Positive proposals at last to address the spectacle of Gaelic Football

[seafoid]

Summary here

https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/gaelic-games/gaelic-football/gaa-faced-a-no-win-task-in-implementing-rule-changes-1.3710157

Of the five rule changes that will come into play, two are straightforward.

Sideline balls can only be kicked forward rather than laterally or towards a team's own goal. The argument against this is that it encourages the defending team to drop back in order to limit the options for the player taking the sideline ball. Whether it works or not won't have a significant impact on the overall shape of the game.

The introduction of the sin-bin, where a black card will mean a 10- minute absence for the offending player, is a straightforward attempt to deal with the issue of persistent and cynical fouling.

Kicking game

The big change revolves around the rule restricting the team in possession to three consecutive handpasses. It was, David Hassan, the committee chairman acknowledged in October, devised to try and combat the "chain of handpassing" that has come to dominate the game. It will, he predicated, "require that players and coaches change the way they use the handpass".





















































































The hope is that it will encourage teams towards a more direct kicking game. The fear is that the opposite will occur. Coaches and players see the handpass as the safest –and most accurate – way to transfer the ball from one to another at close quarters. Frequent, swift, handpass interplay has been developed by teams as the only way to play through the deep, zonal defensive set-ups that opposition teams employ to thwart offensive play.

The trend in recent seasons, of teams patiently and endlessly recycling the ball just beyond the zone of defensive pressure won't change because they team in possession must kick pass the ball after every third pass. But once that team does try to beat a mass defence, the players will have to be conscious of the sequence of passes involved in a move that is taking place in real time.

While it is true that coaches will come up with drills to try and facilitate this, it is also true that defensively coaches will train their teams to try exploit the obligation on the team in possession to use the kick pass: that they will jump or trap the player at the end of the chain of three hand passes and force either a turnover or a wild kick pass.

Free kick

However, the implementation of the advanced mark, which will allow a player the option of a free kick – or shot at goal – for a ball caught cleanly from a pass kicked from inside the attacking team's 45 – will represent the biggest fundamental change throughout the league.

The hope is that it will encourage a return to the more direct long-range kicking game that commentators fear is disappearing. The fear is that it will instigate an even more cautious defensive approach from managers fearful of leaving marksmen with a free shot at goal.

[Christmas Lights]

Don't understand the constant need to tweet the rules

No amount of tweaking will bring the game back to the catch and kick/high fielding/man to man game. Modern coaches are ruining the game as a spectacle, but they will always find a way around a new rule. All these changes annually is just like a dog chasing it's tail.

The only way to bring it "back" is to make territory more appealing than possession.

The simplest way to do this is to bring in the Aussie Rules tackle.

It could also be achieved by preventing teams from passing backwards over the 45s and 65s, in that endless possession becomes more difficult to sustain in a decreasing space, and therefore a less attractive ploy; by nature it encourages more direct football.

If you could stop posting, that would be wonderful.

[thewobbler]

If I apologise, would it be okay for me to kee posting?

[manfromdelmonte]

Teams will prevent quick sidelines by booting the ball out into the terrace
So that they can get 15 behind the ball to flood the space

[LeoMc]

Don't understand the constant need to tweet the rules

No amount of tweaking will bring the game back to the catch and kick/high fielding/man to man game. Modern coaches are ruining the game as a spectacle, but they will always find a way around a new rule. All these changes annually is just like a dog chasing it's tail.

The only way to bring it "back" is to make territory more appealing than possession.

The simplest way to do this is to bring in the Aussie Rules tackle.

It could also be achieved by preventing teams from passing backwards over the 45s and 65s, in that endless possession becomes more difficult to sustain in a decreasing space, and therefore a less attractive ploy; by nature it encourages more direct football.

If teams cannot pass back over the 45 or 65 they will be more reluctant to cross it in the first place at least until they had sufficient men forward so you would be penalising fast attacking play.

[seafoid]

Teams will prevent quick sidelines by booting the ball out into the terrace
So that they can get 15 behind the ball to flood the space

Awful hoors

[thewobbler]

Don't understand the constant need to tweet the rules

No amount of tweaking will bring the game back to the catch and kick/high fielding/man to man game. Modern coaches are ruining the game as a spectacle, but they will always find a way around a new rule. All these changes annually is just like a dog chasing it's tail.

The only way to bring it "back" is to make territory more appealing than possession.

The simplest way to do this is to bring in the Aussie Rules tackle.

It could also be achieved by preventing teams from passing backwards over the 45s and 65s, in that endless possession becomes more difficult to sustain in a decreasing space, and therefore a less attractive ploy; by nature it encourages more direct football.

If teams cannot pass back over the 45 or 65 they will be more reluctant to cross it in the first place at least until they had sufficient men forward so you would be penalising fast attacking play.

I see it the opposite way. If a defending team know they can contain the opposition in a smaller space, there would be a genuine incentive to push up and force / cajole them into that smaller space. So, initially at least, there should be more room in the opposition half to attack.

Of course this measure would be detrimental to possession based football. But possession football should require skill, and moving the ball endlessly around in your own half isn't skilful. Most of the time it's just clock killing. Which is not something the rules of any game should openly permit.

[manfromdelmonte]

Don't understand the constant need to tweet the rules

No amount of tweaking will bring the game back to the catch and kick/high fielding/man to man game. Modern coaches are ruining the game as a spectacle, but they will always find a way around a new rule. All these changes annually is just like a dog chasing it's tail.

The only way to bring it "back" is to make territory more appealing than possession.

The simplest way to do this is to bring in the Aussie Rules tackle.

It could also be achieved by preventing teams from passing backwards over the 45s and 65s, in that endless possession becomes more difficult to sustain in a decreasing space, and therefore a less attractive ploy; by nature it encourages more direct football.

If teams cannot pass back over the 45 or 65 they will be more reluctant to cross it in the first place at least until they had sufficient men forward so you would be penalising fast attacking play.

I see it the opposite way. If a defending team know they can contain the opposition in a smaller space, there would be a genuine incentive to push up and force / cajole them into that smaller space. So, initially at least, there should be more room in the opposition half to attack.

Of course this measure would be detrimental to possession based football. But possession football should require skill, and moving the ball endlessly around in your own half isn't skilful. Most of the time it's just clock killing. Which is not something the rules of any game should openly permit.

There aren't many field sports which have rules like that
Basketball, NFL

[twohands!!!]

If you wanted evidence that this committee were making things up as they went along, it's clear from the fact that the kickout rule has been revised twice already and they haven't even published the current version of the rule.

Initially the new rule was

Proposal (5)
Kick-Out/Zoning

For a kick-out, two players only from each team shall be positioned between the two 45m lines.

The goalkeeper and a maximum of six players from each team shall be behind the respective 45m lines, until the ball is kicked.

The ball from the kick-out shall travel beyond the 45m line before being played by a player of the defending team.

Other Rules relating to the kick-out to remain unchanged.

Penalties:

(1)  For another player on the team taking a kick-out to play the ball before it has travelled outside the 45m line or has been played by an opposing player.

Penalty:

(i)  Cancel kick-out

(ii)  Throw in the ball on defenders' 20m line in front of the scoring space.

(2)  For a player to cross a 45m line before the ball is kicked for the kick-out.

(3)  For a player(s) to, in the opinion of the referee, deliberately seek to delay the kick-out by not retreating behind the 45m lines in a timely manner.

Penalty for the above Fouls:

A 45m free off the ground and in front of the scoring space shall be awarded to the opposing team.

(4)  For a player(s) of each team to simultaneously cross the 45m line(s) before the ball is kicked from the kick-out:

Penalty:

A throw-in ball shall be awarded on the centre of the 45m line involved or at the centre of the field (if infringements are made on both 45m lines).

Lots of people pointed to countless issues with this rule immediately on reading it.

Then when the first trials happened, this proposed rule was such an utter disaster that it was abandoned part-way through the trial.

The committee then came up with a revised proposal

Proposal 5: Kick-Out

Proposal for Experimentation (Kick-Out): The kick-out shall be taken off the ground from a point on the part of the 20 m line that forms the semi-circular arc.

The ball shall not be played by a defending player until the ball has crossed the 45m line (nearest the kick-out point) or is played by an opposing player.

All players, other than the Goalkeeper (and another player if the goalkeeper is not taking the kick-out) shall be outside the 20m line, outside the arc and 13m from the ball until it has been kicked.

Penalties:

For another player on the team taking a kick-out to play the ball before it has crossed the 45m line (nearest the kick-out point) or has been played by an opposing player.

Penalty:

(i) Cancel kick-out

(ii) Throw in the ball on defenders' 20m line in front of the scoring space.

For an opposing player not being outside the 20m line, outside the arc and 13m from the ball when it is kicked.

Penalty:

Free kick 13m more advantageous than place of original kick-out.

For another player on the team taking a kick-out not being outside the 20m line, outside the arc and 13m from the ball until it has been kicked.

Penalty:

(i) Cancel kick-out

(ii) Throw-in the ball on defenders' 20m line in front of the scoring space

Now according to reports a third modified version of the rule has passed.

The only thing on the GAA website I could find related to his 3rd version of the rule is

An amended version of the kick-out proposal was also passed that will see all kick-outs take place from the 20m line without having to pass the 45m line.

http://www.gaa.ie/news/second-tier-championship-format-to-be-discussed-in-january/

So it would appear that the GAA has not even bothered to properly announce version 3 of the new kick-out rule.

According to media reports the bit about having to pass the 45 metre line was abandoned due to concerns about underage goalkeepers not being able to kick that far.

However it's not clear what the current proposed rule says about
1) does it have to be the goalkeeper taking the kickout?
2) do the players have to be 13 metres back from ball when it is kicked
3) does the ball have to travel 13 metres (can a player who is 13 metres away when the ball is kicked run towards the ball and catch it less than 13 metres from where it was kicked)

It's clear that the whole process of coming up with and trialling these new rules has a very strong whiff of throwing enough shit at a wall and seeing what sticks.

At the moment it looks like all this kickout rule will do different is that the kickout will now be taken from the 20 metre line as opposed to the 13 metre line.

The only positive thing I have read is that there will be a final review after the pre-season competitions, prior to the league, so I'd be hopeful that sense will be seen and they play the league under the current rules, get rid of the current gobdaws on the rules committee and start from the beginning and set up a proper system for coming up with and tweaking the rules and having a proper trial and review system in place whereby the lads on the committee have to actually attend the trials in person and take direct feedback from players and managers involved in the trials.

For reference the current rule relating to the kickout is as follows.

2.7 (a) When the ball is played over the endline by the Team attacking that end, or after a score  is made, play is restarted by a kick-out off the ground from the 13m line and within the large rectangle.

If the goalkeeper is not taking the kick-out, he shall stay in the small rectangle, and all other  players, except the player taking the kick-out, shall be outside the 20m line and 13m from the
ball, until it has been kicked.

The player taking a kick-out may kick the ball more than once before any other player touches it but may not take the ball into his hands.

The ball shall travel not less than 13m and outside the 20m line before being played by another player of the defending team.

(b) The Player taking the kick-out after the ball goes wide or a score shall have the option of using a standard tee as approved by Central Council.

[shawshank]

Not a fan of the new rules...period. On the kick out, with it being taken from the 20m, it does condense the space to kick to?

[Rossfan]

110 metres instead of 117?

[macdanger2]

The more you consider the rule changes, the more you realise that they aren't going to work very well.

As someone said earlier, 13 a side is probably worth trying and very easy to implement at all levels.

A shot clock would also be worth trying imo, x amount of time from kickout to having an attempt on goal; although there are some obvious flaws with it, would it be any worse than what we currently?

[tippabu]

The more you consider the rule changes, the more you realise that they aren't going to work very well.

As someone said earlier, 13 a side is probably worth trying and very easy to implement at all levels.

A shot clock would also be worth trying imo, x amount of time from kickout to having an attempt on goal; although there are some obvious flaws with it, would it be any worse than what we currently?

I am not a fan of the shot clock because I just feel teams without possession will go much more into a contain defence and focus purely on preventing teams getting to shooting opportunities rather than focusing on turning the ball over. also, think it would be far too hard to implement. Like i said i see alot of potentially big advantages to 13 a side, the offensive mark might be good but could also have its flaws in how teams defend it, we will wait and see.....after that i really cant think of anything sensible that will improve the game in any way

[Hound]

The more you consider the rule changes, the more you realise that they aren't going to work very well.

As someone said earlier, 13 a side is probably worth trying and very easy to implement at all levels.

A shot clock would also be worth trying imo, x amount of time from kickout to having an attempt on goal; although there are some obvious flaws with it, would it be any worse than what we currently?

Do you honestly think what we have currently is so dreadful.

Over the last 5 years, how many great spectacles have Mayo been involved?
How many awful specatacles have they been involved in?

I would have thought the former outweighs the latter by a long long way.

No need for shot clocks, no need for 13 a side.

Though I am glad the offensive mark wasn't in over recent years. Given the number of times AOS caught a clean catch in the full forward line against us, but was swamped by defenders and almost inevitable conceded a free. The offensive mark will encourage kicking, none of the other nonsense needed. Almost all the other rules, esp limiting handpassing and no backwards sidelines encourage teams to pile men back. Exactly the opposite of what's needed.

As I said on another thread, it went almost unnoticed that Kilmacud and Portlaoise produced a great game in horrible November. If that had been a 0-6 to 0-4 borefest, it would have gotten far more media coverage. Imagine if soccer lads criticised the game everytime there was a boring 0-0 or 1-0, when a teams goes ahead and shuts up shop!

[seafoid]

The more you consider the rule changes, the more you realise that they aren't going to work very well.

As someone said earlier, 13 a side is probably worth trying and very easy to implement at all levels.

A shot clock would also be worth trying imo, x amount of time from kickout to having an attempt on goal; although there are some obvious flaws with it, would it be any worse than what we currently?

Do you honestly think what we have currently is so dreadful.

Over the last 5 years, how many great spectacles have Mayo been involved?
How many awful specatacles have they been involved in?

I would have thought the former outweighs the latter by a long long way.

No need for shot clocks, no need for 13 a side.

Though I am glad the offensive mark wasn't in over recent years. Given the number of times AOS caught a clean catch in the full forward line against us, but was swamped by defenders and almost inevitable conceded a free. The offensive mark will encourage kicking, none of the other nonsense needed. Almost all the other rules, esp limiting handpassing and no backwards sidelines encourage teams to pile men back. Exactly the opposite of what's needed.

As I said on another thread, it went almost unnoticed that Kilmacud and Portlaoise produced a great game in horrible November. If that had been a 0-6 to 0-4 borefest, it would have gotten far more media coverage. Imagine if soccer lads criticised the game everytime there was a boring 0-0 or 1-0, when a teams goes ahead and shuts up shop!

Attendances have been falling, Hound
Maybe the finals with Mayo were interesting but below that a lot of people are no longer interested. Last year all the qfs were walkovers.
The gap between the 4 top teams and the rest gets wider.
the gap between the Dubs and the 3 half decent but compromised "top" teams gets wider
Lots of players can't be bothered committing to training for nothing.

None of these issues pertain to hurling.