Seeing as the International Rules thread is turning into a discussion on the playing rules maybe the subject should have its own thread.
I'll start by saying :-
Enforce the four steps rule rigourously
Restrict throwball
Abolish throw points
Black card to include cynically holding on to the ball when the opposition get a free.
7steps
2 refs
1 timeclock
1tmo
4 hand pass max before kicking
0 Mickey Harte style of play
Also don't allow the ball back to your own half when in opponents half.
Keep the mark from kick outs and introduce a 40 yard line that kick outs must pass.
Maybe 2 points for shots outside the 50..
Quote from: Rossfan on November 22, 2017, 01:24:47 PM
Seeing as the International Rules thread is turning into a discussion on the playing rules maybe the subject should have its own thread.
I'll start by saying :-
Enforce the four steps rule rigourously
Restrict throwball
Abolish throw points
Black card to include cynically holding on to the ball when the opposition get a free.
would add clock and TMO into those. I firmly believe implementation of the 4 steps would lead to a faster freer game
Allow a player to "play on" after a foul by tweaking the advantage rules to the introduction of a AFL style rule where the fouled player can elect to run on, fist pass etc even after the ref has blew the whistle. Might stop some of these cynical fouls designed to allow a team to get back in position
Quote from: sligoman2 on November 22, 2017, 01:39:03 PM
7steps
2 refs
1 timeclock
1tmo
4 hand pass max before kicking
0 Mickey Harte style of play
Also don't allow the ball back to your own half when in opponents half.
Keep the mark from kick outs and introduce a 40 yard line that kick outs must pass.
Maybe 2 points for shots outside the 50..
Wouldn't have a problem with most of those but the one in bold would be a disaster, teams would just fall back to the halfway line to defend; if you carry it over, you'd get swarmed, if you kick it, they'd have plenty of men back
Three seconds instead of four steps. Everyone gets the same time regardless of speed and length of stride.
Two refs where possible, i.e. intercounty. Refs up with the play making more informed decisions. Ref at the end of the field where play isn't taking place better positioned to see off the ball stuff.
I like the two refs idea myself but as has been said I don't think the not being allowed back into your own half suggestion would work
One solo.
penalty and one mionure added for synical play design to play out the clock.
I think some called it the black ball rule I think the Cavanagh/Costello rule sounds better
the TMO and Visable clock have made a calls of rugby and only succeeded in making it more cynical.
Quote from: Farrandeelin on November 22, 2017, 03:03:09 PM
One solo.
No, soloing is a great skill. Whatever about having a hand pass count, leave soloing alone.
Quote from: Rossfan on November 22, 2017, 01:24:47 PM
Seeing as the International Rules thread is turning into a discussion on the playing rules maybe the subject should have its own thread.
I'll start by saying :-
Enforce the four steps rule rigourously
Restrict throwball
Abolish throw points
Black card to include cynically holding on to the ball when the opposition get a free.
What did I do on You! ;D
Something to stop the mass defence; see this strangling the game at all levels now. Don't know the best way to approach it, though
Quote from: macdanger2 on November 22, 2017, 02:42:43 PM
Quote from: sligoman2 on November 22, 2017, 01:39:03 PM
7steps
2 refs
1 timeclock
1tmo
4 hand pass max before kicking
0 Mickey Harte style of play
Also don't allow the ball back to your own half when in opponents half.
Keep the mark from kick outs and introduce a 40 yard line that kick outs must pass.
Maybe 2 points for shots outside the 50..
Wouldn't have a problem with most of those but the one in bold would be a disaster, teams would just fall back to the halfway line to defend; if you carry it over, you'd get swarmed, if you kick it, they'd have plenty of men back
I don't know about that. Keep-ball is more possible under the current system because you can switch flanks when the opposition crowdsout one of them - as the whole play generally moves across rather than up and down. But two carefully positioned forwards around the 45 and the 21 on the other flank would seriously limit that option in terms of playing keep-ball in your own half. So you'd be forced forward.
Quote from: befair on November 22, 2017, 05:24:37 PM
Something to stop the mass defence; see this strangling the game at all levels now. Don't know the best way to approach it, though
Less numbers.
3 changes that need to happen:
1: Time clock. I know there were plans to trial this a couple of years ago but the powers that be decided against it. Can anyone remember why? Let's be honest, timing as it currently stands is a complete farce. When's the last time a tight match hasn't descended into time-wasting, injury time handbags? Now that they're doing away with (most) replays, they might be more open to a clock.
2. Automatic yellow for the prevention of a quick free kick. This is still widespread, moving the ball forward is not enough of a deterrent.
3. Enforce the steps rule. Either enforce it or get rid of the rule.
Sin bin
Mark
Quote from: macdanger2 on November 22, 2017, 02:42:43 PM
Quote from: sligoman2 on November 22, 2017, 01:39:03 PM
7steps
2 refs
1 timeclock
1tmo
4 hand pass max before kicking
0 Mickey Harte style of play
Also don't allow the ball back to your own half when in opponents half.
Keep the mark from kick outs and introduce a 40 yard line that kick outs must pass.
Maybe 2 points for shots outside the 50..
Wouldn't have a problem with most of those but the one in bold would be a disaster, teams would just fall back to the halfway line to defend; if you carry it over, you'd get swarmed, if you kick it, they'd have plenty of men back
Works well in basketball
After 133 years we still find the need to peddle about with rules and formats. Crazy situation really - my neighbour who is sports mad has a great laugh about it every year. Never missed the wall. Waits till there is a big audience and asks me "Well what are the 10 proposed rule changes THIS year in your sport?"
Let's go back to 21 aside and point posts to keep another Ulster luddite happy.
Black card offence = penalty
Quote from: bannside on November 22, 2017, 07:14:56 PM
After 133 years we still find the need to peddle about with rules and formats. Crazy situation really - my neighbour who is sports mad has a great laugh about it every year. Never missed the wall. Waits till there is a big audience and asks me "Well what are the 10 proposed rule changes THIS year in your sport?"
Crazy indeed, I don't know another team sport that changes its rules and formats as much as GAA do.
Gridiron football is always chopping and changing its rules (http://www.sportsattic.com/araig/NflRulesHistory.htm) almost on an annual basis.
Two touch football at adult level.
Quote from: AZOffaly on November 22, 2017, 04:40:13 PM
Quote from: Farrandeelin on November 22, 2017, 03:03:09 PM
One solo.
No, soloing is a great skill. Whatever about having a hand pass count, leave soloing alone.
All the overcarrying comes from the solo run though - especially if you run very fast.
I'm in favour of keeping it but enforce the steps.
Quote from: bannside on November 22, 2017, 07:14:56 PM
After 133 years we still find the need to peddle about with rules and formats. Crazy situation really - my neighbour who is sports mad has a great laugh about it every year. Never missed the wall. Waits till there is a big audience and asks me "Well what are the 10 proposed rule changes THIS year in your sport?"
There is a goood reason why we need to review and change the rules imo. The game is constantly evolving and unlike some other sports allows quite a lot of freedom and subjectivity, which is part of what makes the sport in general enjoyable to watch. Just compared to soccer for example, you can
A) catch the ball
B) no offsides
C). Shoulder an opponent
D) score direct from all free kicks
E) score 20 times a game rather than one or two.
Etc..
With the evolution of the game and the focus on sports science etc, people are always looking for an edge and unfortunately some of the research has resulted in a style that may be effective, but significantly reduces the entertainment value, e.g blanket defends aka puke football.
If you are not willing to change you will get left behind quickly.
I see the need for change as a good thing not something to be ashamed of.
Quote from: Captain Obvious on November 22, 2017, 08:41:59 PM
Quote from: bannside on November 22, 2017, 07:14:56 PM
After 133 years we still find the need to peddle about with rules and formats. Crazy situation really - my neighbour who is sports mad has a great laugh about it every year. Never missed the wall. Waits till there is a big audience and asks me "Well what are the 10 proposed rule changes THIS year in your sport?"
Crazy indeed, I don't know another team sport that changes its rules and formats as much as GAA do.
Neither you nor his neighbour really gets it, then.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on November 22, 2017, 09:01:00 PM
Gridiron football is always chopping and changing its rules (http://www.sportsattic.com/araig/NflRulesHistory.htm) almost on an annual basis.
The egg chasers here are always tinkering with the rules.
Quote from: Rossfan on November 23, 2017, 10:54:34 AM
All the overcarrying comes from the solo run though - especially if you run very fast.
I'm in favour of keeping it but enforce the steps.
I think the steps rule is enforced as well as it can be. I think if it is to be forced to the letter then it should be increased to 6 steps or tinkered with to allow players to stay on the ball in certain cases.
Quote from: vallankumous on November 23, 2017, 01:47:10 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on November 23, 2017, 10:54:34 AM
All the overcarrying comes from the solo run though - especially if you run very fast.
I'm in favour of keeping it but enforce the steps.
I think the steps rule is enforced as well as it can be. I think if it is to be forced to the letter then it should be increased to 6 steps or tinkered with to allow players to stay on the ball in certain cases.
I think time should be used instead of number steps. Refs aren't looking at every stride a player is taking and counting them. They are just estimating. This is why I think certain players can get away with more. Time is easier to measure.
Quote from: Stall the Bailer on November 23, 2017, 03:11:23 PM
Quote from: vallankumous on November 23, 2017, 01:47:10 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on November 23, 2017, 10:54:34 AM
All the overcarrying comes from the solo run though - especially if you run very fast.
I'm in favour of keeping it but enforce the steps.
I think the steps rule is enforced as well as it can be. I think if it is to be forced to the letter then it should be increased to 6 steps or tinkered with to allow players to stay on the ball in certain cases.
I think time should be used instead of number steps. Refs aren't looking at every stride a player is taking and counting them. They are just estimating. This is why I think certain players can get away with more. Time is easier to measure.
hope refs can measure time better than they do currently for the advantage rule then
Quote from: AQMP on November 23, 2017, 01:40:48 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on November 22, 2017, 09:01:00 PM
Gridiron football is always chopping and changing its rules (http://www.sportsattic.com/araig/NflRulesHistory.htm) almost on an annual basis.
The egg chasers here are always tinkering with the rules.
^ new laws this year all done to help the team in possession so as to to make the game good for TV and in reality has the opposite effect . unless you like watching a team hanging onto the ball until some one strays offside. ever notice how rarely the commentators analyse these off sides compared to Soccer is it because rules are so complex and constantly changing neither the players nor the analysts under stand most of the decisions.
I think the golden rules for playing law changes are
Dont change rules it unless it totally obvious something needs to be changed
and never do it to fix a very specific problem as the law of unintended consequences will kick in very quickly ,
Quote from: Stall the Bailer on November 23, 2017, 03:11:23 PM
Quote from: vallankumous on November 23, 2017, 01:47:10 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on November 23, 2017, 10:54:34 AM
All the overcarrying comes from the solo run though - especially if you run very fast.
I'm in favour of keeping it but enforce the steps.
I think the steps rule is enforced as well as it can be. I think if it is to be forced to the letter then it should be increased to 6 steps or tinkered with to allow players to stay on the ball in certain cases.
I think time should be used instead of number steps. Refs aren't looking at every stride a player is taking and counting them. They are just estimating. This is why I think certain players can get away with more. Time is easier to measure.
anyone who watches football or has player it notices the break in rhythm when some one takes extra step. most overcarrying come during tackles or bearing down on goal and i think ref like to give (wrongly) give advantage to the player being fouled and fer for theor lives of disallowing goals eg con o callaghan in last years all ireland, but every knows this so its not that big an issue .
what I had is some one who tackles well for the first 4 steps and is then pulled for a foul on the 7th or 8th step
as a coach i despise the inability of refs to penalise steps. you coach backs into patience, not fouling, timing their tackle and forcing the over carry and then there is no feckin whistle....aaarghh
Ban two-handed push in goals. One-handed strikes only.
Quote from: Bord na Mona man on November 23, 2017, 03:40:19 PM
Ban two-handed push in goals. One-handed strikes only.
Agreed. They're basically throws. ......but then again seeing as the game has become throwball...... (Apologies to Throw Ball ;D)
Quote from: Rossfan on November 23, 2017, 04:30:49 PM
Quote from: Bord na Mona man on November 23, 2017, 03:40:19 PM
Ban two-handed push in goals. One-handed strikes only.
Agreed. They're basically throws. ......but then again seeing as the game has become throwball...... (Apologies to Throw Ball ;D)
That's a nonsense idea. If you're bet like that you deserve to concede a goal.
Next score wins
Quote from: Bord na Mona man on November 23, 2017, 03:40:19 PM
Ban two-handed push in goals. One-handed strikes only.
Did anyone see Christopher Bradley's goal v Kilcar? How it wasn't disallowed I'll never know.
Quote from: Stall the Bailer on November 23, 2017, 03:11:23 PM
Quote from: vallankumous on November 23, 2017, 01:47:10 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on November 23, 2017, 10:54:34 AM
All the overcarrying comes from the solo run though - especially if you run very fast.
I'm in favour of keeping it but enforce the steps.
I think the steps rule is enforced as well as it can be. I think if it is to be forced to the letter then it should be increased to 6 steps or tinkered with to allow players to stay on the ball in certain cases.
I think time should be used instead of number steps. Refs aren't looking at every stride a player is taking and counting them. They are just estimating. This is why I think certain players can get away with more. Time is easier to measure.
It already is time OR number of steps. I see it sometimes here when young fellas who play basketball start playing Gaelic football. Rookies sometimes catch the ball and then stand for a few seconds with their feet planted to the ground while deciding what to do and they get blown up for holding the ball.
Quote from: JimStynes on November 24, 2017, 06:58:14 AM
Next score wins
Isn't that how it is if you're still drawn at the end of double extra time?
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on November 28, 2017, 11:31:17 PM
Quote from: JimStynes on November 24, 2017, 06:58:14 AM
Next score wins
Isn't that how it is if you're still drawn at the end of double extra time?
I think in some competitions at least it's a free taking contest. We lost a game on penalties once!
Quote from: AZOffaly on November 29, 2017, 10:55:33 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on November 28, 2017, 11:31:17 PM
Quote from: JimStynes on November 24, 2017, 06:58:14 AM
Next score wins
Isn't that how it is if you're still drawn at the end of double extra time?
I think in some competitions at least it's a free taking contest. We lost a game on penalties once!
I'd like to see something done with the kickout. Either it has to cross the 45 or it's a free in for the opposing team. An indirect free a la head injury. I think alot of the game's evils at the minute can be put down to the short kick-out and conceding it and flooding back. Now this rule would just be for senior games. Something needs done with the injury time as well. It's a complete farce. There's never the allowed amount of time played.
Quote from: Therealdonald on November 29, 2017, 04:50:41 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on November 29, 2017, 10:55:33 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on November 28, 2017, 11:31:17 PM
Quote from: JimStynes on November 24, 2017, 06:58:14 AM
Next score wins
Isn't that how it is if you're still drawn at the end of double extra time?
I think in some competitions at least it's a free taking contest. We lost a game on penalties once!
I'd like to see something done with the kickout. Either it has to cross the 45 or it's a free in for the opposing team. An indirect free a la head injury. I think alot of the game's evils at the minute can be put down to the short kick-out and conceding it and flooding back. Now this rule would just be for senior games. Something needs done with the injury time as well. It's a complete farce. There's never the allowed amount of time played.
Surely the natural reaction for the defensive minded teams to this rule is to bring even more players back (i.e. everybody). At the moment there is a chance that some players will stay pushed up to counteract the possibility of a short kick out. But if a rule forces every kick out past the 45, why would any forward stay inside the 45? You'd end up any even more congested midfield area and an even more defensive set up.
Personally, I don't think the short kick out is the problem. I think it's a symptom of the problem which is the defensive set ups and lots of players behind the ball.
My suggestion is a rule that forces teams to leave at least 6 players inside your opponents 45 when you opponent is kicking out the ball. [The rule would have to be worded to allow this 6 to be reduced to 5 if your team had a man sent off].
The way I see it, this would force kick outs to go long because automatically, the 6 forwards will be pushed up on the 6 defenders. It would also leave more space around the middle of the field because 6 players are forced to stay out of the area (and almost without fail, the 6 defenders would stay to mark the 6 forwards).
I suppose my suggestion is similar to the idea proposed by joe brolly a few years ago where he suggested that the 15 players should reset for each kick out.
The difference with my suggestion is that you wouldn't have to wait for ages to reset 30 players. it'd just be waiting on 6 players who would most likely be inside the 45 anyway if they have just scored or had a shot at goal. Also, to prevent deliberately slowing the kick out by the team not taking the kick out, the punishment for not having 6 players inside the 45 could be a free from where ever the kick out lands.
I'm sure there are unintended consequences to my suggestion as well, so lets hear your thoughts! ;)
Put a knife in the ball and make them play hurling..
Abolish feckin hurley stuff.
Ah sure they/you are already changing the rules (legal cheating) to nullify Cluxton and Dublin with the news kick out rules.
It's just putting the OUT back into the kick OUT ;)
Quote from: Rossfan on December 04, 2017, 11:07:05 AM
It's just putting the OUT back into the kick OUT ;)
Already exists, it goes out, the curls back behind the 13. Id get rid of the kick out altogether sure. Restart in the middle.
Just reading old Irish News match reports from 1998. There was an experiment with two referees in that years McKenna cup.
I dont recall that happening. Should it be trialled again?