Marky Mark and the GAA from 1 January

[seafoid]

Time to go back to having two monsters centre-field.
Leave the running to the small fellas.

How is operation McDermott 2.0 coming on, Jinxy?

[DuffleKing]

What's the alternative lads, in an attempt to mitigate the scourge that is the short kick out and to promote high fielding? There seems to be considerable pessimism/criticism but not much in the way of alternatives. I don't think it's a panacea but in the slow moving world of GAA regulations it's a small positive step, providing it's implemented correctly.. 

The mark rule will promote a short kick out

[LeoMc]

What's the alternative lads, in an attempt to mitigate the scourge that is the short kick out and to promote high fielding? There seems to be considerable pessimism/criticism but not much in the way of alternatives. I don't think it's a panacea but in the slow moving world of GAA regulations it's a small positive step, providing it's implemented correctly.. 

As a keeper you'll want to kick the ball shorter now unless you're Steven Cluxton the last thing you'll want to do is hoof a 50/50 ball out to the middle in case you concede a mark. The only way to stop a short kickout is to outlaw it!

+1.
Every team will set up with a keeper who can accurately chip the ball 31-35 yards into the chest of a MDMA / Mattie Donnelly type runner.
Teams will now start with clean possession 50 yards from their own goal instead of under pressure on their own 21 yard lines so this will evolve to even more bodies around the middle to kill off space around their own 40.

[BennyCake]

The only way to stop short kick outs is not to have them. Get the ref to throw up the ball in the middle. Like in Aussie Rules.

[haranguerer]

Such a load of shite - why would you want to do away with short kick outs? Is this all just a hark back to the era of hoofing the ball as far as possible and hoping someone on your own team will catch it? Because it seems like it, and, leaving nostalgia aside, football has thankfully come a long way from this

[thewobbler]

The mark is daft. Another utterly stupid attempt to address a problem without first addressing the symptoms.

Jimmy McGuinness and co might have identified that possession restarts are generally a win-win situation. Steven Cluxton might have perfected the art.

But the only reason why they had this opportunity is because keepers are now allowed to take immediate restarts from anywhere inside their 13m line.

If we want to see teams kicking the ball out to centre field we need to make it the least worst option again. To do this is quite simple. Make keepers kick all kick outs from the 21, and all receivers must be at least 13m when taking the ball.

With this change, quick kick outs are gone and short kick outs become less appealing.

It won't necessarily encourage "the art of high fielding" but it will signal a return to having strong ball winners at midfield who might get a chance to show off that skill.

It's not that complicated.

[Esmarelda]

Such a load of shite - why would you want to do away with short kick outs? Is this all just a hark back to the era of hoofing the ball as far as possible and hoping someone on your own team will catch it? Because it seems like it, and, leaving nostalgia aside, football has thankfully come a long way from this

I agree. I have no desire for short kickouts to be stopped. I think the mark will have little effect either way on the game.

The mark is daft. Another utterly stupid attempt to address a problem without first addressing the symptoms.

Jimmy McGuinness and co might have identified that possession restarts are generally a win-win situation. Steven Cluxton might have perfected the art.

But the only reason why they had this opportunity is because keepers are now allowed to take immediate restarts from anywhere inside their 13m line.

If we want to see teams kicking the ball out to centre field we need to make it the least worst option again. To do this is quite simple. Make keepers kick all kick outs from the 21, and all receivers must be at least 13m when taking the ball.

With this change, quick kick outs are gone and short kick outs become less appealing.

It won't necessarily encourage "the art of high fielding" but it will signal a return to having strong ball winners at midfield who might get a chance to show off that skill.

It's not that complicated.

This might work but you'd need a line (the 34) to implement it correctly. Your suggestion implies that a kick-out of 14m is ok though.

[seafoid]

The mark is daft. Another utterly stupid attempt to address a problem without first addressing the symptoms.

Jimmy McGuinness and co might have identified that possession restarts are generally a win-win situation. Steven Cluxton might have perfected the art.

But the only reason why they had this opportunity is because keepers are now allowed to take immediate restarts from anywhere inside their 13m line.

If we want to see teams kicking the ball out to centre field we need to make it the least worst option again. To do this is quite simple. Make keepers kick all kick outs from the 21, and all receivers must be at least 13m when taking the ball.

With this change, quick kick outs are gone and short kick outs become less appealing.

It won't necessarily encourage "the art of high fielding" but it will signal a return to having strong ball winners at midfield who might get a chance to show off that skill.

It's not that complicated.

You also need forwards who can score from distance


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C25x0vpb350
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCkVYgljVyw

[Rossfan]

Ah ffs. Would these clowns ever just leave the f**king game alone??!!

The "Clowns" being Central Council and Congress???

The abolition of the point posts at the side was the start of the ruination of the game

[Zulu]

Such a load of shite - why would you want to do away with short kick outs? Is this all just a hark back to the era of hoofing the ball as far as possible and hoping someone on your own team will catch it? Because it seems like it, and, leaving nostalgia aside, football has thankfully come a long way from this

I agree. I have no desire for short kickouts to be stopped. I think the mark will have little effect either way on the game.

The mark is daft. Another utterly stupid attempt to address a problem without first addressing the symptoms.

Jimmy McGuinness and co might have identified that possession restarts are generally a win-win situation. Steven Cluxton might have perfected the art.

But the only reason why they had this opportunity is because keepers are now allowed to take immediate restarts from anywhere inside their 13m line.

If we want to see teams kicking the ball out to centre field we need to make it the least worst option again. To do this is quite simple. Make keepers kick all kick outs from the 21, and all receivers must be at least 13m when taking the ball.

With this change, quick kick outs are gone and short kick outs become less appealing.

It won't necessarily encourage "the art of high fielding" but it will signal a return to having strong ball winners at midfield who might get a chance to show off that skill.

It's not that complicated.

This might work but you'd need a line (the 34) to implement it correctly. Your suggestion implies that a kick-out of 14m is ok though.

Can't agree with much of the above. I'm not a fan of the mark but there isn't a solution any of us could come up with that wouldn't have us labelled as 'clowns' by plenty of others. I see very little positive about the short kick out as it generally means the opposition have dropped back and the team in possession are going to run the ball as far as they can. I don't see much of a future for football if it's a game where a team runs the ball unopposed to their opponents 50 only to be met by a mass of bodies there and a game of pass the parcel breaks out.

I wouldn't like to see the restarts slowed down either. It's more game I want not less and I don't think wobblers solution would effect much change anyway.

I don't think any tinkering with the games playing rules will make much impact on a sport that has as it's main competition loads of mismatches and knockout games. That format encourages teams to set up to be conservative and unambitious so we get that kind of football.

[haranguerer]

There is tinkering all the time, and very little (none?) of it has a positive effect, all the while ignoring the fact that the rules that are there need to be enforced.

As someone else pointed out, the short kickout which is now an issue for some is likely in part due to tinkering with the placement of the ball for kickouts (wide/score) - chestertons fence.


For my part, I'd enforce the steps rule - it would allow players to time tackles, and could potentially sort many of the problems we have in our game.

[Zulu]

I would suggest most of the changes have been reasonably positive though I could take or leave a lot of them. However, the central issue is that the game is becoming a poorer spectacle but IMO the issue is more to do with how we (the coaches, players and now fans) are approaching the game rather than the rules themselves. It's percentages football and it's increasingly becoming boring to watch. I don't agree with the mark and some other proposed changes but I don't think the game should be allowed to be killed by coaches either.

[haranguerer]

Football, like everything else, evolves. Tactics have only really come into it in the last 15 years, and the easiest place to start is defensively. But forward play will catch up, unless of course, a raft of changes prevent us from ever getting to that point.

[thewobbler]

Just on this:

We don't need a new line to dictate if a kick out from the 20m line has gone 13m. Besides the fact that the arc (13m in every direction, not 13m out) previously existed to support this rule, the 13m minimum distance for a free should be innate to any referee!

By moving all kick outs to the 21m line it compresses the 29 possible recipients into a smaller area of the field. While we could argue all day about whether removing 560m2 from the generally "safe" kicking area is actually enough, you simply can't argue against the fact it would reduce the potential for a safe short kick out, and as such would make a territorial kick more appealing. That's just maths in action.

As for slowing down the game, this I agree might not help the sport - nothing generates more intensity than a constant flow of action. But at the same time, almost everyone involved in the game has had a good long moan about how we no longer produce players but running machines. Slowing down all restarts would by nature reduce the absolute requirement on having 400m style wing forwards who have to embark on 80m sprints to close down kick outs, before turning and charging 80m in other other direction. I'm not saying this is a magic pill by the way, just a small step in redressing a current imbalance towards outstanding athletes over outstanding talents.

---

Perhaps more to the point, absolutely none of this requires a new way of playing football. It's pretty much how we all played a decade ago.

Do not underestimate how significant the quick restart has been in creating the game we now watch.

[thewobbler]

Football, like everything else, evolves. Tactics have only really come into it in the last 15 years, and the easiest place to start is defensively. But forward play will catch up, unless of course, a raft of changes prevent us from ever getting to that point.

Part of me thinks this. Natural equilibrium demands that forwards must get better as defences get better.

But the changes to soccer's offside rules in 1925 and 1990, and rugby's try value in the 70s then again in the 90s, and the introduction of basketball's 3 point line in the 70s, would suggest that ours is not the first sport to need the occasional bit of artificial intervention.