This will upset a few of the "everything is grand " bucks here ;D
http://www.hoganstand.com/ArticleForm.aspx?ID=245534
Having watched the highlights of Club Finals on GAA 2015 last night one thing I think they need to look at is the 2 handed push/throw goals. 2 were scored last night where balls were handpassed across to an unmarked chap and in both cases they basically controlled/half caught the ball in their 2 hands before pushing it into the net using both hands.
Yea, I'm not a big fan of those borderline thrown goals. Maybe the player should be limited to using closed fists or only one hand in those situations.
Added time is the one rule change I'd make. People blame the refs, but most of the time it's not their fault, it's the rules.
Clock should be stopped for substitutions and for bookings/cards.
Quote from: Hound on October 13, 2015, 04:54:27 PM
Added time is the one rule change I'd make. People blame the refs, but most of the time it's not their fault, it's the rules.
Clock should be stopped for substitutions and for bookings/cards.
Feck me i thought the Ladies game had this sorted out, until i seen the final minutes of the Senior Final.
When a foul is committed all members of the team who committed the foul have to get back the 13m immediately.
Refs would be instructed to ref this the same way they do in rugby - up to the team who committed the infringement to be out of the way immediately. Any delay whatsoever means the free is brought forward.
Also maybe change the distance everyone bar the two competing for the ball have to be back for throw-balls to 20m. The 13m limit isn't enforced now, if the limit was 20m there might be a chance of a circle of 10m clear space.
Quote from: From the Bunker on October 13, 2015, 04:59:07 PM
Quote from: Hound on October 13, 2015, 04:54:27 PM
Added time is the one rule change I'd make. People blame the refs, but most of the time it's not their fault, it's the rules.
Clock should be stopped for substitutions and for bookings/cards.
Feck me i thought the Ladies game had this sorted out, until i seen the final minutes of the Senior Final.
What happened?
Quote from: Farrandeelin on October 13, 2015, 08:54:39 PM
Quote from: From the Bunker on October 13, 2015, 04:59:07 PM
Quote from: Hound on October 13, 2015, 04:54:27 PM
Added time is the one rule change I'd make. People blame the refs, but most of the time it's not their fault, it's the rules.
Clock should be stopped for substitutions and for bookings/cards.
Feck me i thought the Ladies game had this sorted out, until i seen the final minutes of the Senior Final.
What happened?
There was about 2/3 minutes left. A Dublin girl was bearing in on Goal was dragged to the ground. Dubs just wanted to take free and get on with game. Referee proceeded to take the guts of a minute and a half talking shite to the Cork girl while doing the paper work and sending her to the Sin Bin. All the while the clock is running down.
Limit the handpass to 3 and then it must be kicked, that will punch a hole in a few of the current systems that has turned our game into rugby league, I agree totally about those throw goals, should be free out,
frees must be taken from correct position, the other codes shaving cream is a good idea, the mark for a clean catch, the sin bin instead of black or yellow cards will sort it out fast, umpires must be of a certain standard and be allowed to call refs attention, at the moment they must wait until the ref asks them, timing is a real issue and must be looked at, why not bring in the changes for the upcoming January tournaments and tweak them for the league with a full review at the end of the league with a view to introducing some of them for the championship.
Mark between the two 45's from a kickout is something I would bring it. It couldn't be for every catch in open play as this would actually slow the game down allowing the blanket defence to filter back and get set up.
These small efforts to t**ker with the rules always reminds me of this http://youtu.be/8mdwAkWvWMw
I agree that the mark for all catches would slow down game, the handpass restriction will sort out the blanket defence and some of the systems that are ruining our game.
10 minute sin bin for black card.
Quote from: FL/MAYO on October 13, 2015, 10:41:23 PM
10 minute sin bin for black card.
This I agree with. The black card only sends one player off while a replacement can come on straight away. In fact, I'd go further than a ten minute sin bin and disallow the offender on again, another player must replace him when the ten minutes are up.
Quote from: giveballaghback on October 13, 2015, 10:23:38 PM
I agree that the mark for all catches would slow down game, the handpass restriction will sort out the blanket defence and some of the systems that are ruining our game.
Oh dear Jesus. ::)
Just think about it a little more ... so the defending team will know that the attacking team will have to kick after 3 handpasses ... will that favour the defence or the attack?
The mark and 3 handpass/throw restriction may be tried in the studenty Sigerson cupeen.
Don't think the mark or restricting the hand pass are worthwhile solutions. The mark will slow the game down and might even increase blanket defending as if you're up against a good high fetching midfield and you can't dispossess them on the ground some teams might just concede the kickouts altogether.
Restricting the hand pass is daft IMO. It might only encourage teams to drop deeper as they know a kick will have to come after three hand passes so it becomes easier to plan defensively.
Ridiculous idea. I have images of players being coached 5 yard kick passes
Quote from: general_lee on November 18, 2015, 04:55:24 PM
Ridiculous idea. I have images of players being coached 5 yard kick passes
And us trying to coach young lads not to kick it 5 yards :)
The mark wasn't introduced to Australian Rules as a cosmetic ploy to encourage or reward high fielding. Instead it was introduced as without it, there would have been no discernible advantage in gaining clean possession (without the mark, you would simply let your opponent get the ball, then empty him).
There is no such advantage can be accrued in Gaelic Games, especially not between the 45s, as a stoppage will - most of the time - kill the momentum of the attacking side by allowing their opponents to regain a man-for-man shape that they would have got tossed up a little for the restart.
Sooner or later I'm hoping that this penny will finally drop onto the litany of fuckwits determined to turn out game into one where being 6' 6" is more important than being able to play football.
Sheer fuckwittery.
Quote from: thewobbler on November 18, 2015, 05:47:27 PM
The mark wasn't introduced to Australian Rules as a cosmetic ploy to encourage or reward high fielding. Instead it was introduced as without it, there would have been no discernible advantage in gaining clean possession (without the mark, you would simply let your opponent get the ball, then empty him).
There is no such advantage can be accrued in Gaelic Games, especially not between the 45s, as a stoppage will - most of the time - kill the momentum of the attacking side by allowing their opponents to regain a man-for-man shape that they would have got tossed up a little for the restart.
Sooner or later I'm hoping that this penny will finally drop onto the litany of fuckwits determined to turn out game into one where being 6' 6" is more important than being able to play football.
Sheer fuckwittery.
This plus 1, the mark works in a far more physical game, the thing i love seeing in football is a midfielder winning a ball and slipping it off to a man coming off the shoulder. though to be fair doesn't happen often anymore as with forwards jogging back in to a defensive position gks just use a short kick out and start their possession from there instead of from midfield area.
As for 3 handpasses. Seriously think this shit out.
Clucko drives his kick out to big Tohill who palms it down to the on rushing Geraghty. With the lads now charging over halfway, the canny Canavan pulls his marker out of the road to create space. Glen Ryan from centre back comes out to floor Geraghty, but a swift movement of hands between between himself, McDonald and Cooper - who has looped out from the corner - has seen that challenge bypassed. Cooper now has the ball 45 yards out and Lacey is hanging off him like a dog, and Ryan smells blood. But where are his teammates to help him?
Well Geraghty he's trying to run away and make room to receive a kick pass. So is McDonald. Canavan is betraying is natural instincts to run short, and is currently running from side to side along the 14, and he's pretty sure that Cahalane knows this is his only option, as he's not even trying to cut out a more direct run.
As for Tohill? Well he's the screen at the other side. As long as he's standing around his 45, no opponent in their right mind is going to try to kick early over his head. So when they win the ball back through opponent overcarrying, they'll also use up their 3 hand passes before they know it.
This is not a far fetched scenario. Not even close.
If you limit handpasses you'll just see a five yard kick pass. Happens in every training game where you play one handpass then kick. Will look terrible. The rules are fine. Trying to dictate the way a team plays is madness. We finally have innovative managers trying new things and old school fans, players etc.... are trying to change it.
I agree with the wobbler and the first part of mrdeeds post. However, I don't think we should necessarily leave the game develop as IC managers (most of whom will have a 2-4 year stint) want to as they are only looking to win while we (the boarder GAA) have to consider at what cost. There is nothing wrong with wanting to keep football an entertaining spectacle. We do have issues in the game but they are really the result of a daft season where winning a few (particular) games a year is all that's important and therefore making yourself tough to beat is probably the best way to give yourself a chance of winning those few games. Our season rewards conservative, defensive thinking not risk taking attacking teams.
Quote from: Zulu on November 18, 2015, 07:01:07 PM
Our season rewards conservative, defensive thinking not risk taking attacking teams.
(http://www.northernsound.ie/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/anglo1-300x200.jpg)
The three hand pass thing was tried 20 years ago and flopped.
Why will this time be any different?
Ban the fcukn hand pas - it's an abomination and is totally mind numbingly boring to watch and has destroyed our game.
Name of the game is FOOTball so let's go all revolutionary and start kickin the effin ball.
Quote from: Rossfan on November 18, 2015, 08:27:27 PM
Ban the fcukn hand pas - it's an abomination and is totally mind numbingly boring to watch and has destroyed our game.
Name of the game is FOOTball so let's go all revolutionary and start kickin the effin ball.
Let's take out catching too.
And tackling.
And running.
Let's have a cic fada competition instead. Jaysus that would be great craic altogether lads.
You should perhaps go and watch association football.
Quote from: thewobbler on November 18, 2015, 08:31:05 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on November 18, 2015, 08:27:27 PM
Ban the fcukn hand pas - it's an abomination and is totally mind numbingly boring to watch and has destroyed our game.
Name of the game is FOOTball so let's go all revolutionary and start kickin the effin ball.
Let's take out catching too.
And tackling.
And running.
Let's have a cic fada competition instead. Jaysus that would be great craic altogether lads.
You should perhaps go and watch association football.
You are the silly chap who made a load of silly suggestions.
2 points for a free kick from the sideline help this new game ye are taking about?
Quote from: rrhf on November 18, 2015, 09:28:16 PM
2 points for a free kick from the sideline help this new game ye are taking about?
I reckon what what make him happy would take the form of:
10 men at one in end in heavy jerseys and unnecessarily tight shorts. Colours don't matter.
50 metre pitch.
10 men at the other end.
Someone on one side lashes the ball high up in the air towards the other side. Every man has to go for the ball and under no circumstances can you try fisting or punching the ball away from anyone else.
Points are awarded for clean catches, and bonus points if more than 5 men end up in a heap on the floor. But points don't matter, it's alll about the fun.
Everyone must laugh an outrageous laugh at the end of each play.
At half time there's tea and sandwiches.
Game draws to a close just in time to milk the cows.
Don't give up the day job buck.
Mick O'Connell on the radio earlier this year said he doesn't even look at the game any more.
He says he just calls it "Gaelic" as it certainty isn't football and doesn't deserve that title.
Quote from: thewobbler on November 18, 2015, 05:47:27 PM
The mark wasn't introduced to Australian Rules as a cosmetic ploy to encourage or reward high fielding. Instead it was introduced as without it, there would have been no discernible advantage in gaining clean possession (without the mark, you would simply let your opponent get the ball, then empty him).
There is no such advantage can be accrued in Gaelic Games, especially not between the 45s, as a stoppage will - most of the time - kill the momentum of the attacking side by allowing their opponents to regain a man-for-man shape that they would have got tossed up a little for the restart.
Sooner or later I'm hoping that this penny will finally drop onto the litany of fuckwits determined to turn out game into one where being 6' 6" is more important than being able to play football.
Sheer fuckwittery.
The clue is in the proposer
Quote from: Rossfan on November 18, 2015, 11:21:40 PM
Don't give up the day job buck.
Mick O'Connell on the radio earlier this year said he doesn't even look at the game any more.
He says he just calls it "Gaelic" as it certainty isn't football and doesn't deserve that title.
As opposed to gaelic hoof ball back in the day.
Quote from: Rossfan on November 18, 2015, 08:27:27 PM
Ban the fcukn hand pas - it's an abomination and is totally mind numbingly boring to watch and has destroyed our game.
Name of the game is FOOTball so let's go all revolutionary and start kickin the effin ball.
:-\ :-\ :-\
sometimes I wonder what people want from the game.
In the Australian game, when the ball is caught clean does the catcher have the option of continuing on with the ball rather than having to take a free-kick? If so, are the opposition allowed to tackle him immediately?
Quote from: Esmarelda on November 19, 2015, 09:39:35 AM
In the Australian game, when the ball is caught clean does the catcher have the option of continuing on with the ball rather than having to take a free-kick? If so, are the opposition allowed to tackle him immediately?
yeah you are allowed to play on if you wish
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on November 19, 2015, 08:43:33 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on November 18, 2015, 08:27:27 PM
Ban the fcukn hand pas - it's an abomination and is totally mind numbingly boring to watch and has destroyed our game.
Name of the game is FOOTball so let's go all revolutionary and start kickin the effin ball.
:-\ :-\ :-\
sometimes I wonder what people want from the game.
An end to orgies of hand passing as I saw a game described in one paper.
Quote from: Rossfan on November 19, 2015, 09:52:19 AM
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on November 19, 2015, 08:43:33 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on November 18, 2015, 08:27:27 PM
Ban the fcukn hand pas - it's an abomination and is totally mind numbingly boring to watch and has destroyed our game.
Name of the game is FOOTball so let's go all revolutionary and start kickin the effin ball.
:-\ :-\ :-\
sometimes I wonder what people want from the game.
An end to orgies of hand passing as I saw a game described in one paper.
so you want a game where you can ONLY kick it?
seriously?
Quote from: thewobbler on November 18, 2015, 05:47:27 PM
The mark wasn't introduced to Australian Rules as a cosmetic ploy to encourage or reward high fielding. Instead it was introduced as without it, there would have been no discernible advantage in gaining clean possession (without the mark, you would simply let your opponent get the ball, then empty him).
There is no such advantage can be accrued in Gaelic Games, especially not between the 45s, as a stoppage will - most of the time - kill the momentum of the attacking side by allowing their opponents to regain a man-for-man shape that they would have got tossed up a little for the restart.
Sooner or later I'm hoping that this penny will finally drop onto the litany of fuckwits determined to turn out game into one where being 6' 6" is more important than being able to play football.
Sheer fuckwittery.
How did Brolly's idea for kickouts work out in that trial game does anyone know? The backs and forwards had to be inside their respective 45s and the ball had to be kicked out into the area where the 4 midfielders were between the two 45s. The backs or forwards weren't allowed outside their respective 45s until one of the midfielders had touched the ball.
Quote from: Croí na hÉireann on November 19, 2015, 10:00:53 AM
Quote from: thewobbler on November 18, 2015, 05:47:27 PM
The mark wasn't introduced to Australian Rules as a cosmetic ploy to encourage or reward high fielding. Instead it was introduced as without it, there would have been no discernible advantage in gaining clean possession (without the mark, you would simply let your opponent get the ball, then empty him).
There is no such advantage can be accrued in Gaelic Games, especially not between the 45s, as a stoppage will - most of the time - kill the momentum of the attacking side by allowing their opponents to regain a man-for-man shape that they would have got tossed up a little for the restart.
Sooner or later I'm hoping that this penny will finally drop onto the litany of fuckwits determined to turn out game into one where being 6' 6" is more important than being able to play football.
Sheer fuckwittery.
How did Brolly's idea for kickouts work out in that trial game does anyone know? The backs and forwards had to be inside their respective 45s and the ball had to be kicked out into the area where the 4 midfielders were between the two 45s. The backs or forwards weren't allowed outside their respective 45s until one of the midfielders had touched the ball.
I would guess the fact that we haven't seen/heard Brolly eulogising about how great it went tells you all you need to know about this experiment!
Quote from: Croí na hÉireann on November 19, 2015, 10:00:53 AM
Quote from: thewobbler on November 18, 2015, 05:47:27 PM
The mark wasn't introduced to Australian Rules as a cosmetic ploy to encourage or reward high fielding. Instead it was introduced as without it, there would have been no discernible advantage in gaining clean possession (without the mark, you would simply let your opponent get the ball, then empty him).
There is no such advantage can be accrued in Gaelic Games, especially not between the 45s, as a stoppage will - most of the time - kill the momentum of the attacking side by allowing their opponents to regain a man-for-man shape that they would have got tossed up a little for the restart.
Sooner or later I'm hoping that this penny will finally drop onto the litany of fuckwits determined to turn out game into one where being 6' 6" is more important than being able to play football.
Sheer fuckwittery.
How did Brolly's idea for kickouts work out in that trial game does anyone know? The backs and forwards had to be inside their respective 45s and the ball had to be kicked out into the area where the 4 midfielders were between the two 45s. The backs or forwards weren't allowed outside their respective 45s until one of the midfielders had touched the ball.
Disaster. Took forever to get lads into position for kick outs and then the keepers never kicked a ball out long - every kick out cluxton style to a runner only its easier in an ocean of space
Quote from: Rossfan on November 19, 2015, 09:52:19 AM
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on November 19, 2015, 08:43:33 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on November 18, 2015, 08:27:27 PM
Ban the fcukn hand pas - it's an abomination and is totally mind numbingly boring to watch and has destroyed our game.
Name of the game is FOOTball so let's go all revolutionary and start kickin the effin ball.
:-\ :-\ :-\
sometimes I wonder what people want from the game.
An end to orgies of hand passing as I saw a game described in one paper.
one of the best things about our game is a quick handpass from a full forward to a player running straight through on goal with both players going at full pace!
All it took would be for one of the MF to fake injury on the 21 yard line and the whole game is held up.
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on November 19, 2015, 09:55:04 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on November 19, 2015, 09:52:19 AM
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on November 19, 2015, 08:43:33 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on November 18, 2015, 08:27:27 PM
Ban the fcukn hand pas - it's an abomination and is totally mind numbingly boring to watch and has destroyed our game.
Name of the game is FOOTball so let's go all revolutionary and start kickin the effin ball.
:-\ :-\ :-\
sometimes I wonder what people want from the game.
An end to orgies of hand passing as I saw a game described in one paper.
so you want a game where you can ONLY kick it?
seriously?
Ye Nordies are really enmeshed in gaelichandball ::)
Name of our game is Gaelic FOOTball. Kicking, which is the fastest method of moving the ball from A to Z should be prime. Might be a role for occasional fist passes though.
In Gaelichandball to get the ball from A to Z entails 24 handballs from B to Y taking about 3 minutes.
Quote from: DuffleKing on November 19, 2015, 10:35:56 AM
Quote from: Croí na hÉireann on November 19, 2015, 10:00:53 AM
Quote from: thewobbler on November 18, 2015, 05:47:27 PM
The mark wasn't introduced to Australian Rules as a cosmetic ploy to encourage or reward high fielding. Instead it was introduced as without it, there would have been no discernible advantage in gaining clean possession (without the mark, you would simply let your opponent get the ball, then empty him).
There is no such advantage can be accrued in Gaelic Games, especially not between the 45s, as a stoppage will - most of the time - kill the momentum of the attacking side by allowing their opponents to regain a man-for-man shape that they would have got tossed up a little for the restart.
Sooner or later I'm hoping that this penny will finally drop onto the litany of fuckwits determined to turn out game into one where being 6' 6" is more important than being able to play football.
Sheer fuckwittery.
How did Brolly's idea for kickouts work out in that trial game does anyone know? The backs and forwards had to be inside their respective 45s and the ball had to be kicked out into the area where the 4 midfielders were between the two 45s. The backs or forwards weren't allowed outside their respective 45s until one of the midfielders had touched the ball.
Disaster. Took forever to get lads into position for kick outs and then the keepers never kicked a ball out long - every kick out cluxton style to a runner only its easier in an ocean of space
What happens with positional changes during game? ChB gets moved to midfield, does he have to check in with the ref like in American Football as a eligible receiver?
Quote from: Rossfan on November 19, 2015, 10:51:22 AM
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on November 19, 2015, 09:55:04 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on November 19, 2015, 09:52:19 AM
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on November 19, 2015, 08:43:33 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on November 18, 2015, 08:27:27 PM
Ban the fcukn hand pas - it's an abomination and is totally mind numbingly boring to watch and has destroyed our game.
Name of the game is FOOTball so let's go all revolutionary and start kickin the effin ball.
:-\ :-\ :-\
sometimes I wonder what people want from the game.
An end to orgies of hand passing as I saw a game described in one paper.
so you want a game where you can ONLY kick it?
seriously?
Ye Nordies are really enmeshed in gaelichandball ::)
Name of our game is Gaelic FOOTball. Kicking, which is the fastest method of moving the ball from A to Z should be prime. Might be a role for occasional fist passes though.
In Gaelichandball to get the ball from A to Z entails 24 handballs from B to Y taking about 3 minutes.
I read this all the time and it is one of the stupidest arguments for rule change you could possible use.
There is also American FOOTball and Australian Rules FOOTball , that doesn't mean there shouldn't be other skills involved.
We get it, you don't like hand passing , but if you prefer watching sport where the ball tarvels as quickly as possible from A to B and there are more 1 v1 battles, maybe you should watch more hurling.
While I don't agree with Rossfan's call to ban the hand pass I think he is correct to say the spectacle is under threat. All sports have changed over recent years but if I was to think of the standout skills in other sports then I think we still see plenty of them in those sports. Can the same be said of football? High fielding opportunities are constantly reducing, kicking into the full forward line is rare and when it's done it more often leads to a hand pass back out rather than a score attempt.
It's hard to say what we can do but I don't think a running massed defence brand of football is particularly enjoyable to watch and I don't think we can allow the game become that.
if it's massed defences that we want to remove, the simplest way to do that is limit the number of players allowed inside your own 45 at any one time. (or force a minimum number of players to stay in the opposition's have at all times). A limit of 9 might make sense (i.e. gk, 6 defs and 2 mids)
A rule change like that is the most effective method to get rid of the massed defences (if that is what we want to do!)
Amending rules to limit the number of hand passes / kick passes / bringing in the mark etc. is only a stickey plaster type fix and won't remove massed defences in my opinion.
So yer man wants to watch old fashioned ball.
The problem is that most people like this just want to decry the modern game, and don't take time to understand the yin that comes with the yang when they make a suggested rule change.
- - -
For example, every single modern tactic that favours possession over territory can be traced back to the fundamental rule change in 1990 that saw frees and sideline balls being kicked from the hand. although it took over a decade for everyone really catch on, it finally became possible to play a possession game.
That rule change (probably the best decision ever made imho, for I personally have no interest in watching people aimlessly gift away possession, in any sport) wasn't vested in turning the sport into a possession game. Indeed this wasn't even considered at the time. The purpose of the rule change was to create a more fluid game. Which is what we had for 20 years or so, and arguably still have.
Either way, if anyone was to even contemplate returning football frees to off-the-ground only, I'd quite happily lop off their head.
- - -
Similarly, the change from 20m/5m yard kick-outs to 13m kickouts, then subsequently to anywhere inside the 13m was devised with a thought that it would improve fluidity. Which it does to an extent, but the yin, whereby goalkeepers are capable of restarting play at the very second the previous play finished, has (in my mind) made the role of a goalkeeper too important, too influential on proceedings. 10 years ago, goalkeepers were the bystanders at training sessions; now they're the focus. I'm no fan.
- - -
So If I was to recommend a rule change experimentation, it would be something as minimal as forcing goalkeepers to take all kick-outs from the 20m line (again).
The advantages would be that:
a) it creates a natural pause between plays.
b) it removes 560 (7 * 90) square metres of playing area from the defending team's half, giving them less room to run short kick-out plays, and an increased chance of conceding a goal if they make a mistake.
c) by moving kick-outs forward, it innately makes the territorial option more appealing.
d) it would take no getting used too; everyone used to play this way.
e) it reduces the importance of having a sweeper keeper.
I don't see any major disadvantages other than it would take us back to the land of 30 seconds a kick-out.
(personally I'd like to back to the 5m/20m kick-outs as it makes it easier to know if a ball went over the bar or wide, in a friendly match... but I'd concede this is of no help to the game in general)
- - -
One other change I think worth experimenting with would be that a team cannot retreat across the "big" lines once they've crossed them.... with the "big" lines being both 45s and both 65s.
Something I've read about somewhere and been thinking about since.
Basically, if you choose to run, kick or fist pass a ball backwards over these lines, it's a free against, from the spot where the ball finishes. In essence, it's not much different to how sidelines work.
Some allowance would need to be given for times when possession is not clearly secured (e.g. if MDMA was to break one of Clucko's long kick-outs back across the 65 to his own player, this couldn't be construed as a foul - but if MDMA was to win a catch then pass back to the same player, it would be).
The purpose of this change would be obvious enough: to help reduce the current trend for endlessly recycling the ball across halfback and midfield lines, by reducing the spaces in which this can be done.
By creating "points of no return" it would be possible to coach players to fence in their opponents and force a turnover.
It should also encourage greater levels of kick passing (well, hoofing anyway) as players would more regularly be faced with the dilemma (like rugby players often do) of having to release the ball as far up the field as possible for fear of being in possession close to their own posts.
It would also put a greater emphasis on the spare men of a blanket defence to creep forward; ultimately once the ball passes the next game line, in terms of a support role they are out of the game until they also cross that line.
The aggressive tackling close to the game lines would surely be something to behold
I do foresee some issues with the concept.
For example I'd expect to see a greater instance of players kicking the ball over the sideline as a safe option when cornered.
And there would be times when the lines would produce outright cruel results (e.g. a CHF running onto a reverse pass at speed, but taking the pass just the wrong side of the line).
I'd also expect it to heighten the usual absolute bullshit that runs throughout our game whereby players, managers and supporters spend the entire match waiting to lynch a referee once a 50-50 call ("his feet were over, the ball wasn't") goes against them... but personally I'd be promoting that black cards are also issued with absolute gay abandon in situations like this; just to get the message across.
But I do think it's worth trialling. And this is from someone who vehemently opposes rule changes.
I posted this back in March
"A few simple solutions
1. All frees and sidelines to be kicked off ground
2. Maximum 2 fist passes in a row
3. Forwards must take frees in forward half, backs in defence
4. Kick outs resulting from goals and wides taken from 21yard line, points from 14yard line
5. All kickouts must cross the 50yard line
Worth a go couldn't be any worse than what we have now"
Quote from: westbound on November 19, 2015, 12:59:46 PM
if it's massed defences that we want to remove, the simplest way to do that is limit the number of players allowed inside your own 45 at any one time. (or force a minimum number of players to stay in the opposition's have at all times). A limit of 9 might make sense (i.e. gk, 6 defs and 2 mids)
A rule change like that is the most effective method to get rid of the massed defences (if that is what we want to do!)
Amending rules to limit the number of hand passes / kick passes / bringing in the mark etc. is only a stickey plaster type fix and won't remove massed defences in my opinion.
Limiting numbers in a certain area of the field in any way is a non runner. Imagine a middle of the pack referee in your own county policing that in club championship games to reaslise why.
Now we're talking.
The 20m rule makes sense, and is very simple, an added bonus is the possible reduction of pitch wear centrally around the 13m , as an area of heavy traffic(penalty area/closer to goal etc) . An even simpler addition would be to forbid quick kick outs or insist on >10 secs, on referees whistle, to prevent the short kickouts which are undoubtedly reducing the single most attractive skill in our game (the high catch). This slower kickout Could then allow for a keeper to kick from anywhere around the 20m line, again saving pitch wear and easing the burden on referees who currently have to police exactly Central kick-outs.
The forbidden backward play across the lines is again simply officiated, and basically promotes forward over backward play. Deliberate over the sideline kick could incur a sanction, though I dont like the current definition and application of cards, and I would propose a further sanction for cynicism should include a 1 minute of additional time to compensate for the "running down the clock" element of the cynicism. This would be very easily applied & would reduce players "taking a card for the team" whilst actually being rewarded by the time delay associated with applying a card.
The major problem with any of rules initiatives however is that they could increase the burden on referees , who already have an extremely difficult task
Quote from: The Raven on November 19, 2015, 01:31:07 PM
I posted this back in March
"A few simple solutions
1. All frees and sidelines to be kicked off ground
2. Maximum 2 fist passes in a row
3. Forwards must take frees in forward half, backs in defence
4. Kick outs resulting from goals and wides taken from 21yard line, points from 14yard line
5. All kickouts must cross the 50yard line
Worth a go couldn't be any worse than what we have now"
March 1962?
Good to see I'm not the only one who is fed up of gaelicthrowball.
Telling people who want to see a good spectacle of a game to go and watch hurling is a ridiculous head in the sand comment.
Reminds me of the TUV mindset.
Some mad, some sensible and easy to work solutions being thrown out.
Even if there are no rule changes can Refs please enforce the rule where the ball must travel 13 m from a place kick before anyone else can touch it? The amount of 5m tippy tappy frees usually backwards to a team mate has reached epidemic proportions.
Howabout implementing a rule, as in 7's football, of no backwards handpassing in your own half. Relatively easy to referee in comparison to counting number of passes. It would also encourage teams to pressure the ball carrier coming out of defence high up the field.
Eliminating the practice of more than one player tackling at a time should also be enforced. At the minute it appears to be allowable for a number of players to put their hands on the player with the ball, which is an illegal tackle according to the existing rules. It inevitably appears to result in an overcarrying penalty for the player in possession, in contrast to when a player is being tackled 1 on 1 when any contact whatsoever is deemed a foul in favour of the attacking player. A more robust enforcement of mutilpe tacklers and a less strict interpretation of the 1 on 1 tackle might result in less massed defenders and more scope for flair players to do their thing.
The 20 metre kickout has merit too.
PS Haven't read all of the thread, so if someone else has posted similar my apologies.
Quote from: Rossfan on November 19, 2015, 03:21:15 PM
Good to see I'm not the only one who is fed up of gaelicthrowball.
Telling people who want to see a good spectacle of a game to go and watch hurling is a ridiculous head in the sand comment.
Reminds me of the TUV mindset.
Some mad, some sensible and easy to work solutions being thrown out.
Even if there are no rule changes can Refs please enforce the rule where the ball must travel 13 m from a place kick before anyone else can touch it? The amount of 5m tippy tappy frees usually backwards to a team mate has reached epidemic proportions.
Leave me out of it please! ;D
Quote from: Rossfan on November 19, 2015, 03:21:15 PM
Good to see I'm not the only one who is fed up of gaelicthrowball.
Telling people who want to see a good spectacle of a game to go and watch hurling is a ridiculous head in the sand comment.
Reminds me of the TUV mindset.
Some mad, some sensible and easy to work solutions being thrown out.
Even if there are no rule changes can Refs please enforce the rule where the ball must travel 13 m from a place kick before anyone else can touch it? The amount of 5m tippy tappy frees usually backwards to a team mate has reached epidemic proportions.
But that's YOUR view if what a good spectacle is, that doesn't mean we all have to agree.
I would much rather watch a team keeping the ball for 3/4 hand passes until the right option opens up and then delivering an accurate kick-pass when its on, rather than watching a team balloon the ball as far as they can forward as soon as they get it, only for the other team to win it back and do the same.
What remind me of a TUV mindset, is proposing complete ban on something just because you don't particularly like it.
Quote from: DuffleKing on November 19, 2015, 01:36:58 PM
Quote from: westbound on November 19, 2015, 12:59:46 PM
if it's massed defences that we want to remove, the simplest way to do that is limit the number of players allowed inside your own 45 at any one time. (or force a minimum number of players to stay in the opposition's have at all times). A limit of 9 might make sense (i.e. gk, 6 defs and 2 mids)
A rule change like that is the most effective method to get rid of the massed defences (if that is what we want to do!)
Amending rules to limit the number of hand passes / kick passes / bringing in the mark etc. is only a stickey plaster type fix and won't remove massed defences in my opinion.
Limiting numbers in a certain area of the field in any way is a non runner. Imagine a middle of the pack referee in your own county policing that in club championship games to reaslise why.
I'd have to disagree with you there, I actually think the 'middle of the park referee' would be perfect for enforcing this rule! :) He'd be able to see both halves of the pitch very clearly!
In fairness if you think counting to 9 is beyond referees then the rule could be changed so that they only had to count to 6 (i.e. 6 players in the opposition half!
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on November 19, 2015, 03:42:39 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on November 19, 2015, 03:21:15 PM
Good to see I'm not the only one who is fed up of gaelicthrowball.
Telling people who want to see a good spectacle of a game to go and watch hurling is a ridiculous head in the sand comment.
Reminds me of the TUV mindset.
Some mad, some sensible and easy to work solutions being thrown out.
Even if there are no rule changes can Refs please enforce the rule where the ball must travel 13 m from a place kick before anyone else can touch it? The amount of 5m tippy tappy frees usually backwards to a team mate has reached epidemic proportions.
But that's YOUR view if what a good spectacle is, that doesn't mean we all have to agree.
I would much rather watch a team keeping the ball for 3/4 hand passes until the right option opens up and then delivering an accurate kick-pass when its on, rather than watching a team balloon the ball as far as they can forward as soon as they get it, only for the other team to win it back and do the same.
What remind me of a TUV mindset, is proposing complete ban on something just because you don't particularly like it.
I'd agree with most of what you have said, but the problem is that teams don't stop at 3/4 hand passes! It can often be double that (or more!).
That's not to say that limiting the number of handpasses to 3 is a good idea. I believe this will only ensure teams get get more defensive in the knowledge that after 3 handpasses the ball will have to be kicked!
Quote from: Keyser soze on November 19, 2015, 03:21:44 PM
Howabout implementing a rule, as in 7's football, of no backwards handpassing in your own half. Relatively easy to referee in comparison to counting number of passes. It would also encourage teams to pressure the ball carrier coming out of defence high up the field.
Eliminating the practice of more than one player tackling at a time should also be enforced. At the minute it appears to be allowable for a number of players to put their hands on the player with the ball, which is an illegal tackle according to the existing rules. It inevitably appears to result in an overcarrying penalty for the player in possession, in contrast to when a player is being tackled 1 on 1 when any contact whatsoever is deemed a foul in favour of the attacking player. A more robust enforcement of mutilpe tacklers and a less strict interpretation of the 1 on 1 tackle might result in less massed defenders and more scope for flair players to do their thing.
The 20 metre kickout has merit too.
PS Haven't read all of the thread, so if someone else has posted similar my apologies.
I like the first two suggestions and think they'd be worth looking at though the backward hand pass would have to be a clear backward pass so as not to be getting into rugby territory of whether it was lateral or backwards. Nevertheless, both that and reducing the number of tacklers has merit and would be relatively easy to implement.
I use the one tackler rule with kids and it helps the player in possession and forces kids to learn to tackle and move properly. No reason it couldn't work at adult level.
On the aesthetics of the game, I think there is no doubt it has deteriorated and is something we need to monitor at least. This isn't a choice between hoof and hope or endless hand passing and we shouldn't simplify it in those terms. However, football played as an ultra conservative possession game isn't ever going to be a great spectacle and if we want to pass on the game in rude health to the next generation then we must be conscious of the spectacle as well.
one really simple rule change I would bring is is that you cant tackle a player that isn't on his feet.
The amount of times we see a player pull of a great high catch under pressure and end up going to ground only to be swarmed and battered by the opposition and then get blown up for over carrying when in reality he had no chance of being able to get up again or play the ball.
I would make it that if player isn't on his feet any attempt to tackle is a foul. once he is back up he is fair game again.
This was voted number one in the ' Top 20 GAA moments ' a few years ago.
Now , I don't agree that it is, but it is a fantastic passage of play all the same, which involves predominantly hand passing and great support play to work a score. (there is even a kick pass in there to keep Rossfan happy)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw2a7Ej_NU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw2a7Ej_NU)
At least it was forward moving and at pace.
Not like two bad club teams throwing the ball at walking pace sideways and backwards as infinitum.
Plenty of bad County teams at the same of course.
Quote from: Keyser soze on November 19, 2015, 03:21:44 PM
Howabout implementing a rule, as in 7's football, of no backwards handpassing in your own half. Relatively easy to referee in comparison to counting number of passes. It would also encourage teams to pressure the ball carrier coming out of defence high up the field.
Eliminating the practice of more than one player tackling at a time should also be enforced. At the minute it appears to be allowable for a number of players to put their hands on the player with the ball, which is an illegal tackle according to the existing rules. It inevitably appears to result in an overcarrying penalty for the player in possession, in contrast to when a player is being tackled 1 on 1 when any contact whatsoever is deemed a foul in favour of the attacking player. A more robust enforcement of mutilpe tacklers and a less strict interpretation of the 1 on 1 tackle might result in less massed defenders and more scope for flair players to do their thing.
The 20 metre kickout has merit too.
PS Haven't read all of the thread, so if someone else has posted similar my apologies.
re: the first bit ,I don't believe it is.
re: the second sentence, I think there might be some merit in that.
As an aside, players are rarely blown up for over carrying when in full flow, being tackled 1 v1 , no matter how many steps they take, its usually only when they have been stopped and surrounded by a couple of defenders that they are blown for over carrying, and usually in far less time/ steps than seem to be allowed in the first scenario.
Everything is an illegal tackle strictly by the letter of the law.
What has been arrived at as an acceptable tackle is the result of convention and imitation
Any contact with another player other than shoulder to shoulder is deemed an illegal tackle and should result in a foul. I think.
In the good old days a 2 man tackle would have automatically resulted in a foul. This seemed to change around 2003 when Tyrone perfected swarm tackling.
There's just so much messing around with the hand pass rule for years and still it's ugly, worst of all is slapping the ball to score a goal. Ditch it altogether and restore the fist only pass (apart from the foot pass).
Such a simple rule, the ball can be passed by hitting it with a closed fist.
Micko can live with that.
(http://cdn-01.independent.ie/migration_catalog/article25163948.ece/f172f/ALTERNATES/h342/ccooper_sports_i)
Well said Main St.
They don't even slap the ball for those volleyball goals - more a controlled push.
From reading all the comments on here I would favour two changes:
1. Sin bin - This is a punishment for the player creating the foul AND for the team. It gives an advantage to the opposition as a benefit for being fouled against. In contradiction to this, a yellow card immediately punishes neither player nor team for a foul (though may make him think twice about another foul) and black card punishes the player but not necessarily the team if they have a deep squad
2. Mark between 45's - I saw this in the National League in 2010. I thought it worked great. Then it was dropped without fair consideration. Personally I thought it speeded up games.
My theory/observations on the mark in 2010:
- Currently if a player catches and is fouled it is a free and the game stops anyway (so no change there)
- Currently if a player catches and is then swarmed the momentum is lost and the play is slowed down
- With the mark if a catch is made the free is automatically awarded. The player can take it quick so no need to stop play at all. The net effect is really just making opposition players clear away (thus no swarming and slowing down play)
- If the player is swarmed and prevented from taking it quick then the free is automatically brought forward to what will be then a likely point-scoring position.
- The whole advantage of the mark is to have the ball in hand with a a clear opportunity to kick pass fast into teh forwards
Perhaps to ensure its aim some supplemental rules could be added:
1. Only the player gaining the mark may accept it and play the free (no changing free takers)
2. If the player accepts the free then he must only kick pass forward, not back
3. If he accepts the free then he must play it within 3 seconds or it goes to hop ball
Quote from: Rossfan on November 19, 2015, 04:23:31 PM
At least it was forward moving and at pace.
Not like two bad club teams throwing the ball at walking pace sideways and backwards as infinitum.
Plenty of bad County teams at the same of course.
The same could be said about kick passing.
Fantastic when it is executed correctly. quick ,direct, accurate ball into a moving forward line is fantastic to watch.
Hoof ball where the man gets it and gets rid as early as possible and as far up the field as he can, there is probably nothing worse to watch.
Have your forwards in place to contest the kick into the attacking area if it's not delivered accurately enough. Have some Gaelic footballers on your team who have practised catching and kicking instead of running and throwing.
As for the mark - needs the option of taking the free or playing on with the player giving some signal.
Quote from: PAULD123 on November 20, 2015, 09:56:22 AM
From reading all the comments on here I would favour two changes:
1. Sin bin - This is a punishment for the player creating the foul AND for the team. It gives an advantage to the opposition as a benefit for being fouled against. In contradiction to this, a yellow card immediately punishes neither player nor team for a foul (though may make him think twice about another foul) and black card punishes the player but not necessarily the team if they have a deep squad
2. Mark between 45's - I saw this in the National League in 2010. I thought it worked great. Then it was dropped without fair consideration. Personally I thought it speeded up games.
My theory/observations on the mark in 2010:
- Currently if a player catches and is fouled it is a free and the game stops anyway (so no change there)
- Currently if a player catches and is then swarmed the momentum is lost and the play is slowed down
- With the mark if a catch is made the free is automatically awarded. The player can take it quick so no need to stop play at all. The net effect is really just making opposition players clear away (thus no swarming and slowing down play)
- If the player is swarmed and prevented from taking it quick then the free is automatically brought forward to what will be then a likely point-scoring position.
- The whole advantage of the mark is to have the ball in hand with a a clear opportunity to kick pass fast into teh forwards
Perhaps to ensure its aim some supplemental rules could be added:
1. Only the player gaining the mark may accept it and play the free (no changing free takers)
2. If the player accepts the free then he must only kick pass forward, not back
3. If he accepts the free then he must play it within 3 seconds or it goes to hop ball
What now?
Quote from: Rossfan on November 19, 2015, 07:04:43 PM
Well said Main St.
They don't even slap the ball for those volleyball goals - more a controlled push.
I think that is what Quigley did in the Dublin game.
I have no issues with a team cutting a defence open and getting a tap in goal. There's too much in football that a defender or keeper can do to fûck over the attacker if he has to catch, control and then kick the ball in those situations that all you'd achieve is punishing the team trying to play positively. Anything that makes it harder to use cynical defensive tactics is a good thing.
Quote from: Red eye on November 20, 2015, 03:08:47 PM
How about referees applying the rules there at the minute? Only one tackler allowed at a time? The swarm tackle - applied by most but perfected by Tyrone - in a lot of cases is a foul as the player in possession is physically tackled by more than one person at a time. It takes a lot of discipline by the tackling team to ensure only one tackle at a time goes in.
How many times do you see a referee blowing up and you just haven't a clue which way the free is to go - to the player who was executed the high catch and upon landing is swarmed and wins a free due to this rule - or as the case more often is - he is blown up for over carrying.
High fielding is a magnificent skill in our game but is being lost to the swarm!!
Does it actually say in the rule book that this is a foul?
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on November 20, 2015, 03:18:49 PM
Quote from: Red eye on November 20, 2015, 03:08:47 PM
How about referees applying the rules there at the minute? Only one tackler allowed at a time? The swarm tackle - applied by most but perfected by Tyrone - in a lot of cases is a foul as the player in possession is physically tackled by more than one person at a time. It takes a lot of discipline by the tackling team to ensure only one tackle at a time goes in.
How many times do you see a referee blowing up and you just haven't a clue which way the free is to go - to the player who was executed the high catch and upon landing is swarmed and wins a free due to this rule - or as the case more often is - he is blown up for over carrying.
High fielding is a magnificent skill in our game but is being lost to the swarm!!
Does it actually say in the rule book that this is a foul?
I'm unaware of it if it does.
Contact with another player is only permitted shoulder to shoulder. All other physical contact resulting in a foul. Maybe some whizzkid can cut and paste the relevant rule. Again.
Quote from: AZOffaly on November 20, 2015, 03:25:27 PM
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on November 20, 2015, 03:18:49 PM
Quote from: Red eye on November 20, 2015, 03:08:47 PM
How about referees applying the rules there at the minute? Only one tackler allowed at a time? The swarm tackle - applied by most but perfected by Tyrone - in a lot of cases is a foul as the player in possession is physically tackled by more than one person at a time. It takes a lot of discipline by the tackling team to ensure only one tackle at a time goes in.
How many times do you see a referee blowing up and you just haven't a clue which way the free is to go - to the player who was executed the high catch and upon landing is swarmed and wins a free due to this rule - or as the case more often is - he is blown up for over carrying.
High fielding is a magnificent skill in our game but is being lost to the swarm!!
Does it actually say in the rule book that this is a foul?
I'm unaware of it if it does.
You hear a lot of lads shouting it from the stands but I'd be amazed if this is a rule. I'm not sure if the word "physically" has any relevance in that sentence.
Quote from: Keyser soze on November 20, 2015, 03:44:13 PM
Contact with another player is only permitted shoulder to shoulder. All other physical contact resulting in a foul. Maybe some whizzkid can cut and paste the relevant rule. Again.
Yeah, I'm aware the only legal tackle is either on the ball itself, or shoulder to shoulder. What I'm asking about is this notion that only 1 player can tackle at a time.
I'm pretty sure any number of tacklers are permitted as long as they are each tackling within the rules.
No mention of that in the rules at all afaik. But it's hard for 2 lads to shoulder one person at the same time. Amusingly this happened to me one time and the 2 lads bounced of me like a rubber ball leaving me relatively unscathed, forces of equal and opposite mass and all that lol
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on November 20, 2015, 03:51:03 PM
I'm pretty sure any number of tacklers are permitted as long as they are each tackling within the rules.
So am I. I suppose it's more likely that an obvious foul will be committed if a number of people are all pulling out of a ball carrier, but I don't think there's anything that says you can only tackle 1 on 1.
If I remember correctly, I think there was a clarification issued from HQ last year (?????) which confirmed that two(or more) players tackling another is not automatically a foul!
Actually, after a quick google search, it turns out it was issued as part of the black card guidelines!
https://www.gaa.ie/about-the-gaa/rules-and-regulations/
it's down near the bottom of the page under the heading 'the tackle'
"More than one player can tackle the player in possession"
Q.E.D. :)