Positive proposals at last to address the spectacle of Gaelic Football

Started by APM, October 02, 2018, 04:43:21 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Rossfan

Davy's given us a dream to cling to
We're going to bring home the SAM

trileacman

Quote from: Rossfan on October 03, 2018, 09:33:37 PM
So everything is grand so??

He gives the tackle as the clear example of where there is a problem.

It's disingenuous and a simple case of playing the man and not the ball by saying he's content with the status quo.
Fantasy Rugby World Cup Champion 2011,
Fantasy 6 Nations Champion 2014

LeoMc

Quote from: Rossfan on October 03, 2018, 09:33:37 PM
So everything is grand so??
So any sort of sh1te rule changes are an improvement?
Beware unintended consequences.

cjx

What are the punishments for breaking these new rules? What I saw were bizarre. Kick-out stuff seriously mad

Imagine herding the lads up and down the pitch at U16 or Junior B

Wet night no lines, no flags, no umpires or lines persona Only crowd a bunch of mad parents and 2 hairy gorilla mentors.

Great craic and the match lasting longer than an American football match but no ads with young fellas/girls running up down and off the pitch leaving 4 static freezing in the middle with kick-outs going only 15m in the mud (now what do we do?). All booked better than Throne champo!

That's the way to encourage the 95% ordinary players young and old but sure aren't the rule committee going on RTE to explain it (Are any of them from Throne?)
Media rule KO virtual reality (is there an App for it? Written for Amstrads or Commodore 64s)

Dubhaltach

Quote from: Fionntamhnach on October 03, 2018, 07:32:31 PM
My €0.02...

QuoteHandpass

To introduce a restriction of three consecutive passes of the ball with the fist or open hand by players of the team in possession.

The only way this might work is if after the third consecutive handpass, the player in possession wishing to make a further pass could only do so by kicking it in a forward direction travelling at least 20 metres (arbitrary distance). This would likely still give rise to problems to an attacking team that has reclaimed possession deep in their opponents defence that is working the ball out into a scoring position with several quick fist passes, as defenders will know if the third handpass recipient has more limited opportunities to play the ball. Otherwise as already mentioned by a couple of others here, players will simply use short kicks to reset the handpass count - the type of kicks most players should have left behind once they were too old to play at under 12.

QuoteSideline Kick

That the ball shall be played in a forward direction from the kick.

Exception:

In the case of a side-line kick being taken by an attacking player on or inside the opponents' 13m line, the ball may be kicked in any direction.

Not really sure what this is being put up for, but I see not much harm giving it a trial with one amendment. Namely in the exception it should be the opponents 20 metre line instead of 13 metre.

QuoteThe Mark

To extend the application of the Mark to the clean catching of the ball on or inside the 20m line from a kick delivered on or beyond the 45m line without it touching the ground.

In the case of a Mark being awarded to an attacking player on or inside the 20m line, the free, if availed of, shall be taken from the point on the 20m line directly in line where the Mark is awarded.

In the case of a Mark being awarded to a defending player on or inside the 20m line, the free kick, if availed of, shall be taken from the point where the Mark is awarded.

The application of the Mark in the two areas of it arising (i.e. as in current Rule and in new Proposal) shall be standardised as follows:

* Up to 15 seconds shall be allowed for a free to be taken from a Mark.
* If the Referee determines that the player who makes the Mark has been injured in the process and unable to take the kick, the Referee shall direct the player's nearest team mate to take the kick.
* A score may be made from a free awarded for a Mark.
* The normal Rules governing free-kicks shall apply (e.g. players being 13m from the ball before it is kicked).

Exception:

A free-kick from a Mark shall be taken from the hand(s) only.

If a player opts to 'play on' when awarded a Mark, he may be challenged i.e. provisions (b) (i) and (ii) of the current Mark Rule shall not apply during the experimentation.

I can see what they're trying to achieve here and the idea behind it is a positive one. Definitely worth trialling. The issues surrounding players being double or triple marked can be rebuffed by pointing out the spare player(s) that can mop up potential breaking balls. Two possible side effects are (a) teams having a player in a permanent "moocher" role that spends most of their time between his opponents end line and 20 metre line whose main role is to make marks, and (b) an increase in the number of balls hit in towards the corners away from a more crowded centre for the purpose of making clean marks which are then brought out to the 20 metre line for a clean strike - this would seem to be opposite to the spirit of the idea of rewarding fielding within the area around the goalmouth. There could also be wider issues of an attacker and wherever they should be awarded a mark having caught a ball within the boundary stated (including if the player jumps behind the 20 metre line with his back to goal, but lands in front of it. Nevertheless, worth giving it a go.

QuoteSin-Bin

The Penalty on the day for a Black Card Infraction or two Yellow Card Infractions - an ordering off for ten minutes in a Sin Bin.

A subsequent Black Card Infraction shall be penalised by the showing of a Black Card followed by a Red Card.

A subsequent Yellow Card Infraction shall be penalised by the showing of a Yellow Card followed by a Red Card.

In either case there shall be no substitution allowed.

The maximum number of substitutions in normal time to return to five.

The Duties of a Referee and Sideline Official to be amended in accordance with this Proposal.

What kind of shite is this? This is a potential proposal that'll make the teams hatchet man have their eyes light up. The only bit in this that makes sense if reducing the amount of subs down to five. If they want to go for a sin-bin, approach it the same way it's done in womens football - yellow card, hello 10 minutes. Second yellow card? Goodbye! I can't think of any particular reason this can't work in the mens game, and if a referee for an under 14 girls club league game on a Monday evening travelling on their own can cope with the sin-bin timings, I'm sure the refs in the mens game can cope too. At the same time, scrap the black card and integrate the offences for getting one into being yellow carded.

QuoteKick-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).

This idea seems to have come up by someone or some group whom have been thinking too hard of issues concerning one level of the game to the neglect of others. Plenty has already been mentioned here from others of the flaws behind this idea from players waiting on the edge of the 45 'till the ball is kicked, that those behind the idea (Tyrone examples here) have never tried to kick a ball out against the wind when any breeze starts picking up in Greencastle, Brocagh, Derrylaughan or even Garvaghy (those wind turbines next door aren't for decoration), not to mention that many under 14 goalkeepers or defenders (and a few even older) might struggle to get their kick out to clear the 45 even on a calm day. Did someone say that Joe B**lly has put this forward in the past? If so then that explains a fúcking lot.

Extra...

When new rule changes are being proposed and then brought on to trial, using the NFL alone is simply not enough. As the trial rules if deemed successful will be likely introduced across the board then they should be trialled at club and underage levels too - for this, give counties and provinces an incentive to be a guinea pig at two adult club level competitions and two youth level competitions per province, e.g. within Ulster have the rules trialled at one club cup competition in a county, one reserve league or championship in another county, one underage competition at under 14 or under 16 in a third county, with the final trial being the Ulster MFL. Get feedback from all levels.

Would have like to have seen a proposal to give a bigger punishment for dissent beyond the 13 metres moved forward, I know the 30 metre proposal was defeated. Personally would have gone for 25/30 metres forward or up to the 45 metre line of the team making the infraction, whatever was closer to the goal.

Also whatever happened to the countdown clock trial? I remember it being passed at congress for trial a few years ago but it was never to my knowledge given an actual go.

It would have meant less replays so the loss in revenue wasn't too appealing for the GAA. In their infinite wisdom, they obviously think the sideline kick is a more pressing matter  ::)

highorlow

Lets just ban the kick out altogether and re-start the game from a hop ball in midfield.
They get momentum, they go mad, here they go

trailer

I really fear for the future of Gaelic football. Some of the rules being proposed are very scary. The Kickout rule being a particular highlight. Some people who are championing these changes are supposed to be intelligent. There's an excuse for someone with a certain lack proposing ludicrous changes but others really should have a little more cop on. Some very scary ideas out there and some very scary people promoting them.

Rossfan

Scary!!!!!
Calm down gasún -it's not Putin or Netanyahu building a nuclear plant in the middle of Ireland.
It's only a set of proposals for a ball game for discussion over the next month.
Davy's given us a dream to cling to
We're going to bring home the SAM

From the Bunker

Gaelic football is going to become like a game of Chess yet!

All pieces (players) in the game can only do certain movements or are restricted by certain rules.

At this rate we not only will be counting steps taken with the ball and hops (which is abused already). We'll be counting Yellow Cards, We'll be counting hand passes, we'll be counting how many players are in a half.

We'll need an Accountant not a Referee to control the game!



The Trap

HOW ABOUT A COMMITTEE SORTING OUT THE FOLLOWING FIRST:
1. THE FIXTURES PROBLEM AND DISPARITY BETWEEN CLUB AND COUNTY
2. THE DISCIPLINARY PROCESS (LACK OF RESPECT FOR OFFICIALS FROM PLAYERS AND COUNTY BOARDS)
3. COUNTY TRAINING TAKING UP TOO MUCH TIME AND TOO MUCH MONEY

highorlow

QuoteHOW ABOUT A COMMITTEE SORTING OUT THE FOLLOWING FIRST:
1. THE FIXTURES PROBLEM AND DISPARITY BETWEEN CLUB AND COUNTY
2. THE DISCIPLINARY PROCESS (LACK OF RESPECT FOR OFFICIALS FROM PLAYERS AND COUNTY BOARDS)
3. COUNTY TRAINING TAKING UP TOO MUCH TIME AND TOO MUCH MONEY

GOOD POINTS
They get momentum, they go mad, here they go

timmyot501

The tackle is a major issue in matches at all levels

A forward gets the ball, swamped upon by 3 (or more) defenders, can't get out so free against.  How many times in the same game would the same happen at the other end of the field and it's a free in.  This frustrates players, management and supporters and the thing escalates from there.  I think limiting the number of tacklers to 2 at least gives the forward a chance.  Third man in and its a free in.

sligoman2

I like the fact that the GAA realizes that change is needed and that they are trying to cut out some of the strategies that have poisoned the game recently.  I am looking forward to see how this works out, feel however they missed 2 more significant proposals namely:

1). No passing the ball back past the half way line when inside opponents half - this is sickening to watch.

2). Limiting the number of defenders in your own half, I have suggested that each team must have a minimum of 4 Players (ex goalies) in both halves of the field at all times...  This would hopefully reduce the blanket defense borefest that many games have become.

This is the first year that I have lost interest in football and it's not because of Dublin's domination, it's because of the lack of entertainment on display - it's win at all costs and more managers have been drinking Hartes "we're not here to entertain the fans" magic elixir.

Something has to be done, sports psychologists, specialized coaches and s&c coaches have produced better athletes which ironically has let to less enjoyment.
I used to be indecisive but now I'm not too sure.

westbound

Quote from: sligoman2 on October 04, 2018, 01:03:17 PM
I like the fact that the GAA realizes that change is needed and that they are trying to cut out some of the strategies that have poisoned the game recently.  I am looking forward to see how this works out, feel however they missed 2 more significant proposals namely:

1). No passing the ball back past the half way line when inside opponents half - this is sickening to watch.

2). Limiting the number of defenders in your own half, I have suggested that each team must have a minimum of 4 Players (ex goalies) in both halves of the field at all times...  This would hopefully reduce the blanket defense borefest that many games have become.

This is the first year that I have lost interest in football and it's not because of Dublin's domination, it's because of the lack of entertainment on display - it's win at all costs and more managers have been drinking Hartes "we're not here to entertain the fans" magic elixir.

Something has to be done, sports psychologists, specialized coaches and s&c coaches have produced better athletes which ironically has let to less enjoyment.

This!

I think one rule like this would solve a lot of the other 'problems' in the game. No need for 5 rule changes just one good rule change would solve a lot.

I'm not saying that sligoman's rule is the utopian proposal but it is certainly a better draft proposal than a lot of others.

The difficulty with this type of rule is actually enforcing it (i.e. who is going to be watching to ensure that 4 players staying in the opposing 45 when the game is at the far of the pitch?).

As an alternative, I suggest the following:
At kick-outs, the 6 forwards on both teams must be inside the 45 (i.e. in their respective attacking 45). All other players can go whenever they like.
The punishment would be as follows:
- if the team taking the kick out does not have it's 6 forwards in place then the ball is thrown up on the 20metre line (same punishment as currently in place for the goal-keeper taking too long on a kickout)
- if the team defending the kick out doens't have it's 6 players in place when the kick out is taken, the attacking team get a free from where the ball lands (or can play on if more advantageous).

The Pros:
- Keeper (or at least his team) can still dictate the pace of the kickout (i.e. don't have to wait for 30 players to take up positions)
- Should encourage long kick outs to midfield as the 6 forwards will be pushed up on the defenders (probably)
- Whoever gains possession in midfield will have a max of 8 defenders between them and the goal, which should hopefully encourage fast ball into the forwards
- Relatively straightforward to police as the referee just needs to glance around to check there are 6 guys in opposition 45. It's much easier to police than something similar during open play.

The Cons:
- Could lead to a situation where there are 2/3 players lined up on each 45 to run towards their own defence as soon as the kick out is kicked. I.e. teams might still be willing to give up the kick out to get bodies back to pack the defense. However, a good long kick-out, then a mark and another long kick forward would have the ball into the forwards long before the extra defenders get back.
- Possible issue towards the end of a game where a team is chasing a game and are willing to take a risk by putting extra men forward and leaving the 6 forwards unmarked inside the 45. If the team chasing the game wins possession they would immediately have a 14 V 9 overlap. [I think this is the biggest flaw with the proposal] Whilst this is possible to occur at any time during the game I don't think it would ever happen except when a team is chasing a game in the last couple of minutes because the risk is too great (i.e. leaving 6 forwards unmarked inside your 45).
- it doesn't stop teams from getting 15 men behind the ball during open play [However, I believe it encourages teams to keep players up the field]

I'm sure people will ridicule my proposal but think about it before doing so.