Rule Change Needed to Stop Puke Keep-Ball

[RedHand88]

I know I sound like a broken record, but the 'keep-ball' approach is largely facilitated by the ability to take short kick-outs to your corner backs.
Introduce a contested restart, i.e. kicks must travel beyond 45m line, and it will limit the ability of a team defending a lead to be 'defensive' and encourage the team chasing a lead to be 'offensive'.

It's an honourable idea, but the problem is that many club keepers, especially at junior level, would struggle to kick the ball past the 45 off the ground, or at least to find a man accurately beyond it.

[Orchard park]

What about a windy day at club level ?

[westbound]

This suggestion would encourage teams to be more defensive.

If the 6 forwards know that if they stand anywhere between the 21 and the 45 for the kickout, the ball is going to sail over their heads what is the point of them being there.

This rule would ensure that EVERY team puts 15 on their own side of the opposition 45 for opposition kick outs. So in effect, if a team were to win their own kickout they'd be faced with 15 behind the ball straight away.

I'm not in favour of this rule at all, but the only way it could possibly work would be if another rule was also brought in which limited the number of players a team could have in certain areas of the pitch for kickouts. I.e. the 6 forwards would be forced to stay in position for kickouts.
So it starts getting very messy!

In any event, if a rule was brought in to limited the number of players in certain areas for kickouts (i.e. keeping the 6 forwards in position) I think it would encourage most teams to kick long anyway as the short options would be closed off and therefore there would be no need for a rule forcing keepers to kick long.

Also, if keepers were forced to kick long, it would reduce the impact of a sending off. At the moment, one of the biggest advantages of having an extra man is that it is fairly easy to retain possession from your own kickout. I don't think it is a good idea to be reducing the benefit of having an extra man. It is up to the opposition to make sure they keep 15 on the pitch.

I posted this a few pages back

[Jinxy]

I know I sound like a broken record, but the 'keep-ball' approach is largely facilitated by the ability to take short kick-outs to your corner backs.
Introduce a contested restart, i.e. kicks must travel beyond 45m line, and it will limit the ability of a team defending a lead to be 'defensive' and encourage the team chasing a lead to be 'offensive'.

It's an honourable idea, but the problem is that many club keepers, especially at junior level, would struggle to kick the ball past the 45 off the ground, or at least to find a man accurately beyond it.

Wouldn't apply to club level.
Club football is a different beast.

[Manning18]

This is incredibly simple imo. The game is crap because it's too easy to retain possession. Teams won't push up because there's no point, they wont be able to turn the ball over.

Bring the handpass back to close fist. Much harder to to get a closed fist handpass off while being tackled than an open hand. Harder to keep it accurate also. You'll soon see teams pressure high up when turnovers are happening regularly.

[Jinxy]

This is incredibly simple imo. The game is crap because it's too easy to retain possession. Teams won't push up because there's no point, they wont be able to turn the ball over.

Bring the handpass back to close fist. Much harder to to get a closed fist handpass off while being tackled than an open hand. Harder to keep it accurate also. You'll soon see teams pressure high up when turnovers are happening regularly.

I agree with you there.
Any rule change I've suggested is designed to reintroduce the idea of a contest for possession.
That's what people want to see.
Some people here seem to be of the view that the entertainment value doesn't matter, it's all about technical ability, efficiency, playing smart etc.
They need to appreciate that a lot of people are watching the game out of habit now, i.e. this is what you do during the summer, you watch the football.
They know they're not going to enjoy it.
If we sit on our hands and do nothing, pretty soon people will get out of the habit of going to games for definite but they'll also eventually lose interest in even watching on TV.
I know that process has already started for me and I've played and watched gaelic football most of my life.

[CJ2017]

Are we watching the death of Gaelic Football? Offtheball
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSLHP23qJpI

Interesting discussion on rule changes, handpasses etc
worth watching!

bit of a reference on poorly defined tackle - the tackle how players could/would give away a free easily tackle and prefer not engage forward at approx 10 mins in.

Westbound on your suggestion, I would be interested in your opinion (re 15 men behind the ball) on why it did not happen
in the international rules 2015 game (link posted earlier), do you think because there was an Australian
Rules tackle effect in operation throughout the game?

[LeoMc]

AFL style tackle.

Simple. You can empty a man if you get him - you'll soon see the end to this nonsense ongoing.

Furthermore it'll actually bring in a clear, defined tackle into our game....finally.

Gaelic football already has several types of clear, defined tackle.

Why would it need one which would massively increase the emphasis on physical strength (far more than it has already been increased)
and preclude small players from competing?

Why would anybody think that making what Sean Cavanagh did to Conor McManus in 2013 would make Gaelic football a more attractive game to watch?

Really? Because I tackle the same way every single week - one week its a foul, one week its great stuff. Same in any game, I truly do not understand what a tackle is in our sport, seems like you can do whatever you want to a Michael Murphy or an Aiden O'Shea because 'they can take it'.

The AFL sack isn't about an emphasis on physical strength, it's an emphasis on intelligence to get a ball and release, create and exploit space. It's also largely irrelevant if you can't actually catch your man - so the only real physical element is speed.

Allowing that sort of tackle will completely eliminate players taking their man on as the risk of losing the baall is too great, That in turn will place more emphasis on developing athletes who can play no contact keep ball.

[westbound]

I agree it's too easy to retain possession.

Thinking outside the box a little here (and I only thought of this 5 minutes ago so I haven't really thought it through!) but what about if a team were only allowed a limited number of handpasses (say 3?) before getting the ball out of their own half. They could kick as often as they want but if the team has had 3 handpasses then they cannot handpass again until the ball goes into the opponents half. Once inside the opponents half, I'd have no restriction on the number of hand passes.

It's a lot more difficult to keep possession if you are being forced to kick it rather than hand-passing it all the time.

To follow this rule through, I'd suggest no restriction with a team going back over the half way line to go back into their own half, but they still wouldn't be allowed hand pass the ball in their own half.
If a team is good enough to retain possession by kicking the ball then fair play to them!

[Jinxy]

Lads, the tackle is the least of our worries.

[westbound]

Are we watching the death of Gaelic Football? Offtheball
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSLHP23qJpI

Interesting discussion on rule changes, handpasses etc
worth watching!

bit of a reference on poorly defined tackle - the tackle how players could/would give away a free easily tackle and prefer not engage forward at approx 10 mins in.

Westbound on your suggestion, I would be interested in your opinion (re 15 men behind the ball) on why it did not happen
in the international rules 2015 game (link posted earlier), do you think because there was an Australian
Rules tackle effect in operation throughout the game?

Honestly, I didn't watch that game at the time, and I had a quick look at the link you posted so I can't say I'm overly well informed on that particular game. However, firstly I thought (from the brief look I had at the link) that teams did appear to put a lot of men behind the ball for the kickouts?

But secondly, there  are probably 2 reasons why it wasn't 15men behind the ball on the kick out.
1 - It's not in the 'culture' of the aussie rules game to have men behind the ball playing defensively and
2- the mark is probably the reason for this as if a midfielder wins the ball from a kickout, if he has no forwards in place he can't punt if forward to win a mark in front of goal. Therefore it makes sense to leave some forwards in advanced positions for opposing teams kickouts even if you know that the ball will travel out past the 45.

I don't think the tackle was the reason, although I do think that the tackle could be effect in getting teams to push up from open play, knowing that there is a greater chance of winning the ball back.

[westbound]

Lads, the tackle is the least of our worries.

Jinxy the AFL style tackle could be useful in encouraging teams to push up on opponents.

I'm not sure I like the idea of the aussies rules tackle in our game, but it could certainly have a positive effect from the point of view of getting teams to push up.

But perhaps the negatives would outweigh the positives?

[Jinxy]

I don't think we need to use a sledgehammer to crack a nut here.
We can get back to a more traditional style of football without completely changing the sport.
You have to have clear objectives though, and you need to look at the pros & cons of every rule change as there will undoubtedly be some unintended consequences.
Essentially, if we bring in 'Rule Change X', what's the worst that can happen?
So I'll throw this open to the forum.

I propose that:
1.0 All kick-outs at senior inter-county level are required to travel beyond the 45m line.
1.1 The mark rule stays as it is.
1.2 Before play can be restarted, there must be 6 players on the 20m line and 6 players on the 45m line in each half, with 4 midfielders allowed to roam freely between the 45m line.
1.3 The number on your back means nothing in this specific context. If you are Philly McMahon and you have just run up the field to kick a score, you can slot in on the opposition 20m line, as long as you don't exceed the allowed 3 players per line per team (Mannion could take his place in the FB line!)
1.4 As soon as the ball is kicked out, everyone is free to move wherever they want.

Now, 1.2 might be logistically difficult to police, so the logical compromise would be only allowing the 4 midfielders between the 45m lines and let everyone else go wherever they want.
BUT, if you don't get the hell out of the midfield zone as quickly as possible your team will be penalised.

Bear in mind there was plenty of negativity surrounding the introduction of the mark and the general consensus is that it has worked very well.
Worst case scenario, it hasn't negatively affected the game in any way.

[westbound]

I don't think we need to use a sledgehammer to crack a nut here.
We can get back to a more traditional style of football without completely changing the sport.
You have to have clear objectives though, and you need to look at the pros & cons of every rule change as there will undoubtedly be some unintended consequences.
Essentially, if we bring in 'Rule Change X', what's the worst that can happen?
So I'll throw this open to the forum.

I propose that:
1.0 All kick-outs at senior inter-county level are required to travel beyond the 45m line.
1.1 The mark rule stays as it is.
1.2 Before play can be restarted, there must be 6 players on the 20m line and 6 players on the 45m line in each half, with 4 midfielders allowed to roam freely between the 45m line.
1.3 The number on your back means nothing in this specific context. If you are Philly McMahon and you have just run up the field to kick a score, you can slot in on the opposition 20m line, as long as you don't exceed the allowed 3 players per line per team (Mannion could take his place in the FB line!)
1.4 As soon as the ball is kicked out, everyone is free to move wherever they want.

Now, 1.2 might be logistically difficult to police, so the logical compromise would be only allowing the 4 midfielders between the 45m lines and let everyone else go wherever they want.
BUT, if you don't get the hell out of the midfield zone as quickly as possible your team will be penalised.

Bear in mind there was plenty of negativity surrounding the introduction of the mark and the general consensus is that it has worked very well.
Worst case scenario, it hasn't negatively affected the game in any way.

I agree with your general comments above.

With your specific proposals:
1.0 I disagree, I think this will encourage teams to get more men behind the ball for a kick out as there is no incentive for a forward to stay up front! (I see that you propose 1.2 also in conjunction with this - See below for my comments on that). Also, a forced long kickout may result in more kickout to the wing for midfielders to run onto (and not necessarily a high fielding competion in the middle of the field)
1.1 Agree
1.2 This one makes a lot of sense but on a practical level would it be possible to apply? Remember Joe Brolly suggested this in a challenge game a couple of years ago and we never heard of it again? That would suggest to me that it wasn't a sucess. Surely if it worked in that game, brolly would be bleating on about it for months/years? It would probably slow the kick outs down significantly.
However, if this rule was introduced, I think it would automatically result in keepers kicking more kickouts long (as all 6 defenders would in theory be marked) and therefore there would be no need for your rule 1.0.
1.3 Agreed.
1.4 Makes sense.

I would also add that a lot/most? of the problems in the game at the moment are during open play. Whilst addressing the kickouts would be a start, it does nothing to address the issues that occur throughout games. I think that's where the focus for any rule change should be, i.e. to encourage teams to be more advanced during open play. If this can be encouraged (or forced) then I think many of the other problems are only small problems.

[trileacman]

Enough of this afl tackle rubbish. It only works in the afl because there is a mark rule to complement it. If there wasn't that a forward would get hauled to his ass every time he caught a long ball. You can't feasibly have an afl tackle on its own, you'd have to bring in a mark rule too and at that stage we're just playing afl on a square pitch.

The only real workable suggestion is that all kickouts must pass the 45.

I'd try that on its own first and then see how it goes. If teams are still dropping far too many forwards back into defence on kick outs then we can look at fixing a certain amount of forwards  behind the offensive 45m line. The future problem with it is that teams with an good midfield will lord it over teams that are poor there, naturally the weaker teams will look to flood the misfiled with players to try and establish parity. Then if you keep just 4 midfielders in the middle and banish the rest behind the 45  you hand a disproportionate advantage to the side with the better midfield.