackers and 3-4 designated defenders on each team. Easy enough to think of a few ways you could do it, for example just give them letters instead of numbers on their jerseys.
Quote from: Sionnach on March 05, 2019, 06:49:29 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on March 05, 2019, 10:47:51 AM
The only way you'd ensure 3 players in each half is to employ 2 more officials on each 50, who job it is just to watch that only.
Less players is the answer. Officials are overwhelmed with rules as it is.
Repeating myself now, but you have 3-4 designated attackers and the same number of designated defenders out of the 15 players on the team (designated defenders are needed otherwise the backs could run off up the field with their markers unable to follow). Designated attackers can't interfere with play behind the 45, designated defenders can't interfere with play in front of the 45. They wear a different jersey, as goalkeepers do, to make it easy to distinguish them from their teammates. So there is no reason why referees would have trouble with telling them from the other players any more than they have trouble telling goalkeepers from outfield players. It's a simple and easily enforceable rule that immediately ends the problem of 15-man packed defences.
Ok so, Michael Murphy is FF, and during the second half Declan Bonner moves him to midfield, and puts Ryan McHugh in the FF line. Does that mean they have to swap jersies? Or are they allowed to move at all if theyre wearing one of these designated jersies?
Can you imagine Michael 'Incredible Hulk' Murphy trying to play in McHugh's wee jersey? He wouldn't be fit to move! And there's McHugh up front tripping over the sleeves of Murphy's shirt!
Quote from: Sionnach on March 05, 2019, 10:24:57 PM
Quote from: delgany on March 05, 2019, 07:21:05 PM
Quote from: Over the Bar on March 05, 2019, 07:17:05 PM
Quote from: Sionnach on March 05, 2019, 06:49:29 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on March 05, 2019, 10:47:51 AM
The only way you'd ensure 3 players in each half is to employ 2 more officials on each 50, who job it is just to watch that only.
Less players is the answer. Officials are overwhelmed with rules as it is.
Repeating myself now, but you have 3-4 designated attackers and the same number of designated defenders out of the 15 players on the team (designated defenders are needed otherwise the backs could run off up the field with their markers unable to follow). Designated attackers can't interfere with play behind the 45, designated defenders can't interfere with play in front of the 45. QuoteThey wear a different jersey, as goalkeepers do, to make it easy to distinguish them from their teammates.
So there is no reason why referees would have trouble with telling them from the other players any more than they have trouble telling goalkeepers from outfield players. It's a simple and easily enforceable rule that immediately ends the problem of 15-man packed defences.
So the Dubs can have their defenders in red, mf in white and forwards in blue? All the jackeen supporters can will be delighted!
O' Neills can hardly cope with getting Jersey orders right when there all the same ...God help us having to order different colours in one kit....club identity issue... really a load of bollocks to even suggest it
Ah come on now it's hardly some sort of titanic organisational feat. You only need one extra kind of jersey in addition to the 'keeper's jersey - the one for use by both your designated attackers and defenders (their zones are separated from each other by the area between the 45s, so they don't need different jerseys from each other, it's going to be fairly obvious if a designated forward comes all the way back to the defensive zone and gets involved).
Anyway jersey colours are only one option for marking out the 3-4 designated attackers and 3-4 designated defenders on each team. Easy enough to think of a few ways you could do it, for example just give them letters instead of numbers on their jerseys.
Jeeez wept