Messages

Haven't done away with the crappiest rule, 2pts from a free. I seen a minor kick 3 of these recently. So how's it a skill at senior level. Bad rule.

Makes even less sense when you see 45s and sideline scores just get one point.

I think sidelines from outside the arc still get 2pts, the problem is that the arc doesn't extend in to the end line because of the potential for pitches to be different widths countywide.
That said, if any deadball deserves 2 PTS it'd be the exact sideline kicks which don't qualify.

But totally agree, many 2 pt kicks in general aren't especially difficult, so allowing 2pt frees isn't rewarding a skill that we really want to see.
With the better weather, beggan will be tapping over 2 pters from his own half!

[Simple change would be to make it from play only.]

I am starting to lose faith, I'm really trying to support the changes as the game truly needed change, but it seems that at every opportunity they are ignoring simplicity and choosing complexity.

Case in point is this variation of the 3 up rule 'we are not going to restrict keepers from going up the field', but we'll just add more complexity to make it unlikely.

There are a load of simple tweaks that could be made, the 2 pointer appears popular with the media and committee members, it's the most disliked change on here and it's seen as too cheap by many others I talk to. Simple change would be to make it from play only.

This new midfield mark rule seems unpoliceable, retention of the incredibly generous forward mark again seems like a mistake.

Unfortunately, this season is a write-off and really unfortunately, that may well undermine the retention of these rules when Congress decides next October. Not that I'm even sure I want any of them at this point!

To put just 1 possible counterpoint to you - no, it isn't that simple. If you just wipeout all frees in on or outside arc then teams will foul as a matter of course in that area. Makes sense in that case to just foul the likes of a Shane Walsh say, rather than let him shoot for 2.

Okay, I have a vested interest, I fecking hate the stupid 2 point score. There I've said it! It's an abomination. It has the potential to transform our game in unintended ways and to my mind we're seeing evidence of that.
It's a cheap, cheap score. It could only work when paired with a 4 point goal and whichever 'concerned delegates' to Congress made the frc abandon the (25%) increased goal value while retaining this have a very poor understanding of mathematics. This change doubles (100%) the value of a relatively straightforward score, something becoming clear as the season progresses. Goals are an afterthought, why try and work a low percentage scoring opportunity when a high percentage option, albeit worth 33% less, is more logical.

Maybe we should just go the whole hog and get rid of the crossbar and net, let the keeper be a full back or pocket back and make the point with 6 points.

So, rant over, I don't actually think that reducing free kick values back to 1pt would result in a rash of fouls around the arc. It might improve the game and free up space inside actually, if defenders felt there was an advantage to engaging outside the arc, they might push out. It could be monitored and tweaked of course!

I am starting to lose faith, I'm really trying to support the changes as the game truly needed change, but it seems that at every opportunity they are ignoring simplicity and choosing complexity.

Case in point is this variation of the 3 up rule 'we are not going to restrict keepers from going up the field', but we'll just add more complexity to make it unlikely.

There are a load of simple tweaks that could be made, the 2 pointer appears popular with the media and committee members, it's the most disliked change on here and it's seen as too cheap by many others I talk to. Simple change would be to make it from play only.

This new midfield mark rule seems unpoliceable, retention of the incredibly generous forward mark again seems like a mistake.

Unfortunately, this season is a write-off and really unfortunately, that may well undermine the retention of these rules when Congress decides next October. Not that I'm even sure I want any of them at this point!

I wish a longer, more gradual approach had been taken by FRC. This is an experiment. Any decent scientist will change only one thing at a time to see what works. The FRC have made 7+ changes and it's a mess.
Start with 3 v 3 in each half. See if that has an impact. Maybe go 4 v 4 if needed.
It would be a tweak rather than inventing a new game.

That would have been ideal, unfortunately the moaning by managers and other vested interests each time there's a rule change means new rules can only be introduced every 5 years - therefore the incremental approach could take 20 years to reach its conclusion!!

Best performance in almost a year?

So much better than last week, really unlucky today, couldn't win a ball the last 10 mins - for the glass move on the sideline, keeping the ball in play, to result in a Donegal goal just typifies the luck we've been having.
And as mario says, breaking balls just weren't going out way, maybe cos we're not used to fighting for them?

It seemed to me that the wind really picked up the last 10 too?

Hoping nothing too serious with all the lads who exited early, all were important contributors today. Sickening defeat, but for me the best performance  since the league final.

I also liked the clock rule but it doesn't half make the end of a match boring.

Simple fix, steal the rugby rule, let the play continue until its conclusion.

But having been in croke park tonight, I'm starting to come around to your way of thinking about all of these rules, I really don't want to be a naysayer and luddite on these and want to give them every chance, but they looked better on TV than they were in real life.

3 v 3 is really contrived, might a version of no back court not have been better?

Allowing the keeper up still allows a version of piggy in the middle keep ball, just further up the pitch - has to go.

Pretty sure they already tried the rugby approach in the trial games and it was a disaster.
Someone involved with the FRC spoke about it on the radio or a podcast or something a few months back around the time the trial games were taking place (maybe Fitzmaurice?)

A big issue was that in a lot of games, the team leading could simply finish the game by fouling the opposition. If your lead was enough, you could simply foul the opposition, let them take their chance at a score knowing even if they convert the score wouldn't be enough to change the result. Any rule that encourages foul play can't be a good idea.

Afaik the rugby rules allow for the team to continue to play until the ball goes dead, if they win a penalty then they can kick to touch and still take the line out - it's only when they foul or lose possession that the game will be ended.

I don't see that it would cause much of an issue in football and would definitely add to excitement.
In the scenario where a team is 2pts down and in possession, the hooter goes, they know they've to try and work a 2-pointer (or a goal), the opposition have to try and win it and get it out of play, it's not like the old days David, everyone knows where they stand, it's not an arbitrary call by a referee on whether or not to give one more chance to a team.
I don't see the downside myself.

[Allowing the keeper up still allows a version of piggy in the middle keep ball, just further up the pitch - has to go.]

I also liked the clock rule but it doesn't half make the end of a match boring.

Simple fix, steal the rugby rule, let the play continue until its conclusion.

But having been in croke park tonight, I'm starting to come around to your way of thinking about all of these rules, I really don't want to be a naysayer and luddite on these and want to give them every chance, but they looked better on TV than they were in real life.

3 v 3 is really contrived, might a version of no back court not have been better?

Allowing the keeper up still allows a version of piggy in the middle keep ball, just further up the pitch - has to go.

Something like the keeper can't  touch the ball beyond  the  40m arc would be better

The new rules  practically insist you keeper  comes  upfield at every opportunity.  Blaine Hughes had a great year last year , yet the  non-keeper is playing for Armagh now, because he  adds more in the opposing half.

I hear rumblings of Shane Ryan not adding much  in attack. He might be the next casualty

Interesting suggestion - let's see how committed managers really are to allowing the keepers up to contribute!

I also liked the clock rule but it doesn't half make the end of a match boring.

Simple fix, steal the rugby rule, let the play continue until its conclusion.

But having been in croke park tonight, I'm starting to come around to your way of thinking about all of these rules, I really don't want to be a naysayer and luddite on these and want to give them every chance, but they looked better on TV than they were in real life.

3 v 3 is really contrived, might a version of no back court not have been better?

Allowing the keeper up still allows a version of piggy in the middle keep ball, just further up the pitch - has to go.

What 8 meters?

The 4 steps/strides before taking the solo and the 4 after it

ow however, a player who is
fouled can solo (Toe-Tap) immediately, within 4m of where the foul occurred, and continue to attack. If
they solo & go they cannot be challenged for 4m.

You'll not get 8m I wouldn't think.

It's a very good rule but tricky to police to the letter.

We've been told by Ulster Council official and backed up by referees at meeting on Monday night that you can take the solo within 4m of where the foul occurred then have 4 more after where you can't be touched - so in essence that's 8m. Ok maybe need to solo before the 4m, but that's still 7m at least of not being able to be touched. The ulster council official and referees were put over this repeatedly and that is how it was explained.

So my questions remain:

Think thats abit much.

Imo the best rule would give 4m from where the foul actually was to allow for momentum etc if you are being fouled, take the solo immediately and then you get 4 clear metres of not being touched.

Agree with that - makes it clear to everyone what is going on.

That was horrible, we didn't seem to have a plan at all.
I don't know if it's the rules and fear of violating them, but we'd virtually no support play, no physicality, zero invention going forward and absolutely no dynamism.

We've been spoiled watching great running and support at pace over the past 5 years and now this?

Someone else pointed out that we're not handling the 3 up tactically and it's so true, Glass isolated up there a load of times, hopefully by accident and not design, to my mind he's been the heartbeat of our defence, shadowing, organising and closing down space, he can't be just standing there at midfield watching whilst others run round headlessly.

Murray definitely made a difference when he came on, but even if he'd been on from the start we were so far away it wouldn't have changed anything. Maybe we're playing possum??

What was also mad was in 2024 you'd go to a big inter Co Championship match and despite 10,20,30k or more spectators there was almost dead silence for 90% of the game.

Yeah, definite downside of these new rules will be the lack of in game updates from spectators (this will be particularly bothersome for non-televised games, especially at club level).

I actually quite like the current structure, it gets at least 12 of the top teams in the country, all start on a roughly equal footing, play 3 games to fine tune, whilst we say there's no jeopardy, there is a fair difference between finishing first and finishing 3rd in your group.

The problem with this proposed structure is the same issue we've had for the past 50 years, the provinces are totally unequal.

Maybe we could weight the provinces and have the finalists in the two strongest provinces qualify, but only the winners of the two weaker provinces.
Final league placings for all entrants in that year's championship could be used to determine rankings, it would be adjusted to reflect the differing numbers of counties of course. You'd imagine Ulster and probably Connacht would be the stronger two.

Does anyone know the craic with TG4 player when abroad? I am away this weekend and I see Tyrone v Kerry is on TG4 player live and then deferred on tv at 5:30pm.

Is TG4 player just on their website but restricted to Ireland only I wonder? Or is it a youtube stream for all?

What device you planning on watching it on?
If phone it might well be okay and similarly, if you hotspot the phone as your internet data source for another device it has worked for me previously. It seems to be that even though you're on a foreign mobile provider, the TV players still consider you a being in Ireland.
If using local wi-fi though, it locks you out and you need a VPN - that's been my experience anyway.

Diarmuid Murtagh on the radio Sunday evening described 2 pointers as "tap overs".
He said it looks long on TV but not when you're on the pitch playing.

So why were teams not doing tap overs before the rule? The endless moving the ball back sideways and looking to break lines to get into the 'scoring zone' and now they are just tapping them over, that would have nullified the swapped defence.

I think that's the maths of the whole thing.
Before it was keep possession until you're in the scoring zone where conversion rate is 75% or whatever, now, whilst conversion rate might only be 40% from outside the arc, it's worth 100% more, so the smart play is to take that shot.
And as for working a goal - it's worth 50% more than a 2-pointer, but the difficulty is presumably so much more than that, that's it's just not an option worth considering.

It's something we've seen in hurling too over the last decade, the realisation that as the probability of scoring a long range point has increased dramatically (lighter ball, stronger and better coached players), then the relative value of a goal has diminished and dramatically reduced the incentive to work goals.

Could have done without charging u16s for health and safety reasons it seems...

Who could have done? Half of Div 1 games at the weekend were full. 

2 out of 4 ain't saying much, could have done it on a game by game basis like before, Celtic Park, Healy, Park, Salthill, Castlebar or Croker aren't going to be anywhere near full for any league matches

Celtic park was near enough full each of the last two years when we played the dubs.