gaaboard.com

Stole this from the FRC feedback survey

https://www.gaa.ie/article/give-your-feedback-to-the-frc-rule-enhancements-during-the-allianz-football-league

Just curious to see what the general sentiment out there amongst us GAA nerds?

It's not in the vote but I'd go for the advancement for slowing down play or not handing ball back to opponent. The rule itself is good but the penalty is much to severe. Half the distance would suffice

Quote from: Nanderson on February 17, 2025, 06:30:14 AMIt's not in the vote but I'd go for the advancement for slowing down play or not handing ball back to opponent. The rule itself is good but the penalty is much to severe. Half the distance would suffice

Or just book players who throw the ball away or are clearly messing about.

Quote from: Nanderson on February 17, 2025, 06:30:14 AMIt's not in the vote but I'd go for the advancement for slowing down play or not handing ball back to opponent. The rule itself is good but the penalty is much to severe. Half the distance would suffice

+1.

Quote from: Saffron_sam20 on February 17, 2025, 07:38:32 AM

Quote from: Nanderson on February 17, 2025, 06:30:14 AMIt's not in the vote but I'd go for the advancement for slowing down play or not handing ball back to opponent. The rule itself is good but the penalty is much to severe. Half the distance would suffice

Or just book players who throw the ball away or are clearly messing about.

Good alternative, if you were on a booking would think twice about slowing play up. 

What if you dislike all of them to the same amount?

To be fair I would like to see either the 3 v 3 or the 2 point arc tried in isolation but not both together to see what impact that has

Postpone the introduction for club football for 1 year should be N1 on any such list.

I watched a club (challenge) game yesterday under the new rules.

I thought it was great. 3 men up all the time - no issues there. Maybe fitness was an issue and it was a challenge game but it worked well.

Tap and go was good. Although a few lads weren't tuned in and forgot about it until some shouted at them. But definately helped speed the game up.

A few 2 pointers but pitch wasn't greatly marked out - hard to see. So it'll be hard with club umpires.

I enjoyed it. Big difference between that game and games last year. More speed and more pace. Time flew by.   

Quote from: statto on February 17, 2025, 08:02:44 AM

Quote from: Nanderson on February 17, 2025, 06:30:14 AMIt's not in the vote but I'd go for the advancement for slowing down play or not handing ball back to opponent. The rule itself is good but the penalty is much to severe. Half the distance would suffice

+1.

+2

Quote from: David McKeown on February 17, 2025, 04:44:20 PMWhat if you dislike all of them to the same amount?

To be fair I would like to see either the 3 v 3 or the 2 point arc tried in isolation but not both together to see what impact that has

Ah David, there must be one or two they really upsets you more than the others?
For me it's the 2-point arc, I could maybe live with it if we had the 4-point goal, but as is, the decision to double the value of a relatively straightforward shot at goal (for intercounty sharpshooters) has the potential to absolutely transform the game and not positively.

Diarmuid Murtagh on the radio Sunday evening described 2 pointers as "tap overs".
He said it looks long on TV but not when you're on the pitch playing.

Quote from: onefineday on February 18, 2025, 12:19:41 AM

Quote from: David McKeown on February 17, 2025, 04:44:20 PMWhat if you dislike all of them to the same amount?

To be fair I would like to see either the 3 v 3 or the 2 point arc tried in isolation but not both together to see what impact that has

Ah David, there must be one or two they really upsets you more than the others?
For me it's the 2-point arc, I could maybe live with it if we had the 4-point goal, but as is, the decision to double the value of a relatively straightforward shot at goal (for intercounty sharpshooters) has the potential to absolutely transform the game and not positively.

Quote from: JoG2 on February 17, 2025, 06:41:57 PM

Quote from: statto on February 17, 2025, 08:02:44 AM

Quote from: Nanderson on February 17, 2025, 06:30:14 AMIt's not in the vote but I'd go for the advancement for slowing down play or not handing ball back to opponent. The rule itself is good but the penalty is much to severe. Half the distance would suffice

+1.

+2

See a fair few ones mentioning this and I understand. Its too severe a punishment because people keep doing it. I don't believe this rule was implemented to become a common part of our game. It was implemented to completely stamp out the negative behaviour, and I believe it will if they persevere with it and it will become a rarity in the game. I think we need to be careful judging the ones we don't like as we may only be seeing an exaggerated consequence of them as players and coaches get used to them. There has been over 20 years of coaching players to slow down the attacking team by illegal means. It will take a bit of time and courage to change that thinking.

Quote from: onefineday on February 18, 2025, 12:19:41 AM

Quote from: David McKeown on February 17, 2025, 04:44:20 PMWhat if you dislike all of them to the same amount?

To be fair I would like to see either the 3 v 3 or the 2 point arc tried in isolation but not both together to see what impact that has

Ah David, there must be one or two they really upsets you more than the others?
For me it's the 2-point arc, I could maybe live with it if we had the 4-point goal, but as is, the decision to double the value of a relatively straightforward shot at goal (for intercounty sharpshooters) has the potential to absolutely transform the game and not positively.

The 2 pointer thing is  nonsense.

I don't like it  but I even find myself saying "ah don't go in there (Inside the arc) , sure thats only 1 point "

Teams skirt around the arc  lining up a 40+ metre shot. It dissuades teams from actually getting the ball near the FF line to get   a goal,  which you want to see more of.  A 2 pointer is nearly as good  as a goal with far less risk of  losing possession , but  far less of the excitement you'd get with  the ball near the square.

Quote from: Rossfan on February 18, 2025, 08:54:08 AMDiarmuid Murtagh on the radio Sunday evening described 2 pointers as "tap overs".
He said it looks long on TV but not when you're on the pitch playing.

So why were teams not doing tap overs before the rule? The endless moving the ball back sideways and looking to break lines to get into the 'scoring zone' and now they are just tapping them over, that would have nullified the swapped defence.

The forward mark/advantage, literally gives the defender & art of defending zero chance.

If a forward gets a mark,the best decision for the defender is to just go in through the man and foul so they can't go at the goal etc..

Quote from: David McKeown on February 17, 2025, 04:44:20 PMWhat if you dislike all of them to the same amount?

To be fair I would like to see either the 3 v 3 or the 2 point arc tried in isolation but not both together to see what impact that has

I had the exact same thoughts on 3v3 or 2 point arc.
Personally dont like that you can't pass to the keeper in their own half either.

And I really hate the rule about handing the ball to the opposing team when a foul is committed. Legitimate mistakes by the ref or mistakes by the player thinking they have the free rather than committing the foul can decide the outcome of games, especially with 2 pointers at play.

Quote from: scout on February 18, 2025, 11:03:23 AMThe forward mark/advantage, literally gives the defender & art of defending zero chance.

If a forward gets a mark,the best decision for the defender is to just go in through the man and foul so they can't go at the goal etc..

Yeah, the only thing with it is that its a fairly difficult move to kick from outside the 45 to inside the 21 for a clean catch so we aren't seeing it too often.

Quote from: scout on February 18, 2025, 11:03:23 AMThe forward mark/advantage, literally gives the defender & art of defending zero chance.

If a forward gets a mark,the best decision for the defender is to just go in through the man and foul so they can't go at the goal etc..

Be careful not to pick up a card though, black, or yellow

Quote from: tbrick18 on February 18, 2025, 11:33:42 AM

Quote from: David McKeown on February 17, 2025, 04:44:20 PMWhat if you dislike all of them to the same amount?

To be fair I would like to see either the 3 v 3 or the 2 point arc tried in isolation but not both together to see what impact that has

I had the exact same thoughts on 3v3 or 2 point arc.
Personally dont like that you can't pass to the keeper in their own half either.

And I really hate the rule about handing the ball to the opposing team when a foul is committed. Legitimate mistakes by the ref or mistakes by the player thinking they have the free rather than committing the foul can decide the outcome of games, especially with 2 pointers at play.

This will raise its head many times during the course of the season imo and some will result in the winning or losing of the game, Sat night Derry v Galway for example
As you say refs will make mistakes. That mistake shouldn't result in a double whammy for the wronged player / team, and due to the distance will often result in a 2 point score.. That's harsh in any mans money

I'm fine with most of the rules as they are, just some tweaks to the body of some rules and how they're used. I would change:

• Goalkeeper coming up. Let them for placed ball frees, but restrict open play for this 12 v 11 thing which is changing the game way beyond intent.
• Handing the ball back to an opponent is silly. Just have it being dropped. Penalise if kicked away etc but handing it across, and then being not able to position to defend the tap and go is silly.
• The 50m on dissent or holding after the free is harsh. It's too open to the whims of the ref. Lads goes for a ball or falls on it, free give, opponents swarm in pulling at him and ref decides a literal second later he's holding on and gives 50m? That's too much.
• Also if the free is brought forward 50m then it has to be from there. Walking 20m back out to the arc for a 2 pointer on a ref whim (as above) is too big a punishment

Ye lads love yer foulers!!

Quote from: Rossfan on February 18, 2025, 03:00:57 PMYe lads love yer foulers!!

Very simplistic comment. The tackle has always been a problematic area in Gaelic Football.
What one referee deems a foul another will not. Their job is not easy.
We all want to see the game flow while keeping the physicality in the game.

Some of the punishments in the new rules are ridiculous,
e.g. giving a 20 metre free in front of the goals for an offence at the other end of the field.

One way of stopping said offence!

A player's instinct is to keep his eyes on the play whilst also watching his man. He now has to keep an eye on the pitch linings as well.

It's farcical that a team on the attack, close to opposition goal, can be penalised with a 20m free to opponents if a defender strays across a line on the pitch. To add insult to injury the opponents have the option to kick the free from outside the 40M arc for a 2-pointer.

The issue is not to the 3 v 3 rule per se. The problem is the disproportionate punishment for breaching rule.
A throw-in on the half-way line would be a more equitable punishment.

There would be some amount of deliberately crossing it then!!

Quote from: HiMucker on February 18, 2025, 09:47:52 AM

Quote from: onefineday on February 18, 2025, 12:19:41 AM

Quote from: David McKeown on February 17, 2025, 04:44:20 PMWhat if you dislike all of them to the same amount?

To be fair I would like to see either the 3 v 3 or the 2 point arc tried in isolation but not both together to see what impact that has

Ah David, there must be one or two they really upsets you more than the others?
For me it's the 2-point arc, I could maybe live with it if we had the 4-point goal, but as is, the decision to double the value of a relatively straightforward shot at goal (for intercounty sharpshooters) has the potential to absolutely transform the game and not positively.

Quote from: JoG2 on February 17, 2025, 06:41:57 PM

Quote from: statto on February 17, 2025, 08:02:44 AM

Quote from: Nanderson on February 17, 2025, 06:30:14 AMIt's not in the vote but I'd go for the advancement for slowing down play or not handing ball back to opponent. The rule itself is good but the penalty is much to severe. Half the distance would suffice

+1.

+2

See a fair few ones mentioning this and I understand. Its too severe a punishment because people keep doing it. I don't believe this rule was implemented to become a common part of our game. It was implemented to completely stamp out the negative behaviour, and I believe it will if they persevere with it and it will become a rarity in the game. I think we need to be careful judging the ones we don't like as we may only be seeing an exaggerated consequence of them as players and coaches get used to them. There has been over 20 years of coaching players to slow down the attacking team by illegal means. It will take a bit of time and courage to change that thinking.

+1

Went to my first "new rules" match at the weekend, can safely say rather than change behaviour the rules reinforce the status quo tactics in Gaelic football.

Since you only have 12 defenders and the attacking team have an 13 it makes zero sense to push out the field and press high. Instead the rules encourage you to drop into a defensive arc which the rule makers have politely marked out for you on the pitch. Here your chances of stopping or slowing an attack are greatly multiplied and you all but nullify the goal threat.

Should you win the turnover the idea you can easily and immediately boot the ball 40m to your own player is a fallacy. Again your most likely way to advance up the pitch is to make a series of handpasses by which you can advance into a scoring position and possibly work a score. Why would anyone lash the ball up to the front 3 when he at best has a 50/50 chance of winning it an may well miss the resulting shot at goal. You could count on one hand the amount of points that have been scored by fast ball into the front 3, as a source of scores it is vastly outnumbered by the running score or the "keeper overlap" score.

Worse still is the encouragement to waste time or keep possession without intention to score. Mayo got a black card against Tyrone and spent the guts of 10 minutes passing the ball to each other. They did the same at full-time. Why take a score and risk giving possession back to the opposition when you can just run around and wait for the hooter to save you? I don't blame Mayo for this I'd expect Tyrone to be smart enough to do the same thing. Likewise Dublin were fools to attempt to score against Kerry in the first half of a gale force wind. They should have just kept ball for 35 minutes as much as possible, preventing Kerry from making use of the wind advantage and leading to a 2nd half were Dublin would have the advantage on kick outs, scoring and defence. This was possible under the old rules but the new rules effectively make it easier as the defending team are armed with less players to press the team in possession.

It's no coincidence that the 2 most effective teams under the new rules are Dublin and Donegal. The uber-fit, running game suits them down to a tee. The predominant tactic used by the best teams will remain a mass attack, quick break and if that breaks prolonged spells of defensive arc hand passing.

Quote from: trileacman on February 18, 2025, 10:20:15 PMWent to my first "new rules" match at the weekend, can safely say rather than change behaviour the rules reinforce the status quo tactics in Gaelic football.

Since you only have 12 defenders and the attacking team have an 13 it makes zero sense to push out the field and press high. Instead the rules encourage you to drop into a defensive arc which the rule makers have politely marked out for you on the pitch. Here your chances of stopping or slowing an attack are greatly multiplied and you all but nullify the goal threat.

Should you win the turnover the idea you can easily and immediately boot the ball 40m to your own player is a fallacy. Again your most likely way to advance up the pitch is to make a series of handpasses by which you can advance into a scoring position and possibly work a score. Why would anyone lash the ball up to the front 3 when he at best has a 50/50 chance of winning it an may well miss the resulting shot at goal. You could count on one hand the amount of points that have been scored by fast ball into the front 3, as a source of scores it is vastly outnumbered by the running score or the "keeper overlap" score.

Worse still is the encouragement to waste time or keep possession without intention to score. Mayo got a black card against Tyrone and spent the guts of 10 minutes passing the ball to each other. They did the same at full-time. Why take a score and risk giving possession back to the opposition when you can just run around and wait for the hooter to save you? I don't blame Mayo for this I'd expect Tyrone to be smart enough to do the same thing. Likewise Dublin were fools to attempt to score against Kerry in the first half of a gale force wind. They should have just kept ball for 35 minutes as much as possible, preventing Kerry from making use of the wind advantage and leading to a 2nd half were Dublin would have the advantage on kick outs, scoring and defence. This was possible under the old rules but the new rules effectively make it easier as the defending team are armed with less players to press the team in possession.

It's no coincidence that the 2 most effective teams under the new rules are Dublin and Donegal. The uber-fit, running game suits them down to a tee. The predominant tactic used by the best teams will remain a mass attack, quick break and if that breaks prolonged spells of defensive arc hand passing.

That game would have been awful whatever rules were being followed.

I've been to a good few county and club games now, and while I'd amend some rules, I'm enjoying the football more than I have done for a good while (overall)

Quote from: JoG2 on February 18, 2025, 10:25:37 PM

Quote from: trileacman on February 18, 2025, 10:20:15 PMWent to my first "new rules" match at the weekend, can safely say rather than change behaviour the rules reinforce the status quo tactics in Gaelic football.

Since you only have 12 defenders and the attacking team have an 13 it makes zero sense to push out the field and press high. Instead the rules encourage you to drop into a defensive arc which the rule makers have politely marked out for you on the pitch. Here your chances of stopping or slowing an attack are greatly multiplied and you all but nullify the goal threat.

Should you win the turnover the idea you can easily and immediately boot the ball 40m to your own player is a fallacy. Again your most likely way to advance up the pitch is to make a series of handpasses by which you can advance into a scoring position and possibly work a score. Why would anyone lash the ball up to the front 3 when he at best has a 50/50 chance of winning it an may well miss the resulting shot at goal. You could count on one hand the amount of points that have been scored by fast ball into the front 3, as a source of scores it is vastly outnumbered by the running score or the "keeper overlap" score.

Worse still is the encouragement to waste time or keep possession without intention to score. Mayo got a black card against Tyrone and spent the guts of 10 minutes passing the ball to each other. They did the same at full-time. Why take a score and risk giving possession back to the opposition when you can just run around and wait for the hooter to save you? I don't blame Mayo for this I'd expect Tyrone to be smart enough to do the same thing. Likewise Dublin were fools to attempt to score against Kerry in the first half of a gale force wind. They should have just kept ball for 35 minutes as much as possible, preventing Kerry from making use of the wind advantage and leading to a 2nd half were Dublin would have the advantage on kick outs, scoring and defence. This was possible under the old rules but the new rules effectively make it easier as the defending team are armed with less players to press the team in possession.

It's no coincidence that the 2 most effective teams under the new rules are Dublin and Donegal. The uber-fit, running game suits them down to a tee. The predominant tactic used by the best teams will remain a mass attack, quick break and if that breaks prolonged spells of defensive arc hand passing.

That game would have been awful whatever rules were being followed.

I've been to a good few county and club games now, and while I'd amend some rules, I'm enjoying the football more than I have done for a good while (overall)

If shite games are still gonna be shite and good games are still going to be good remind me why we had to change the rules? Kerry/Dublin in the league is a cracking game 8 times out of 10.

In a years time we'll be adding rule changes to the rule changes because football simply reverts to type.

Quote from: trileacman on February 18, 2025, 10:34:52 PM

Quote from: JoG2 on February 18, 2025, 10:25:37 PM

Quote from: trileacman on February 18, 2025, 10:20:15 PMWent to my first "new rules" match at the weekend, can safely say rather than change behaviour the rules reinforce the status quo tactics in Gaelic football.

Since you only have 12 defenders and the attacking team have an 13 it makes zero sense to push out the field and press high. Instead the rules encourage you to drop into a defensive arc which the rule makers have politely marked out for you on the pitch. Here your chances of stopping or slowing an attack are greatly multiplied and you all but nullify the goal threat.

Should you win the turnover the idea you can easily and immediately boot the ball 40m to your own player is a fallacy. Again your most likely way to advance up the pitch is to make a series of handpasses by which you can advance into a scoring position and possibly work a score. Why would anyone lash the ball up to the front 3 when he at best has a 50/50 chance of winning it an may well miss the resulting shot at goal. You could count on one hand the amount of points that have been scored by fast ball into the front 3, as a source of scores it is vastly outnumbered by the running score or the "keeper overlap" score.

Worse still is the encouragement to waste time or keep possession without intention to score. Mayo got a black card against Tyrone and spent the guts of 10 minutes passing the ball to each other. They did the same at full-time. Why take a score and risk giving possession back to the opposition when you can just run around and wait for the hooter to save you? I don't blame Mayo for this I'd expect Tyrone to be smart enough to do the same thing. Likewise Dublin were fools to attempt to score against Kerry in the first half of a gale force wind. They should have just kept ball for 35 minutes as much as possible, preventing Kerry from making use of the wind advantage and leading to a 2nd half were Dublin would have the advantage on kick outs, scoring and defence. This was possible under the old rules but the new rules effectively make it easier as the defending team are armed with less players to press the team in possession.

It's no coincidence that the 2 most effective teams under the new rules are Dublin and Donegal. The uber-fit, running game suits them down to a tee. The predominant tactic used by the best teams will remain a mass attack, quick break and if that breaks prolonged spells of defensive arc hand passing.

That game would have been awful whatever rules were being followed.

I've been to a good few county and club games now, and while I'd amend some rules, I'm enjoying the football more than I have done for a good while (overall)

If shite games are still gonna be shite and good games are still going to be good remind me why we had to change the rules? Kerry/Dublin in the league is a cracking game 8 times out of 10.

In a years time we'll be adding rule changes to the rule changes because football simply reverts to type.

Modern 'type', possession based sideways football, rince and repeat was sucking the life out of the game, county, club and schools. Unless you had an emotional attachment, most games offered little in the way of excitement.
I'll definitely revisit how I feel at the end of the season

Get rid of the arc. I'd also bring in a rule that says goalies must stay in their own half. Sick of folk gurning about 12 vs 11 like it's a 2 vs 1.

Get rid of the keeper getting involved in open play totally. Adds nothing to the game. Stick to kickouts and making saves. Can receive the ball in the square. Can't take frees either. Faster game, less cluttered

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 18, 2025, 10:42:47 AM

Quote from: Rossfan on February 18, 2025, 08:54:08 AMDiarmuid Murtagh on the radio Sunday evening described 2 pointers as "tap overs".
He said it looks long on TV but not when you're on the pitch playing.

So why were teams not doing tap overs before the rule? The endless moving the ball back sideways and looking to break lines to get into the 'scoring zone' and now they are just tapping them over, that would have nullified the swapped defence.

I think that's the maths of the whole thing.
Before it was keep possession until you're in the scoring zone where conversion rate is 75% or whatever, now, whilst conversion rate might only be 40% from outside the arc, it's worth 100% more, so the smart play is to take that shot.
And as for working a goal - it's worth 50% more than a 2-pointer, but the difficulty is presumably so much more than that, that's it's just not an option worth considering.

It's something we've seen in hurling too over the last decade, the realisation that as the probability of scoring a long range point has increased dramatically (lighter ball, stronger and better coached players), then the relative value of a goal has diminished and dramatically reduced the incentive to work goals.

Quote from: onefineday on February 18, 2025, 12:19:41 AM

Quote from: David McKeown on February 17, 2025, 04:44:20 PMWhat if you dislike all of them to the same amount?

To be fair I would like to see either the 3 v 3 or the 2 point arc tried in isolation but not both together to see what impact that has

Ah David, there must be one or two they really upsets you more than the others?
For me it's the 2-point arc, I could maybe live with it if we had the 4-point goal, but as is, the decision to double the value of a relatively straightforward shot at goal (for intercounty sharpshooters) has the potential to absolutely transform the game and not positively.

I thought I liked the solo and go until I saw how it was being refereed last weekend. Players allowed to start near but not at the place of the foul. Run then solo then still have room before they could be fouled. It might have utility if tweaked.

I just don't like the rest at all. I havent really seen any sort of great game yet either. What I've seen are games that finish close because you've effectively had two training sessions back to back. I've yet to see a game that's ebbed and flowed because of the new rule changes that could have gone either way. Maybe that will come but I've yet to see it.

Take the Dublin v Kerry game as an example. On the score board it seemed close but was it really a nip and tuck game?  Kerry got a big lead with the wind. Dublin then dominated the second half. The scores were only really close for about 2 minutes. Had the game gone on another 5 minutes Dublin would have won handy. Contrast that to Dublin v Galway or Armagh v Galway (either match) or Armagh v Kerry last year or plenty of others. All nip and tuck games that saw multiple lead changes and ebbed and flowed. Games under the new rules seemed to be more. Team A on top. Team B attempts to come back and might do so. Game ends.

I'm prepared to give the rules a chance but for me so far I've issues with all of them and don't like them.

The other thing I seem to see is a large number of those in favour seem to say. I like all the rules except x. But x is different for all people. So possibly except the solo and go I don't see a rules that's universally being praised. I know in my own social group there's a very broad divergence on what rules are good and what ones aren't.

Quote from: trileacman on February 18, 2025, 10:20:15 PMWent to my first "new rules" match at the weekend, can safely say rather than change behaviour the rules reinforce the status quo tactics in Gaelic football.

Since you only have 12 defenders and the attacking team have an 13 it makes zero sense to push out the field and press high. Instead the rules encourage you to drop into a defensive arc which the rule makers have politely marked out for you on the pitch. Here your chances of stopping or slowing an attack are greatly multiplied and you all but nullify the goal threat.

Should you win the turnover the idea you can easily and immediately boot the ball 40m to your own player is a fallacy. Again your most likely way to advance up the pitch is to make a series of handpasses by which you can advance into a scoring position and possibly work a score. Why would anyone lash the ball up to the front 3 when he at best has a 50/50 chance of winning it an may well miss the resulting shot at goal. You could count on one hand the amount of points that have been scored by fast ball into the front 3, as a source of scores it is vastly outnumbered by the running score or the "keeper overlap" score.

Worse still is the encouragement to waste time or keep possession without intention to score. Mayo got a black card against Tyrone and spent the guts of 10 minutes passing the ball to each other. They did the same at full-time. Why take a score and risk giving possession back to the opposition when you can just run around and wait for the hooter to save you? I don't blame Mayo for this I'd expect Tyrone to be smart enough to do the same thing. Likewise Dublin were fools to attempt to score against Kerry in the first half of a gale force wind. They should have just kept ball for 35 minutes as much as possible, preventing Kerry from making use of the wind advantage and leading to a 2nd half were Dublin would have the advantage on kick outs, scoring and defence. This was possible under the old rules but the new rules effectively make it easier as the defending team are armed with less players to press the team in possession.

It's no coincidence that the 2 most effective teams under the new rules are Dublin and Donegal. The uber-fit, running game suits them down to a tee. The predominant tactic used by the best teams will remain a mass attack, quick break and if that breaks prolonged spells of defensive arc hand passing.

Strangely I thought Dublin spent a lot of time in the first half deliberately not taking easy shots because it was worth more to them to kill time.

Quote from: Nanderson on February 17, 2025, 06:30:14 AMIt's not in the vote but I'd go for the advancement for slowing down play or not handing ball back to opponent. The rule itself is good but the penalty is much to severe. Half the distance would suffice

Agree with this one. Potential 2 points for a free also

Quote from: David McKeown on February 19, 2025, 01:02:32 AM

Quote from: onefineday on February 18, 2025, 12:19:41 AM

Quote from: David McKeown on February 17, 2025, 04:44:20 PMWhat if you dislike all of them to the same amount?

To be fair I would like to see either the 3 v 3 or the 2 point arc tried in isolation but not both together to see what impact that has

Ah David, there must be one or two they really upsets you more than the others?
For me it's the 2-point arc, I could maybe live with it if we had the 4-point goal, but as is, the decision to double the value of a relatively straightforward shot at goal (for intercounty sharpshooters) has the potential to absolutely transform the game and not positively.

I thought I liked the solo and go until I saw how it was being refereed last weekend. Players allowed to start near but not at the place of the foul. Run then solo then still have room before they could be fouled. It might have utility if tweaked.

I just don't like the rest at all. I havent really seen any sort of great game yet either. What I've seen are games that finish close because you've effectively had two training sessions back to back. I've yet to see a game that's ebbed and flowed because of the new rule changes that could have gone either way. Maybe that will come but I've yet to see it.

Take the Dublin v Kerry game as an example. On the score board it seemed close but was it really a nip and tuck game?  Kerry got a big lead with the wind. Dublin then dominated the second half. The scores were only really close for about 2 minutes. Had the game gone on another 5 minutes Dublin would have won handy. Contrast that to Dublin v Galway or Armagh v Galway (either match) or Armagh v Kerry last year or plenty of others. All nip and tuck games that saw multiple lead changes and ebbed and flowed. Games under the new rules seemed to be more. Team A on top. Team B attempts to come back and might do so. Game ends.

I'm prepared to give the rules a chance but for me so far I've issues with all of them and don't like them.

The other thing I seem to see is a large number of those in favour seem to say. I like all the rules except x. But x is different for all people. So possibly except the solo and go I don't see a rules that's universally being praised. I know in my own social group there's a very broad divergence on what rules are good and what ones aren't.

This is prob the best post I've read on the rules recently. All great points, the game is no better at all.

Quote from: Saffron_sam20 on February 19, 2025, 08:55:49 AM

Quote from: David McKeown on February 19, 2025, 01:02:32 AM

Quote from: onefineday on February 18, 2025, 12:19:41 AM

Quote from: David McKeown on February 17, 2025, 04:44:20 PMWhat if you dislike all of them to the same amount?

To be fair I would like to see either the 3 v 3 or the 2 point arc tried in isolation but not both together to see what impact that has

Ah David, there must be one or two they really upsets you more than the others?
For me it's the 2-point arc, I could maybe live with it if we had the 4-point goal, but as is, the decision to double the value of a relatively straightforward shot at goal (for intercounty sharpshooters) has the potential to absolutely transform the game and not positively.

I thought I liked the solo and go until I saw how it was being refereed last weekend. Players allowed to start near but not at the place of the foul. Run then solo then still have room before they could be fouled. It might have utility if tweaked.

I just don't like the rest at all. I havent really seen any sort of great game yet either. What I've seen are games that finish close because you've effectively had two training sessions back to back. I've yet to see a game that's ebbed and flowed because of the new rule changes that could have gone either way. Maybe that will come but I've yet to see it.

Take the Dublin v Kerry game as an example. On the score board it seemed close but was it really a nip and tuck game?  Kerry got a big lead with the wind. Dublin then dominated the second half. The scores were only really close for about 2 minutes. Had the game gone on another 5 minutes Dublin would have won handy. Contrast that to Dublin v Galway or Armagh v Galway (either match) or Armagh v Kerry last year or plenty of others. All nip and tuck games that saw multiple lead changes and ebbed and flowed. Games under the new rules seemed to be more. Team A on top. Team B attempts to come back and might do so. Game ends.

I'm prepared to give the rules a chance but for me so far I've issues with all of them and don't like them.

The other thing I seem to see is a large number of those in favour seem to say. I like all the rules except x. But x is different for all people. So possibly except the solo and go I don't see a rules that's universally being praised. I know in my own social group there's a very broad divergence on what rules are good and what ones aren't.

This is prob the best post I've read on the rules recently. All great points, the game is no better at all.

Fully agree.

I was thinking about what they said on the Sunday Game about the 20s window for kickouts not being communicated to teams. Why is there a limit on the amount of time a keeper has to kick the ball out, but they are given time to amble up to the other side of the pitch to kick a free? Surely that slows the game down more than kickouts?

I've have issues with all the rule changes if I'm honest too. Right back as far as the advanced mark.
A simplistic view maybe, but if the powers that be are so interested in getting back to the good old days of kicking games, then why don't they revert the rules back to how they were in the 70's/80's? Instead of adding rules, remove them and give teams more options to play in different ways. What they are doing now seems to be a way to try to dictate the tactics every team uses - and in my opinion this will be to the detriment of the game as a spectacle as they will become even more boring. Big scores doesn't necessarily mean better.

Quote from: tbrick18 on February 19, 2025, 09:52:28 AM

Quote from: Saffron_sam20 on February 19, 2025, 08:55:49 AM

Quote from: David McKeown on February 19, 2025, 01:02:32 AM

Quote from: onefineday on February 18, 2025, 12:19:41 AM

Quote from: David McKeown on February 17, 2025, 04:44:20 PMWhat if you dislike all of them to the same amount?

To be fair I would like to see either the 3 v 3 or the 2 point arc tried in isolation but not both together to see what impact that has

Ah David, there must be one or two they really upsets you more than the others?
For me it's the 2-point arc, I could maybe live with it if we had the 4-point goal, but as is, the decision to double the value of a relatively straightforward shot at goal (for intercounty sharpshooters) has the potential to absolutely transform the game and not positively.

I thought I liked the solo and go until I saw how it was being refereed last weekend. Players allowed to start near but not at the place of the foul. Run then solo then still have room before they could be fouled. It might have utility if tweaked.

I just don't like the rest at all. I havent really seen any sort of great game yet either. What I've seen are games that finish close because you've effectively had two training sessions back to back. I've yet to see a game that's ebbed and flowed because of the new rule changes that could have gone either way. Maybe that will come but I've yet to see it.

Take the Dublin v Kerry game as an example. On the score board it seemed close but was it really a nip and tuck game?  Kerry got a big lead with the wind. Dublin then dominated the second half. The scores were only really close for about 2 minutes. Had the game gone on another 5 minutes Dublin would have won handy. Contrast that to Dublin v Galway or Armagh v Galway (either match) or Armagh v Kerry last year or plenty of others. All nip and tuck games that saw multiple lead changes and ebbed and flowed. Games under the new rules seemed to be more. Team A on top. Team B attempts to come back and might do so. Game ends.

I'm prepared to give the rules a chance but for me so far I've issues with all of them and don't like them.

The other thing I seem to see is a large number of those in favour seem to say. I like all the rules except x. But x is different for all people. So possibly except the solo and go I don't see a rules that's universally being praised. I know in my own social group there's a very broad divergence on what rules are good and what ones aren't.

This is prob the best post I've read on the rules recently. All great points, the game is no better at all.

Fully agree.

I was thinking about what they said on the Sunday Game about the 20s window for kickouts not being communicated to teams. Why is there a limit on the amount of time a keeper has to kick the ball out, but they are given time to amble up to the other side of the pitch to kick a free? Surely that slows the game down more than kickouts?

I've have issues with all the rule changes if I'm honest too. Right back as far as the advanced mark.
A simplistic view maybe, but if the powers that be are so interested in getting back to the good old days of kicking games, then why don't they revert the rules back to how they were in the 70's/80's? Instead of adding rules, remove them and give teams more options to play in different ways. What they are doing now seems to be a way to try to dictate the tactics every team uses - and in my opinion this will be to the detriment of the game as a spectacle as they will become even more boring. Big scores doesn't necessarily mean better.

You're right, my pet hate is a keeper strolling up to kick a free or 45, if that's a sideline or another free on the pitch the ref hops the ball for taking too long. The hop ball is a fair penalty for taking too long, basically giving the other team a score for it is not. The rules are crap, leave the game as was and just be a bit tighter on things with a few tweaks. This all seems too drastic. Fully agree, higher scores doesn't make it better, basically just means we've give up defending as per the solo and go and the advanced mark. Defending is not seen as an important skill anymore

Quote from: David McKeown on February 19, 2025, 01:02:32 AM

Quote from: onefineday on February 18, 2025, 12:19:41 AM

Quote from: David McKeown on February 17, 2025, 04:44:20 PMWhat if you dislike all of them to the same amount?

To be fair I would like to see either the 3 v 3 or the 2 point arc tried in isolation but not both together to see what impact that has

Ah David, there must be one or two they really upsets you more than the others?
For me it's the 2-point arc, I could maybe live with it if we had the 4-point goal, but as is, the decision to double the value of a relatively straightforward shot at goal (for intercounty sharpshooters) has the potential to absolutely transform the game and not positively.

I thought I liked the solo and go until I saw how it was being refereed last weekend. Players allowed to start near but not at the place of the foul. Run then solo then still have room before they could be fouled. It might have utility if tweaked.

I just don't like the rest at all. I havent really seen any sort of great game yet either. What I've seen are games that finish close because you've effectively had two training sessions back to back. I've yet to see a game that's ebbed and flowed because of the new rule changes that could have gone either way. Maybe that will come but I've yet to see it.

Take the Dublin v Kerry game as an example. On the score board it seemed close but was it really a nip and tuck game?  Kerry got a big lead with the wind. Dublin then dominated the second half. The scores were only really close for about 2 minutes. Had the game gone on another 5 minutes Dublin would have won handy. Contrast that to Dublin v Galway or Armagh v Galway (either match) or Armagh v Kerry last year or plenty of others. All nip and tuck games that saw multiple lead changes and ebbed and flowed. Games under the new rules seemed to be more. Team A on top. Team B attempts to come back and might do so. Game ends.

I'm prepared to give the rules a chance but for me so far I've issues with all of them and don't like them.

The other thing I seem to see is a large number of those in favour seem to say. I like all the rules except x. But x is different for all people. So possibly except the solo and go I don't see a rules that's universally being praised. I know in my own social group there's a very broad divergence on what rules are good and what ones aren't.

The conditions played a big factor in Kerry Dublin, under the old rules I suspect it would have been a game of two halves also.  The club games I have saw to date have been improved by the new rules games alot faster and less keep ball (some teams reluctant to bring the keeper out). 

Quote from: David McKeown on February 19, 2025, 01:02:32 AM

Quote from: onefineday on February 18, 2025, 12:19:41 AM

Quote from: David McKeown on February 17, 2025, 04:44:20 PMWhat if you dislike all of them to the same amount?

To be fair I would like to see either the 3 v 3 or the 2 point arc tried in isolation but not both together to see what impact that has

Ah David, there must be one or two they really upsets you more than the others?
For me it's the 2-point arc, I could maybe live with it if we had the 4-point goal, but as is, the decision to double the value of a relatively straightforward shot at goal (for intercounty sharpshooters) has the potential to absolutely transform the game and not positively.

I thought I liked the solo and go until I saw how it was being refereed last weekend. Players allowed to start near but not at the place of the foul. Run then solo then still have room before they could be fouled. It might have utility if tweaked.

I just don't like the rest at all. I havent really seen any sort of great game yet either. What I've seen are games that finish close because you've effectively had two training sessions back to back. I've yet to see a game that's ebbed and flowed because of the new rule changes that could have gone either way. Maybe that will come but I've yet to see it.

Take the Dublin v Kerry game as an example. On the score board it seemed close but was it really a nip and tuck game?  Kerry got a big lead with the wind. Dublin then dominated the second half. The scores were only really close for about 2 minutes. Had the game gone on another 5 minutes Dublin would have won handy. Contrast that to Dublin v Galway or Armagh v Galway (either match) or Armagh v Kerry last year or plenty of others. All nip and tuck games that saw multiple lead changes and ebbed and flowed. Games under the new rules seemed to be more. Team A on top. Team B attempts to come back and might do so. Game ends.

I'm prepared to give the rules a chance but for me so far I've issues with all of them and don't like them.

The other thing I seem to see is a large number of those in favour seem to say. I like all the rules except x. But x is different for all people. So possibly except the solo and go I don't see a rules that's universally being praised. I know in my own social group there's a very broad divergence on what rules are good and what ones aren't.

Good post. My issue is that the new rules leave a game very susceptible to weather conditions. And well, we're not a country known for good weather. Wind was already a big factor in games, now it is way way worse. And a team against the wind 2nd half, when tiring, cannot defend like before and they're left open to be picked off. it was telling that most game with the big turnarounds, had the team with the wind in the 2nd half winning

Quote from: Dreadnought on February 19, 2025, 10:30:06 AM

Quote from: David McKeown on February 19, 2025, 01:02:32 AM

Quote from: onefineday on February 18, 2025, 12:19:41 AM

Quote from: David McKeown on February 17, 2025, 04:44:20 PMWhat if you dislike all of them to the same amount?

To be fair I would like to see either the 3 v 3 or the 2 point arc tried in isolation but not both together to see what impact that has

Ah David, there must be one or two they really upsets you more than the others?
For me it's the 2-point arc, I could maybe live with it if we had the 4-point goal, but as is, the decision to double the value of a relatively straightforward shot at goal (for intercounty sharpshooters) has the potential to absolutely transform the game and not positively.

I thought I liked the solo and go until I saw how it was being refereed last weekend. Players allowed to start near but not at the place of the foul. Run then solo then still have room before they could be fouled. It might have utility if tweaked.

I just don't like the rest at all. I havent really seen any sort of great game yet either. What I've seen are games that finish close because you've effectively had two training sessions back to back. I've yet to see a game that's ebbed and flowed because of the new rule changes that could have gone either way. Maybe that will come but I've yet to see it.

Take the Dublin v Kerry game as an example. On the score board it seemed close but was it really a nip and tuck game?  Kerry got a big lead with the wind. Dublin then dominated the second half. The scores were only really close for about 2 minutes. Had the game gone on another 5 minutes Dublin would have won handy. Contrast that to Dublin v Galway or Armagh v Galway (either match) or Armagh v Kerry last year or plenty of others. All nip and tuck games that saw multiple lead changes and ebbed and flowed. Games under the new rules seemed to be more. Team A on top. Team B attempts to come back and might do so. Game ends.

I'm prepared to give the rules a chance but for me so far I've issues with all of them and don't like them.

The other thing I seem to see is a large number of those in favour seem to say. I like all the rules except x. But x is different for all people. So possibly except the solo and go I don't see a rules that's universally being praised. I know in my own social group there's a very broad divergence on what rules are good and what ones aren't.

Good post. My issue is that the new rules leave a game very susceptible to weather conditions. And well, we're not a country known for good weather. Wind was already a big factor in games, now it is way way worse. And a team against the wind 2nd half, when tiring, cannot defend like before and they're left open to be picked off. it was telling that most game with the big turnarounds, had the team with the wind in the 2nd half winning

In the Dublin v Kerry game Dublin managed against the wind alot better, there was a few occasions when Dublin were able to hold the ball for 2/3 minutes and prevent Kerry from having the ball. Kerry dropped off and allowed this to happen if they would have engaged Dublin higher up the field in first half I think they would have had a bigger lead.  The wind can pick up over the course of a game, die down, change direction etc so I don't think the team with wind in second half will necessarily have an advantage in the second half it is still a case of managing the conditions. 

Quote from: statto on February 19, 2025, 10:29:49 AM

Quote from: David McKeown on February 19, 2025, 01:02:32 AM

Quote from: onefineday on February 18, 2025, 12:19:41 AM

Quote from: David McKeown on February 17, 2025, 04:44:20 PMWhat if you dislike all of them to the same amount?

To be fair I would like to see either the 3 v 3 or the 2 point arc tried in isolation but not both together to see what impact that has

Ah David, there must be one or two they really upsets you more than the others?
For me it's the 2-point arc, I could maybe live with it if we had the 4-point goal, but as is, the decision to double the value of a relatively straightforward shot at goal (for intercounty sharpshooters) has the potential to absolutely transform the game and not positively.

I thought I liked the solo and go until I saw how it was being refereed last weekend. Players allowed to start near but not at the place of the foul. Run then solo then still have room before they could be fouled. It might have utility if tweaked.

I just don't like the rest at all. I havent really seen any sort of great game yet either. What I've seen are games that finish close because you've effectively had two training sessions back to back. I've yet to see a game that's ebbed and flowed because of the new rule changes that could have gone either way. Maybe that will come but I've yet to see it.

Take the Dublin v Kerry game as an example. On the score board it seemed close but was it really a nip and tuck game?  Kerry got a big lead with the wind. Dublin then dominated the second half. The scores were only really close for about 2 minutes. Had the game gone on another 5 minutes Dublin would have won handy. Contrast that to Dublin v Galway or Armagh v Galway (either match) or Armagh v Kerry last year or plenty of others. All nip and tuck games that saw multiple lead changes and ebbed and flowed. Games under the new rules seemed to be more. Team A on top. Team B attempts to come back and might do so. Game ends.

I'm prepared to give the rules a chance but for me so far I've issues with all of them and don't like them.

The other thing I seem to see is a large number of those in favour seem to say. I like all the rules except x. But x is different for all people. So possibly except the solo and go I don't see a rules that's universally being praised. I know in my own social group there's a very broad divergence on what rules are good and what ones aren't.

The conditions played a big factor in Kerry Dublin, under the old rules I suspect it would have been a game of two halves also.  The club games I have saw to date have been improved by the new rules games alot faster and less keep ball (some teams reluctant to bring the keeper out). 

I don't disagree the wind was a major factor albeit accentuated by the new roles. I used that as an example because there was a lot of praise given to the new rules for ensuring an exciting game. I didn't agree.

Quote from: David McKeown on February 19, 2025, 10:57:55 AM

Quote from: statto on February 19, 2025, 10:29:49 AM

Quote from: David McKeown on February 19, 2025, 01:02:32 AM

Quote from: onefineday on February 18, 2025, 12:19:41 AM

Quote from: David McKeown on February 17, 2025, 04:44:20 PMWhat if you dislike all of them to the same amount?

To be fair I would like to see either the 3 v 3 or the 2 point arc tried in isolation but not both together to see what impact that has

Ah David, there must be one or two they really upsets you more than the others?
For me it's the 2-point arc, I could maybe live with it if we had the 4-point goal, but as is, the decision to double the value of a relatively straightforward shot at goal (for intercounty sharpshooters) has the potential to absolutely transform the game and not positively.

I thought I liked the solo and go until I saw how it was being refereed last weekend. Players allowed to start near but not at the place of the foul. Run then solo then still have room before they could be fouled. It might have utility if tweaked.

I just don't like the rest at all. I havent really seen any sort of great game yet either. What I've seen are games that finish close because you've effectively had two training sessions back to back. I've yet to see a game that's ebbed and flowed because of the new rule changes that could have gone either way. Maybe that will come but I've yet to see it.

Take the Dublin v Kerry game as an example. On the score board it seemed close but was it really a nip and tuck game?  Kerry got a big lead with the wind. Dublin then dominated the second half. The scores were only really close for about 2 minutes. Had the game gone on another 5 minutes Dublin would have won handy. Contrast that to Dublin v Galway or Armagh v Galway (either match) or Armagh v Kerry last year or plenty of others. All nip and tuck games that saw multiple lead changes and ebbed and flowed. Games under the new rules seemed to be more. Team A on top. Team B attempts to come back and might do so. Game ends.

I'm prepared to give the rules a chance but for me so far I've issues with all of them and don't like them.

The other thing I seem to see is a large number of those in favour seem to say. I like all the rules except x. But x is different for all people. So possibly except the solo and go I don't see a rules that's universally being praised. I know in my own social group there's a very broad divergence on what rules are good and what ones aren't.

The conditions played a big factor in Kerry Dublin, under the old rules I suspect it would have been a game of two halves also.  The club games I have saw to date have been improved by the new rules games alot faster and less keep ball (some teams reluctant to bring the keeper out). 

I don't disagree the wind was a major factor albeit accentuated by the new roles. I used that as an example because there was a lot of praise given to the new rules for ensuring an exciting game. I didn't agree.

In relation to that game I would agree it only really got exciting whenever Dublin were trying to reel Kerry in towards the end and trying to beat the clock.  Under the old rules I would expect the game would have followed a similar path i.e. the team against the wind trying to keep the score down. Looking forward to see how the rules work whenever we get better weather heading into the summer. 

Quote from: statto on February 19, 2025, 11:13:58 AM

Quote from: David McKeown on February 19, 2025, 10:57:55 AM

Quote from: statto on February 19, 2025, 10:29:49 AM

Quote from: David McKeown on February 19, 2025, 01:02:32 AM

Quote from: onefineday on February 18, 2025, 12:19:41 AM

Quote from: David McKeown on February 17, 2025, 04:44:20 PMWhat if you dislike all of them to the same amount?

To be fair I would like to see either the 3 v 3 or the 2 point arc tried in isolation but not both together to see what impact that has

Ah David, there must be one or two they really upsets you more than the others?
For me it's the 2-point arc, I could maybe live with it if we had the 4-point goal, but as is, the decision to double the value of a relatively straightforward shot at goal (for intercounty sharpshooters) has the potential to absolutely transform the game and not positively.

I thought I liked the solo and go until I saw how it was being refereed last weekend. Players allowed to start near but not at the place of the foul. Run then solo then still have room before they could be fouled. It might have utility if tweaked.

I just don't like the rest at all. I havent really seen any sort of great game yet either. What I've seen are games that finish close because you've effectively had two training sessions back to back. I've yet to see a game that's ebbed and flowed because of the new rule changes that could have gone either way. Maybe that will come but I've yet to see it.

Take the Dublin v Kerry game as an example. On the score board it seemed close but was it really a nip and tuck game?  Kerry got a big lead with the wind. Dublin then dominated the second half. The scores were only really close for about 2 minutes. Had the game gone on another 5 minutes Dublin would have won handy. Contrast that to Dublin v Galway or Armagh v Galway (either match) or Armagh v Kerry last year or plenty of others. All nip and tuck games that saw multiple lead changes and ebbed and flowed. Games under the new rules seemed to be more. Team A on top. Team B attempts to come back and might do so. Game ends.

I'm prepared to give the rules a chance but for me so far I've issues with all of them and don't like them.

The other thing I seem to see is a large number of those in favour seem to say. I like all the rules except x. But x is different for all people. So possibly except the solo and go I don't see a rules that's universally being praised. I know in my own social group there's a very broad divergence on what rules are good and what ones aren't.

The conditions played a big factor in Kerry Dublin, under the old rules I suspect it would have been a game of two halves also.  The club games I have saw to date have been improved by the new rules games alot faster and less keep ball (some teams reluctant to bring the keeper out). 

I don't disagree the wind was a major factor albeit accentuated by the new roles. I used that as an example because there was a lot of praise given to the new rules for ensuring an exciting game. I didn't agree.

In relation to that game I would agree it only really got exciting whenever Dublin were trying to reel Kerry in towards the end and trying to beat the clock.  Under the old rules I would expect the game would have followed a similar path i.e. the team against the wind trying to keep the score down. Looking forward to see how the rules work whenever we get better weather heading into the summer. 

Perfectly happy to give them more time but my current view is not positive.

I suspect with new rules, teams they don't have natural 2 point kickers won't like them, teams that don't have good fielders for contested kick outs won't like them, and teams that can't defend without pulling every player back won't like them. Those 3 rules encourage traditional skills of the game - footballers who can kick a point from distance, high fielders, one on one sticky backs. The short kickout with opposing team pulling every player back, an orgy of hand passes until a team found a low risk opportunity, like a punch over the bar, had become unwatchable. I'm good with the rules so far.

Quote from: weareros on February 19, 2025, 12:32:51 PMI suspect with new rules, teams they don't have natural 2 point kickers won't like them, teams that don't have good fielders for contested kick outs won't like them, and teams that can't defend without pulling every player back won't like them. Those 3 rules encourage traditional skills of the game - footballers who can kick a point from distance, high fielders, one on one sticky backs. The short kickout with opposing team pulling every player back, an orgy of hand passes until a team found a low risk opportunity, like a punch over the bar, had become unwatchable. I'm good with the rules so far.

True but it's at the expense of other traditional skills. Like the 50 which must be from the ground, at an angle and only worth half of a kick from 20-25% closer. Or one on one defending from a corner back close to goal. For example.

Quote from: David McKeown on February 19, 2025, 09:36:38 PM

Quote from: weareros on February 19, 2025, 12:32:51 PMI suspect with new rules, teams they don't have natural 2 point kickers won't like them, teams that don't have good fielders for contested kick outs won't like them, and teams that can't defend without pulling every player back won't like them. Those 3 rules encourage traditional skills of the game - footballers who can kick a point from distance, high fielders, one on one sticky backs. The short kickout with opposing team pulling every player back, an orgy of hand passes until a team found a low risk opportunity, like a punch over the bar, had become unwatchable. I'm good with the rules so far.

True but it's at the expense of other traditional skills. Like the 50 which must be from the ground, at an angle and only worth half of a kick from 20-25% closer. Or one on one defending from a corner back close to goal. For example.

Not sure I follow David. A good corner back is more essential now because the skillful corner forward isn't bollocksed chasing up and down the field, and we are back to what forwards were once told by trainers: his job is to mark you, not you to mark him. It's much harder defend under new rules, and on top of that if the forward catches a mark close to goal, he can do for goal, knowing he's still getting the tap over mark. So back has still more defending to do. The system defending of everyone back is gone under new rules and good man markers can shine in one on one battles, and poor backs will get skinned by forwards with more space and fresher legs.

Quote from: weareros on February 19, 2025, 10:46:01 PM

Quote from: David McKeown on February 19, 2025, 09:36:38 PM

Quote from: weareros on February 19, 2025, 12:32:51 PMI suspect with new rules, teams they don't have natural 2 point kickers won't like them, teams that don't have good fielders for contested kick outs won't like them, and teams that can't defend without pulling every player back won't like them. Those 3 rules encourage traditional skills of the game - footballers who can kick a point from distance, high fielders, one on one sticky backs. The short kickout with opposing team pulling every player back, an orgy of hand passes until a team found a low risk opportunity, like a punch over the bar, had become unwatchable. I'm good with the rules so far.

True but it's at the expense of other traditional skills. Like the 50 which must be from the ground, at an angle and only worth half of a kick from 20-25% closer. Or one on one defending from a corner back close to goal. For example.

Not sure I follow David. A good corner back is more essential now because the skillful corner forward isn't bollocksed chasing up and down the field, and we are back to what forwards were once told by trainers: his job is to mark you, not you to mark him. It's much harder defend under new rules, and on top of that if the forward catches a mark close to goal, he can do for goal, knowing he's still getting the tap over mark. So back has still more defending to do. The system defending of everyone back is gone under new rules and good man markers can shine in one on one battles, and poor backs will get skinned by forwards with more space and fresher legs.

I disagree the advantage rules denigrate the art of defending. No longer is there any utility to skilfully dispossessing an opponent or tactically allowing him a catch in order to ground defend him. Delaying and spoiling in a non card way is now the more effective way to defend if you can't prevent the mark which is the only real reward in mark situations.

In terms of high fielding the rules now encourage defending teams to flood a smaller area where they can have a numerical advantage and then break the ball to their spare man. The kicking team is having to tactically adjust to prevent that.

 

Not everyone is negative in Armagh....

https://www.gaa.ie/article/burns-belives-gaelic-football-getting-close-to-being-perfect-game

Was there ever any chat about lifting the ball off the deck without putting your boot under it? As in the ladies? Think it really speeds up the game and less rucks

Quote from: David McKeown on February 19, 2025, 01:02:32 AM

Quote from: onefineday on February 18, 2025, 12:19:41 AM

Quote from: David McKeown on February 17, 2025, 04:44:20 PMWhat if you dislike all of them to the same amount?

To be fair I would like to see either the 3 v 3 or the 2 point arc tried in isolation but not both together to see what impact that has

Ah David, there must be one or two they really upsets you more than the others?
For me it's the 2-point arc, I could maybe live with it if we had the 4-point goal, but as is, the decision to double the value of a relatively straightforward shot at goal (for intercounty sharpshooters) has the potential to absolutely transform the game and not positively.

I thought I liked the solo and go until I saw how it was being refereed last weekend. Players allowed to start near but not at the place of the foul. Run then solo then still have room before they could be fouled. It might have utility if tweaked.

I just don't like the rest at all. I havent really seen any sort of great game yet either. What I've seen are games that finish close because you've effectively had two training sessions back to back. I've yet to see a game that's ebbed and flowed because of the new rule changes that could have gone either way. Maybe that will come but I've yet to see it.

Take the Dublin v Kerry game as an example. On the score board it seemed close but was it really a nip and tuck game?  Kerry got a big lead with the wind. Dublin then dominated the second half. The scores were only really close for about 2 minutes. Had the game gone on another 5 minutes Dublin would have won handy. Contrast that to Dublin v Galway or Armagh v Galway (either match) or Armagh v Kerry last year or plenty of others. All nip and tuck games that saw multiple lead changes and ebbed and flowed. Games under the new rules seemed to be more. Team A on top. Team B attempts to come back and might do so. Game ends.

I'm prepared to give the rules a chance but for me so far I've issues with all of them and don't like them.

The other thing I seem to see is a large number of those in favour seem to say. I like all the rules except x. But x is different for all people. So possibly except the solo and go I don't see a rules that's universally being praised. I know in my own social group there's a very broad divergence on what rules are good and what ones aren't.

Agreed. Football is now Team A scores 3 or 4 points in a half because it's better/easier to prevent the other team from scoring by bringing the keeper up and hope the oppostion don't score enough with a wind advantage. Team B follows the exact same strategy in the second half and hope they scored enough in the first half. Think I seen somewhere Kerry scored 3 in the second half and Dublin scored 4 in the first? What's exciting about watching 1 team dominate for a half?

King Canute tried to stop the tide.
Gaaboarders want to stop the wind.

I saw Niall Morgan getting a bit of stick on twitter for saying he wouldn't want to go back to being 'just a goalkeeper' anymore in the Irish Examiner. Wooly leading the pile on too. It seems strange that the best actual goalkeeper out of them doesn't want to do the goalkeeping bit. How many more years would Niall have realistically - especially playing the way he wants to?

I still maintain as Tyrone get better he'll have less of a role up the pitch than he does currently.

The other point is young keepers won't play because they can't run up the pitch - bollox lads. I would say more keepers went to soccer over the last 10 years because most goals were handpassed around them and palmed in.

Quote from: Rossfan on February 20, 2025, 10:48:05 AMKing Canute tried to stop the tide.
Gaaboarders want to stop the wind.

No one wants to stops the wind. Typical logical fallacy argument. It's just we're absolutely making the wind way more important than it used to be. And we're a windy island

Quote from: Rossfan on February 20, 2025, 10:48:05 AMKing Canute tried to stop the tide.
Gaaboarders want to stop the wind.

It's tiresome reading your short rejoinders - we're all giving genuine opinions as part of a debate.

Quote from: clonian on February 20, 2025, 11:23:16 AMI saw Niall Morgan getting a bit of stick on twitter for saying he wouldn't want to go back to being 'just a goalkeeper' anymore in the Irish Examiner. Wooly leading the pile on too. It seems strange that the best actual goalkeeper out of them doesn't want to do the goalkeeping bit. How many more years would Niall have realistically - especially playing the way he wants to?

I still maintain as Tyrone get better he'll have less of a role up the pitch than he does currently.

The other point is young keepers won't play because they can't run up the pitch - bollox lads. I would say more keepers went to soccer over the last 10 years because most goals were handpassed around them and palmed in.

Rent a quote Morgan. What about keeping the head down for 2 weeks or so would that be too much to ask.

Quote from: David McKeown on February 20, 2025, 12:10:10 AM

Quote from: weareros on February 19, 2025, 10:46:01 PM

Quote from: David McKeown on February 19, 2025, 09:36:38 PM

Quote from: weareros on February 19, 2025, 12:32:51 PMI suspect with new rules, teams they don't have natural 2 point kickers won't like them, teams that don't have good fielders for contested kick outs won't like them, and teams that can't defend without pulling every player back won't like them. Those 3 rules encourage traditional skills of the game - footballers who can kick a point from distance, high fielders, one on one sticky backs. The short kickout with opposing team pulling every player back, an orgy of hand passes until a team found a low risk opportunity, like a punch over the bar, had become unwatchable. I'm good with the rules so far.

True but it's at the expense of other traditional skills. Like the 50 which must be from the ground, at an angle and only worth half of a kick from 20-25% closer. Or one on one defending from a corner back close to goal. For example.

Not sure I follow David. A good corner back is more essential now because the skillful corner forward isn't bollocksed chasing up and down the field, and we are back to what forwards were once told by trainers: his job is to mark you, not you to mark him. It's much harder defend under new rules, and on top of that if the forward catches a mark close to goal, he can do for goal, knowing he's still getting the tap over mark. So back has still more defending to do. The system defending of everyone back is gone under new rules and good man markers can shine in one on one battles, and poor backs will get skinned by forwards with more space and fresher legs.

I disagree the advantage rules denigrate the art of defending. No longer is there any utility to skilfully dispossessing an opponent or tactically allowing him a catch in order to ground defend him. Delaying and spoiling in a non card way is now the more effective way to defend if you can't prevent the mark which is the only real reward in mark situations.

In terms of high fielding the rules now encourage defending teams to flood a smaller area where they can have a numerical advantage and then break the ball to their spare man. The kicking team is having to tactically adjust to prevent that.

On your first point, it's not the new rules that have led to that situation, but the advanced mark (which I don't love). But I wish in my day, the corner back would have let me catch the ball first, instead of beating me to it to yelps and cheers. On the plus side, the advanced mark encourages longer kick pass into the forwards. The more teams get better at kicking, the better for the game. It's the same with the coaches complaining about tiring from running. Learn to be better kickers of the ball.
Regarding high fielding, teams can always flood an area - Tyrone were doing that effectively in league last year. But in games so far, I've seen some marvelous catches and even if the ball is broken, the scramble to get the breaking ball is a lot more interesting than the short kickout as a team then labours up the pitch passing it around waiting patiently for an opening. That was mind-numbingly boring to watch, and was killing the game as a spectacle. Teams can of course still hold onto the ball, but they've lost an outlet in passing it back to the goalie in their own half. That has introduced jeopardy into the possession game - a good thing, too. Have enjoyed seeing some desperate kick clearances.

Isnt the "defensive mark" still there?

Quote from: thebigfullforward on February 20, 2025, 09:47:47 AM

Quote from: David McKeown on February 19, 2025, 01:02:32 AM

Quote from: onefineday on February 18, 2025, 12:19:41 AM

Quote from: David McKeown on February 17, 2025, 04:44:20 PMWhat if you dislike all of them to the same amount?

To be fair I would like to see either the 3 v 3 or the 2 point arc tried in isolation but not both together to see what impact that has

Ah David, there must be one or two they really upsets you more than the others?
For me it's the 2-point arc, I could maybe live with it if we had the 4-point goal, but as is, the decision to double the value of a relatively straightforward shot at goal (for intercounty sharpshooters) has the potential to absolutely transform the game and not positively.

I thought I liked the solo and go until I saw how it was being refereed last weekend. Players allowed to start near but not at the place of the foul. Run then solo then still have room before they could be fouled. It might have utility if tweaked.

I just don't like the rest at all. I havent really seen any sort of great game yet either. What I've seen are games that finish close because you've effectively had two training sessions back to back. I've yet to see a game that's ebbed and flowed because of the new rule changes that could have gone either way. Maybe that will come but I've yet to see it.

Take the Dublin v Kerry game as an example. On the score board it seemed close but was it really a nip and tuck game?  Kerry got a big lead with the wind. Dublin then dominated the second half. The scores were only really close for about 2 minutes. Had the game gone on another 5 minutes Dublin would have won handy. Contrast that to Dublin v Galway or Armagh v Galway (either match) or Armagh v Kerry last year or plenty of others. All nip and tuck games that saw multiple lead changes and ebbed and flowed. Games under the new rules seemed to be more. Team A on top. Team B attempts to come back and might do so. Game ends.

I'm prepared to give the rules a chance but for me so far I've issues with all of them and don't like them.

The other thing I seem to see is a large number of those in favour seem to say. I like all the rules except x. But x is different for all people. So possibly except the solo and go I don't see a rules that's universally being praised. I know in my own social group there's a very broad divergence on what rules are good and what ones aren't.

Agreed. Football is now Team A scores 3 or 4 points in a half because it's better/easier to prevent the other team from scoring by bringing the keeper up and hope the oppostion don't score enough with a wind advantage. Team B follows the exact same strategy in the second half and hope they scored enough in the first half. Think I seen somewhere Kerry scored 3 in the second half and Dublin scored 4 in the first? What's exciting about watching 1 team dominate for a half?

Team playing against the wind try to shut up shop to keep the score down shocker...?!

What was exciting about a team pulling 15 men back against the wind (or with ie both half's) and 1 team trying to play through them, absolutely nothing, or very little.

Quote from: ClubScene13 on February 20, 2025, 02:59:14 PM

Quote from: clonian on February 20, 2025, 11:23:16 AMI saw Niall Morgan getting a bit of stick on twitter for saying he wouldn't want to go back to being 'just a goalkeeper' anymore in the Irish Examiner. Wooly leading the pile on too. It seems strange that the best actual goalkeeper out of them doesn't want to do the goalkeeping bit. How many more years would Niall have realistically - especially playing the way he wants to?

I still maintain as Tyrone get better he'll have less of a role up the pitch than he does currently.

The other point is young keepers won't play because they can't run up the pitch - bollox lads. I would say more keepers went to soccer over the last 10 years because most goals were handpassed around them and palmed in.

Rent a quote Morgan. What about keeping the head down for 2 weeks or so would that be too much to ask.

Absolutely loves the sound of own voice. He is a school principle before he was 30, I wonder if he would have got that job if was playing soccer for Dungannon and not a high profile gaa player. 

Quote from: JoG2 on February 20, 2025, 03:59:11 PM

Quote from: thebigfullforward on February 20, 2025, 09:47:47 AM

Quote from: David McKeown on February 19, 2025, 01:02:32 AM

Quote from: onefineday on February 18, 2025, 12:19:41 AM

Quote from: David McKeown on February 17, 2025, 04:44:20 PMWhat if you dislike all of them to the same amount?

To be fair I would like to see either the 3 v 3 or the 2 point arc tried in isolation but not both together to see what impact that has

Ah David, there must be one or two they really upsets you more than the others?
For me it's the 2-point arc, I could maybe live with it if we had the 4-point goal, but as is, the decision to double the value of a relatively straightforward shot at goal (for intercounty sharpshooters) has the potential to absolutely transform the game and not positively.

I thought I liked the solo and go until I saw how it was being refereed last weekend. Players allowed to start near but not at the place of the foul. Run then solo then still have room before they could be fouled. It might have utility if tweaked.

I just don't like the rest at all. I havent really seen any sort of great game yet either. What I've seen are games that finish close because you've effectively had two training sessions back to back. I've yet to see a game that's ebbed and flowed because of the new rule changes that could have gone either way. Maybe that will come but I've yet to see it.

Take the Dublin v Kerry game as an example. On the score board it seemed close but was it really a nip and tuck game?  Kerry got a big lead with the wind. Dublin then dominated the second half. The scores were only really close for about 2 minutes. Had the game gone on another 5 minutes Dublin would have won handy. Contrast that to Dublin v Galway or Armagh v Galway (either match) or Armagh v Kerry last year or plenty of others. All nip and tuck games that saw multiple lead changes and ebbed and flowed. Games under the new rules seemed to be more. Team A on top. Team B attempts to come back and might do so. Game ends.

I'm prepared to give the rules a chance but for me so far I've issues with all of them and don't like them.

The other thing I seem to see is a large number of those in favour seem to say. I like all the rules except x. But x is different for all people. So possibly except the solo and go I don't see a rules that's universally being praised. I know in my own social group there's a very broad divergence on what rules are good and what ones aren't.

Agreed. Football is now Team A scores 3 or 4 points in a half because it's better/easier to prevent the other team from scoring by bringing the keeper up and hope the oppostion don't score enough with a wind advantage. Team B follows the exact same strategy in the second half and hope they scored enough in the first half. Think I seen somewhere Kerry scored 3 in the second half and Dublin scored 4 in the first? What's exciting about watching 1 team dominate for a half?

Team playing against the wind try to shut up shop to keep the score down shocker...?!

What was exciting about a team pulling 15 men back against the wind (or with ie both half's) and 1 team trying to play through them, absolutely nothing, or very little.

My problem is Kerry didn't slow the play down half enough in the second half. They rushed the attack a few times when Dublin were on the up and gave the ball away twice, should've slowed it down more. I'd also argue there's nothing exciting about two teams hoofing the ball 50m every possession but that seems to be what people are pining for

Quote from: Rossfan on February 20, 2025, 03:39:10 PMIsnt the "defensive mark" still there?

Gone but not forgotten

Quote from: statto on February 20, 2025, 04:14:06 PM

Quote from: ClubScene13 on February 20, 2025, 02:59:14 PM

Quote from: clonian on February 20, 2025, 11:23:16 AMI saw Niall Morgan getting a bit of stick on twitter for saying he wouldn't want to go back to being 'just a goalkeeper' anymore in the Irish Examiner. Wooly leading the pile on too. It seems strange that the best actual goalkeeper out of them doesn't want to do the goalkeeping bit. How many more years would Niall have realistically - especially playing the way he wants to?

I still maintain as Tyrone get better he'll have less of a role up the pitch than he does currently.

The other point is young keepers won't play because they can't run up the pitch - bollox lads. I would say more keepers went to soccer over the last 10 years because most goals were handpassed around them and palmed in.

Rent a quote Morgan. What about keeping the head down for 2 weeks or so would that be too much to ask.

Absolutely loves the sound of own voice. He is a school principle before he was 30, I wonder if he would have got that job if was playing soccer for Dungannon and not a high profile gaa player. 

Thats the school linked to my club.  My nieces went/go there and I know my siblings speak very highly of him.

Quote from: weareros on February 20, 2025, 03:08:56 PM

Quote from: David McKeown on February 20, 2025, 12:10:10 AM

Quote from: weareros on February 19, 2025, 10:46:01 PM

Quote from: David McKeown on February 19, 2025, 09:36:38 PM

Quote from: weareros on February 19, 2025, 12:32:51 PMI suspect with new rules, teams they don't have natural 2 point kickers won't like them, teams that don't have good fielders for contested kick outs won't like them, and teams that can't defend without pulling every player back won't like them. Those 3 rules encourage traditional skills of the game - footballers who can kick a point from distance, high fielders, one on one sticky backs. The short kickout with opposing team pulling every player back, an orgy of hand passes until a team found a low risk opportunity, like a punch over the bar, had become unwatchable. I'm good with the rules so far.

True but it's at the expense of other traditional skills. Like the 50 which must be from the ground, at an angle and only worth half of a kick from 20-25% closer. Or one on one defending from a corner back close to goal. For example.

Not sure I follow David. A good corner back is more essential now because the skillful corner forward isn't bollocksed chasing up and down the field, and we are back to what forwards were once told by trainers: his job is to mark you, not you to mark him. It's much harder defend under new rules, and on top of that if the forward catches a mark close to goal, he can do for goal, knowing he's still getting the tap over mark. So back has still more defending to do. The system defending of everyone back is gone under new rules and good man markers can shine in one on one battles, and poor backs will get skinned by forwards with more space and fresher legs.

I disagree the advantage rules denigrate the art of defending. No longer is there any utility to skilfully dispossessing an opponent or tactically allowing him a catch in order to ground defend him. Delaying and spoiling in a non card way is now the more effective way to defend if you can't prevent the mark which is the only real reward in mark situations.

In terms of high fielding the rules now encourage defending teams to flood a smaller area where they can have a numerical advantage and then break the ball to their spare man. The kicking team is having to tactically adjust to prevent that.

On your first point, it's not the new rules that have led to that situation, but the advanced mark (which I don't love). But I wish in my day, the corner back would have let me catch the ball first, instead of beating me to it to yelps and cheers. On the plus side, the advanced mark encourages longer kick pass into the forwards. The more teams get better at kicking, the better for the game. It's the same with the coaches complaining about tiring from running. Learn to be better kickers of the ball.
Regarding high fielding, teams can always flood an area - Tyrone were doing that effectively in league last year. But in games so far, I've seen some marvelous catches and even if the ball is broken, the scramble to get the breaking ball is a lot more interesting than the short kickout as a team then labours up the pitch passing it around waiting patiently for an opening. That was mind-numbingly boring to watch, and was killing the game as a spectacle. Teams can of course still hold onto the ball, but they've lost an outlet in passing it back to the goalie in their own half. That has introduced jeopardy into the possession game - a good thing, too. Have enjoyed seeing some desperate kick clearances.

The new rules have changed the nature of the mark. You now get two opportunities to score which wasn't the case under the old advanced mark.

I accept it encourages longer kicks in but it rewards the physical aspects of the game to a far greater degree. The big tall forward is getting two chances to score the tiny skilful forward who isn't favoured by long high kicks doesn't. I don't understand why there should be rules that denigrate one particular type of player like that.

The rules also allow the team defending the kick to have an extra player in the area the ball is likely to go. Why should the team taking the kick be disadvantaged in this way.

The rule on the keeper similarly is patently unfair. It rewards teams for fouling in their opponents half. If you can foul in a way that makes a solo and go difficult then you can organise and pressurise making it very difficult for the fouled team. The fouling team can have a two player advantage in pressuring the kick unless the keeper takes the kick. I've seen it 5 or 6 times at least so far and I'm sure we will see it a lot more as the season progresses.

The rules also mean a 50+m kick from an angle that must be hit from the ground is worth less than a 45m free kick that can be kicked from either hand or ground straight in front of the post. Do we not want to reward the more difficult skill?


As I've said I'll keep an open mind moving forward but so far I think the downsides well outweigh the benefits of the new rules.

Quote from: David McKeown on February 20, 2025, 10:28:21 PM

Quote from: weareros on February 20, 2025, 03:08:56 PM

Quote from: David McKeown on February 20, 2025, 12:10:10 AM

Quote from: weareros on February 19, 2025, 10:46:01 PM

Quote from: David McKeown on February 19, 2025, 09:36:38 PM

Quote from: weareros on February 19, 2025, 12:32:51 PMI suspect with new rules, teams they don't have natural 2 point kickers won't like them, teams that don't have good fielders for contested kick outs won't like them, and teams that can't defend without pulling every player back won't like them. Those 3 rules encourage traditional skills of the game - footballers who can kick a point from distance, high fielders, one on one sticky backs. The short kickout with opposing team pulling every player back, an orgy of hand passes until a team found a low risk opportunity, like a punch over the bar, had become unwatchable. I'm good with the rules so far.

True but it's at the expense of other traditional skills. Like the 50 which must be from the ground, at an angle and only worth half of a kick from 20-25% closer. Or one on one defending from a corner back close to goal. For example.

Not sure I follow David. A good corner back is more essential now because the skillful corner forward isn't bollocksed chasing up and down the field, and we are back to what forwards were once told by trainers: his job is to mark you, not you to mark him. It's much harder defend under new rules, and on top of that if the forward catches a mark close to goal, he can do for goal, knowing he's still getting the tap over mark. So back has still more defending to do. The system defending of everyone back is gone under new rules and good man markers can shine in one on one battles, and poor backs will get skinned by forwards with more space and fresher legs.

I disagree the advantage rules denigrate the art of defending. No longer is there any utility to skilfully dispossessing an opponent or tactically allowing him a catch in order to ground defend him. Delaying and spoiling in a non card way is now the more effective way to defend if you can't prevent the mark which is the only real reward in mark situations.

In terms of high fielding the rules now encourage defending teams to flood a smaller area where they can have a numerical advantage and then break the ball to their spare man. The kicking team is having to tactically adjust to prevent that.

On your first point, it's not the new rules that have led to that situation, but the advanced mark (which I don't love). But I wish in my day, the corner back would have let me catch the ball first, instead of beating me to it to yelps and cheers. On the plus side, the advanced mark encourages longer kick pass into the forwards. The more teams get better at kicking, the better for the game. It's the same with the coaches complaining about tiring from running. Learn to be better kickers of the ball.
Regarding high fielding, teams can always flood an area - Tyrone were doing that effectively in league last year. But in games so far, I've seen some marvelous catches and even if the ball is broken, the scramble to get the breaking ball is a lot more interesting than the short kickout as a team then labours up the pitch passing it around waiting patiently for an opening. That was mind-numbingly boring to watch, and was killing the game as a spectacle. Teams can of course still hold onto the ball, but they've lost an outlet in passing it back to the goalie in their own half. That has introduced jeopardy into the possession game - a good thing, too. Have enjoyed seeing some desperate kick clearances.

The new rules have changed the nature of the mark. You now get two opportunities to score which wasn't the case under the old advanced mark.

I accept it encourages longer kicks in but it rewards the physical aspects of the game to a far greater degree. The big tall forward is getting two chances to score the tiny skilful forward who isn't favoured by long high kicks doesn't. I don't understand why there should be rules that denigrate one particular type of player like that.

The rules also allow the team defending the kick to have an extra player in the area the ball is likely to go. Why should the team taking the kick be disadvantaged in this way.

The rule on the keeper similarly is patently unfair. It rewards teams for fouling in their opponents half. If you can foul in a way that makes a solo and go difficult then you can organise and pressurise making it very difficult for the fouled team. The fouling team can have a two player advantage in pressuring the kick unless the keeper takes the kick. I've seen it 5 or 6 times at least so far and I'm sure we will see it a lot more as the season progresses.

The rules also mean a 50+m kick from an angle that must be hit from the ground is worth less than a 45m free kick that can be kicked from either hand or ground straight in front of the post. Do we not want to reward the more difficult skill?


As I've said I'll keep an open mind moving forward but so far I think the downsides well outweigh the benefits of the new rules.

Quote from: David McKeown on February 20, 2025, 10:28:21 PM

Quote from: weareros on February 20, 2025, 03:08:56 PM

Quote from: David McKeown on February 20, 2025, 12:10:10 AM

Quote from: weareros on February 19, 2025, 10:46:01 PM

Quote from: David McKeown on February 19, 2025, 09:36:38 PM

Quote from: weareros on February 19, 2025, 12:32:51 PMI suspect with new rules, teams they don't have natural 2 point kickers won't like them, teams that don't have good fielders for contested kick outs won't like them, and teams that can't defend without pulling every player back won't like them. Those 3 rules encourage traditional skills of the game - footballers who can kick a point from distance, high fielders, one on one sticky backs. The short kickout with opposing team pulling every player back, an orgy of hand passes until a team found a low risk opportunity, like a punch over the bar, had become unwatchable. I'm good with the rules so far.

True but it's at the expense of other traditional skills. Like the 50 which must be from the ground, at an angle and only worth half of a kick from 20-25% closer. Or one on one defending from a corner back close to goal. For example.

Not sure I follow David. A good corner back is more essential now because the skillful corner forward isn't bollocksed chasing up and down the field, and we are back to what forwards were once told by trainers: his job is to mark you, not you to mark him. It's much harder defend under new rules, and on top of that if the forward catches a mark close to goal, he can do for goal, knowing he's still getting the tap over mark. So back has still more defending to do. The system defending of everyone back is gone under new rules and good man markers can shine in one on one battles, and poor backs will get skinned by forwards with more space and fresher legs.

I disagree the advantage rules denigrate the art of defending. No longer is there any utility to skilfully dispossessing an opponent or tactically allowing him a catch in order to ground defend him. Delaying and spoiling in a non card way is now the more effective way to defend if you can't prevent the mark which is the only real reward in mark situations.

In terms of high fielding the rules now encourage defending teams to flood a smaller area where they can have a numerical advantage and then break the ball to their spare man. The kicking team is having to tactically adjust to prevent that.

On your first point, it's not the new rules that have led to that situation, but the advanced mark (which I don't love). But I wish in my day, the corner back would have let me catch the ball first, instead of beating me to it to yelps and cheers. On the plus side, the advanced mark encourages longer kick pass into the forwards. The more teams get better at kicking, the better for the game. It's the same with the coaches complaining about tiring from running. Learn to be better kickers of the ball.
Regarding high fielding, teams can always flood an area - Tyrone were doing that effectively in league last year. But in games so far, I've seen some marvelous catches and even if the ball is broken, the scramble to get the breaking ball is a lot more interesting than the short kickout as a team then labours up the pitch passing it around waiting patiently for an opening. That was mind-numbingly boring to watch, and was killing the game as a spectacle. Teams can of course still hold onto the ball, but they've lost an outlet in passing it back to the goalie in their own half. That has introduced jeopardy into the possession game - a good thing, too. Have enjoyed seeing some desperate kick clearances.

The new rules have changed the nature of the mark. You now get two opportunities to score which wasn't the case under the old advanced mark.

I accept it encourages longer kicks in but it rewards the physical aspects of the game to a far greater degree. The big tall forward is getting two chances to score the tiny skilful forward who isn't favoured by long high kicks doesn't. I don't understand why there should be rules that denigrate one particular type of player like that.

The rules also allow the team defending the kick to have an extra player in the area the ball is likely to go. Why should the team taking the kick be disadvantaged in this way.

The rule on the keeper similarly is patently unfair. It rewards teams for fouling in their opponents half. If you can foul in a way that makes a solo and go difficult then you can organise and pressurise making it very difficult for the fouled team. The fouling team can have a two player advantage in pressuring the kick unless the keeper takes the kick. I've seen it 5 or 6 times at least so far and I'm sure we will see it a lot more as the season progresses.

The rules also mean a 50+m kick from an angle that must be hit from the ground is worth less than a 45m free kick that can be kicked from either hand or ground straight in front of the post. Do we not want to reward the more difficult skill?


As I've said I'll keep an open mind moving forward but so far I think the downsides well outweigh the benefits of the new rules.

How many examples have you seen so far in club or county games just out of interest?

Quote from: David McKeown on February 20, 2025, 09:50:26 PM

Quote from: statto on February 20, 2025, 04:14:06 PM

Quote from: ClubScene13 on February 20, 2025, 02:59:14 PM

Quote from: clonian on February 20, 2025, 11:23:16 AMI saw Niall Morgan getting a bit of stick on twitter for saying he wouldn't want to go back to being 'just a goalkeeper' anymore in the Irish Examiner. Wooly leading the pile on too. It seems strange that the best actual goalkeeper out of them doesn't want to do the goalkeeping bit. How many more years would Niall have realistically - especially playing the way he wants to?

I still maintain as Tyrone get better he'll have less of a role up the pitch than he does currently.

The other point is young keepers won't play because they can't run up the pitch - bollox lads. I would say more keepers went to soccer over the last 10 years because most goals were handpassed around them and palmed in.

Rent a quote Morgan. What about keeping the head down for 2 weeks or so would that be too much to ask.

Absolutely loves the sound of own voice. He is a school principle before he was 30, I wonder if he would have got that job if was playing soccer for Dungannon and not a high profile gaa player. 

Thats the school linked to my club.  My nieces went/go there and I know my siblings speak very highly of him.

I'm not doubting his working credentials but he's going going on about gaa player poverty and saying lads should play soccer as get paid yet I have no doubt the profile gaa gave him helped him get the job.Not too many heads of school under 30.

QuoteEight games into 2025, Offaly star Cormac Egan has played five of those under football's old rules and three under the new ones.

The Tullamore man has been ever present for college and county, lining out in UCD's five Electric Ireland Sigerson Cup games and all three of Offaly's National League outings.

He has an enviable record too, winning seven of those matches and only coming up short with UCD in last week's Sigerson decider.

The third level competitions were played under the traditional rules whilst county activity has all been under the new rules, making for an interesting few weeks jumping between the two.

For Egan, flying high at the head of Division 3 with Offaly, there is no question which set of rules he's enjoyed more.

"I don't think it's much of a conversation really, is it? The new rules by a long shot," said Egan, wing-back for his county and wing-forward for his college. "A few of the Sigerson games we played were frustrating really. It was tough to switch back and you do get a small bit frustrated, especially with things like dissent and the game being slowed down. You can't do that in the new game. It's made for a way better spectacle, way more enjoyable."

UCD's Sigerson Cup semi-final against TU Dublin was a particularly difficult watch. It wasn't simply the old rules that contributed to a poor contest which finished 0-5 apiece after normal time, forcing extra-time and penalties. But a cautious encounter did underline just why change was required.

"That's the thing, I think with the new rules that would have been a cracker of a game," said Egan. "The talent on show was of a high level but look, it ended up being a frustrating game."

I've seen a few players quibble slightly about some rules or some aspects of some rules but I havent seen one player who isn't overall in favour of the rules. Has any player at all come out against them?

Quote from: JoG2 on February 20, 2025, 11:36:12 PM

Quote from: David McKeown on February 20, 2025, 10:28:21 PM

Quote from: weareros on February 20, 2025, 03:08:56 PM

Quote from: David McKeown on February 20, 2025, 12:10:10 AM

Quote from: weareros on February 19, 2025, 10:46:01 PM

Quote from: David McKeown on February 19, 2025, 09:36:38 PM

Quote from: weareros on February 19, 2025, 12:32:51 PMI suspect with new rules, teams they don't have natural 2 point kickers won't like them, teams that don't have good fielders for contested kick outs won't like them, and teams that can't defend without pulling every player back won't like them. Those 3 rules encourage traditional skills of the game - footballers who can kick a point from distance, high fielders, one on one sticky backs. The short kickout with opposing team pulling every player back, an orgy of hand passes until a team found a low risk opportunity, like a punch over the bar, had become unwatchable. I'm good with the rules so far.

True but it's at the expense of other traditional skills. Like the 50 which must be from the ground, at an angle and only worth half of a kick from 20-25% closer. Or one on one defending from a corner back close to goal. For example.

Not sure I follow David. A good corner back is more essential now because the skillful corner forward isn't bollocksed chasing up and down the field, and we are back to what forwards were once told by trainers: his job is to mark you, not you to mark him. It's much harder defend under new rules, and on top of that if the forward catches a mark close to goal, he can do for goal, knowing he's still getting the tap over mark. So back has still more defending to do. The system defending of everyone back is gone under new rules and good man markers can shine in one on one battles, and poor backs will get skinned by forwards with more space and fresher legs.

I disagree the advantage rules denigrate the art of defending. No longer is there any utility to skilfully dispossessing an opponent or tactically allowing him a catch in order to ground defend him. Delaying and spoiling in a non card way is now the more effective way to defend if you can't prevent the mark which is the only real reward in mark situations.

In terms of high fielding the rules now encourage defending teams to flood a smaller area where they can have a numerical advantage and then break the ball to their spare man. The kicking team is having to tactically adjust to prevent that.

On your first point, it's not the new rules that have led to that situation, but the advanced mark (which I don't love). But I wish in my day, the corner back would have let me catch the ball first, instead of beating me to it to yelps and cheers. On the plus side, the advanced mark encourages longer kick pass into the forwards. The more teams get better at kicking, the better for the game. It's the same with the coaches complaining about tiring from running. Learn to be better kickers of the ball.
Regarding high fielding, teams can always flood an area - Tyrone were doing that effectively in league last year. But in games so far, I've seen some marvelous catches and even if the ball is broken, the scramble to get the breaking ball is a lot more interesting than the short kickout as a team then labours up the pitch passing it around waiting patiently for an opening. That was mind-numbingly boring to watch, and was killing the game as a spectacle. Teams can of course still hold onto the ball, but they've lost an outlet in passing it back to the goalie in their own half. That has introduced jeopardy into the possession game - a good thing, too. Have enjoyed seeing some desperate kick clearances.

The new rules have changed the nature of the mark. You now get two opportunities to score which wasn't the case under the old advanced mark.

I accept it encourages longer kicks in but it rewards the physical aspects of the game to a far greater degree. The big tall forward is getting two chances to score the tiny skilful forward who isn't favoured by long high kicks doesn't. I don't understand why there should be rules that denigrate one particular type of player like that.

The rules also allow the team defending the kick to have an extra player in the area the ball is likely to go. Why should the team taking the kick be disadvantaged in this way.

The rule on the keeper similarly is patently unfair. It rewards teams for fouling in their opponents half. If you can foul in a way that makes a solo and go difficult then you can organise and pressurise making it very difficult for the fouled team. The fouling team can have a two player advantage in pressuring the kick unless the keeper takes the kick. I've seen it 5 or 6 times at least so far and I'm sure we will see it a lot more as the season progresses.

The rules also mean a 50+m kick from an angle that must be hit from the ground is worth less than a 45m free kick that can be kicked from either hand or ground straight in front of the post. Do we not want to reward the more difficult skill?


As I've said I'll keep an open mind moving forward but so far I think the downsides well outweigh the benefits of the new rules.

Quote from: David McKeown on February 20, 2025, 10:28:21 PM

Quote from: weareros on February 20, 2025, 03:08:56 PM

Quote from: David McKeown on February 20, 2025, 12:10:10 AM

Quote from: weareros on February 19, 2025, 10:46:01 PM

Quote from: David McKeown on February 19, 2025, 09:36:38 PM

Quote from: weareros on February 19, 2025, 12:32:51 PMI suspect with new rules, teams they don't have natural 2 point kickers won't like them, teams that don't have good fielders for contested kick outs won't like them, and teams that can't defend without pulling every player back won't like them. Those 3 rules encourage traditional skills of the game - footballers who can kick a point from distance, high fielders, one on one sticky backs. The short kickout with opposing team pulling every player back, an orgy of hand passes until a team found a low risk opportunity, like a punch over the bar, had become unwatchable. I'm good with the rules so far.

True but it's at the expense of other traditional skills. Like the 50 which must be from the ground, at an angle and only worth half of a kick from 20-25% closer. Or one on one defending from a corner back close to goal. For example.

Not sure I follow David. A good corner back is more essential now because the skillful corner forward isn't bollocksed chasing up and down the field, and we are back to what forwards were once told by trainers: his job is to mark you, not you to mark him. It's much harder defend under new rules, and on top of that if the forward catches a mark close to goal, he can do for goal, knowing he's still getting the tap over mark. So back has still more defending to do. The system defending of everyone back is gone under new rules and good man markers can shine in one on one battles, and poor backs will get skinned by forwards with more space and fresher legs.

I disagree the advantage rules denigrate the art of defending. No longer is there any utility to skilfully dispossessing an opponent or tactically allowing him a catch in order to ground defend him. Delaying and spoiling in a non card way is now the more effective way to defend if you can't prevent the mark which is the only real reward in mark situations.

In terms of high fielding the rules now encourage defending teams to flood a smaller area where they can have a numerical advantage and then break the ball to their spare man. The kicking team is having to tactically adjust to prevent that.

On your first point, it's not the new rules that have led to that situation, but the advanced mark (which I don't love). But I wish in my day, the corner back would have let me catch the ball first, instead of beating me to it to yelps and cheers. On the plus side, the advanced mark encourages longer kick pass into the forwards. The more teams get better at kicking, the better for the game. It's the same with the coaches complaining about tiring from running. Learn to be better kickers of the ball.
Regarding high fielding, teams can always flood an area - Tyrone were doing that effectively in league last year. But in games so far, I've seen some marvelous catches and even if the ball is broken, the scramble to get the breaking ball is a lot more interesting than the short kickout as a team then labours up the pitch passing it around waiting patiently for an opening. That was mind-numbingly boring to watch, and was killing the game as a spectacle. Teams can of course still hold onto the ball, but they've lost an outlet in passing it back to the goalie in their own half. That has introduced jeopardy into the possession game - a good thing, too. Have enjoyed seeing some desperate kick clearances.

The new rules have changed the nature of the mark. You now get two opportunities to score which wasn't the case under the old advanced mark.

I accept it encourages longer kicks in but it rewards the physical aspects of the game to a far greater degree. The big tall forward is getting two chances to score the tiny skilful forward who isn't favoured by long high kicks doesn't. I don't understand why there should be rules that denigrate one particular type of player like that.

The rules also allow the team defending the kick to have an extra player in the area the ball is likely to go. Why should the team taking the kick be disadvantaged in this way.

The rule on the keeper similarly is patently unfair. It rewards teams for fouling in their opponents half. If you can foul in a way that makes a solo and go difficult then you can organise and pressurise making it very difficult for the fouled team. The fouling team can have a two player advantage in pressuring the kick unless the keeper takes the kick. I've seen it 5 or 6 times at least so far and I'm sure we will see it a lot more as the season progresses.

The rules also mean a 50+m kick from an angle that must be hit from the ground is worth less than a 45m free kick that can be kicked from either hand or ground straight in front of the post. Do we not want to reward the more difficult skill?


As I've said I'll keep an open mind moving forward but so far I think the downsides well outweigh the benefits of the new rules.

How many examples have you seen so far in club or county games just out of interest?

Several so far. I can remember multiple examples in the Tyrone v Armagh match. One in the Donegal v Armagh match. 2 or 3 in the Down v Roscommon match. A smattering in other games and one in the only club match I've been at under the new rules. I'm not sure though what the relevance of how many times it happens in a game is to whether or not it's an appropriate rule.

I also liked the clock rule but it doesn't half make the end of a match boring.

Quote from: David McKeown on February 22, 2025, 09:18:06 PMI also liked the clock rule but it doesn't half make the end of a match boring.

Simple fix, steal the rugby rule, let the play continue until its conclusion.

But having been in croke park tonight, I'm starting to come around to your way of thinking about all of these rules, I really don't want to be a naysayer and luddite on these and want to give them every chance, but they looked better on TV than they were in real life.

3 v 3 is really contrived, might a version of no back court not have been better?

Allowing the keeper up still allows a version of piggy in the middle keep ball, just further up the pitch - has to go.

Quote from: onefineday on February 22, 2025, 11:36:55 PM

Quote from: David McKeown on February 22, 2025, 09:18:06 PMI also liked the clock rule but it doesn't half make the end of a match boring.

Simple fix, steal the rugby rule, let the play continue until its conclusion.

But having been in croke park tonight, I'm starting to come around to your way of thinking about all of these rules, I really don't want to be a naysayer and luddite on these and want to give them every chance, but they looked better on TV than they were in real life.

3 v 3 is really contrived, might a version of no back court not have been better?

Allowing the keeper up still allows a version of piggy in the middle keep ball, just further up the pitch - has to go.

Something like the keeper can't  touch the ball beyond  the  40m arc would be better

The new rules  practically insist you keeper  comes  upfield at every opportunity.  Blaine Hughes had a great year last year , yet the  non-keeper is playing for Armagh now, because he  adds more in the opposing half.

I hear rumblings of Shane Ryan not adding much  in attack. He might be the next casualty

Quote from: AustinPowers on February 22, 2025, 11:42:45 PM

Quote from: onefineday on February 22, 2025, 11:36:55 PM

Quote from: David McKeown on February 22, 2025, 09:18:06 PMI also liked the clock rule but it doesn't half make the end of a match boring.

Simple fix, steal the rugby rule, let the play continue until its conclusion.

But having been in croke park tonight, I'm starting to come around to your way of thinking about all of these rules, I really don't want to be a naysayer and luddite on these and want to give them every chance, but they looked better on TV than they were in real life.

3 v 3 is really contrived, might a version of no back court not have been better?

Allowing the keeper up still allows a version of piggy in the middle keep ball, just further up the pitch - has to go.

Something like the keeper can't  touch the ball beyond  the  40m arc would be better

The new rules  practically insist you keeper  comes  upfield at every opportunity.  Blaine Hughes had a great year last year , yet the  non-keeper is playing for Armagh now, because he  adds more in the opposing half.

I hear rumblings of Shane Ryan not adding much  in attack. He might be the next casualty

Interesting suggestion - let's see how committed managers really are to allowing the keepers up to contribute!

How long is it going to take managers to realise that trying to defend your way to a win is not going to work.

Dropping off to allow trans to slowly build up and bring the keeper forward to create an overlap is going to be too hard to stop.

Push up, force teams to kick to a contest, force turnovers etc and keepers will have to stay back

Quote from: onefineday on February 22, 2025, 11:36:55 PM

Quote from: David McKeown on February 22, 2025, 09:18:06 PMI also liked the clock rule but it doesn't half make the end of a match boring.

Simple fix, steal the rugby rule, let the play continue until its conclusion.

But having been in croke park tonight, I'm starting to come around to your way of thinking about all of these rules, I really don't want to be a naysayer and luddite on these and want to give them every chance, but they looked better on TV than they were in real life.

3 v 3 is really contrived, might a version of no back court not have been better?

Allowing the keeper up still allows a version of piggy in the middle keep ball, just further up the pitch - has to go.

I'm not sure it is that simple a fix was the whole purpose of the rule not to prevent exactly that from happening?  Ive timed a couple of matches this year just to see how much extra time was being allowed in the Tyrone Armagh match it would have been roughly the equivalent to just over 2 minutes of injury time in the first half and 4 minutes in the second.  In the Donegal v Armagh game it would have 3 and 6 respectively.  So not a huge amount more time.  So the fixed end seems to be the only real purpose of the rule.

On the new rules I don't want to sound like a broken record but I have yet to see any real benefit to them but I have seen a lot of drawbacks so far.  I would like to see some of them tweaked though and am willing to keep an open mind moving forward particularly as it looks like we may be stuck with them for 5 years if Jarlath Burns comments are anything to go by.

Quote from: onefineday on February 22, 2025, 11:36:55 PM

Quote from: David McKeown on February 22, 2025, 09:18:06 PMI also liked the clock rule but it doesn't half make the end of a match boring.

Simple fix, steal the rugby rule, let the play continue until its conclusion.

But having been in croke park tonight, I'm starting to come around to your way of thinking about all of these rules, I really don't want to be a naysayer and luddite on these and want to give them every chance, but they looked better on TV than they were in real life.

3 v 3 is really contrived, might a version of no back court not have been better?

Allowing the keeper up still allows a version of piggy in the middle keep ball, just further up the pitch - has to go.

Pretty sure they already tried the rugby approach in the trial games and it was a disaster.
Someone involved with the FRC spoke about it on the radio or a podcast or something a few months back around the time the trial games were taking place (maybe Fitzmaurice?)

A big issue was that in a lot of games, the team leading could simply finish the game by fouling the opposition. If your lead was enough, you could simply foul the opposition, let them take their chance at a score knowing even if they convert the score wouldn't be enough to change the result. Any rule that encourages foul play can't be a good idea.

Quote from: twohands!!! on February 23, 2025, 11:49:50 AM

Quote from: onefineday on February 22, 2025, 11:36:55 PM

Quote from: David McKeown on February 22, 2025, 09:18:06 PMI also liked the clock rule but it doesn't half make the end of a match boring.

Simple fix, steal the rugby rule, let the play continue until its conclusion.

But having been in croke park tonight, I'm starting to come around to your way of thinking about all of these rules, I really don't want to be a naysayer and luddite on these and want to give them every chance, but they looked better on TV than they were in real life.

3 v 3 is really contrived, might a version of no back court not have been better?

Allowing the keeper up still allows a version of piggy in the middle keep ball, just further up the pitch - has to go.

Pretty sure they already tried the rugby approach in the trial games and it was a disaster.
Someone involved with the FRC spoke about it on the radio or a podcast or something a few months back around the time the trial games were taking place (maybe Fitzmaurice?)

A big issue was that in a lot of games, the team leading could simply finish the game by fouling the opposition. If your lead was enough, you could simply foul the opposition, let them take their chance at a score knowing even if they convert the score wouldn't be enough to change the result. Any rule that encourages foul play can't be a good idea.

You mean like the not allowed to pass to your keeper in your own half rule?

Quote from: David McKeown on February 23, 2025, 07:43:59 PM

Quote from: twohands!!! on February 23, 2025, 11:49:50 AM

Quote from: onefineday on February 22, 2025, 11:36:55 PM

Quote from: David McKeown on February 22, 2025, 09:18:06 PMI also liked the clock rule but it doesn't half make the end of a match boring.

Simple fix, steal the rugby rule, let the play continue until its conclusion.

But having been in croke park tonight, I'm starting to come around to your way of thinking about all of these rules, I really don't want to be a naysayer and luddite on these and want to give them every chance, but they looked better on TV than they were in real life.

3 v 3 is really contrived, might a version of no back court not have been better?

Allowing the keeper up still allows a version of piggy in the middle keep ball, just further up the pitch - has to go.

Pretty sure they already tried the rugby approach in the trial games and it was a disaster.
Someone involved with the FRC spoke about it on the radio or a podcast or something a few months back around the time the trial games were taking place (maybe Fitzmaurice?)

A big issue was that in a lot of games, the team leading could simply finish the game by fouling the opposition. If your lead was enough, you could simply foul the opposition, let them take their chance at a score knowing even if they convert the score wouldn't be enough to change the result. Any rule that encourages foul play can't be a good idea.

You mean like the not allowed to pass to your keeper in your own half rule?

You can inside the small square  ;D

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 23, 2025, 08:00:11 PM

Quote from: David McKeown on February 23, 2025, 07:43:59 PM

Quote from: twohands!!! on February 23, 2025, 11:49:50 AM

Quote from: onefineday on February 22, 2025, 11:36:55 PM

Quote from: David McKeown on February 22, 2025, 09:18:06 PMI also liked the clock rule but it doesn't half make the end of a match boring.

Simple fix, steal the rugby rule, let the play continue until its conclusion.

But having been in croke park tonight, I'm starting to come around to your way of thinking about all of these rules, I really don't want to be a naysayer and luddite on these and want to give them every chance, but they looked better on TV than they were in real life.

3 v 3 is really contrived, might a version of no back court not have been better?

Allowing the keeper up still allows a version of piggy in the middle keep ball, just further up the pitch - has to go.

Pretty sure they already tried the rugby approach in the trial games and it was a disaster.
Someone involved with the FRC spoke about it on the radio or a podcast or something a few months back around the time the trial games were taking place (maybe Fitzmaurice?)

A big issue was that in a lot of games, the team leading could simply finish the game by fouling the opposition. If your lead was enough, you could simply foul the opposition, let them take their chance at a score knowing even if they convert the score wouldn't be enough to change the result. Any rule that encourages foul play can't be a good idea.

You mean like the not allowed to pass to your keeper in your own half rule?

You can inside the small square  ;D

Although even that leaves you at a significant disadvantage it seems

Thought Malachy O'Rourke's comments were interesting after today's game, even though he was on the committee.

It appears that he's not fond of the kick-out rule as it results in too many 50/50s. Also, the black card disadvantage isn't a disadvantage.

Quote from: ONeill on February 23, 2025, 09:11:32 PMThought Malachy O'Rourke's comments were interesting after today's game, even though he was on the committee.

It appears that he's not fond of the kick-out rule as it results in too many 50/50s. Also, the black card disadvantage isn't a disadvantage.

What nonsense - the game itself (where teams are at same level) are usually 50/50 or thereabouts.
And what's wrong with man to man contests for possession ?
High fielding at midfield was one of the highlights of the game - think Jacko, Willie Joe, Fenton etc.

What's to stop a team playing the goalkeeper out the field the entire game up front, and put in the actual goalkeeper as a defender in nets. This cut out the pass bck to the goalkeeper as he's in the forwards. Maybe am over thinking it.

Quote from: Wildweasel74 on February 23, 2025, 09:41:02 PMWhat's to stop a team playing the goalkeeper out the field the entire game up front, and put in the actual goalkeeper as a defender in nets. This cut out the pass bck to the goalkeeper as he's in the forwards. Maybe am over thinking it.

Nothing, kick outs would need be sorted though, had the keeper would need to stay in the box or kick it

Quote from: The Boy Wonder on February 23, 2025, 09:36:21 PM

Quote from: ONeill on February 23, 2025, 09:11:32 PMThought Malachy O'Rourke's comments were interesting after today's game, even though he was on the committee.

It appears that he's not fond of the kick-out rule as it results in too many 50/50s. Also, the black card disadvantage isn't a disadvantage.

What nonsense - the game itself (where teams are at same level) are usually 50/50 or thereabouts.
And what's wrong with man to man contests for possession ?
High fielding at midfield was one of the highlights of the game - think Jacko, Willie Joe, Fenton etc.

I know what you mean, but modern managers, especially at that level, have systems set in stone they're loyal to and it means a quick kick out to maintain possession. Soccer is doing that now too.

Quote from: Wildweasel74 on February 23, 2025, 09:41:02 PMWhat's to stop a team playing the goalkeeper out the field the entire game up front, and put in the actual goalkeeper as a defender in nets. This cut out the pass bck to the goalkeeper as he's in the forwards. Maybe am over thinking it.

The actual goalkeeper has to stay in his square if he is not taking the kickout.

3v3 needs reviewed. When Kerry had 2 black cards, tyrone had 3 men marking 1 kerry forward,  as under the current rules that how it works. It is an unfair advantage to the team with the black cards.
Either let tyrone push 2 up to gain advantage of black cards or force Kerry to keep 3 up ! Bit of sense needed

Quote from: ONeill on February 23, 2025, 10:37:20 PM

Quote from: The Boy Wonder on February 23, 2025, 09:36:21 PM

Quote from: ONeill on February 23, 2025, 09:11:32 PMThought Malachy O'Rourke's comments were interesting after today's game, even though he was on the committee.

It appears that he's not fond of the kick-out rule as it results in too many 50/50s. Also, the black card disadvantage isn't a disadvantage.

What nonsense - the game itself (where teams are at same level) are usually 50/50 or thereabouts.
And what's wrong with man to man contests for possession ?
High fielding at midfield was one of the highlights of the game - think Jacko, Willie Joe, Fenton etc.

I know what you mean, but modern managers, especially at that level, have systems set in stone they're loyal to and it means a quick kick out to maintain possession. Soccer is doing that now too.

Posted this in another thread:
As it sits, the kickout rule is more like a punishment for the team taking it. Your own restart is now a lottery. You should be able to use all space available on the pitch on your kickout, not have it restricted to try to help the opponent.

The rule isn't needed now either - especially now the goalkeeper is no longer an option for an easy out, short kickouts can be pressed. 

So teams can press the shorts & still force the long kickout - giving the best of both worlds & variation. Not just hit it long & see what happens.

I know there was a gale force wind in Salthill but seeing how Patton struggled kicking into it highlighted the shortsightedness of the rule too. That's a keeper with a bomb of a kickout struggling at times to get it 45m. Now think of an average club keeper or underage keeper. Be an absolute mess in less windy conditions.

Quote from: Delgany 2nds on February 23, 2025, 11:09:41 PM3v3 needs reviewed. When Kerry had 2 black cards, tyrone had 3 men marking 1 kerry forward,  as under the current rules that how it works. It is an unfair advantage to the team with the black cards.
Either let tyrone push 2 up to gain advantage of black cards or force Kerry to keep 3 up ! Bit of sense needed

Yeah this needs to be sorted asap if the rule are going to stay.

Quote from: on the sideline on February 23, 2025, 11:12:59 PM

Quote from: ONeill on February 23, 2025, 10:37:20 PM

Quote from: The Boy Wonder on February 23, 2025, 09:36:21 PM

Quote from: ONeill on February 23, 2025, 09:11:32 PMThought Malachy O'Rourke's comments were interesting after today's game, even though he was on the committee.

It appears that he's not fond of the kick-out rule as it results in too many 50/50s. Also, the black card disadvantage isn't a disadvantage.

What nonsense - the game itself (where teams are at same level) are usually 50/50 or thereabouts.
And what's wrong with man to man contests for possession ?
High fielding at midfield was one of the highlights of the game - think Jacko, Willie Joe, Fenton etc.

I know what you mean, but modern managers, especially at that level, have systems set in stone they're loyal to and it means a quick kick out to maintain possession. Soccer is doing that now too.

Posted this in another thread:
As it sits, the kickout rule is more like a punishment for the team taking it. Your own restart is now a lottery. You should be able to use all space available on the pitch on your kickout, not have it restricted to try to help the opponent.

The rule isn't needed now either - especially now the goalkeeper is no longer an option for an easy out, short kickouts can be pressed. 

So teams can press the shorts & still force the long kickout - giving the best of both worlds & variation. Not just hit it long & see what happens.

I know there was a gale force wind in Salthill but seeing how Patton struggled kicking into it highlighted the shortsightedness of the rule too. That's a keeper with a bomb of a kickout struggling at times to get it 45m. Now think of an average club keeper or underage keeper. Be an absolute mess in less windy conditions.

If Patton, a county keeper can't kick the ball 20 meters he needs replacing, regardless of how strong the wind is

Quote from: twohands!!! on February 23, 2025, 11:49:50 AM

Quote from: onefineday on February 22, 2025, 11:36:55 PM

Quote from: David McKeown on February 22, 2025, 09:18:06 PMI also liked the clock rule but it doesn't half make the end of a match boring.

Simple fix, steal the rugby rule, let the play continue until its conclusion.

But having been in croke park tonight, I'm starting to come around to your way of thinking about all of these rules, I really don't want to be a naysayer and luddite on these and want to give them every chance, but they looked better on TV than they were in real life.

3 v 3 is really contrived, might a version of no back court not have been better?

Allowing the keeper up still allows a version of piggy in the middle keep ball, just further up the pitch - has to go.

Pretty sure they already tried the rugby approach in the trial games and it was a disaster.
Someone involved with the FRC spoke about it on the radio or a podcast or something a few months back around the time the trial games were taking place (maybe Fitzmaurice?)

A big issue was that in a lot of games, the team leading could simply finish the game by fouling the opposition. If your lead was enough, you could simply foul the opposition, let them take their chance at a score knowing even if they convert the score wouldn't be enough to change the result. Any rule that encourages foul play can't be a good idea.

Afaik the rugby rules allow for the team to continue to play until the ball goes dead, if they win a penalty then they can kick to touch and still take the line out - it's only when they foul or lose possession that the game will be ended.

I don't see that it would cause much of an issue in football and would definitely add to excitement.
In the scenario where a team is 2pts down and in possession, the hooter goes, they know they've to try and work a 2-pointer (or a goal), the opposition have to try and win it and get it out of play, it's not like the old days David, everyone knows where they stand, it's not an arbitrary call by a referee on whether or not to give one more chance to a team.
I don't see the downside myself.

In the rugby with regards to the advantage, there's a part where if they have moved the ball sufficiently enough to a place which is more advantageous then the advantage rule is cancelled..

Quote from: The Boy Wonder on February 23, 2025, 09:36:21 PM

Quote from: ONeill on February 23, 2025, 09:11:32 PMThought Malachy O'Rourke's comments were interesting after today's game, even though he was on the committee.

It appears that he's not fond of the kick-out rule as it results in too many 50/50s. Also, the black card disadvantage isn't a disadvantage.

What nonsense - the game itself (where teams are at same level) are usually 50/50 or thereabouts.
And what's wrong with man to man contests for possession ?
High fielding at midfield was one of the highlights of the game - think Jacko, Willie Joe, Fenton etc.

What other team game after conceding a score do you have to play a ball not in your favour? Every other sport a team gets the chance to restart. As someone pointed out, with the keeper not able to get involved the kick outs didn't need changed

Quote from: Saffron_sam20 on February 24, 2025, 08:14:28 AM

Quote from: The Boy Wonder on February 23, 2025, 09:36:21 PM

Quote from: ONeill on February 23, 2025, 09:11:32 PMThought Malachy O'Rourke's comments were interesting after today's game, even though he was on the committee.

It appears that he's not fond of the kick-out rule as it results in too many 50/50s. Also, the black card disadvantage isn't a disadvantage.

What nonsense - the game itself (where teams are at same level) are usually 50/50 or thereabouts.
And what's wrong with man to man contests for possession ?
High fielding at midfield was one of the highlights of the game - think Jacko, Willie Joe, Fenton etc.

What other team game after conceding a score do you have to play a ball not in your favour? Every other sport a team gets the chance to restart. As someone pointed out, with the keeper not able to get involved the kick outs didn't need changed

I'm sort of trying to understand the logic. Kick outs have always been about, either from the corner of the square or now from the 21, teams have always had to 'work' a kick out to gain possession and the other team have always tried to nullify that by pressing up so when the keeper has to kick the ball into the center then its still an opportunity to for your team to win possession? 

Do people want the team that has the kick out to get automatic possession?

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 24, 2025, 08:53:44 AM

Quote from: Saffron_sam20 on February 24, 2025, 08:14:28 AM

Quote from: The Boy Wonder on February 23, 2025, 09:36:21 PM

Quote from: ONeill on February 23, 2025, 09:11:32 PMThought Malachy O'Rourke's comments were interesting after today's game, even though he was on the committee.

It appears that he's not fond of the kick-out rule as it results in too many 50/50s. Also, the black card disadvantage isn't a disadvantage.

What nonsense - the game itself (where teams are at same level) are usually 50/50 or thereabouts.
And what's wrong with man to man contests for possession ?
High fielding at midfield was one of the highlights of the game - think Jacko, Willie Joe, Fenton etc.

What other team game after conceding a score do you have to play a ball not in your favour? Every other sport a team gets the chance to restart. As someone pointed out, with the keeper not able to get involved the kick outs didn't need changed

I'm sort of trying to understand the logic. Kick outs have always been about, either from the corner of the square or now from the 21, teams have always had to 'work' a kick out to gain possession and the other team have always tried to nullify that by pressing up so when the keeper has to kick the ball into the center then its still an opportunity to for your team to win possession? 

Do people want the team that has the kick out to get automatic possession?

I get what youre saying, what I mean is teams should be allowed to work their kick out as they see fit not be forced into something they dont want to do. as I say I watched a game last week and one team prob won 1 of their own kick outs. should be able to work a short, given that the keeper cant take the ball in his own half it kind of makes the having to go long pointless as the team wont have a spare man. if anything the new kick out is a disadvantage to the team taking it as the opposition can push their keeper up and gives them an extra man.

Quote from: Saffron_sam20 on February 24, 2025, 09:59:21 AM

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 24, 2025, 08:53:44 AM

Quote from: Saffron_sam20 on February 24, 2025, 08:14:28 AM

Quote from: The Boy Wonder on February 23, 2025, 09:36:21 PM

Quote from: ONeill on February 23, 2025, 09:11:32 PMThought Malachy O'Rourke's comments were interesting after today's game, even though he was on the committee.

It appears that he's not fond of the kick-out rule as it results in too many 50/50s. Also, the black card disadvantage isn't a disadvantage.

What nonsense - the game itself (where teams are at same level) are usually 50/50 or thereabouts.
And what's wrong with man to man contests for possession ?
High fielding at midfield was one of the highlights of the game - think Jacko, Willie Joe, Fenton etc.

What other team game after conceding a score do you have to play a ball not in your favour? Every other sport a team gets the chance to restart. As someone pointed out, with the keeper not able to get involved the kick outs didn't need changed

I'm sort of trying to understand the logic. Kick outs have always been about, either from the corner of the square or now from the 21, teams have always had to 'work' a kick out to gain possession and the other team have always tried to nullify that by pressing up so when the keeper has to kick the ball into the center then its still an opportunity to for your team to win possession? 

Do people want the team that has the kick out to get automatic possession?

I get what youre saying, what I mean is teams should be allowed to work their kick out as they see fit not be forced into something they dont want to do. as I say I watched a game last week and one team prob won 1 of their own kick outs. should be able to work a short, given that the keeper cant take the ball in his own half it kind of makes the having to go long pointless as the team wont have a spare man. if anything the new kick out is a disadvantage to the team taking it as the opposition can push their keeper up and gives them an extra man.

It will bring about a change in kick outs for sure, winning dirty ball and high fielding being the most important.. Obviously having big men to win the balls will disadvantage smaller less physical teams, I can certainly look at a few Antrim club teams that will have a field day with this, management will have to adopt their styles

From a neutral view though I'm seeing teams retreating back to the 40 arc and setting their stall there
I like contested kick outs
Match I did yesterday they policed 3v3 rule well
Only once did the keeper collect a pass
A few times handing the ball back to the players was not done correctly, so I just informed them it could be better and in the league you'll force the ref to move the ball 50 meters
No back chat dissent, just asking reason gave explanation and they moved on.
One forward mark and I explained the reasoning of the unlimited time for that advantage, though I ballsed up and when I realised that the person that took the mark didn't take the Mark! In all my explaining to the players around me I didn't notice
Not many did the solo and go, I did speak with managers and players that its solo and go and after 4 meters you can be tackled, not enough done on this during game to see how that will pan out

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 24, 2025, 10:20:53 AM

Quote from: Saffron_sam20 on February 24, 2025, 09:59:21 AM

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 24, 2025, 08:53:44 AM

Quote from: Saffron_sam20 on February 24, 2025, 08:14:28 AM

Quote from: The Boy Wonder on February 23, 2025, 09:36:21 PM

Quote from: ONeill on February 23, 2025, 09:11:32 PMThought Malachy O'Rourke's comments were interesting after today's game, even though he was on the committee.

It appears that he's not fond of the kick-out rule as it results in too many 50/50s. Also, the black card disadvantage isn't a disadvantage.

What nonsense - the game itself (where teams are at same level) are usually 50/50 or thereabouts.
And what's wrong with man to man contests for possession ?
High fielding at midfield was one of the highlights of the game - think Jacko, Willie Joe, Fenton etc.

What other team game after conceding a score do you have to play a ball not in your favour? Every other sport a team gets the chance to restart. As someone pointed out, with the keeper not able to get involved the kick outs didn't need changed

I'm sort of trying to understand the logic. Kick outs have always been about, either from the corner of the square or now from the 21, teams have always had to 'work' a kick out to gain possession and the other team have always tried to nullify that by pressing up so when the keeper has to kick the ball into the center then its still an opportunity to for your team to win possession? 

Do people want the team that has the kick out to get automatic possession?

I get what youre saying, what I mean is teams should be allowed to work their kick out as they see fit not be forced into something they dont want to do. as I say I watched a game last week and one team prob won 1 of their own kick outs. should be able to work a short, given that the keeper cant take the ball in his own half it kind of makes the having to go long pointless as the team wont have a spare man. if anything the new kick out is a disadvantage to the team taking it as the opposition can push their keeper up and gives them an extra man.

It will bring about a change in kick outs for sure, winning dirty ball and high fielding being the most important.. Obviously having big men to win the balls will disadvantage smaller less physical teams, I can certainly look at a few Antrim club teams that will have a field day with this, management will have to adopt their styles

From a neutral view though I'm seeing teams retreating back to the 40 arc and setting their stall there
I like contested kick outs
Match I did yesterday they policed 3v3 rule well
Only once did the keeper collect a pass
A few times handing the ball back to the players was not done correctly, so I just informed them it could be better and in the league you'll force the ref to move the ball 50 meters
No back chat dissent, just asking reason gave explanation and they moved on.
One forward mark and I explained the reasoning of the unlimited time for that advantage, though I ballsed up and when I realised that the person that took the mark didn't take the Mark! In all my explaining to the players around me I didn't notice
Not many did the solo and go, I did speak with managers and players that its solo and go and after 4 meters you can be tackled, not enough done on this during game to see how that will pan out

I think from a neutral point of view contested balls are good, but if youre a manager or supporter of a team you dont want contested balls. I just think a lot of things are being done for armchair supporters.

the 3v3 is ok but its just rigid, for example a player who intercepts a ball near half way might not be able to go on the attack as not enough back etc but think its a good enough rule for county. just when competitive club football starts itll be a nightmare for refs, supporters shouting on etc ref need eyes in the back of their head.

I think youre going to take a common sense approach with the dissent, I think players should be able to be frustrated without having a go at the referee. hope all refs take same approach. the handing the ball back is a nonsense and really is the first one id like to see binned, as ive said on here before just book a player whos acting the p***k, if youre a defender and get booked early on for throwing a ball away or slowing the ball up youre walking a tight rope for the rest of the game for stupidity. thats where soccer has it right

I said the players if its a loose ball from a free, you don't have to retrieve it, if you do give it to the nearest player, don't throw it or set it down or gentle roll it towards him lol. I'm up for binning that straight away. Moving the ball 50m for that is a hard one to swallow

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 24, 2025, 08:53:44 AM

Quote from: Saffron_sam20 on February 24, 2025, 08:14:28 AM

Quote from: The Boy Wonder on February 23, 2025, 09:36:21 PM

Quote from: ONeill on February 23, 2025, 09:11:32 PMThought Malachy O'Rourke's comments were interesting after today's game, even though he was on the committee.

It appears that he's not fond of the kick-out rule as it results in too many 50/50s. Also, the black card disadvantage isn't a disadvantage.

What nonsense - the game itself (where teams are at same level) are usually 50/50 or thereabouts.
And what's wrong with man to man contests for possession ?
High fielding at midfield was one of the highlights of the game - think Jacko, Willie Joe, Fenton etc.

What other team game after conceding a score do you have to play a ball not in your favour? Every other sport a team gets the chance to restart. As someone pointed out, with the keeper not able to get involved the kick outs didn't need changed

I'm sort of trying to understand the logic. Kick outs have always been about, either from the corner of the square or now from the 21, teams have always had to 'work' a kick out to gain possession and the other team have always tried to nullify that by pressing up so when the keeper has to kick the ball into the center then its still an opportunity to for your team to win possession? 

Do people want the team that has the kick out to get automatic possession?

Everything you have said about kickouts can still be applied without the 40m arc. Without the get out of the goalkeeper you can really go after kickouts without any other amendments. The rule serves no productive purpose. As I've said, a team should not be limited in the space to take their own restart that is advantageous to the opposition. The rule as it stands does exactly this.

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 23, 2025, 11:17:57 PM

Quote from: on the sideline on February 23, 2025, 11:12:59 PM

Quote from: ONeill on February 23, 2025, 10:37:20 PM

Quote from: The Boy Wonder on February 23, 2025, 09:36:21 PM

Quote from: ONeill on February 23, 2025, 09:11:32 PMThought Malachy O'Rourke's comments were interesting after today's game, even though he was on the committee.

It appears that he's not fond of the kick-out rule as it results in too many 50/50s. Also, the black card disadvantage isn't a disadvantage.

What nonsense - the game itself (where teams are at same level) are usually 50/50 or thereabouts.
And what's wrong with man to man contests for possession ?
High fielding at midfield was one of the highlights of the game - think Jacko, Willie Joe, Fenton etc.

I know what you mean, but modern managers, especially at that level, have systems set in stone they're loyal to and it means a quick kick out to maintain possession. Soccer is doing that now too.

Posted this in another thread:
As it sits, the kickout rule is more like a punishment for the team taking it. Your own restart is now a lottery. You should be able to use all space available on the pitch on your kickout, not have it restricted to try to help the opponent.

The rule isn't needed now either - especially now the goalkeeper is no longer an option for an easy out, short kickouts can be pressed. 

So teams can press the shorts & still force the long kickout - giving the best of both worlds & variation. Not just hit it long & see what happens.

I know there was a gale force wind in Salthill but seeing how Patton struggled kicking into it highlighted the shortsightedness of the rule too. That's a keeper with a bomb of a kickout struggling at times to get it 45m. Now think of an average club keeper or underage keeper. Be an absolute mess in less windy conditions.

If Patton, a county keeper can't kick the ball 20 meters he needs replacing, regardless of how strong the wind is

Could it really be possible you need this explained to you?

Quote from: on the sideline on February 24, 2025, 12:45:11 PM

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 24, 2025, 08:53:44 AM

Quote from: Saffron_sam20 on February 24, 2025, 08:14:28 AM

Quote from: The Boy Wonder on February 23, 2025, 09:36:21 PM

Quote from: ONeill on February 23, 2025, 09:11:32 PMThought Malachy O'Rourke's comments were interesting after today's game, even though he was on the committee.

It appears that he's not fond of the kick-out rule as it results in too many 50/50s. Also, the black card disadvantage isn't a disadvantage.

What nonsense - the game itself (where teams are at same level) are usually 50/50 or thereabouts.
And what's wrong with man to man contests for possession ?
High fielding at midfield was one of the highlights of the game - think Jacko, Willie Joe, Fenton etc.

What other team game after conceding a score do you have to play a ball not in your favour? Every other sport a team gets the chance to restart. As someone pointed out, with the keeper not able to get involved the kick outs didn't need changed

I'm sort of trying to understand the logic. Kick outs have always been about, either from the corner of the square or now from the 21, teams have always had to 'work' a kick out to gain possession and the other team have always tried to nullify that by pressing up so when the keeper has to kick the ball into the center then its still an opportunity to for your team to win possession? 

Do people want the team that has the kick out to get automatic possession?

Everything you have said about kickouts can still be applied without the 40m arc. Without the get out of the goalkeeper you can really go after kickouts without any other amendments. The rule serves no productive purpose. As I've said, a team should not be limited in the space to take their own restart that is advantageous to the opposition. The rule as it stands does exactly this.

So when a team presses up on the kick outs there is limited space, no availability to pass to the keeper as the ball will be contested, its only great when teams for whatever reasons retreat on kick outs and allow the opposition to rebuild from the back, which for me was a daft tactic by teams, its the same for both teams also. I'm not sure why its advantageous when its the same for both. Win your own kick outs and you'll be fine, if a tweak is needed then the opposition keeper shouldn't be allowed to contest kick outs 

Quote from: DuffleKing on February 24, 2025, 12:53:13 PM

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 23, 2025, 11:17:57 PM

Quote from: on the sideline on February 23, 2025, 11:12:59 PM

Quote from: ONeill on February 23, 2025, 10:37:20 PM

Quote from: The Boy Wonder on February 23, 2025, 09:36:21 PM

Quote from: ONeill on February 23, 2025, 09:11:32 PMThought Malachy O'Rourke's comments were interesting after today's game, even though he was on the committee.

It appears that he's not fond of the kick-out rule as it results in too many 50/50s. Also, the black card disadvantage isn't a disadvantage.

What nonsense - the game itself (where teams are at same level) are usually 50/50 or thereabouts.
And what's wrong with man to man contests for possession ?
High fielding at midfield was one of the highlights of the game - think Jacko, Willie Joe, Fenton etc.

I know what you mean, but modern managers, especially at that level, have systems set in stone they're loyal to and it means a quick kick out to maintain possession. Soccer is doing that now too.

Posted this in another thread:
As it sits, the kickout rule is more like a punishment for the team taking it. Your own restart is now a lottery. You should be able to use all space available on the pitch on your kickout, not have it restricted to try to help the opponent.

The rule isn't needed now either - especially now the goalkeeper is no longer an option for an easy out, short kickouts can be pressed. 

So teams can press the shorts & still force the long kickout - giving the best of both worlds & variation. Not just hit it long & see what happens.

I know there was a gale force wind in Salthill but seeing how Patton struggled kicking into it highlighted the shortsightedness of the rule too. That's a keeper with a bomb of a kickout struggling at times to get it 45m. Now think of an average club keeper or underage keeper. Be an absolute mess in less windy conditions.

If Patton, a county keeper can't kick the ball 20 meters he needs replacing, regardless of how strong the wind is

Could it really be possible you need this explained to you?

As in the average club keeper? Them's the rules, not everyone myself included is liking them, but that's what managers have to deal with, if my current club keeper can't kick the ball a distance required in the wind then I'll need to find someone who can, otherwise my team is in trouble.

Some teams will see this an advantage to their team others will not, changing the dynamic of the game, think this was the intention, whether its good or bad will depend on how its reviewed over the year, these rules will need a period of adjustment

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 24, 2025, 01:01:00 PM

Quote from: on the sideline on February 24, 2025, 12:45:11 PM

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 24, 2025, 08:53:44 AM

Quote from: Saffron_sam20 on February 24, 2025, 08:14:28 AM

Quote from: The Boy Wonder on February 23, 2025, 09:36:21 PM

Quote from: ONeill on February 23, 2025, 09:11:32 PMThought Malachy O'Rourke's comments were interesting after today's game, even though he was on the committee.

It appears that he's not fond of the kick-out rule as it results in too many 50/50s. Also, the black card disadvantage isn't a disadvantage.

What nonsense - the game itself (where teams are at same level) are usually 50/50 or thereabouts.
And what's wrong with man to man contests for possession ?
High fielding at midfield was one of the highlights of the game - think Jacko, Willie Joe, Fenton etc.

What other team game after conceding a score do you have to play a ball not in your favour? Every other sport a team gets the chance to restart. As someone pointed out, with the keeper not able to get involved the kick outs didn't need changed

I'm sort of trying to understand the logic. Kick outs have always been about, either from the corner of the square or now from the 21, teams have always had to 'work' a kick out to gain possession and the other team have always tried to nullify that by pressing up so when the keeper has to kick the ball into the center then its still an opportunity to for your team to win possession? 

Do people want the team that has the kick out to get automatic possession?

Everything you have said about kickouts can still be applied without the 40m arc. Without the get out of the goalkeeper you can really go after kickouts without any other amendments. The rule serves no productive purpose. As I've said, a team should not be limited in the space to take their own restart that is advantageous to the opposition. The rule as it stands does exactly this.

So when a team presses up on the kick outs there is limited space, no availability to pass to the keeper as the ball will be contested, its only great when teams for whatever reasons retreat on kick outs and allow the opposition to rebuild from the back, which for me was a daft tactic by teams, its the same for both teams also. I'm not sure why its advantageous when its the same for both. Win your own kick outs and you'll be fine, if a tweak is needed then the opposition keeper shouldn't be allowed to contest kick outs 

Don't see how you're missing the issue. You now have a team pressed up on you completely including a spare man in their GK. You have an area of the pitch that you can't receive the ball in so you're at a disadvantage straight away.

That huge area that is now inside the arc should be available to be used to at least counter that disadvantage - eg either receive the short kickout or used to try to create space to receive a kickout anywhere you can work it by drawing forwards in to follow your runs. But now why would a forward track you in there when they know you can't receive it?

The fact is without the goalkeeper to go back to, the arc isn't needed. That in itself encourages you to press. If you press that leads to contests if it goes short, or the big aerial contests it you force the kickout long. The best of both - without completely punishing the team taking the kickout.

Could there be grounds for a solo and go from the goalkeeper instead of a kick out?

I know in juvenile football if you score once you can put pressure on the kick outs and keep a team in for a few scores. Once you have attacked, you've either scored or missed a chance to score so maybe the opposition deserve the chance to have possession?

Quote from: SaffronSports on March 05, 2025, 02:00:04 PMCould there be grounds for a solo and go from the goalkeeper instead of a kick out?

I know in juvenile football if you score once you can put pressure on the kick outs and keep a team in for a few scores. Once you have attacked, you've either scored or missed a chance to score so maybe the opposition deserve the chance to have possession?

Yes, but a solo a go only after they have scored..

I', not sure why its a problem though for 50/50 chances to win possession. It's on a team to ensure they have the right personnel in place to win back possession or gain possession

I agree that juveniles is going to be a lot harder for those smaller weaker teams but with the ages groups being better defined nowadays in comparison it should have like for like in most teams for height and strength 

Quote from: Saffron_sam20 on February 24, 2025, 09:59:21 AM

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 24, 2025, 08:53:44 AM

Quote from: Saffron_sam20 on February 24, 2025, 08:14:28 AM

Quote from: The Boy Wonder on February 23, 2025, 09:36:21 PM

Quote from: ONeill on February 23, 2025, 09:11:32 PMThought Malachy O'Rourke's comments were interesting after today's game, even though he was on the committee.

It appears that he's not fond of the kick-out rule as it results in too many 50/50s. Also, the black card disadvantage isn't a disadvantage.

What nonsense - the game itself (where teams are at same level) are usually 50/50 or thereabouts.
And what's wrong with man to man contests for possession ?
High fielding at midfield was one of the highlights of the game - think Jacko, Willie Joe, Fenton etc.

What other team game after conceding a score do you have to play a ball not in your favour? Every other sport a team gets the chance to restart. As someone pointed out, with the keeper not able to get involved the kick outs didn't need changed

I'm sort of trying to understand the logic. Kick outs have always been about, either from the corner of the square or now from the 21, teams have always had to 'work' a kick out to gain possession and the other team have always tried to nullify that by pressing up so when the keeper has to kick the ball into the center then its still an opportunity to for your team to win possession? 

Do people want the team that has the kick out to get automatic possession?

I get what youre saying, what I mean is teams should be allowed to work their kick out as they see fit not be forced into something they dont want to do. as I say I watched a game last week and one team prob won 1 of their own kick outs. should be able to work a short, given that the keeper cant take the ball in his own half it kind of makes the having to go long pointless as the team wont have a spare man. if anything the new kick out is a disadvantage to the team taking it as the opposition can push their keeper up and gives them an extra man.

Was interesting to watch the Cavan V Down game last week to seen the contrasts in both teams on kickouts. Down didn't want Cavan to go long on kickouts and left a Cavan player free who the keeper used quiet often. Up the other end Cavan tried to give no option to Down to go short and wanted them to go long all the time. 

From the Irish Times

The long-awaited verdict from Junior B football is in. These new rules are ... pretty bloody good. I've played two league games in this new dawn in the last three weeks, and the game is slightly better, slightly faster, slightly more vertical, and slightly more fun to play. And all those minor improvements add up to a major impact.

Our game last Sunday morning was on grass after our previous league game, and our only challenge game before the start of the season had been played on AstroTurf. So this felt like the first "real" game of football we'd played. The weather was fine, there wasn't much of a wind, the pitch was decent. It was as good a circumstance as you could hope for as we tiptoed into March.

The first question you're still inclined to ask before the game was – have they marked out the arc? And they had, of course. We should probably take that as read now.

We told our fullback lines and full-forward lines that they were in charge of the 3-up, 3-back breaches – basically if you crossed the line you'd better make bloody sure someone else is replacing you in your half of the field. This seemed like more hassle than it was worth, so I decided (for the good of the team, obviously) that I wasn't venturing anywhere near the halfway line from my spot at full forward. This, it should be noted, did not represent a major sea-change in my thinking.


The solo-and-go was also encouraged, but with caveats. Don't do it anywhere near the opposition goals (let the freetaker take care of those), and maybe lift your head for a second before you set off soloing at what will be, let's face it, a sedate pace.

The new throw-in, with one midfielder jumping and the other midfielder standing on one sideline, caused us some minor confusion as our starting midfielder hadn't actually arrived yet (according to the WhatsApp group he was doing "a run to the airport" ... even though he's not a taxi driver), but we found a victim for that; a sub took off his bib and wandered into our half-forward line to replace him, and we were away.

The solo and go was immediately in use, and at this level it appears it is most often used in the half-back line or at midfield, the caveat being that every player has to be told by four different team-mates and two selectors to "solo and f**kin' go, will ye." These verbal cues are constant.

The solo-and-go is intimately linked to the rules over dissent. Previously every free, anywhere on the pitch, was an immediate invitation for everyone within 20 yards to offer their tuppence to the referee, to their team-mates and to their opponents. The mere fact that someone can set off running straight away after the whistle just cuts all that nonsense out. Even setting aside the 50-metre punishment for dissent to the referee the game was immediately far more enjoyable to play in.

Our referee on Sunday morning was absolutely on top of the rules, talked the players through his decisions, regardless of whether they were the captain or not, and punished dissent whenever he felt that interaction crossed the line. That is absolutely as it should be.

It has already fundamentally changed the way players talk to the referee. Players are at a loss on occasion to know what a free was given for, they need the referee to explain it, and they appreciate the communication. The referee has the power to punish anything that oversteps the mark, and a player doesn't have the time to argue over a ref's decision in any case, unless he wants to be left floundering by a solo-and-go.

Our opponents hit one exceptional two-pointer, we turned around a five-point deficit without the help of any shots from outside the arc to win by three in the end. There were no advanced marks, but as the ground firms up and players get a little fitter and sharper they may well have an impact all the way down the grades.

There was one 3-up, 3-back breach spotted by the referee, but as you play the games you become aware of what the story is with this rule, and how it is possible to police it at club level. The referee isn't expected to call each minor breach of that rule – he can't. If you're making no material impact on the game the ref probably isn't going to see you. But if you are making a material impact then you deserve to be punished, and you will be.

I spoke briefly to the referee afterwards, thanking him for talking us through the game to the extent that he had, and it was clear he had enjoyed himself as well. An end to the constant relitigation of every decision they make must be such a joy.

I wouldn't want to overstate it – many of the rule changes were aimed at changing the intercounty game and the top end of the club game. As you went down the grades the impact of massed defences and four-minute spells of possession was obviously going to be less pronounced. But the problem of indiscipline, the casual abuse of referees – those can get more pronounced the lower down you go, not less. That revolution may not be televised but it is nevertheless revolutionary.

Some changes as per Irish Examiner.

A player who makes a kick-out mark can play on immediately and not be challenged for four metres. If the player is illegally challenged in that space a free kick shall be awarded 50 metres more advantageous than the position of the original mark up to the opponents' 13m line. There is also the option of bringing it back for a two-point free attempt outside the 40m arc.An advantage has accrued if a point or a goal is scored. If no advantage has accrued to the team of the player awarded the mark, the referee will signal "no advantage gained" and the ball will be taken back to the point of the mark.A team must have at least four players in their half of the field, which may include the goalkeeper, and at least three outfield players in the opposition half. A breach of this rule does not occur when the breach has been unintentional, the player(s) are within 4m of the halfway line, are not interfering with play or with an opponent or not gaining an advantage.The removal of the word "directly" from the definition of a two-point score being played "over the bar between the posts... kicked by a player who has at least one foot on or outside the 40m arc and without the ball having been touched by another player".A breach of the three-up rule in carrying, receiving or intercepting the ball or attempting to do so is a free kick from where the player crossed the halfway line.A misconduct at games infraction by a team official to cost his/her team a 20m free as opposed to a 13m free and the free can be brought out to the 40m arc for a two-point attempt.

In simple terms?

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 07, 2025, 02:37:15 AMIn simple terms?

Assuming they get passed next week:

1 - Teams must now keep 4 back (may include the GK) and 3 up, with no exceptions when you are down a man.
2 - If the above rule is breached accidentally by a player just being 2m over the halfway line and isn't interfering in play then no free is given
3 - Explicitly says that unless you score from an attacking mark you get the ball brought back for the mark

Quote from: Smokin Joe on March 07, 2025, 06:55:22 AM

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 07, 2025, 02:37:15 AMIn simple terms?

Assuming they get passed next week:

1 - Teams must now keep 4 back (may include the GK) and 3 up, with no exceptions when you are down a man.
2 - If the above rule is breached accidentally by a player just being 2m over the halfway line and isn't interfering in play then no free is given
3 - Explicitly says that unless you score from an attacking mark you get the ball brought back for the mark

Quote from: SaffronSports on March 07, 2025, 12:27:44 AMSome changes as per Irish Examiner.

A player who makes a kick-out mark can play on immediately and not be challenged for four metres. If the player is illegally challenged in that space a free kick shall be awarded 50 metres more advantageous than the position of the original mark up to the opponents' 13m line. There is also the option of bringing it back for a two-point free attempt outside the 40m arc.An advantage has accrued if a point or a goal is scored. If no advantage has accrued to the team of the player awarded the mark, the referee will signal "no advantage gained" and the ball will be taken back to the point of the mark.A team must have at least four players in their half of the field, which may include the goalkeeper, and at least three outfield players in the opposition half. A breach of this rule does not occur when the breach has been unintentional, the player(s) are within 4m of the halfway line, are not interfering with play or with an opponent or not gaining an advantage.The removal of the word "directly" from the definition of a two-point score being played "over the bar between the posts... kicked by a player who has at least one foot on or outside the 40m arc and without the ball having been touched by another player".A breach of the three-up rule in carrying, receiving or intercepting the ball or attempting to do so is a free kick from where the player crossed the halfway line.A misconduct at games infraction by a team official to cost his/her team a 20m free as opposed to a 13m free and the free can be brought out to the 40m arc for a two-point attempt.

FFS what are they doing? They're making an absolute balls of this.
Solo and go, no pass back to goalkeeper, punish dissent and keep the black card rule. Either the 3 up or the 2 point arc. No need for any other shite. When are they going to stop tinkering with this. The more they do the bigger mess they're making of it.
How on earth is a referee at club level going to be able to watch if there's 4 back and 3 up? He's enough to be watching. They're already ignoring the 3 up/back, as in if we can't see it we can't blow it. Some mental gymnastics now expected to police this new update.

Quote from: Smokin Joe on March 07, 2025, 06:55:22 AM

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 07, 2025, 02:37:15 AMIn simple terms?

Assuming they get passed next week:

1 - Teams must now keep 4 back (may include the GK) and 3 up, with no exceptions when you are down a man.
2 - If the above rule is breached accidentally by a player just being 2m over the halfway line and isn't interfering in play then no free is given
3 - Explicitly says that unless you score from an attacking mark you get the ball brought back for the mark

Fair play to them, I didn't think they could balls it up more than they already have but here we are

If a rule isn't working they need to get rid of it otherwise someone is guessing that the ammendment is better. No trials no time to find any flaws and no full proof method of deciding if the change makes things better.

No issues at all with these changes to be honest.

In fact I'd have asked for Rule 1 and 2 in those simple terms above to be implemented. Should make things a much better and less frustrating watch.

Quote from: Saffron_sam20 on March 07, 2025, 08:37:22 AM

Quote from: Smokin Joe on March 07, 2025, 06:55:22 AM

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 07, 2025, 02:37:15 AMIn simple terms?

Assuming they get passed next week:

1 - Teams must now keep 4 back (may include the GK) and 3 up, with no exceptions when you are down a man.
2 - If the above rule is breached accidentally by a player just being 2m over the halfway line and isn't interfering in play then no free is given
3 - Explicitly says that unless you score from an attacking mark you get the ball brought back for the mark

Fair play to them, I didn't think they could balls it up more than they already have but here we are

But sure you have to tweak things not everything is black and white.

The 3 up rule is now similar to the offside rule in soccer.

Its 2 players for the offside rule in soccer its just the goalie is usually always in his goal

Will be interesting to see the impact of the 4 back. Basically the goalkeeper is treated like the 3 defenders, they can go if someone drops back. Given there is no numerical advantage now you'd imagine you'd rather one of your outfield players attack over your goalkeeper. Id say Morgan and Rafferty will still attack occasionally. Most others won't. Takes a bit of an advantage away from teams that used the tactic

Quote from: Mario on March 07, 2025, 11:26:30 AMWill be interesting to see the impact of the 4 back. Basically the goalkeeper is treated like the 3 defenders, they can go if someone drops back. Given there is no numerical advantage now you'd imagine you'd rather one of your outfield players attack over your goalkeeper. Id say Morgan and Rafferty will still attack occasionally. Most others won't. Takes a bit of an advantage away from teams that used the tactic

It's interesting that they went for 4 and 3 rather 3 and 2. And I don't mean that's it's wrong. Just that it could throw up some curiosities.

For example:

This is pretty much the end for the overlapping corner back. If you're listed in positions 1-4, then your responsibility is to man marking and that new line. Nothing else. Obviously at senior level where there's more coaching and tactics, it'll be more likely that players 5-7 will swap in and out based on the game scenario. But within 8-10 years, we will see career full backs again ie lads who learned from an early age to never leave the square.

The other one being that the tactic de jour of the 90s/00s ie bringing a corner forward out as a third midfielder / sweeper / free man, is also dead in the water. Which is going to cause us juvenile club coaches a few headaches, as there's no longer a simple formation shift to target the opposition's best player.

I'm completely undecided as to whether these are good developments or not. But I'm leaning towards good. A less tactical game is generally a good thing, and as a former fat corner forward I kind of have to be on board with curtailing how many 100m chases a forward should have to undertake in a game .

One tactic that might come out of this is a team in the lead will send their keeper forward and drop a defender. You now have a 4 v 3 in your own half and all 4 can receive the ball making it easier to hold possession, as was the case before the new rules.

Quote from: rory on March 07, 2025, 01:00:24 PMOne tactic that might come out of this is a team in the lead will send their keeper forward and drop a defender. You now have a 4 v 3 in your own half and all 4 can receive the ball making it easier to hold possession, as was the case before the new rules.

This is currently the case anyway just with slightly different numbers

Quote from: Spiderlegs on March 07, 2025, 01:28:48 PM

Quote from: rory on March 07, 2025, 01:00:24 PMOne tactic that might come out of this is a team in the lead will send their keeper forward and drop a defender. You now have a 4 v 3 in your own half and all 4 can receive the ball making it easier to hold possession, as was the case before the new rules.

This is currently the case anyway just with slightly different numbers

Under the current rules the keeper can only received a pass in the square whereas the 4th defender could receive the ball anywhere in their own half.  Unless things are changed this gives way too much advantage to those teams who want to play keep ball/waste time in their own half.

Quote from: rory on March 07, 2025, 01:00:24 PMOne tactic that might come out of this is a team in the lead will send their keeper forward and drop a defender. You now have a 4 v 3 in your own half and all 4 can receive the ball making it easier to hold possession, as was the case before the new rules.

The flaw in that is that the other team will not leave themselves outnumbered for too long.  3 is just the minimum they must keep in their attacking half

This 4 x3 is adding more daft complexity. Just bar the keeper from leaving thier own half ( except for taking a free when they cant take part in play in other sides half just a [free]kick and drop the pass restrictions.
I wish they would move the kickouts back to 13m ( as per before 1980s) and reinstitute previous 20m restrictions ( ball has to go 20-22m now v 13m previously).

God help junior Bs and their refs.
(there will be lynchings after this).

Quote from: cjx on March 07, 2025, 02:07:34 PMThis 4 x3 is adding more daft complexity. Just bar the keeper from leaving thier own half ( except for taking a free when they cant take part in play in other sides half just a [free]kick and drop the pass restrictions.
I wish they would move the kickouts back to 13m ( as per before 1980s) and reinstitute previous 20m restrictions ( ball has to go 20-22m now v 13m previously).

God help junior Bs and their refs.
(there will be lynchings after this).

But clearly they don't want to ban the keepers from attacking.
As that is what is in their mind the solution is quite good.  Keepers are still free to attack, but if they do then a teammate has to drop back. This leaves it entirely in the hands of the teams to decide whether it's worth them bringing their keeper up.  I imagine maybe just a few teams will now do this with the vast majority of their teams deciding that they would prefer an outfield player to be the "last" attacker.

Quote from: Smokin Joe on March 07, 2025, 02:27:50 PM

Quote from: cjx on March 07, 2025, 02:07:34 PMThis 4 x3 is adding more daft complexity. Just bar the keeper from leaving thier own half ( except for taking a free when they cant take part in play in other sides half just a [free]kick and drop the pass restrictions.
I wish they would move the kickouts back to 13m ( as per before 1980s) and reinstitute previous 20m restrictions ( ball has to go 20-22m now v 13m previously).

God help junior Bs and their refs.
(there will be lynchings after this).

But clearly they don't want to ban the keepers from attacking.
As that is what is in their mind the solution is quite good.  Keepers are still free to attack, but if they do then a teammate has to drop back. This leaves it entirely in the hands of the teams to decide whether it's worth them bringing their keeper up.  I imagine maybe just a few teams will now do this with the vast majority of their teams deciding that they would prefer an outfield player to be the "last" attacker.

It might also allow a role for a good man marker back who does not join the attack, even though the goalie sometimes did.

I decided now that I'm not even going to look at the rules now until they're finally sorted.

Would do your head in...drip drip drip with the changes.

Quote from: marty34 on March 07, 2025, 08:36:40 PMI decided now that I'm not even going to look at the rules now until they're finally sorted.

Would do your head in...drip drip drip with the changes.

Came to that conclusion a long time ago & zoned out. I was still holding out hope the club season would be spared the chaos but not looking likely.  This will feel like a wasted year by the end of it and we might be ready for it by next January.

They've made it even more difficult for the referees in my opinion with these amendments

Quote from: maldini on March 07, 2025, 11:00:13 PMThey've made it even more difficult for the referees in my opinion with these amendments

100% agree

I am starting to lose faith, I'm really trying to support the changes as the game truly needed change, but it seems that at every opportunity they are ignoring simplicity and choosing complexity.

Case in point is this variation of the 3 up rule 'we are not going to restrict keepers from going up the field', but we'll just add more complexity to make it unlikely.

There are a load of simple tweaks that could be made, the 2 pointer appears popular with the media and committee members, it's the most disliked change on here and it's seen as too cheap by many others I talk to. Simple change would be to make it from play only.

This new midfield mark rule seems unpoliceable, retention of the incredibly generous forward mark again seems like a mistake.

Unfortunately, this season is a write-off and really unfortunately, that may well undermine the retention of these rules when Congress decides next October. Not that I'm even sure I want any of them at this point!

Quote from: onefineday on March 08, 2025, 01:35:14 AMI am starting to lose faith, I'm really trying to support the changes as the game truly needed change, but it seems that at every opportunity they are ignoring simplicity and choosing complexity.

Case in point is this variation of the 3 up rule 'we are not going to restrict keepers from going up the field', but we'll just add more complexity to make it unlikely.

There are a load of simple tweaks that could be made, the 2 pointer appears popular with the media and committee members, it's the most disliked change on here and it's seen as too cheap by many others I talk to. Simple change would be to make it from play only.

This new midfield mark rule seems unpoliceable, retention of the incredibly generous forward mark again seems like a mistake.

Unfortunately, this season is a write-off and really unfortunately, that may well undermine the retention of these rules when Congress decides next October. Not that I'm even sure I want any of them at this point!

To put just 1 possible counterpoint to you - no, it isn't that simple. If you just wipeout all frees in on or outside arc then teams will foul as a matter of course in that area. Makes sense in that case to just foul the likes of a Shane Walsh say, rather than let him shoot for 2.

Wish Gavin, his ego and the rest of the arseholes would go away and make a new sport, they're going to f**k Gaelic football.

And "Gaelic football" wasn't fkd the last few years?????

The FRC Wrecking Crew strikes again?

Excellent point about how difficult they are making it for referees.  Do they not understand that every judgement call will please one team and anger the other?  It's a can't win situation for officials.  Therefore you eliminate judgement calls, not increase them!  The best games are the ones where the referee is invisible.

The goalkeeper as an extra attacker would become a problem once some manager decided to run a Dean Smith North Carolina 4 Corner offence.  In other words, to hold the ball and kill time.  Of course it hasn't been used that way yet.  In fact, the impact has been a positive for fans looking for more chaotic football.  So I'm not sure why the FRC has changed this.  Could it be as simple as: they hate Ulster?  What they have changed will effectively end the attacking goalkeeper.  It isn't worth the risk, not even for Armagh.

My complaint with these massive rule changes is that you create a "slippery slope" once you begin such actions.  The end result will be that the traditions of the game will end up totally violated.  Because this isn't just a one time thing.  2025 is a precedent which will empower future FRCs to reshape the game in their own imagine.  Simply a case of progressives leaving their mark on the game.

There's one obvious example.  The Backdoor format to give counties a second chance was a radical departure from tradition, yet it was a unique system which seemed to work well and was popular.  How long did it last?  A generation.

That's the thing about all these changes.  They are generational because each new generation believes they have the right to remake the game.  You never hear: we'll try this new idea(like Backdoor format) and if it doesn't work we'll return to the traditional format and admit we were wrong.

Progressives never admit they are wrong(except for minor things to serve as a smokescreen to cover their major changes).  They can be counted on to always double down.

Please make it stop.

Quote from: Rossfan on March 08, 2025, 09:24:50 AMAnd "Gaelic football" wasn't fkd the last few years?????

2024 and 2002 were pretty good....

That's essentially your same joke from last week. Can't be hunting the same laughs twice!

Quote from: Armagh18 on March 08, 2025, 08:22:06 AMWish Gavin, his ego and the rest of the arseholes would go away and make a new sport, they're going to f**k Gaelic football.

Blame the coaches who have destroyed our game. Gavin and those other very intelligent thinkers who have been at the top of the game are trying to sort out the mess likes of McGuinness and Harte and coaches who copied them... including idiots managing clubs. . recycle, recycle,  pass it back fuc sake!

Quote from: Truthsayer on March 08, 2025, 01:48:46 PM

Quote from: Armagh18 on March 08, 2025, 08:22:06 AMWish Gavin, his ego and the rest of the arseholes would go away and make a new sport, they're going to f**k Gaelic football.

Blame the coaches who have destroyed our game. Gavin and those other very intelligent thinkers who have been at the top of the game are trying to sort out the mess likes of McGuinness and Harte and coaches who copied them... including idiots managing clubs. . recycle, recycle,  pass it back fuc sake!

Do you think all changes are good? And more importantly, workable at all levels of football?

I think some are very good.

I think others are unnecessary or plainly don't work.

I think that rather than accept this the FRC have gone down the route of doubling down and continually amending those rules to the point where they have become an almost unrefereeabe mess.

They would get far more credit for being willing to acknowledge this and reigning back - not bulldozing forward.

Had they brought in the solo and go, the dissent rules, no pass back to gk in own half, the ability to take kickouts before everyone is outside the 21 and the 2 point arc this year they would have made a good stab at what they where set up to do.

Quote from: Truthsayer on March 08, 2025, 01:48:46 PM

Quote from: Armagh18 on March 08, 2025, 08:22:06 AMWish Gavin, his ego and the rest of the arseholes would go away and make a new sport, they're going to f**k Gaelic football.

Blame the coaches who have destroyed our game. Gavin and those other very intelligent thinkers who have been at the top of the game are trying to sort out the mess likes of McGuinness and Harte and coaches who copied them... including idiots managing clubs. . recycle, recycle,  pass it back fuc sake!

Jim Gavin the man who managed the least risk taking team of all time.

Quote from: Armagh18 on March 08, 2025, 02:00:15 PM

Quote from: Truthsayer on March 08, 2025, 01:48:46 PM

Quote from: Armagh18 on March 08, 2025, 08:22:06 AMWish Gavin, his ego and the rest of the arseholes would go away and make a new sport, they're going to f**k Gaelic football.

Blame the coaches who have destroyed our game. Gavin and those other very intelligent thinkers who have been at the top of the game are trying to sort out the mess likes of McGuinness and Harte and coaches who copied them... including idiots managing clubs. . recycle, recycle,  pass it back fuc sake!

Jim Gavin the man who managed the least risk taking team of all time.

You're kidding?
Tyrone played Dublin 2017 All Ireland semi-final with one 5'6" forward Mark Bradley. Dubs we're great blend of defence and attack blew teams away...
Donegal 2011! Jimmy McGuinness destroyed the game. All Ireland semi-final a point behind Dublin with a man extra... continued all in defence.

So if you drop back 15 players it's a free on halfway. Surely teams will now drop the full 15 players back as the free will be moved all the way back at halfway.

That's my reading of it as well.
The free should at least be from where the chap interfered with play

Quote from: Rossfan on March 08, 2025, 02:43:15 PMThat's my reading of it as well.
The free should at least be from where the chap interfered with play

See. A mess.

A few tweaks be ok. League games were great improvement on the garbage in recent years. People can complain all they like; thankfully that sh*tshow is behind us.

Quote from: Truthsayer on March 08, 2025, 02:52:41 PMA few tweaks be ok. League games were great improvement on the garbage in recent years. People can complain all they like; thankfully that sh*tshow is behind us.

How many tweaks? Every time they change something there's an unintended consequence that means another change is needed. Where, and when, does it stop?

Quote from: Truthsayer on March 08, 2025, 01:48:46 PM

Quote from: Armagh18 on March 08, 2025, 08:22:06 AMWish Gavin, his ego and the rest of the arseholes would go away and make a new sport, they're going to f**k Gaelic football.

Blame the coaches who have destroyed our game. Gavin and those other very intelligent thinkers who have been at the top of the game are trying to sort out the mess likes of McGuinness and Harte and coaches who copied them... including idiots managing clubs. . recycle, recycle,  pass it back fuc sake!

Let's try to be fair here.  Coaches have been doing this in every sport.  That's because they are competitors looking for the best way to win.  They are not given their position to be honourable losers.  The 21st century mindset is "the end justifies the means".

It is the role of the GAA to encourage balance, make tweeks which give the teams wishing to play a more open offensive game a better chance to succeed while doing so.  Kicking and calling for a mark is a perfect example of this. 

The FRC should be working on tweeks that the competitors can use to improve the game.  Instead, in totalitarian fashion, they have decreed massive changes.  It's the players and managers who play the game but the bureaucrats get the final say on what the game will be?  That's not right.

Reigning in the attacking goalkeepers is a terrible idea which discourages a new offensive minded innovation to the game.  It is an example that given a chance the teams will figure out new ways to make the game better.  Unfortunately the FRC seem more interested in dictating what the game will be, rather than letting the teams figure that out.

What annoys me is that we removed the game from the dictatorship of coaches and handed it over to the dictatorship of the referee.

50m advances, black cards, 20 second kickouts, 20 Second frees. The game now all revolves around punishing players rather than letting the game be played.

Quote from: trileacman on March 08, 2025, 03:14:41 PMWhat annoys me is that we removed the game from the dictatorship of coaches and handed it over to the dictatorship of the referee.

50m advances, black cards, 20 second kickouts, 20 Second frees. The game now all revolves around punishing players rather than letting the game be played.

I think those loose ends will be sorted. Not sure the game has been played in recent years...

Quote from: Truthsayer on March 08, 2025, 03:16:54 PM

Quote from: trileacman on March 08, 2025, 03:14:41 PMWhat annoys me is that we removed the game from the dictatorship of coaches and handed it over to the dictatorship of the referee.

50m advances, black cards, 20 second kickouts, 20 Second frees. The game now all revolves around punishing players rather than letting the game be played.

I think those loose ends will be sorted. Not sure the game has been played in recent years...

Ive watched the loose ends be replaced with more loose ends this weekend. Anyone on the side of massive rule changes will be in the minority come the business end of championship.

Quote from: trileacman on March 08, 2025, 03:19:21 PM

Quote from: Truthsayer on March 08, 2025, 03:16:54 PM

Quote from: trileacman on March 08, 2025, 03:14:41 PMWhat annoys me is that we removed the game from the dictatorship of coaches and handed it over to the dictatorship of the referee.

50m advances, black cards, 20 second kickouts, 20 Second frees. The game now all revolves around punishing players rather than letting the game be played.

I think those loose ends will be sorted. Not sure the game has been played in recent years...

Ive watched the loose ends be replaced with more loose ends this weekend. Anyone on the side of massive rule changes will be in the minority come the business end of championship.

:D it's much better already although it couldn't have got worse

My view is that if these tweaks get thru next Monday night that we won't see too many frees for breaching the 3 (4) up for the rest of the season.

I would say that almost all the 3 Up breaches have been accidental where a player switched off not realising he was the 3rd man up or drifted back following his man.  Hardly any of these impacted the play.
If this happens from next weekend under the latest rules I think the linesman will shout at players in this instance to get back, as opposed to flag for a free as they are currently.

The whole idea of the 3 up was to ensure teams could only defend with 11 outfield players, not 14.  It wasn't so that free takers could take 2 point free kicks outside the arc.  In fairness, the FRC have seen what it has become and realised that all the 2 point frees for minor breaches was not what they intended.

How many breaches have there been for actually properly defending with 12 back?  Just the Tyrone one after the black card last weekend is all I am aware of.
So I think this latest tweak is good.  It will mean that teams defend with 11 players (as intended) but there won't be too many 2 point frees scored as a result of a non-concentrating forward.

Quote from: Armagh18 on March 08, 2025, 02:00:15 PM

Quote from: Truthsayer on March 08, 2025, 01:48:46 PM

Quote from: Armagh18 on March 08, 2025, 08:22:06 AMWish Gavin, his ego and the rest of the arseholes would go away and make a new sport, they're going to f**k Gaelic football.

Blame the coaches who have destroyed our game. Gavin and those other very intelligent thinkers who have been at the top of the game are trying to sort out the mess likes of McGuinness and Harte and coaches who copied them... including idiots managing clubs. . recycle, recycle,  pass it back fuc sake!

Jim Gavin the man who managed the least risk taking team of all time.

As I said the other day Jim Gavin's Dublin team was the most programmed,robotic team ever that apart from Jack McCaffrey lacked emotion. Any team that was rubbish defensively against them such as Tyrone in the 2017 All Ireland semi final it became boring mismatch.

Don't agree that's it's ok with tweaks for the league when such changes can make games not as high scoring as they were for the first five rounds and we have scoring difference deciding promotion and relegation.   

Quote from: Ciarrai_thuaidh on March 08, 2025, 02:06:11 AM

Quote from: onefineday on March 08, 2025, 01:35:14 AMI am starting to lose faith, I'm really trying to support the changes as the game truly needed change, but it seems that at every opportunity they are ignoring simplicity and choosing complexity.

Case in point is this variation of the 3 up rule 'we are not going to restrict keepers from going up the field', but we'll just add more complexity to make it unlikely.

There are a load of simple tweaks that could be made, the 2 pointer appears popular with the media and committee members, it's the most disliked change on here and it's seen as too cheap by many others I talk to. Simple change would be to make it from play only.

This new midfield mark rule seems unpoliceable, retention of the incredibly generous forward mark again seems like a mistake.

Unfortunately, this season is a write-off and really unfortunately, that may well undermine the retention of these rules when Congress decides next October. Not that I'm even sure I want any of them at this point!

To put just 1 possible counterpoint to you - no, it isn't that simple. If you just wipeout all frees in on or outside arc then teams will foul as a matter of course in that area. Makes sense in that case to just foul the likes of a Shane Walsh say, rather than let him shoot for 2.

Okay, I have a vested interest, I fecking hate the stupid 2 point score. There I've said it! It's an abomination. It has the potential to transform our game in unintended ways and to my mind we're seeing evidence of that.
It's a cheap, cheap score. It could only work when paired with a 4 point goal and whichever 'concerned delegates' to Congress made the frc abandon the (25%) increased goal value while retaining this have a very poor understanding of mathematics. This change doubles (100%) the value of a relatively straightforward score, something becoming clear as the season progresses. Goals are an afterthought, why try and work a low percentage scoring opportunity when a high percentage option, albeit worth 33% less, is more logical.

Maybe we should just go the whole hog and get rid of the crossbar and net, let the keeper be a full back or pocket back and make the point with 6 points.

So, rant over, I don't actually think that reducing free kick values back to 1pt would result in a rash of fouls around the arc. It might improve the game and free up space inside actually, if defenders felt there was an advantage to engaging outside the arc, they might push out. It could be monitored and tweaked of course!

A number of posts saying this will ruin the game. My bet is that some of those saying that, don't remember much of the game pre- 2012. Others will be focused heavily on the breaking with tradition with the changed scoring system in particular.

People say this is a completely different game. The possession game we witnessed for the last 15 years was as far removed from the game of the 90s and 00s as these changes will make to last year's game. We are seeing a return to breaking ball, contested kickouts, which is great.

When there is no 12 v 11, will we see more direct football inside the opposition half as there's no over overload and no backward outlet.  Keepers like Rafferty tried to use the 12 v 11 very positively, but you could easily use it to run down the clock to defend a lead, or when on a black card or playing against the wind.

People complaining about Jim Gavin. But Gavin's Dublin team was all about control. This removes that control and brings the game closer to what went before 2012.

It needs to be given a chance.

If the mindsets of some here had been prevalent down the years we'd still be playing 21 a side, and have point posts etc etc.

Anything is better than the sterile games of chess played before a silent crowd that had become tge norm in recent years.

Quote from: Rossfan on March 09, 2025, 09:14:18 AMIf the mindsets of some here had been prevalent down the years we'd still be playing 21 a side, and have point posts etc etc.

Anything is better than the sterile games of chess played before a silent crowd that had become tge norm in recent years.

You're always slabbering about how posters are pretty much a neanderthal of some sort across various topics yet you add f**k all to any discussion. Tiresome shite.

You have a nice day too

Quote from: Rossfan on March 09, 2025, 09:14:18 AMIf the mindsets of some here had been prevalent down the years we'd still be playing 21 a side, and have point posts etc etc.

Anything is better than the sterile games of chess played before a silent crowd that had become tge norm in recent years.

Except we still have long periods of sideways chess still being played. There's a slew of useful idiots who believe any change is good. If you can't accept the easily identifiable problems the new rules throw up you don't understand football.

I think we all wanted change to the rules but changes that were fair, simple and didn't radically change the structure of the games by lumping commandments on the referees.

Quote from: trileacman on March 09, 2025, 10:12:43 AM

Quote from: Rossfan on March 09, 2025, 09:14:18 AMIf the mindsets of some here had been prevalent down the years we'd still be playing 21 a side, and have point posts etc etc.

Anything is better than the sterile games of chess played before a silent crowd that had become tge norm in recent years.

Except we still have long periods of sideways chess still being played. There's a slew of useful idiots who believe any change is good. If you can't accept the easily identifiable problems the new rules throw up you don't understand football.

I think we all wanted change to the rules but changes that were fair, simple and didn't radically change the structure of the games by lumping commandments on the referees.

I wouldn't call them idiots.  They could be accused of not being gaelic football fans, therefore they should go watch hurling or some other sport.  They'd response that they are fans but the game has been spoiled over the past 2 decades.  Having only been a fan since 2012, I can't say they are right or wrong.

This all reminds me of the transformation which hit NCAA basketball in the 1980s.  The NCAA tournament retained the old rules until 1986, yet from early in the decade some conferences were experimenting with a shot clock or 3 point shot.  Thus it was several years of trial and error before the NCAA introduced the new rules for all competitions.

This is why I find what the FRC has done to be hasty and heavy handed.  It's like their ulterior motive is simply to leave their mark on the game so they will be remembered as saviours of the game fifty years from now.

I hate to suggest ulterior motive but when the GAA claim they want to give smaller counties more exposure then create a new championship format which kicks all those counties out of the championship, I have to wonder.  Especially when the 16 team Group stage gives Dublin three extra games!

My trust in authority is also low because I ask myself what was the most memorable provincial Final of the past fifty years?  Obviously it was the 1991 Leinster Final - with all the replays.

What does the GAA do?  They abolish replays in the provincial championships!  Who's going to remember Armagh losing penalty kicks to Derry or Donegal fifty years from now?

Their claim is that there isn't enough time for replays.  Yet they can find 3 weeks for group games to reduce the championship field from 16 to 12 teams!  Again it seems they're more concerned about creating extra games for their big Dublin market.

I might be a new fan but I'm traditionalist by nature.  GAA have broken trust with me.  Therefore I'm highly suspicious of anything the FRC change.

One of the key drivers of interest in Gaelic football is not the quality of the game but rather the a more even distribution of success. The 90s and 2000s drove an exponential increase in the interest in football nationwide as more 2nd rank counties rose to competitiveness with the best. Tyrone, Westmeath, Laois, Fermanagh, Wexford, Sligo, Leitrim, Down, Antrim all went through periods of real success. The modern game has stripped that chance of success from all but 6 counties. The GAAs answer was to quarantine them off in a 2nd tier, where like hurling in Leinster or Ulster, they could let the game die off away from the attention of the national press.

The league needs to be changed to a 1A/1B structure again so that Kildare, Westmeath, Down, Monaghan, Fermanagh and Roscommon get regular exposure to top level tactics, S and C, skills so that they can close the gap between the top 6-8 and themselves. It's no coincidence that the development of a top 8 tier in football has occurred since the league structure was split in 4.

I am not sure there's cause and effect in play there and infact it likely is a coincidence.  The current system was introduced in 2008 I think and since then we have seen counties who were in Div 3 during that time win All Ireland's and teams who were in Div 4 win provincial titles. 

There is gap there but there are other factors at play.


Size of the playing population
Competition from other sports
Preparation levels
Coaching
Tactics
Outlying factors like golden generations etc

All of these have significantly more impact on the competitiveness of a county than the current structure of the league.

I don't buy into that Div 1A and B theory at all.
Anyway it's a non runner with  the present Championship qualification system.

Don't know why the poster included Ros in his list, we've been in D1 in 5 of the last 10 NFLs

Not sure how these new rules could ruin football.. can you ruin something that was already ruined?
Is a default position with many to oppose any change, I can remember going right back to allowing frees and line balls out of the hands!
The last number of years have been horrendous. There are ideas being tried out and hopefully be changed or tweaked if need be. Due credit to the committee for taking on the mess left since 2011... Jimmy!

You don't have to be opposed to change to be against some of the rule changes, how they have been implemented, the number of rule changes and that some of the rules are being fundamentally changed as the season progresses.
I watched a challenge match today my understanding is that tomorrow the rules will change and the version of Gaelic football I saw today will never be repeated that cannot be a positive for any sport. The league has been treated as an expirement and club competition at all age groups appear an afterthought.

Quote from: GTP on March 09, 2025, 03:08:47 PMYou don't have to be opposed to change to be against some of the rule changes, how they have been implemented, the number of rule changes and that some of the rules are being fundamentally changed as the season progresses.
I watched a challenge match today my understanding is that tomorrow the rules will change and the version of Gaelic football I saw today will never be repeated that cannot be a positive for any sport. The league has been treated as an expirement and club competition at all age groups appear an afterthought.

Don't totally disagree with what you're saying but there are ones want NO change whatsoever. Seriously deluded.
As for league used as an experiment, that lies with the GPA who opposed pre-season competition.
There are pre-league club competitions.. in Tyrone anyway.
Football was watchable during the league albeit is more tweaks needed.
I'm a long time watching football and never seen game in such a bad state as recent years. Horrendous

Quote from: Truthsayer on March 09, 2025, 03:37:31 PM

Quote from: GTP on March 09, 2025, 03:08:47 PMYou don't have to be opposed to change to be against some of the rule changes, how they have been implemented, the number of rule changes and that some of the rules are being fundamentally changed as the season progresses.
I watched a challenge match today my understanding is that tomorrow the rules will change and the version of Gaelic football I saw today will never be repeated that cannot be a positive for any sport. The league has been treated as an expirement and club competition at all age groups appear an afterthought.

Don't totally disagree with what you're saying but there are ones want NO change whatsoever. Seriously deluded.
As for league used as an experiment, that lies with the GPA who opposed pre-season competition.
There are pre-league club competitions.. in Tyrone anyway.
Football was watchable during the league albeit is more tweaks needed.
I'm a long time watching football and never seen game in such a bad state as recent years. Horrendous

Serious question - what did you think of the Tyrone Senior championship last year?

Quote from: on the sideline on March 09, 2025, 04:51:38 PM

Quote from: Truthsayer on March 09, 2025, 03:37:31 PM

Quote from: GTP on March 09, 2025, 03:08:47 PMYou don't have to be opposed to change to be against some of the rule changes, how they have been implemented, the number of rule changes and that some of the rules are being fundamentally changed as the season progresses.
I watched a challenge match today my understanding is that tomorrow the rules will change and the version of Gaelic football I saw today will never be repeated that cannot be a positive for any sport. The league has been treated as an expirement and club competition at all age groups appear an afterthought.

Don't totally disagree with what you're saying but there are ones want NO change whatsoever. Seriously deluded.
As for league used as an experiment, that lies with the GPA who opposed pre-season competition.
There are pre-league club competitions.. in Tyrone anyway.
Football was watchable during the league albeit is more tweaks needed.
I'm a long time watching football and never seen game in such a bad state as recent years. Horrendous

Serious question - what did you think of the Tyrone Senior championship last year?

Was good games and poor games. Went to loads league games.. times I lost the will to live.
College football awful
County championship horrible. Nodded off twice on sofa first half All Ireland final and that's not a lie.

I know this has been touched on before, but I do have to laugh at managers giving out. The game they are coaching is not the football that has been played for decades and not the one that most of us fell in love with.

The skills of Gaelic football were being watered down and something had to be done. Now, I do think there is too much at once - but 3 up top, tap and go, anything to encourage long kickouts is good in my humble opinion.

I think it was Robbie Brennan who mentioned tuning in and it was 17-0 and fans won't watch it...well guess what lads? A county manager has to have some idea of an attacking plan. Too many spoofers just sit lads back and then don't know what to do without it.

Giving out about keepers allowing the ball to go back and forth as it's a bad thing. But, it's that lateral play is the very thing that most county managers have been coaching for years. So, are they admitting it was muck?!

I have been to all but one Kildare match and I have to say they are far better craic. It's much more chaotic, breaking balls are there to be won. Teams let the ball in earlier too.

Kids grow up with it at Go Games in terms of holding positions too, so it's not an alien thing. Let it rip I say!

If scoring points from 40m out is so easy, why for the last ten years were teams taking 10 minutes a time playing the ball over and back trying to get someone on the ball 20m out to have a shot?

Quote from: Mad Mentor on March 10, 2025, 07:29:27 AMIf scoring points from 40m out is so easy, why for the last ten years were teams taking 10 minutes a time playing the ball over and back trying to get someone on the ball 20m out to have a shot?

Because over the last 10 years you got the same reward for scoring from 40m as you did from 20m.  Today it is worth double, so a very different risk / reward scenario than there was previously.

FWIW, I wouldn't say it is easy to score from 40m in Open Play.  Conversion rate has been way below 40% in Div 1 so far this year.
But likewise, teams aren't converting at 80% once they are inside the arc either.

Quote from: Smokin Joe on March 10, 2025, 07:46:58 AM

Quote from: Mad Mentor on March 10, 2025, 07:29:27 AMIf scoring points from 40m out is so easy, why for the last ten years were teams taking 10 minutes a time playing the ball over and back trying to get someone on the ball 20m out to have a shot?

Because over the last 10 years you got the same reward for scoring from 40m as you did from 20m.  Today it is worth double, so a very different risk / reward scenario than there was previously.

FWIW, I wouldn't say it is easy to score from 40m in Open Play.  Conversion rate has been way below 40% in Div 1 so far this year.
But likewise, teams aren't converting at 80% once they are inside the arc either.

If the FRC retain the 2 pointer, teams will begin to train "snipers" whose main role will be to hit 2 pointers. It's possible that in a few years the entire offensive game will revolve around the 2 point shot.

Enjoy Damien Comer this year.  He might be the last of the dinosaurs.

Let the whinging begin.....

https://www.rte.ie/sport/football/2025/0311/1501368-gaa-approves-all-frc-changes-including-to-3v3-rule/

Quote from: Rossfan on March 11, 2025, 10:59:29 AMLet the whinging begin.....

https://www.rte.ie/sport/football/2025/0311/1501368-gaa-approves-all-frc-changes-including-to-3v3-rule/

So I ran with a game at the weekend with those proposals I explained that the players can unintentionally step over the line, provided they didn't interfere with play that be ok, but the moment they touched the ball it would be called, the amount of times I'm looking over my shoulder to the calls coming from teams is too much, and even when I explained there is no infraction it still was not heard, both keepers stayed in their goals also which helps.

The hooter isn't a thing at club games so now that it is tweaked a bit and for all divisions that's a good thing

There will still be some level of confusion when the keeper does decide to venture up front and when there is a black/red card involved

As I see it there must always be 4 in defence and 3 up front?

We went with the rules in our game, the most obvious change was the mark at mf, where the catcher who claimed the mark could go four metres without being touched, we must have got four pts from the mf who made the mark being tackled inside the 4 metre rule. That is going to take some getting used to, never mind they can have a advantage and if no score comes from the advantage the ball is taken back to where the original mark was taken. :o

A player who claims a kick-out mark can play on immediately and not be challenged for four metres. If the player is challenged in that space, a free kick shall be awarded 50 metres more advantageous to that player up to the opposition's 13m line. The player can also bring it back to outside the 40m arc for a two-point score.

An advantage has accrued if a point or a goal is scored. If no advantage has accrued to the team of the player awarded the mark, the referee will signal "no advantage gained" and the ball will be taken back to the points of the mark.

Not sure how this is worked out

With the Mark, a player was always given 4 steps or meters before being tackled IF  he didn't claim the mark..

If he was challenged (impeded) before the 4 steps the originally the play would have been brought forward 13m, now its 50m or free from the 40m arc or 13 meters.

Now is the advantage still just when arm up for 5 seconds (unless its an advantage Mark, from ball played outside the 45 into the 21 then its unlimited? ;D  stay with me ) on anywhere on the pitch or is it now unlimited time?   

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 11, 2025, 11:54:21 AMA player who claims a kick-out mark can play on immediately and not be challenged for four metres. If the player is challenged in that space, a free kick shall be awarded 50 metres more advantageous to that player up to the opposition's 13m line. The player can also bring it back to outside the 40m arc for a two-point score.

An advantage has accrued if a point or a goal is scored. If no advantage has accrued to the team of the player awarded the mark, the referee will signal "no advantage gained" and the ball will be taken back to the points of the mark.

Not sure how this is worked out

With the Mark, a player was always given 4 steps or meters before being tackled IF  he didn't claim the mark..

If he was challenged (impeded) before the 4 steps the originally the play would have been brought forward 13m, now its 50m or free from the 40m arc or 13 meters.

Now is the advantage still just when arm up for 5 seconds (unless its an advantage Mark, from ball played outside the 45 into the 21 then its unlimited? ;D  stay with me ) on anywhere on the pitch or is it now unlimited time?   

This rule will cause alot of frustration I would expect.  With the short kickout off the table, there will be alot of bodies around the kickout round the middle particularly on smaller club fields and the natural instinct won't be to retreat 4 yards. Punishment doesn't fit the crime as can cost the team two points.  I really don't like the being able to take a free out for 2 points rule. 

One question on the new hooter rule...
Team A get a free out on their 20, hooter goes....
Is free to be taken and play on till ball next goes out of play no matter how long it takes?
Or
Does Ref say ball is out of play, ye have no chance of scoring from the free, so game over?

Hooter required for all games this weekend, which includes some crunch relegation / promotion games in lower divisions where hooter has not featured until now. Hope that doesn't increase the potential for controversy.

Quote from: BrendanAntrim on March 11, 2025, 12:45:45 PMHooter required for all games this weekend, which includes some crunch relegation / promotion games in lower divisions where hooter has not featured until now. Hope that doesn't increase the potential for controversy.

Who is in charge of the hooter? Home team? Ref?

Quote from: NAG1 on March 11, 2025, 12:56:59 PM

Quote from: BrendanAntrim on March 11, 2025, 12:45:45 PMHooter required for all games this weekend, which includes some crunch relegation / promotion games in lower divisions where hooter has not featured until now. Hope that doesn't increase the potential for controversy.

Who is in charge of the hooter? Home team? Ref?

RTE report says hooter in use for all games from this weekend, but that's not the case. Only to be used in Div 3 and 4 finals not regular league games.

Quote from: NAG1 on March 11, 2025, 12:56:59 PM

Quote from: BrendanAntrim on March 11, 2025, 12:45:45 PMHooter required for all games this weekend, which includes some crunch relegation / promotion games in lower divisions where hooter has not featured until now. Hope that doesn't increase the potential for controversy.

Who is in charge of the hooter? Home team? Ref?

4th official and no fourth official no hooter. The ref signals stop clock, the ref signals start clock, teh fourth official will do that and sound the hooter..

Free membership of Hooters if you get it correct

It sounds like once the hooter sounds, a team, if say they needed one score, could play keep ball for as long as they wanted until the right opening happened - whereas in the past, a referee could blow the whistle if they were taking too long at their final chance. I suppose taking a nod from rugby.

The advantage rule for the Kick Out mark isn't mentioned on the GAA website. It is only referenced in relation to the Advanced mark "An advantage has accrued for an Advanced Mark if the player plays on immediately and scores a goal or a point" - otherwise the ball is brought back for the Advanced Mark.
I'm sure it will be cleared up for everyone come 2026.

Quote from: weareros on March 11, 2025, 01:29:51 PMIt sounds like once the hooter sounds, a team, if say they needed one score, could play keep ball for as long as they wanted until the right opening happened - whereas in the past, a referee could blow the whistle if they were taking too long at their final chance. I suppose taking a nod from rugby.

Changed because of what happened in the Meath v Westmeath game with the last play of the game by the looks of it.

Quote from: Rossfan on March 11, 2025, 12:26:59 PMOne question on the new hooter rule...
Team A get a free out on their 20, hooter goes....
Is free to be taken and play on till ball next goes out of play no matter how long it takes?
Or
Does Ref say ball is out of play, ye have no chance of scoring from the free, so game over?

After the hooter sounds, the end of the first half or full time is signalled by the referee on the next occasion that the ball goes out of play for a score, for a wide or for a sideline kick

"Next occasion" here would suggest you take the free or solo & go and keep playing until one of those things happens. If it goes out for a 45, the 45 can be taken (but needs to be scored without any player touching to count).

Quote from: GTP on March 11, 2025, 01:49:25 PMThe advantage rule for the Kick Out mark isn't mentioned on the GAA website. It is only referenced in relation to the Advanced mark "An advantage has accrued for an Advanced Mark if the player plays on immediately and scores a goal or a point" - otherwise the ball is brought back for the Advanced Mark.
I'm sure it will be cleared up for everyone come 2026.

Exactly. The wording of that last week caused confusion and is continuing to do so.
Everyone should refer to the RTE and GAA articles for clarity.

Setting aside the gross unfairness of changing rules mid competition these rules seem counter productive to the reasons for the changes in the first instance.

The 3 v 3 rule was introduced to create more scoring chances. Now it's tweaked to largely remove the attacking advantage of an extra player. Which in turn will probably reduce scoring opportunities with one less player able to find space and take shots.

The hooter was introduced to try and ensure both half's contained the same amount of play now it's been tweaked to make that less likely to happen.

The advantage rule I've long had issues with. No encouragement for good defending any more. Also the issue that was seen in a few hurling matches last year. Last minute need a goal get an advanced mark. Play on go for goal. You put it wide you get a second chance you put it over you don't. Seems strange to me.

I do see some potential benefits to the tweaks though. Particularly making frees in your half and goal kicks slightly less punishing.

So the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. Let's see how they work in practice.

Quote from: Spiderlegs on March 11, 2025, 01:52:34 PM

Quote from: Rossfan on March 11, 2025, 12:26:59 PMOne question on the new hooter rule...
Team A get a free out on their 20, hooter goes....
Is free to be taken and play on till ball next goes out of play no matter how long it takes?
Or
Does Ref say ball is out of play, ye have no chance of scoring from the free, so game over?

After the hooter sounds, the end of the first half or full time is signalled by the referee on the next occasion that the ball goes out of play for a score, for a wide or for a sideline kick

"Next occasion" here would suggest you take the free or solo & go and keep playing until one of those things happens. If it goes out for a 45, the 45 can be taken (but needs to be scored without any player touching to count).

The 45 would need to be awarded before the hooter goes, if it goes out for a 45 after the hooter has sounded it would be end of game.

Quote from: Cavan19 on March 11, 2025, 02:38:57 PM

Quote from: Spiderlegs on March 11, 2025, 01:52:34 PM

Quote from: Rossfan on March 11, 2025, 12:26:59 PMOne question on the new hooter rule...
Team A get a free out on their 20, hooter goes....
Is free to be taken and play on till ball next goes out of play no matter how long it takes?
Or
Does Ref say ball is out of play, ye have no chance of scoring from the free, so game over?

After the hooter sounds, the end of the first half or full time is signalled by the referee on the next occasion that the ball goes out of play for a score, for a wide or for a sideline kick

"Next occasion" here would suggest you take the free or solo & go and keep playing until one of those things happens. If it goes out for a 45, the 45 can be taken (but needs to be scored without any player touching to count).

The 45 would need to be awarded before the hooter goes, if it goes out for a 45 after the hooter has sounded it would be end of game.

You're right:

After the hooter sounds, the end of the first half or full time is signalled by the referee on the next occasion that the ball goes out of play for a score, for a wide or for a sideline kick. If a 45 has been awarded but not taken, before the hooter sounds, the free kick can be taken and, if it results in a score, without any other player touching the ball, that score shall be awarded.

"For a wide" must also mean for a 45 as well in this scenario.

More often than not, one team is going to be better placed after the hooter than the other and they basically just need to get the ball out of play (legally) to end the game e.g just throwing it out over the line is a foul and play continues.

A game with extra time could go on for a long time with 4 hoots involved!

Might be a lot of trains and buses missed....

When the hoover sounds at full time this weekend you'll still have children and over excited adults running onto the field.

Quote from: Spiderlegs on March 11, 2025, 03:18:12 PM

Quote from: Cavan19 on March 11, 2025, 02:38:57 PM

Quote from: Spiderlegs on March 11, 2025, 01:52:34 PM

Quote from: Rossfan on March 11, 2025, 12:26:59 PMOne question on the new hooter rule...
Team A get a free out on their 20, hooter goes....
Is free to be taken and play on till ball next goes out of play no matter how long it takes?
Or
Does Ref say ball is out of play, ye have no chance of scoring from the free, so game over?

After the hooter sounds, the end of the first half or full time is signalled by the referee on the next occasion that the ball goes out of play for a score, for a wide or for a sideline kick

"Next occasion" here would suggest you take the free or solo & go and keep playing until one of those things happens. If it goes out for a 45, the 45 can be taken (but needs to be scored without any player touching to count).

The 45 would need to be awarded before the hooter goes, if it goes out for a 45 after the hooter has sounded it would be end of game.

You're right:

After the hooter sounds, the end of the first half or full time is signalled by the referee on the next occasion that the ball goes out of play for a score, for a wide or for a sideline kick. If a 45 has been awarded but not taken, before the hooter sounds, the free kick can be taken and, if it results in a score, without any other player touching the ball, that score shall be awarded.

"For a wide" must also mean for a 45 as well in this scenario.

More often than not, one team is going to be better placed after the hooter than the other and they basically just need to get the ball out of play (legally) to end the game e.g just throwing it out over the line is a foul and play continues.

Not sure on this rule. At the Monaghan and meath game the hooter went and the Monaghan player kicked it out behind his own goals. Players started to shake hands and then next thing Meath are awared a 45 which was taken and kicked wide. Did the referee get it wrong or is it the rule that a 45 can be given and taken after the hooter sounds?

Quote from: Cavan19 on March 18, 2025, 11:17:56 AM

Quote from: Spiderlegs on March 11, 2025, 03:18:12 PM

Quote from: Cavan19 on March 11, 2025, 02:38:57 PM

Quote from: Spiderlegs on March 11, 2025, 01:52:34 PM

Quote from: Rossfan on March 11, 2025, 12:26:59 PMOne question on the new hooter rule...
Team A get a free out on their 20, hooter goes....
Is free to be taken and play on till ball next goes out of play no matter how long it takes?
Or
Does Ref say ball is out of play, ye have no chance of scoring from the free, so game over?

After the hooter sounds, the end of the first half or full time is signalled by the referee on the next occasion that the ball goes out of play for a score, for a wide or for a sideline kick

"Next occasion" here would suggest you take the free or solo & go and keep playing until one of those things happens. If it goes out for a 45, the 45 can be taken (but needs to be scored without any player touching to count).

The 45 would need to be awarded before the hooter goes, if it goes out for a 45 after the hooter has sounded it would be end of game.

You're right:

After the hooter sounds, the end of the first half or full time is signalled by the referee on the next occasion that the ball goes out of play for a score, for a wide or for a sideline kick. If a 45 has been awarded but not taken, before the hooter sounds, the free kick can be taken and, if it results in a score, without any other player touching the ball, that score shall be awarded.

"For a wide" must also mean for a 45 as well in this scenario.

More often than not, one team is going to be better placed after the hooter than the other and they basically just need to get the ball out of play (legally) to end the game e.g just throwing it out over the line is a foul and play continues.

Not sure on this rule. At the Monaghan and meath game the hooter went and the Monaghan player kicked it out behind his own goals. Players started to shake hands and then next thing Meath are awared a 45 which was taken and kicked wide. Did the referee get it wrong or is it the rule that a 45 can be given and taken after the hooter sounds?

Came on here to say exactly this. It's very difficult to know what the actual rule is going by the wording and it's always possible the ref got it wrong because they aren't always sure either.

Quote from: Spiderlegs on March 18, 2025, 03:53:08 PM

Quote from: Cavan19 on March 18, 2025, 11:17:56 AM

Quote from: Spiderlegs on March 11, 2025, 03:18:12 PM

Quote from: Cavan19 on March 11, 2025, 02:38:57 PM

Quote from: Spiderlegs on March 11, 2025, 01:52:34 PM

Quote from: Rossfan on March 11, 2025, 12:26:59 PMOne question on the new hooter rule...
Team A get a free out on their 20, hooter goes....
Is free to be taken and play on till ball next goes out of play no matter how long it takes?
Or
Does Ref say ball is out of play, ye have no chance of scoring from the free, so game over?

After the hooter sounds, the end of the first half or full time is signalled by the referee on the next occasion that the ball goes out of play for a score, for a wide or for a sideline kick

"Next occasion" here would suggest you take the free or solo & go and keep playing until one of those things happens. If it goes out for a 45, the 45 can be taken (but needs to be scored without any player touching to count).

The 45 would need to be awarded before the hooter goes, if it goes out for a 45 after the hooter has sounded it would be end of game.

You're right:

After the hooter sounds, the end of the first half or full time is signalled by the referee on the next occasion that the ball goes out of play for a score, for a wide or for a sideline kick. If a 45 has been awarded but not taken, before the hooter sounds, the free kick can be taken and, if it results in a score, without any other player touching the ball, that score shall be awarded.

"For a wide" must also mean for a 45 as well in this scenario.

More often than not, one team is going to be better placed after the hooter than the other and they basically just need to get the ball out of play (legally) to end the game e.g just throwing it out over the line is a foul and play continues.

Not sure on this rule. At the Monaghan and meath game the hooter went and the Monaghan player kicked it out behind his own goals. Players started to shake hands and then next thing Meath are awared a 45 which was taken and kicked wide. Did the referee get it wrong or is it the rule that a 45 can be given and taken after the hooter sounds?

Came on here to say exactly this. It's very difficult to know what the actual rule is going by the wording and it's always possible the ref got it wrong because they aren't always sure either.

Nah the ref got that completely wrong, the hooter goes, game is over once the ball goes out. If the ball goes out for a sideline or a 45 and then the hooter goes before its taken then play will continue (I think)

Was at Q/A last night on the new rules, I'm fairly confident of them just not confident in making sure one ref is able to implement them better than the rules we had before FRC came in

Quote from: onefineday on February 19, 2025, 12:54:25 AM

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 18, 2025, 10:42:47 AM

Quote from: Rossfan on February 18, 2025, 08:54:08 AMDiarmuid Murtagh on the radio Sunday evening described 2 pointers as "tap overs".
He said it looks long on TV but not when you're on the pitch playing.

So why were teams not doing tap overs before the rule? The endless moving the ball back sideways and looking to break lines to get into the 'scoring zone' and now they are just tapping them over, that would have nullified the swapped defence.

I think that's the maths of the whole thing.
Before it was keep possession until you're in the scoring zone where conversion rate is 75% or whatever, now, whilst conversion rate might only be 40% from outside the arc, it's worth 100% more, so the smart play is to take that shot.
And as for working a goal - it's worth 50% more than a 2-pointer, but the difficulty is presumably so much more than that, that's it's just not an option worth considering.

It's something we've seen in hurling too over the last decade, the realisation that as the probability of scoring a long range point has increased dramatically (lighter ball, stronger and better coached players), then the relative value of a goal has diminished and dramatically reduced the incentive to work goals.

3 goals in total this weekend in 4 provincial semi-finals. Aberration or is this becoming a 'thing'?

Quote from: Captain Obvious on March 11, 2025, 05:03:49 PMWhen the hoover sounds at full time this weekend you'll still have children and over excited adults running onto the field.

Well the GAA will just have to suck it up.

Not sure what's the best way of wording that poll, I've grown with some of the rules from when they first came out..

I'm looking at them as a supporter and as an official, bit confusing but the least enhancement that really doesn't count is the forward mark, very rarely has it been done in all the game I've done so far. 1V1 at midfield players are still grappling for the ball and in occasions the lads that are on the 45 are still able to sprint in and collect the break.

The 3 up and 4 defenders is grand, as a supporter

The limits on using the keeper is great, the keeper should in fact not be outside the large rectangle, hard enough to listen to at the best of times but christ when they are up the pitch they all think they are The Gooch.

Solo and go is good

Kick outs are the same for both teams, learn to win your own ball, if the other team is always winning the ball, then managers need to look at their players

Scoring arc is good, but shouldn't be used for advanced dissent 2 pointers.. 2 pointers if from play only

Or free for fouls on the man.
20m free enough for dissent, breaching the 3 up rule.

What's the rule at the hooter?

After the hooter goes, if the team that's winning gets pissession, does the ball have to be kicked over the sideline, rather than the end-line?

If they kick it over their own end line, the 45 has to be taken.

Quote from: Rossfan on April 29, 2025, 04:13:58 PMIf they kick it over their own end line, the 45 has to be taken.

Is that not a bit silly?

I mean, they've won the ball back and put it out of play - regardless of where.

Quote from: Rossfan on April 29, 2025, 04:13:58 PMIf they kick it over their own end line, the 45 has to be taken.

Happened the poor Louth lad against Kildare. Belted it out over the endline to exasperated looks from his teammates. Fortunately, for him, Kildare were not able to capitalise.

Quote from: marty34 on April 29, 2025, 04:28:49 PM

Quote from: Rossfan on April 29, 2025, 04:13:58 PMIf they kick it over their own end line, the 45 has to be taken.

Is that not a bit silly?

I mean, they've won the ball back and put it out of play - regardless of where.

If he kicked it into his own net it would be a goal.
If he threw it over the sideline, it would be a free.

If he kicked it over the sideline does the sideline not need taken?

No

Quote from: gallsman on April 29, 2025, 04:42:41 PMNo

you'd wonder what the difference is, sure most county free takers would have a good chance of scoring a sideline, or even a 2 pointer depending on where it went out. Even in the Kildare case a sideline would have been a great chance to drop one in for a goal chance.

Quote from: Rossfan on April 29, 2025, 04:33:41 PM

Quote from: marty34 on April 29, 2025, 04:28:49 PM

Quote from: Rossfan on April 29, 2025, 04:13:58 PMIf they kick it over their own end line, the 45 has to be taken.

Is that not a bit silly?

I mean, they've won the ball back and put it out of play - regardless of where.

If he kicked it into his own net it would be a goal.
If he threw it over the sideline, it would be a free.

But he put it out of play.  That's the point.

If he kicked it into his own net, it's a goal. Ball is still in the same play. I get that.

I mean if he kicks it over the sideline after the hooter, it's not a side-line. The game's over.

A silly rule if he kicks it over his own line.

Quote from: Armagh18 on April 29, 2025, 04:37:45 PMIf he kicked it over the sideline does the sideline not need taken?

After the hooter?

When/how would the game end if you keep taking sidelines after the hooter? 

Quote from: Armagh18 on April 29, 2025, 04:59:44 PM

Quote from: gallsman on April 29, 2025, 04:42:41 PMNo

you'd wonder what the difference is, sure most county free takers would have a good chance of scoring a sideline, or even a 2 pointer depending on where it went out. Even in the Kildare case a sideline would have been a great chance to drop one in for a goal chance.

It's daft but I suspect with the 45 they reckon there's a chance that a possible score could be deflected wide and feel teams should have the chance at it.

I felt for the Louth lad on Sunday. If Kildare had pulled that back he'd never have lived it down.

Quote from: marty34 on April 29, 2025, 05:54:36 PM

Quote from: Rossfan on April 29, 2025, 04:33:41 PM

Quote from: marty34 on April 29, 2025, 04:28:49 PM

Quote from: Rossfan on April 29, 2025, 04:13:58 PMIf they kick it over their own end line, the 45 has to be taken.

Is that not a bit silly?

I mean, they've won the ball back and put it out of play - regardless of where.

If he kicked it into his own net it would be a goal.
If he threw it over the sideline, it would be a free.

But he put it out of play.  That's the point.

If he kicked it into his own net, it's a goal. Ball is still in the same play. I get that.

I mean if he kicks it over the sideline after the hooter, it's not a side-line. The game's over.

A silly rule if he kicks it over his own line.

The point is that if you kick it out after the hooter, the treatment is different depending on what line it is.

If it's kicked wide, game over.

If it's put out for a sideline, game over

If it's put out for a 45, deliberately or not, the 45 gets taken. Why?

I'd harbour a guess that as referees have almost never blown time when a 45 has been awarded, it's a continuation of that ethos.

It's a bit daft though if you ask me.

What is the exact rule on finishing regarding 45's?  I can't find it in the rule book

Quote from: David McKeown on April 29, 2025, 08:29:09 PMWhat is the exact rule on finishing regarding 45's?  I can't find it in the rule book

 ;D  ;D  depends on what one you are looking at, published one, refs one, managers one, one in Eammons head.

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 29, 2025, 01:18:54 PMNot sure what's the best way of wording that poll, I've grown with some of the rules from when they first came out..

I'm looking at them as a supporter and as an official, bit confusing but the least enhancement that really doesn't count is the forward mark, very rarely has it been done in all the game I've done so far. 1V1 at midfield players are still grappling for the ball and in occasions the lads that are on the 45 are still able to sprint in and collect the break.

The 3 up and 4 defenders is grand, as a supporter

The limits on using the keeper is great, the keeper should in fact not be outside the large rectangle, hard enough to listen to at the best of times but christ when they are up the pitch they all think they are The Gooch.

Solo and go is good

Kick outs are the same for both teams, learn to win your own ball, if the other team is always winning the ball, then managers need to look at their players

Scoring arc is good, but shouldn't be used for advanced dissent 2 pointers.. 2 pointers if from play only

I'd pretty much agree with all that - definitely agree on 2 pts from dead balls, but I really think not retaining the 4 point goal was a serious misstep.

I'm not a fan of the midfield mark rule and the ensuing 50m penalty for contact either.

Quote from: onefineday on April 30, 2025, 12:03:16 AM

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 29, 2025, 01:18:54 PMNot sure what's the best way of wording that poll, I've grown with some of the rules from when they first came out..

I'm looking at them as a supporter and as an official, bit confusing but the least enhancement that really doesn't count is the forward mark, very rarely has it been done in all the game I've done so far. 1V1 at midfield players are still grappling for the ball and in occasions the lads that are on the 45 are still able to sprint in and collect the break.

The 3 up and 4 defenders is grand, as a supporter

The limits on using the keeper is great, the keeper should in fact not be outside the large rectangle, hard enough to listen to at the best of times but christ when they are up the pitch they all think they are The Gooch.

Solo and go is good

Kick outs are the same for both teams, learn to win your own ball, if the other team is always winning the ball, then managers need to look at their players

Scoring arc is good, but shouldn't be used for advanced dissent 2 pointers.. 2 pointers if from play only

I'd pretty much agree with all that - definitely agree on 2 pts from dead balls, but I really think not retaining the 4 point goal was a serious misstep.

I'm not a fan of the midfield mark rule and the ensuing 50m penalty for contact either.

I'd agree with some but not all of this.
2 point arc should go - points from outside the 45 for 2pts, meaning exceptional scores are rewarded and the value of a goal is retained. And I've no issue with any of the dissent rules - provided they are consistently applied. I don't like the hand the ball back rule.

Solo and go - keep it. The only rule which I think has added real value and maintains the flow of the game.

3v3 - I dont like. The point of it was to encourage kicking to the forwards and take away the ability to have 15 men behind the ball with lateral play. There has been very little increase in kicking into forwards and the majority of games have lateral play around the new arc with 12 behind the ball. Where is the benefit?

No issue with the keeper rule, and wouldn't have any issue with keeping them in the square (though it starts to feel like soccer). But, with 3v3 and keeper rule together I don't think it works.
Is there part of the rule that stops say, the corner back and gk swapping positions? So the cb steps into goals and lets the keeper play out - can they take a back pass then?

The kick out rule is my single biggest bug bearer. Why shouldn't they be allowed to set up to play to their own strengths with short kicks? Removing that ability removes a huge tactical dimension to the game. For those who say they can't watch teams running the ball from short kicks etc - to use your argument, surely its up to the other team to learn to counter that to win kcickouts? I think we're losing so much from the games in terms of strategy and defensive play.

Would be interesting to see an analysis of the games so far and see if there would have been any different results without the 2 pointers.

No, I'm too lazy to do it.

Quote from: tbrick18 on April 30, 2025, 10:47:39 AM

Quote from: onefineday on April 30, 2025, 12:03:16 AM

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 29, 2025, 01:18:54 PMNot sure what's the best way of wording that poll, I've grown with some of the rules from when they first came out..

I'm looking at them as a supporter and as an official, bit confusing but the least enhancement that really doesn't count is the forward mark, very rarely has it been done in all the game I've done so far. 1V1 at midfield players are still grappling for the ball and in occasions the lads that are on the 45 are still able to sprint in and collect the break.

The 3 up and 4 defenders is grand, as a supporter

The limits on using the keeper is great, the keeper should in fact not be outside the large rectangle, hard enough to listen to at the best of times but christ when they are up the pitch they all think they are The Gooch.

Solo and go is good

Kick outs are the same for both teams, learn to win your own ball, if the other team is always winning the ball, then managers need to look at their players

Scoring arc is good, but shouldn't be used for advanced dissent 2 pointers.. 2 pointers if from play only

I'd pretty much agree with all that - definitely agree on 2 pts from dead balls, but I really think not retaining the 4 point goal was a serious misstep.

I'm not a fan of the midfield mark rule and the ensuing 50m penalty for contact either.

I'd agree with some but not all of this.
2 point arc should go - points from outside the 45 for 2pts, meaning exceptional scores are rewarded and the value of a goal is retained. And I've no issue with any of the dissent rules - provided they are consistently applied. I don't like the hand the ball back rule.

Solo and go - keep it. The only rule which I think has added real value and maintains the flow of the game.

3v3 - I dont like. The point of it was to encourage kicking to the forwards and take away the ability to have 15 men behind the ball with lateral play. There has been very little increase in kicking into forwards and the majority of games have lateral play around the new arc with 12 behind the ball. Where is the benefit?

No issue with the keeper rule, and wouldn't have any issue with keeping them in the square (though it starts to feel like soccer). But, with 3v3 and keeper rule together I don't think it works.
Is there part of the rule that stops say, the corner back and gk swapping positions? So the cb steps into goals and lets the keeper play out - can they take a back pass then?

The kick out rule is my single biggest bug bearer. Why shouldn't they be allowed to set up to play to their own strengths with short kicks? Removing that ability removes a huge tactical dimension to the game. For those who say they can't watch teams running the ball from short kicks etc - to use your argument, surely its up to the other team to learn to counter that to win kcickouts? I think we're losing so much from the games in terms of strategy and defensive play.

We can counter your point on the kickout rule that why can't teams compete equally for the ball? Yes teams can press up and eliminate that but 9/10 they don't and christ, as a watcher of games I'm aghast at the allowing of teams to win possession without a glove put on them..

Anyone that moves into nets with another top on is just a player filling in at goal, he though loses his ability of not being tackled in the small square or allowing to pick the ball off the ground within that space, so loses his extras. Plus if someone other than the keeper takes the kickout the keeper has to stay in the square

The other main reason for the 3v3 was to keep players in all parts of the pitch, as we were have blanket defence, 15 behind the ball behind the halfway line

The "terms of strategy and defensive play" were the main ingredients in the boring chess matches of recent years.
I like good defending too....but only when you have to.
Hopefully they keep implementing the steps/overholding to give individual defenders a more level playing field.

Quote from: Rossfan on April 30, 2025, 01:31:13 PMThe "terms of strategy and defensive play" were the main ingredients in the boring chess matches of recent years.
I like good defending too....but only when you have to.
Hopefully they keep implementing the steps/overholding to give individual defenders a more level playing field.

So much of the defending the last few years was simply all about getting a 2nd or 3rd player around the player in possession to bottle them up. When a side got a lead it was all about wasting time and slowing the game down as much as possible. 

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 30, 2025, 01:12:22 PM

Quote from: tbrick18 on April 30, 2025, 10:47:39 AM

Quote from: onefineday on April 30, 2025, 12:03:16 AM

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 29, 2025, 01:18:54 PMNot sure what's the best way of wording that poll, I've grown with some of the rules from when they first came out..

I'm looking at them as a supporter and as an official, bit confusing but the least enhancement that really doesn't count is the forward mark, very rarely has it been done in all the game I've done so far. 1V1 at midfield players are still grappling for the ball and in occasions the lads that are on the 45 are still able to sprint in and collect the break.

The 3 up and 4 defenders is grand, as a supporter

The limits on using the keeper is great, the keeper should in fact not be outside the large rectangle, hard enough to listen to at the best of times but christ when they are up the pitch they all think they are The Gooch.

Solo and go is good

Kick outs are the same for both teams, learn to win your own ball, if the other team is always winning the ball, then managers need to look at their players

Scoring arc is good, but shouldn't be used for advanced dissent 2 pointers.. 2 pointers if from play only

I'd pretty much agree with all that - definitely agree on 2 pts from dead balls, but I really think not retaining the 4 point goal was a serious misstep.

I'm not a fan of the midfield mark rule and the ensuing 50m penalty for contact either.

I'd agree with some but not all of this.
2 point arc should go - points from outside the 45 for 2pts, meaning exceptional scores are rewarded and the value of a goal is retained. And I've no issue with any of the dissent rules - provided they are consistently applied. I don't like the hand the ball back rule.

Solo and go - keep it. The only rule which I think has added real value and maintains the flow of the game.

3v3 - I dont like. The point of it was to encourage kicking to the forwards and take away the ability to have 15 men behind the ball with lateral play. There has been very little increase in kicking into forwards and the majority of games have lateral play around the new arc with 12 behind the ball. Where is the benefit?

No issue with the keeper rule, and wouldn't have any issue with keeping them in the square (though it starts to feel like soccer). But, with 3v3 and keeper rule together I don't think it works.
Is there part of the rule that stops say, the corner back and gk swapping positions? So the cb steps into goals and lets the keeper play out - can they take a back pass then?

The kick out rule is my single biggest bug bearer. Why shouldn't they be allowed to set up to play to their own strengths with short kicks? Removing that ability removes a huge tactical dimension to the game. For those who say they can't watch teams running the ball from short kicks etc - to use your argument, surely its up to the other team to learn to counter that to win kcickouts? I think we're losing so much from the games in terms of strategy and defensive play.

We can counter your point on the kickout rule that why can't teams compete equally for the ball? Yes teams can press up and eliminate that but 9/10 they don't and christ, as a watcher of games I'm aghast at the allowing of teams to win possession without a glove put on them..

Anyone that moves into nets with another top on is just a player filling in at goal, he though loses his ability of not being tackled in the small square or allowing to pick the ball off the ground within that space, so loses his extras. Plus if someone other than the keeper takes the kickout the keeper has to stay in the square

The other main reason for the 3v3 was to keep players in all parts of the pitch, as we were have blanket defence, 15 behind the ball behind the halfway line

Some teams will be able to compete equally for the ball from a long kickout and others wont.
The days of the underdog winning out are few and far between if they continuously have to kick the ball into an area of the field where they can't win it.
From when we are playing underage football, if there's a big man in the middle catching every ball we're told to keep the ball away from him, now we're saying too bad, kick it out there anyway.
Every team will have it's strengths and weaknesses and I think what this new rule says is that if you're strong in that middle 3rd you will have the advantage over teams that might have better defenders or better forwards. So 8ish players in the middle of the field are what decides the game. There's now more weight being given to having strong midfield type players than there is to the rest of the players. That's not right imo, but I appreciate others have a different view on that.

On the goalkeeper positioning question, I never knew the keeper had to have a keeper jersey, so what you're saying makes sense there.  I was wondering why managers didn't try some move with re-positioning players so that the GK could receive a backpass - now I know.

I hate the rule banning a keepers involvement. I think it's such a negative regressive rule. Like if Morgan or Beggan are coming bombing out of defence why should they be punished for playing a 1/2 or supporting an attack?

I agree the pass back to the keeper was a problem but it in itself should have been outlawed. I.e a keeper who just takes possession and shovelling it out to one side. But in a rule book littered with subjective interpretations it wouldn't have been hard to let keepers receive possession so long as they are using it in an attacking movement and not simply holding onto possession.

Quote from: trileacman on April 30, 2025, 02:24:48 PMI hate the rule banning a keepers involvement. I think it's such a negative regressive rule. Like if Morgan or Beggan are coming bombing out of defence why should they be punished for playing a 1/2 or supporting an attack?

I agree the pass back to the keeper was a problem but it in itself should have been outlawed. I.e a keeper who just takes possession and shovelling it out to one side. But in a rule book littered with subjective interpretations it wouldn't have been hard to let keepers receive possession so long as they are using it in an attacking movement and not simply holding onto possession.

It's not a rule against goalkeepers involvement - it's a rule against allowing 12 attackers versus 11 defenders. Goalies can still be involved they just can't have the advantage of being unmarked.

Given how much the goalie position was used to waste time and just play keep ball I can totally see why the FRC put restrictions on them playing the ball in their own half.

I'm struggling to think of how you would word any rule that would let keepers receive possession so long as they are using it in an attacking movement and not simply holding onto possession.

Seems like to would be an awful mess trying to have a ref decide when a goalie is actually contributing to an attack in their own half versus just pretending to contribute to an attack to waste time.

Also taking the keeper out as an option for passes in their own half as really increased the incentive for pushing up and putting the opposition under pressure in their own half as opposed to just turning tail and sprinting back inside their own half.

The keeper can still play in the opposition half, his team just need to have 4 players back in defence.

How many new rules are we up to now?
Started with 49 but would need about 10 new ones around the hooter alone!

No wonder there is a referree crisis brewing.

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 30, 2025, 01:12:22 PM

Quote from: tbrick18 on April 30, 2025, 10:47:39 AM

Quote from: onefineday on April 30, 2025, 12:03:16 AM

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 29, 2025, 01:18:54 PMNot sure what's the best way of wording that poll, I've grown with some of the rules from when they first came out..

I'm looking at them as a supporter and as an official, bit confusing but the least enhancement that really doesn't count is the forward mark, very rarely has it been done in all the game I've done so far. 1V1 at midfield players are still grappling for the ball and in occasions the lads that are on the 45 are still able to sprint in and collect the break.

The 3 up and 4 defenders is grand, as a supporter

The limits on using the keeper is great, the keeper should in fact not be outside the large rectangle, hard enough to listen to at the best of times but christ when they are up the pitch they all think they are The Gooch.

Solo and go is good

Kick outs are the same for both teams, learn to win your own ball, if the other team is always winning the ball, then managers need to look at their players

Scoring arc is good, but shouldn't be used for advanced dissent 2 pointers.. 2 pointers if from play only

I'd pretty much agree with all that - definitely agree on 2 pts from dead balls, but I really think not retaining the 4 point goal was a serious misstep.

I'm not a fan of the midfield mark rule and the ensuing 50m penalty for contact either.

I'd agree with some but not all of this.
2 point arc should go - points from outside the 45 for 2pts, meaning exceptional scores are rewarded and the value of a goal is retained. And I've no issue with any of the dissent rules - provided they are consistently applied. I don't like the hand the ball back rule.

Solo and go - keep it. The only rule which I think has added real value and maintains the flow of the game.

3v3 - I dont like. The point of it was to encourage kicking to the forwards and take away the ability to have 15 men behind the ball with lateral play. There has been very little increase in kicking into forwards and the majority of games have lateral play around the new arc with 12 behind the ball. Where is the benefit?

No issue with the keeper rule, and wouldn't have any issue with keeping them in the square (though it starts to feel like soccer). But, with 3v3 and keeper rule together I don't think it works.
Is there part of the rule that stops say, the corner back and gk swapping positions? So the cb steps into goals and lets the keeper play out - can they take a back pass then?

The kick out rule is my single biggest bug bearer. Why shouldn't they be allowed to set up to play to their own strengths with short kicks? Removing that ability removes a huge tactical dimension to the game. For those who say they can't watch teams running the ball from short kicks etc - to use your argument, surely its up to the other team to learn to counter that to win kcickouts? I think we're losing so much from the games in terms of strategy and defensive play.

We can counter your point on the kickout rule that why can't teams compete equally for the ball? Yes teams can press up and eliminate that but 9/10 they don't and christ, as a watcher of games I'm aghast at the allowing of teams to win possession without a glove put on them..

Anyone that moves into nets with another top on is just a player filling in at goal, he though loses his ability of not being tackled in the small square or allowing to pick the ball off the ground within that space, so loses his extras. Plus if someone other than the keeper takes the kickout the keeper has to stay in the square

The other main reason for the 3v3 was to keep players in all parts of the pitch, as we were have blanket defence, 15 behind the ball behind the halfway line

A goalkeeper can be tackled in the small square. He just can't receive a shoulder charge.

Quote from: David McKeown on April 30, 2025, 03:49:32 PM

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 30, 2025, 01:12:22 PM

Quote from: tbrick18 on April 30, 2025, 10:47:39 AM

Quote from: onefineday on April 30, 2025, 12:03:16 AM

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 29, 2025, 01:18:54 PMNot sure what's the best way of wording that poll, I've grown with some of the rules from when they first came out..

I'm looking at them as a supporter and as an official, bit confusing but the least enhancement that really doesn't count is the forward mark, very rarely has it been done in all the game I've done so far. 1V1 at midfield players are still grappling for the ball and in occasions the lads that are on the 45 are still able to sprint in and collect the break.

The 3 up and 4 defenders is grand, as a supporter

The limits on using the keeper is great, the keeper should in fact not be outside the large rectangle, hard enough to listen to at the best of times but christ when they are up the pitch they all think they are The Gooch.

Solo and go is good

Kick outs are the same for both teams, learn to win your own ball, if the other team is always winning the ball, then managers need to look at their players

Scoring arc is good, but shouldn't be used for advanced dissent 2 pointers.. 2 pointers if from play only

I'd pretty much agree with all that - definitely agree on 2 pts from dead balls, but I really think not retaining the 4 point goal was a serious misstep.

I'm not a fan of the midfield mark rule and the ensuing 50m penalty for contact either.

I'd agree with some but not all of this.
2 point arc should go - points from outside the 45 for 2pts, meaning exceptional scores are rewarded and the value of a goal is retained. And I've no issue with any of the dissent rules - provided they are consistently applied. I don't like the hand the ball back rule.

Solo and go - keep it. The only rule which I think has added real value and maintains the flow of the game.

3v3 - I dont like. The point of it was to encourage kicking to the forwards and take away the ability to have 15 men behind the ball with lateral play. There has been very little increase in kicking into forwards and the majority of games have lateral play around the new arc with 12 behind the ball. Where is the benefit?

No issue with the keeper rule, and wouldn't have any issue with keeping them in the square (though it starts to feel like soccer). But, with 3v3 and keeper rule together I don't think it works.
Is there part of the rule that stops say, the corner back and gk swapping positions? So the cb steps into goals and lets the keeper play out - can they take a back pass then?

The kick out rule is my single biggest bug bearer. Why shouldn't they be allowed to set up to play to their own strengths with short kicks? Removing that ability removes a huge tactical dimension to the game. For those who say they can't watch teams running the ball from short kicks etc - to use your argument, surely its up to the other team to learn to counter that to win kcickouts? I think we're losing so much from the games in terms of strategy and defensive play.

We can counter your point on the kickout rule that why can't teams compete equally for the ball? Yes teams can press up and eliminate that but 9/10 they don't and christ, as a watcher of games I'm aghast at the allowing of teams to win possession without a glove put on them..

Anyone that moves into nets with another top on is just a player filling in at goal, he though loses his ability of not being tackled in the small square or allowing to pick the ball off the ground within that space, so loses his extras. Plus if someone other than the keeper takes the kickout the keeper has to stay in the square

The other main reason for the 3v3 was to keep players in all parts of the pitch, as we were have blanket defence, 15 behind the ball behind the halfway line

A goalkeeper can be tackled in the small square. He just can't receive a shoulder charge.

They can tackle but, any, and I mean touch that's not on the ball is a free out, as you have rightly said, the only physical tackle allowed in the game never mind just on the keeper in the square is shoulder to shoulder, that's it in a nutshell.

So this is why McColdrick was saying that the tackle isn't an easy thing to define

Most tackles are technically illegal but if refs blew for them all it would be 2 frees a minute.
Then various refs let some of them go and others let others go , then the lorry loads of steps to get past the foul tackle were allowed.......

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 30, 2025, 06:08:33 PM

Quote from: David McKeown on April 30, 2025, 03:49:32 PM

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 30, 2025, 01:12:22 PM

Quote from: tbrick18 on April 30, 2025, 10:47:39 AM

Quote from: onefineday on April 30, 2025, 12:03:16 AM

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 29, 2025, 01:18:54 PMNot sure what's the best way of wording that poll, I've grown with some of the rules from when they first came out..

I'm looking at them as a supporter and as an official, bit confusing but the least enhancement that really doesn't count is the forward mark, very rarely has it been done in all the game I've done so far. 1V1 at midfield players are still grappling for the ball and in occasions the lads that are on the 45 are still able to sprint in and collect the break.

The 3 up and 4 defenders is grand, as a supporter

The limits on using the keeper is great, the keeper should in fact not be outside the large rectangle, hard enough to listen to at the best of times but christ when they are up the pitch they all think they are The Gooch.

Solo and go is good

Kick outs are the same for both teams, learn to win your own ball, if the other team is always winning the ball, then managers need to look at their players

Scoring arc is good, but shouldn't be used for advanced dissent 2 pointers.. 2 pointers if from play only

I'd pretty much agree with all that - definitely agree on 2 pts from dead balls, but I really think not retaining the 4 point goal was a serious misstep.

I'm not a fan of the midfield mark rule and the ensuing 50m penalty for contact either.

I'd agree with some but not all of this.
2 point arc should go - points from outside the 45 for 2pts, meaning exceptional scores are rewarded and the value of a goal is retained. And I've no issue with any of the dissent rules - provided they are consistently applied. I don't like the hand the ball back rule.

Solo and go - keep it. The only rule which I think has added real value and maintains the flow of the game.

3v3 - I dont like. The point of it was to encourage kicking to the forwards and take away the ability to have 15 men behind the ball with lateral play. There has been very little increase in kicking into forwards and the majority of games have lateral play around the new arc with 12 behind the ball. Where is the benefit?

No issue with the keeper rule, and wouldn't have any issue with keeping them in the square (though it starts to feel like soccer). But, with 3v3 and keeper rule together I don't think it works.
Is there part of the rule that stops say, the corner back and gk swapping positions? So the cb steps into goals and lets the keeper play out - can they take a back pass then?

The kick out rule is my single biggest bug bearer. Why shouldn't they be allowed to set up to play to their own strengths with short kicks? Removing that ability removes a huge tactical dimension to the game. For those who say they can't watch teams running the ball from short kicks etc - to use your argument, surely its up to the other team to learn to counter that to win kcickouts? I think we're losing so much from the games in terms of strategy and defensive play.

We can counter your point on the kickout rule that why can't teams compete equally for the ball? Yes teams can press up and eliminate that but 9/10 they don't and christ, as a watcher of games I'm aghast at the allowing of teams to win possession without a glove put on them..

Anyone that moves into nets with another top on is just a player filling in at goal, he though loses his ability of not being tackled in the small square or allowing to pick the ball off the ground within that space, so loses his extras. Plus if someone other than the keeper takes the kickout the keeper has to stay in the square

The other main reason for the 3v3 was to keep players in all parts of the pitch, as we were have blanket defence, 15 behind the ball behind the halfway line

A goalkeeper can be tackled in the small square. He just can't receive a shoulder charge.

They can tackle but, any, and I mean touch that's not on the ball is a free out, as you have rightly said, the only physical tackle allowed in the game never mind just on the keeper in the square is shoulder to shoulder, that's it in a nutshell.

So this is why McColdrick was saying that the tackle isn't an easy thing to define

I think it's yet another example of the problem with the rule book.

The rule book says a keeper may not be charged which is defined but may be challenged. Challenged isn't defined and then to make matters worse the rule book says players may be tackled for the ball but doesn't say what that is or whether or not goal keepers can be tackled. That at the very least could be easily resolved.

Quote from: David McKeown on April 30, 2025, 10:15:16 PM

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 30, 2025, 06:08:33 PM

Quote from: David McKeown on April 30, 2025, 03:49:32 PM

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 30, 2025, 01:12:22 PM

Quote from: tbrick18 on April 30, 2025, 10:47:39 AM

Quote from: onefineday on April 30, 2025, 12:03:16 AM

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 29, 2025, 01:18:54 PMNot sure what's the best way of wording that poll, I've grown with some of the rules from when they first came out..

I'm looking at them as a supporter and as an official, bit confusing but the least enhancement that really doesn't count is the forward mark, very rarely has it been done in all the game I've done so far. 1V1 at midfield players are still grappling for the ball and in occasions the lads that are on the 45 are still able to sprint in and collect the break.

The 3 up and 4 defenders is grand, as a supporter

The limits on using the keeper is great, the keeper should in fact not be outside the large rectangle, hard enough to listen to at the best of times but christ when they are up the pitch they all think they are The Gooch.

Solo and go is good

Kick outs are the same for both teams, learn to win your own ball, if the other team is always winning the ball, then managers need to look at their players

Scoring arc is good, but shouldn't be used for advanced dissent 2 pointers.. 2 pointers if from play only

I'd pretty much agree with all that - definitely agree on 2 pts from dead balls, but I really think not retaining the 4 point goal was a serious misstep.

I'm not a fan of the midfield mark rule and the ensuing 50m penalty for contact either.

I'd agree with some but not all of this.
2 point arc should go - points from outside the 45 for 2pts, meaning exceptional scores are rewarded and the value of a goal is retained. And I've no issue with any of the dissent rules - provided they are consistently applied. I don't like the hand the ball back rule.

Solo and go - keep it. The only rule which I think has added real value and maintains the flow of the game.

3v3 - I dont like. The point of it was to encourage kicking to the forwards and take away the ability to have 15 men behind the ball with lateral play. There has been very little increase in kicking into forwards and the majority of games have lateral play around the new arc with 12 behind the ball. Where is the benefit?

No issue with the keeper rule, and wouldn't have any issue with keeping them in the square (though it starts to feel like soccer). But, with 3v3 and keeper rule together I don't think it works.
Is there part of the rule that stops say, the corner back and gk swapping positions? So the cb steps into goals and lets the keeper play out - can they take a back pass then?

The kick out rule is my single biggest bug bearer. Why shouldn't they be allowed to set up to play to their own strengths with short kicks? Removing that ability removes a huge tactical dimension to the game. For those who say they can't watch teams running the ball from short kicks etc - to use your argument, surely its up to the other team to learn to counter that to win kcickouts? I think we're losing so much from the games in terms of strategy and defensive play.

We can counter your point on the kickout rule that why can't teams compete equally for the ball? Yes teams can press up and eliminate that but 9/10 they don't and christ, as a watcher of games I'm aghast at the allowing of teams to win possession without a glove put on them..

Anyone that moves into nets with another top on is just a player filling in at goal, he though loses his ability of not being tackled in the small square or allowing to pick the ball off the ground within that space, so loses his extras. Plus if someone other than the keeper takes the kickout the keeper has to stay in the square

The other main reason for the 3v3 was to keep players in all parts of the pitch, as we were have blanket defence, 15 behind the ball behind the halfway line

A goalkeeper can be tackled in the small square. He just can't receive a shoulder charge.

They can tackle but, any, and I mean touch that's not on the ball is a free out, as you have rightly said, the only physical tackle allowed in the game never mind just on the keeper in the square is shoulder to shoulder, that's it in a nutshell.

So this is why McColdrick was saying that the tackle isn't an easy thing to define

I think it's yet another example of the problem with the rule book.

The rule book says a keeper may not be charged which is defined but may be challenged. Challenged isn't defined and then to make matters worse the rule book says players may be tackled for the ball but doesn't say what that is or whether or not goal keepers can be tackled. That at the very least could be easily resolved.

It needs to be defined or it doesn't because the day it becomes a non contact sport (unless it's a shoulder on shoulder) then it'll lose its appeal

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 30, 2025, 10:30:24 PM

Quote from: David McKeown on April 30, 2025, 10:15:16 PM

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 30, 2025, 06:08:33 PM

Quote from: David McKeown on April 30, 2025, 03:49:32 PM

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 30, 2025, 01:12:22 PM

Quote from: tbrick18 on April 30, 2025, 10:47:39 AM

Quote from: onefineday on April 30, 2025, 12:03:16 AM

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 29, 2025, 01:18:54 PMNot sure what's the best way of wording that poll, I've grown with some of the rules from when they first came out..

I'm looking at them as a supporter and as an official, bit confusing but the least enhancement that really doesn't count is the forward mark, very rarely has it been done in all the game I've done so far. 1V1 at midfield players are still grappling for the ball and in occasions the lads that are on the 45 are still able to sprint in and collect the break.

The 3 up and 4 defenders is grand, as a supporter

The limits on using the keeper is great, the keeper should in fact not be outside the large rectangle, hard enough to listen to at the best of times but christ when they are up the pitch they all think they are The Gooch.

Solo and go is good

Kick outs are the same for both teams, learn to win your own ball, if the other team is always winning the ball, then managers need to look at their players

Scoring arc is good, but shouldn't be used for advanced dissent 2 pointers.. 2 pointers if from play only

I'd pretty much agree with all that - definitely agree on 2 pts from dead balls, but I really think not retaining the 4 point goal was a serious misstep.

I'm not a fan of the midfield mark rule and the ensuing 50m penalty for contact either.

I'd agree with some but not all of this.
2 point arc should go - points from outside the 45 for 2pts, meaning exceptional scores are rewarded and the value of a goal is retained. And I've no issue with any of the dissent rules - provided they are consistently applied. I don't like the hand the ball back rule.

Solo and go - keep it. The only rule which I think has added real value and maintains the flow of the game.

3v3 - I dont like. The point of it was to encourage kicking to the forwards and take away the ability to have 15 men behind the ball with lateral play. There has been very little increase in kicking into forwards and the majority of games have lateral play around the new arc with 12 behind the ball. Where is the benefit?

No issue with the keeper rule, and wouldn't have any issue with keeping them in the square (though it starts to feel like soccer). But, with 3v3 and keeper rule together I don't think it works.
Is there part of the rule that stops say, the corner back and gk swapping positions? So the cb steps into goals and lets the keeper play out - can they take a back pass then?

The kick out rule is my single biggest bug bearer. Why shouldn't they be allowed to set up to play to their own strengths with short kicks? Removing that ability removes a huge tactical dimension to the game. For those who say they can't watch teams running the ball from short kicks etc - to use your argument, surely its up to the other team to learn to counter that to win kcickouts? I think we're losing so much from the games in terms of strategy and defensive play.

We can counter your point on the kickout rule that why can't teams compete equally for the ball? Yes teams can press up and eliminate that but 9/10 they don't and christ, as a watcher of games I'm aghast at the allowing of teams to win possession without a glove put on them..

Anyone that moves into nets with another top on is just a player filling in at goal, he though loses his ability of not being tackled in the small square or allowing to pick the ball off the ground within that space, so loses his extras. Plus if someone other than the keeper takes the kickout the keeper has to stay in the square

The other main reason for the 3v3 was to keep players in all parts of the pitch, as we were have blanket defence, 15 behind the ball behind the halfway line

A goalkeeper can be tackled in the small square. He just can't receive a shoulder charge.

They can tackle but, any, and I mean touch that's not on the ball is a free out, as you have rightly said, the only physical tackle allowed in the game never mind just on the keeper in the square is shoulder to shoulder, that's it in a nutshell.

So this is why McColdrick was saying that the tackle isn't an easy thing to define

I think it's yet another example of the problem with the rule book.

The rule book says a keeper may not be charged which is defined but may be challenged. Challenged isn't defined and then to make matters worse the rule book says players may be tackled for the ball but doesn't say what that is or whether or not goal keepers can be tackled. That at the very least could be easily resolved.

It needs to be defined or it doesn't because the day it becomes a non contact sport (unless it's a shoulder on shoulder) then it'll lose its appeal

Agreed I have no idea what the difference between a tackle and a challenge is.

Quote from: David McKeown on May 01, 2025, 08:11:03 AM

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 30, 2025, 10:30:24 PM

Quote from: David McKeown on April 30, 2025, 10:15:16 PM

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 30, 2025, 06:08:33 PM

Quote from: David McKeown on April 30, 2025, 03:49:32 PM

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 30, 2025, 01:12:22 PM

Quote from: tbrick18 on April 30, 2025, 10:47:39 AM

Quote from: onefineday on April 30, 2025, 12:03:16 AM

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 29, 2025, 01:18:54 PMNot sure what's the best way of wording that poll, I've grown with some of the rules from when they first came out..

I'm looking at them as a supporter and as an official, bit confusing but the least enhancement that really doesn't count is the forward mark, very rarely has it been done in all the game I've done so far. 1V1 at midfield players are still grappling for the ball and in occasions the lads that are on the 45 are still able to sprint in and collect the break.

The 3 up and 4 defenders is grand, as a supporter

The limits on using the keeper is great, the keeper should in fact not be outside the large rectangle, hard enough to listen to at the best of times but christ when they are up the pitch they all think they are The Gooch.

Solo and go is good

Kick outs are the same for both teams, learn to win your own ball, if the other team is always winning the ball, then managers need to look at their players

Scoring arc is good, but shouldn't be used for advanced dissent 2 pointers.. 2 pointers if from play only

I'd pretty much agree with all that - definitely agree on 2 pts from dead balls, but I really think not retaining the 4 point goal was a serious misstep.

I'm not a fan of the midfield mark rule and the ensuing 50m penalty for contact either.

I'd agree with some but not all of this.
2 point arc should go - points from outside the 45 for 2pts, meaning exceptional scores are rewarded and the value of a goal is retained. And I've no issue with any of the dissent rules - provided they are consistently applied. I don't like the hand the ball back rule.

Solo and go - keep it. The only rule which I think has added real value and maintains the flow of the game.

3v3 - I dont like. The point of it was to encourage kicking to the forwards and take away the ability to have 15 men behind the ball with lateral play. There has been very little increase in kicking into forwards and the majority of games have lateral play around the new arc with 12 behind the ball. Where is the benefit?

No issue with the keeper rule, and wouldn't have any issue with keeping them in the square (though it starts to feel like soccer). But, with 3v3 and keeper rule together I don't think it works.
Is there part of the rule that stops say, the corner back and gk swapping positions? So the cb steps into goals and lets the keeper play out - can they take a back pass then?

The kick out rule is my single biggest bug bearer. Why shouldn't they be allowed to set up to play to their own strengths with short kicks? Removing that ability removes a huge tactical dimension to the game. For those who say they can't watch teams running the ball from short kicks etc - to use your argument, surely its up to the other team to learn to counter that to win kcickouts? I think we're losing so much from the games in terms of strategy and defensive play.

We can counter your point on the kickout rule that why can't teams compete equally for the ball? Yes teams can press up and eliminate that but 9/10 they don't and christ, as a watcher of games I'm aghast at the allowing of teams to win possession without a glove put on them..

Anyone that moves into nets with another top on is just a player filling in at goal, he though loses his ability of not being tackled in the small square or allowing to pick the ball off the ground within that space, so loses his extras. Plus if someone other than the keeper takes the kickout the keeper has to stay in the square

The other main reason for the 3v3 was to keep players in all parts of the pitch, as we were have blanket defence, 15 behind the ball behind the halfway line

A goalkeeper can be tackled in the small square. He just can't receive a shoulder charge.

They can tackle but, any, and I mean touch that's not on the ball is a free out, as you have rightly said, the only physical tackle allowed in the game never mind just on the keeper in the square is shoulder to shoulder, that's it in a nutshell.

So this is why McColdrick was saying that the tackle isn't an easy thing to define

I think it's yet another example of the problem with the rule book.

The rule book says a keeper may not be charged which is defined but may be challenged. Challenged isn't defined and then to make matters worse the rule book says players may be tackled for the ball but doesn't say what that is or whether or not goal keepers can be tackled. That at the very least could be easily resolved.

It needs to be defined or it doesn't because the day it becomes a non contact sport (unless it's a shoulder on shoulder) then it'll lose its appeal

Agreed I have no idea what the difference between a tackle and a challenge is.

I think it's clear enough if it's referring to action inside the "square" where the goalie is a protected species. An opposition player can challenge the goalie for possession of the ball, as in to try and out-jump/out-catch the goalie to the ball, but you can't tackle him (according to definition of the tackle) once he has possession of the ball.  Remember that incident with Rory Beggan  V Cavan or Fermanagh when attempting to catch or punch  a high dropping ball under the goalpost, he was challenged by an opposition player who hit the ball into the net. The challenge looked fair, Rory was simply outfoxed, alas the ref disallowed the goal and Monaghan held on for victory. In most peoples opinion the ref got it wrong.   

Quote from: Main Street on May 02, 2025, 03:12:13 PM

Quote from: David McKeown on May 01, 2025, 08:11:03 AM

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 30, 2025, 10:30:24 PM

Quote from: David McKeown on April 30, 2025, 10:15:16 PM

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 30, 2025, 06:08:33 PM

Quote from: David McKeown on April 30, 2025, 03:49:32 PM

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 30, 2025, 01:12:22 PM

Quote from: tbrick18 on April 30, 2025, 10:47:39 AM

Quote from: onefineday on April 30, 2025, 12:03:16 AM

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 29, 2025, 01:18:54 PMNot sure what's the best way of wording that poll, I've grown with some of the rules from when they first came out..

I'm looking at them as a supporter and as an official, bit confusing but the least enhancement that really doesn't count is the forward mark, very rarely has it been done in all the game I've done so far. 1V1 at midfield players are still grappling for the ball and in occasions the lads that are on the 45 are still able to sprint in and collect the break.

The 3 up and 4 defenders is grand, as a supporter

The limits on using the keeper is great, the keeper should in fact not be outside the large rectangle, hard enough to listen to at the best of times but christ when they are up the pitch they all think they are The Gooch.

Solo and go is good

Kick outs are the same for both teams, learn to win your own ball, if the other team is always winning the ball, then managers need to look at their players

Scoring arc is good, but shouldn't be used for advanced dissent 2 pointers.. 2 pointers if from play only

I'd pretty much agree with all that - definitely agree on 2 pts from dead balls, but I really think not retaining the 4 point goal was a serious misstep.

I'm not a fan of the midfield mark rule and the ensuing 50m penalty for contact either.

I'd agree with some but not all of this.
2 point arc should go - points from outside the 45 for 2pts, meaning exceptional scores are rewarded and the value of a goal is retained. And I've no issue with any of the dissent rules - provided they are consistently applied. I don't like the hand the ball back rule.

Solo and go - keep it. The only rule which I think has added real value and maintains the flow of the game.

3v3 - I dont like. The point of it was to encourage kicking to the forwards and take away the ability to have 15 men behind the ball with lateral play. There has been very little increase in kicking into forwards and the majority of games have lateral play around the new arc with 12 behind the ball. Where is the benefit?

No issue with the keeper rule, and wouldn't have any issue with keeping them in the square (though it starts to feel like soccer). But, with 3v3 and keeper rule together I don't think it works.
Is there part of the rule that stops say, the corner back and gk swapping positions? So the cb steps into goals and lets the keeper play out - can they take a back pass then?

The kick out rule is my single biggest bug bearer. Why shouldn't they be allowed to set up to play to their own strengths with short kicks? Removing that ability removes a huge tactical dimension to the game. For those who say they can't watch teams running the ball from short kicks etc - to use your argument, surely its up to the other team to learn to counter that to win kcickouts? I think we're losing so much from the games in terms of strategy and defensive play.

We can counter your point on the kickout rule that why can't teams compete equally for the ball? Yes teams can press up and eliminate that but 9/10 they don't and christ, as a watcher of games I'm aghast at the allowing of teams to win possession without a glove put on them..

Anyone that moves into nets with another top on is just a player filling in at goal, he though loses his ability of not being tackled in the small square or allowing to pick the ball off the ground within that space, so loses his extras. Plus if someone other than the keeper takes the kickout the keeper has to stay in the square

The other main reason for the 3v3 was to keep players in all parts of the pitch, as we were have blanket defence, 15 behind the ball behind the halfway line

A goalkeeper can be tackled in the small square. He just can't receive a shoulder charge.

They can tackle but, any, and I mean touch that's not on the ball is a free out, as you have rightly said, the only physical tackle allowed in the game never mind just on the keeper in the square is shoulder to shoulder, that's it in a nutshell.

So this is why McColdrick was saying that the tackle isn't an easy thing to define

I think it's yet another example of the problem with the rule book.

The rule book says a keeper may not be charged which is defined but may be challenged. Challenged isn't defined and then to make matters worse the rule book says players may be tackled for the ball but doesn't say what that is or whether or not goal keepers can be tackled. That at the very least could be easily resolved.

It needs to be defined or it doesn't because the day it becomes a non contact sport (unless it's a shoulder on shoulder) then it'll lose its appeal

Agreed I have no idea what the difference between a tackle and a challenge is.

I think it's clear enough if it's referring to action inside the "square" where the goalie is a protected species. An opposition player can challenge the goalie for possession of the ball, as in to try and out-jump/out-catch the goalie to the ball, but you can't tackle him (according to definition of the tackle) once he has possession of the ball.  Remember that incident with Rory Beggan  V Cavan or Fermanagh when attempting to catch or punch  a high dropping ball under the goalpost, he was challenged by an opposition player who hit the ball into the net. The challenge looked fair, Rory was simply outfoxed, alas the ref disallowed the goal and Monaghan held on for victory. In most peoples opinion the ref got it wrong.   

I'm not sure that's right though. In that scenario it should say may not be tackled but may be challenged. It specifically doesn't say that. It only bans the charge which is defined.

Quote from: David McKeown on May 02, 2025, 03:47:36 PM

Quote from: Main Street on May 02, 2025, 03:12:13 PM

Quote from: David McKeown on May 01, 2025, 08:11:03 AM

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 30, 2025, 10:30:24 PM

Quote from: David McKeown on April 30, 2025, 10:15:16 PM

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 30, 2025, 06:08:33 PM

Quote from: David McKeown on April 30, 2025, 03:49:32 PM

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 30, 2025, 01:12:22 PM

Quote from: tbrick18 on April 30, 2025, 10:47:39 AM

Quote from: onefineday on April 30, 2025, 12:03:16 AM

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 29, 2025, 01:18:54 PMNot sure what's the best way of wording that poll, I've grown with some of the rules from when they first came out..

I'm looking at them as a supporter and as an official, bit confusing but the least enhancement that really doesn't count is the forward mark, very rarely has it been done in all the game I've done so far. 1V1 at midfield players are still grappling for the ball and in occasions the lads that are on the 45 are still able to sprint in and collect the break.

The 3 up and 4 defenders is grand, as a supporter

The limits on using the keeper is great, the keeper should in fact not be outside the large rectangle, hard enough to listen to at the best of times but christ when they are up the pitch they all think they are The Gooch.

Solo and go is good

Kick outs are the same for both teams, learn to win your own ball, if the other team is always winning the ball, then managers need to look at their players

Scoring arc is good, but shouldn't be used for advanced dissent 2 pointers.. 2 pointers if from play only

I'd pretty much agree with all that - definitely agree on 2 pts from dead balls, but I really think not retaining the 4 point goal was a serious misstep.

I'm not a fan of the midfield mark rule and the ensuing 50m penalty for contact either.

I'd agree with some but not all of this.
2 point arc should go - points from outside the 45 for 2pts, meaning exceptional scores are rewarded and the value of a goal is retained. And I've no issue with any of the dissent rules - provided they are consistently applied. I don't like the hand the ball back rule.

Solo and go - keep it. The only rule which I think has added real value and maintains the flow of the game.

3v3 - I dont like. The point of it was to encourage kicking to the forwards and take away the ability to have 15 men behind the ball with lateral play. There has been very little increase in kicking into forwards and the majority of games have lateral play around the new arc with 12 behind the ball. Where is the benefit?

No issue with the keeper rule, and wouldn't have any issue with keeping them in the square (though it starts to feel like soccer). But, with 3v3 and keeper rule together I don't think it works.
Is there part of the rule that stops say, the corner back and gk swapping positions? So the cb steps into goals and lets the keeper play out - can they take a back pass then?

The kick out rule is my single biggest bug bearer. Why shouldn't they be allowed to set up to play to their own strengths with short kicks? Removing that ability removes a huge tactical dimension to the game. For those who say they can't watch teams running the ball from short kicks etc - to use your argument, surely its up to the other team to learn to counter that to win kcickouts? I think we're losing so much from the games in terms of strategy and defensive play.

We can counter your point on the kickout rule that why can't teams compete equally for the ball? Yes teams can press up and eliminate that but 9/10 they don't and christ, as a watcher of games I'm aghast at the allowing of teams to win possession without a glove put on them..

Anyone that moves into nets with another top on is just a player filling in at goal, he though loses his ability of not being tackled in the small square or allowing to pick the ball off the ground within that space, so loses his extras. Plus if someone other than the keeper takes the kickout the keeper has to stay in the square

The other main reason for the 3v3 was to keep players in all parts of the pitch, as we were have blanket defence, 15 behind the ball behind the halfway line

A goalkeeper can be tackled in the small square. He just can't receive a shoulder charge.

They can tackle but, any, and I mean touch that's not on the ball is a free out, as you have rightly said, the only physical tackle allowed in the game never mind just on the keeper in the square is shoulder to shoulder, that's it in a nutshell.

So this is why McColdrick was saying that the tackle isn't an easy thing to define

I think it's yet another example of the problem with the rule book.

The rule book says a keeper may not be charged which is defined but may be challenged. Challenged isn't defined and then to make matters worse the rule book says players may be tackled for the ball but doesn't say what that is or whether or not goal keepers can be tackled. That at the very least could be easily resolved.

It needs to be defined or it doesn't because the day it becomes a non contact sport (unless it's a shoulder on shoulder) then it'll lose its appeal

Agreed I have no idea what the difference between a tackle and a challenge is.

I think it's clear enough if it's referring to action inside the "square" where the goalie is a protected species. An opposition player can challenge the goalie for possession of the ball, as in to try and out-jump/out-catch the goalie to the ball, but you can't tackle him (according to definition of the tackle) once he has possession of the ball.  Remember that incident with Rory Beggan  V Cavan or Fermanagh when attempting to catch or punch  a high dropping ball under the goalpost, he was challenged by an opposition player who hit the ball into the net. The challenge looked fair, Rory was simply outfoxed, alas the ref disallowed the goal and Monaghan held on for victory. In most peoples opinion the ref got it wrong.   

I'm not sure that's right though. In that scenario it should say may not be tackled but may be challenged. It specifically doesn't say that. It only bans the charge which is defined.

I´m more right as to how the game has been played for decades, as to how refs apply the law, de facto vs de jure. Refs might not punish the half foul or the 3/4 foul (Dubs?) in general play, but if an opposition player attempts to "tackle" as in  slap  a goalie inside the square - its a foul.
In any sporting definition, 'contest possession' will have a different meaning than 'tackle' the goalie in possession.
Even in soccer the refs apply de facto rules, the goalkeeper gets protected, a protection which is clearly undefined but understood just the same.

Quote from: Main Street on May 04, 2025, 12:03:15 AM

Quote from: David McKeown on May 02, 2025, 03:47:36 PM

Quote from: Main Street on May 02, 2025, 03:12:13 PM

Quote from: David McKeown on May 01, 2025, 08:11:03 AM

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 30, 2025, 10:30:24 PM

Quote from: David McKeown on April 30, 2025, 10:15:16 PM

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 30, 2025, 06:08:33 PM

Quote from: David McKeown on April 30, 2025, 03:49:32 PM

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 30, 2025, 01:12:22 PM

Quote from: tbrick18 on April 30, 2025, 10:47:39 AM

Quote from: onefineday on April 30, 2025, 12:03:16 AM

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 29, 2025, 01:18:54 PMNot sure what's the best way of wording that poll, I've grown with some of the rules from when they first came out..

I'm looking at them as a supporter and as an official, bit confusing but the least enhancement that really doesn't count is the forward mark, very rarely has it been done in all the game I've done so far. 1V1 at midfield players are still grappling for the ball and in occasions the lads that are on the 45 are still able to sprint in and collect the break.

The 3 up and 4 defenders is grand, as a supporter

The limits on using the keeper is great, the keeper should in fact not be outside the large rectangle, hard enough to listen to at the best of times but christ when they are up the pitch they all think they are The Gooch.

Solo and go is good

Kick outs are the same for both teams, learn to win your own ball, if the other team is always winning the ball, then managers need to look at their players

Scoring arc is good, but shouldn't be used for advanced dissent 2 pointers.. 2 pointers if from play only

I'd pretty much agree with all that - definitely agree on 2 pts from dead balls, but I really think not retaining the 4 point goal was a serious misstep.

I'm not a fan of the midfield mark rule and the ensuing 50m penalty for contact either.

I'd agree with some but not all of this.
2 point arc should go - points from outside the 45 for 2pts, meaning exceptional scores are rewarded and the value of a goal is retained. And I've no issue with any of the dissent rules - provided they are consistently applied. I don't like the hand the ball back rule.

Solo and go - keep it. The only rule which I think has added real value and maintains the flow of the game.

3v3 - I dont like. The point of it was to encourage kicking to the forwards and take away the ability to have 15 men behind the ball with lateral play. There has been very little increase in kicking into forwards and the majority of games have lateral play around the new arc with 12 behind the ball. Where is the benefit?

No issue with the keeper rule, and wouldn't have any issue with keeping them in the square (though it starts to feel like soccer). But, with 3v3 and keeper rule together I don't think it works.
Is there part of the rule that stops say, the corner back and gk swapping positions? So the cb steps into goals and lets the keeper play out - can they take a back pass then?

The kick out rule is my single biggest bug bearer. Why shouldn't they be allowed to set up to play to their own strengths with short kicks? Removing that ability removes a huge tactical dimension to the game. For those who say they can't watch teams running the ball from short kicks etc - to use your argument, surely its up to the other team to learn to counter that to win kcickouts? I think we're losing so much from the games in terms of strategy and defensive play.

We can counter your point on the kickout rule that why can't teams compete equally for the ball? Yes teams can press up and eliminate that but 9/10 they don't and christ, as a watcher of games I'm aghast at the allowing of teams to win possession without a glove put on them..

Anyone that moves into nets with another top on is just a player filling in at goal, he though loses his ability of not being tackled in the small square or allowing to pick the ball off the ground within that space, so loses his extras. Plus if someone other than the keeper takes the kickout the keeper has to stay in the square

The other main reason for the 3v3 was to keep players in all parts of the pitch, as we were have blanket defence, 15 behind the ball behind the halfway line

A goalkeeper can be tackled in the small square. He just can't receive a shoulder charge.

They can tackle but, any, and I mean touch that's not on the ball is a free out, as you have rightly said, the only physical tackle allowed in the game never mind just on the keeper in the square is shoulder to shoulder, that's it in a nutshell.

So this is why McColdrick was saying that the tackle isn't an easy thing to define

I think it's yet another example of the problem with the rule book.

The rule book says a keeper may not be charged which is defined but may be challenged. Challenged isn't defined and then to make matters worse the rule book says players may be tackled for the ball but doesn't say what that is or whether or not goal keepers can be tackled. That at the very least could be easily resolved.

It needs to be defined or it doesn't because the day it becomes a non contact sport (unless it's a shoulder on shoulder) then it'll lose its appeal

Agreed I have no idea what the difference between a tackle and a challenge is.

I think it's clear enough if it's referring to action inside the "square" where the goalie is a protected species. An opposition player can challenge the goalie for possession of the ball, as in to try and out-jump/out-catch the goalie to the ball, but you can't tackle him (according to definition of the tackle) once he has possession of the ball.  Remember that incident with Rory Beggan  V Cavan or Fermanagh when attempting to catch or punch  a high dropping ball under the goalpost, he was challenged by an opposition player who hit the ball into the net. The challenge looked fair, Rory was simply outfoxed, alas the ref disallowed the goal and Monaghan held on for victory. In most peoples opinion the ref got it wrong.   

I'm not sure that's right though. In that scenario it should say may not be tackled but may be challenged. It specifically doesn't say that. It only bans the charge which is defined.

I´m more right as to how the game has been played for decades, as to how refs apply the law, de facto vs de jure. Refs might not punish the half foul or the 3/4 foul (Dubs?) in general play, but if an opposition player attempts to "tackle" as in  slap  a goalie inside the square - its a foul.
In any sporting definition, 'contest possession' will have a different meaning than 'tackle' the goalie in possession.
Even in soccer the refs apply de facto rules, the goalkeeper gets protected, a protection which is clearly undefined but understood just the same.

I agree entirely. The point I'm making is that this is another example of where the rule book doesn't assist. Most referees will blow immediately for a touch on a keeper. They probably shouldn't though (going by the rule book) and those that don't whilst correct tend to get the most criticism.

Refereeing is a hard enough job particularly at the top level which is now arguably too big, too fast and too professional for a single amateur referee. They need all the help they can get and issues such as this and the hooter rule could be easily clarified which would assist just a little.

Ironically there was a point from a keeper being tackled in the small square.

Quote from: David McKeown on May 04, 2025, 01:57:23 PMIronically there was a point from a keeper being tackled in the small square.

Should have been a free out. Keeper can be tackled in the small square but not shoulder charged

Quote from: JoG2 on May 04, 2025, 02:05:07 PM

Quote from: David McKeown on May 04, 2025, 01:57:23 PMIronically there was a point from a keeper being tackled in the small square.

Should have been a free out. Keeper can be tackled in the small square but not shoulder charged

He wasn't shoulder charged. There was a 45 incorrectly given to Clare following a clear charge but I was referring to the Kerry score after there was a tackle on the keeper which Main Street and myself were agreeing is almost always given as a free out.

Surely this 2 pointer  "touch" thing needs removing ASAP?

Clearly  nobody could tell whether the ball was over the bar before the Galway keeper got a  touch? 

They scrapped  the Anthony Nash  penalty  mid season , so surely they can do likewise here?

The word is there won't be further "tweaks".
Any such will have to wait for the Special Congress.

Quote from: Rossfan on May 05, 2025, 01:06:36 PMThe word is there won't be further "tweaks".
Any such will have to wait for the Special Congress.

Yet they could change  and remove  rules at will,  week on week during the league?  :o

It's only th'oul League

If it's such a contentious issue (hurling fan here really), why has the tackle never been defined? I would have thought this would be the most logical approach. I have not seen any proposals anywhere of what it should look like, or moves to define it. It's a bit like banning drink driving but not defining an alcohol level.
What would be a good wording that would work?

Quote from: AustinPowers on May 05, 2025, 12:43:16 PMSurely this 2 pointer  "touch" thing needs removing ASAP?

Clearly  nobody could tell whether the ball was over the bar before the Galway keeper got a  touch? 

They scrapped  the Anthony Nash  penalty  mid season , so surely they can do likewise here?

Just kick the next ball higher where the keeper won't get it!

The 4m protection on the player who catches a kickout is some bollox of a rule.
And I agree completely on the tackle. One ref thinks the game is basketball, the other lets contact occur.
You only have to look at Sundays Connacht final. Watch the tackles the refs punished in the first 15 minutes of the game compared to what he permitted as tackles the last ten minutes, a contradiction in one game. 

Quote from: Mad Mentor on May 06, 2025, 08:49:32 AMIf it's such a contentious issue (hurling fan here really), why has the tackle never been defined? I would have thought this would be the most logical approach. I have not seen any proposals anywhere of what it should look like, or moves to define it. It's a bit like banning drink driving but not defining an alcohol level.
What would be a good wording that would work?

That's the thing, it would open up a whole can or worms, by the rule book the only physical tackle allowed is the shoulder to shoulder tackle, everything else with regards to contact to the player is a foul!

What would people feel would be 'acceptable' with regards to the tackle.. Be interesting to know

Quote from: shawshank on May 06, 2025, 09:47:20 AMThe 4m protection on the player who catches a kickout is some bollox of a rule.
And I agree completely on the tackle. One ref thinks the game is basketball, the other lets contact occur.
You only have to look at Sundays Connacht final. Watch the tackles the refs punished in the first 15 minutes of the game compared to what he permitted as tackles the last ten minutes, a contradiction in one game. 

That rule was there from the start of the Mark rule...

I don't think the 50m penalty was there, thats more accurately what I think is a ballox

Quote from: shawshank on May 06, 2025, 10:48:10 AMI don't think the 50m penalty was there, thats more accurately what I think is a ballox

Yeah it was just 13m

The old GAAboard classic "load of bolox" hasn't gone away!

Quote from: Lamps on May 06, 2025, 09:46:03 AM

Quote from: AustinPowers on May 05, 2025, 12:43:16 PMSurely this 2 pointer  "touch" thing needs removing ASAP?

Clearly  nobody could tell whether the ball was over the bar before the Galway keeper got a  touch? 

They scrapped  the Anthony Nash  penalty  mid season , so surely they can do likewise here?

Just kick the next ball higher where the keeper won't get it!

You could have  Also have  the situation in the same kick ,  whether the defender got a touch on it as well.

I despise the 2 pointer thing but if it's here , then surely the common sense approach is  scrap this  'no touch' aspect.  If it's good enough to go over from outside  the arc , it shouldn't matter if there's a touch on it  or not

A load of bollox

Quote from: AustinPowers on May 06, 2025, 12:04:05 PM

Quote from: Lamps on May 06, 2025, 09:46:03 AM

Quote from: AustinPowers on May 05, 2025, 12:43:16 PMSurely this 2 pointer  "touch" thing needs removing ASAP?

Clearly  nobody could tell whether the ball was over the bar before the Galway keeper got a  touch? 

They scrapped  the Anthony Nash  penalty  mid season , so surely they can do likewise here?

Just kick the next ball higher where the keeper won't get it!

You could have  Also have  the situation in the same kick ,  whether the defender got a touch on it as well.

I despise the 2 pointer thing but if it's here , then surely the common sense approach is  scrap this  'no touch' aspect.  If it's good enough to go over from outside  the arc , it shouldn't matter if there's a touch on it  or not

A load of bollox

I think Fitzmaurice is you run the risk of going the other way. A kick going short but being flicked by an attacker or mistimed by a defender trying to clear would be a two pointer.

Quote from: Rossfan on May 05, 2025, 01:06:36 PMThe word is there won't be further "tweaks".
Any such will have to wait for the Special Congress.

Yes, they've said that, but there's nothing stopping them making the tweak if they want.
And they really should with this one - we flagged it here months ago and thought they'd rectified it in the round 5 tweaks, but no. The baffling thing is that they did make changes to the wording on this topic in the round 5 tweaks, but deliberately left this - I genuinely can't understand why they would do that?
Simply stating that a kick from outside the arc which goes over the bar without being touched by an attacking player inside the arc is worth 2 pts would have sorted it - unless there's something I'm missing - any suggestions as to why this was allowed to remain??

Just wow.

FRC deserve plaudits beyond words

Quote from: thewobbler on May 10, 2025, 06:51:24 PMJust wow.

FRC deserve plaudits beyond words

Wobbler can I ask as part of a genuine discussion why you are in so in favour of the rules?  For me games are only exciting in the last 10 mins.  Even yesterdays game I never really got the impression Armagh could win until extra time as opposed to last year which I felt could go either way throughout.  Coupled with that there was about 9 minutes or more of just pure keep ball.  I found that very boring.  Even the Leinster final today I felt the same.

Quote from: David McKeown on May 11, 2025, 08:30:34 PM

Quote from: thewobbler on May 10, 2025, 06:51:24 PMJust wow.

FRC deserve plaudits beyond words

Wobbler can I ask as part of a genuine discussion why you are in so in favour of the rules?  For me games are only exciting in the last 10 mins.  Even yesterdays game I never really got the impression Armagh could win until extra time as opposed to last year which I felt could go either way throughout.  Coupled with that there was about 9 minutes or more of just pure keep ball.  I found that very boring.  Even the Leinster final today I felt the same.

David as I don't believe you're a WUM, it's pretty clear that you had settled on a position on the new rules ahead of this season, and are steadfastly unwilling to adapt or evolve that position. Indeed you would seem to be wilfully interpreting visual information in a polar opposite way to everyone else. These aren't even "takes" you're making, for "takes" involve spotting an incident or two and extrapolating a subjective assessment of why it's taking place. You are, bluntly and deliberately, looking at football through a prism.

Quote from: thewobbler on May 11, 2025, 09:28:19 PM

Quote from: David McKeown on May 11, 2025, 08:30:34 PM

Quote from: thewobbler on May 10, 2025, 06:51:24 PMJust wow.

FRC deserve plaudits beyond words

Wobbler can I ask as part of a genuine discussion why you are in so in favour of the rules?  For me games are only exciting in the last 10 mins.  Even yesterdays game I never really got the impression Armagh could win until extra time as opposed to last year which I felt could go either way throughout.  Coupled with that there was about 9 minutes or more of just pure keep ball.  I found that very boring.  Even the Leinster final today I felt the same.

David as I don't believe you're a WUM, it's pretty clear that you had settled on a position on the new rules ahead of this season, and are steadfastly unwilling to adapt or evolve that position. Indeed you would seem to be wilfully interpreting visual information in a polar opposite way to everyone else. These aren't even "takes" you're making, for "takes" involve spotting an incident or two and extrapolating a subjective assessment of why it's taking place. You are, bluntly and deliberately, looking at football through a prism.

Do you not see you are equally prejudiced in favour of the rules? I mean I don't think you'll find anyone today talking about Armagh Donegal as one of the classics of football. Yet the "FRC deserve plaudits beyond words". Come on lad.

Quote from: thewobbler on May 11, 2025, 09:28:19 PM

Quote from: David McKeown on May 11, 2025, 08:30:34 PM

Quote from: thewobbler on May 10, 2025, 06:51:24 PMJust wow.

FRC deserve plaudits beyond words

Wobbler can I ask as part of a genuine discussion why you are in so in favour of the rules?  For me games are only exciting in the last 10 mins.  Even yesterdays game I never really got the impression Armagh could win until extra time as opposed to last year which I felt could go either way throughout.  Coupled with that there was about 9 minutes or more of just pure keep ball.  I found that very boring.  Even the Leinster final today I felt the same.

David as I don't believe you're a WUM, it's pretty clear that you had settled on a position on the new rules ahead of this season, and are steadfastly unwilling to adapt or evolve that position. Indeed you would seem to be wilfully interpreting visual information in a polar opposite way to everyone else. These aren't even "takes" you're making, for "takes" involve spotting an incident or two and extrapolating a subjective assessment of why it's taking place. You are, bluntly and deliberately, looking at football through a prism.

I think the same complaint could be levelled at you Wobbler. Did you find the end to the Ulster final more exciting and entertaining than in previous years where teams would at least try to score more when the game was reaching the conclusion?  I certainly didn't. The same with the Leinster final today.

What about in Connacht? What was improved compared to last year? There were more scores last year, there were more lead changes and the match was closer.

What is it I am wilfully misinterpreting about these things I am seeing.

If we go into the detail of it and I accept it's subjective but when at the games I don't see the benefit of the rules. It's a nonsense having to see players hover around the artificial force field of the half way line when the ball is mere yards from them.

A great score after a great team move that goes the length of the field is suddenly worth less than an uncontested kick from inside the 50 from the hands won because an attacker ran back 5 yards too far or a manager kicked a flag or my least favourite there was accidental contact following a player winning a kick out just outside their own 50. To me that devalues the great score. What am I wilfully misseeing about that?

Matches are boring for long parts. Teams tend to get a lead then the other team attempts to claw it back. There's considerably less lead changes than before.  Some matches look more like training sessions. We've seen plenty of games where teams try to kill time when against the wind by playing keep ball because it's considerably more beneficial to kill time against the wind than it is to score and potentially give the other team possession. Similarly as we've seen this year teams try to keep the ball at the end of matches to run down the clock. There's no excitement in that to me. What am I wilfully mis seeing about that?

Scores were hard earned last year they are considerably easier this year. I don't see how that makes the sport better. Again what am I not seeing.

I do accept we have had exciting finishes to games this year but we had plenty over recent years too. I also think a lot of the reason for the exciting matches is we have groups of teams that are closer in ability than any time over the last ten years. There's very little between the top 8 or 10 teams in the country that's going to result in better matches than when we had a clear gap from Dublin to Kerry then a clear gap to Mayo etc etc. So I feel within the press there's somewhat of a confirmation bias going on.

My point is I've yet to see how the rules have benefitted the game with the exception of the solo and go.

So maybe what I am missing is what exactly is the benefit of the rules?  I am cognisant of the fact that most people I talk to at matches don't like most if not all the rules. Whereas most people I know who watch on tv seem to like most but certainly not all of them.

The kick out rule seems unfair. It allows teams to create purple patches. I'd love to know how many scores come off winning the opposition kick out versus what comes off winning your own. I also don't know why we are punishing the team taking the kick out. Possession should be in favour of that team and not merely a lottery.

So what I'm asking is what exactly is it about the rules that has benefited the game?   

Look, there are positives and negatives with all the rules, anyone saying they are a huge success is going a bit over the top..

I've ref'd plenty and I've noticed nothing massively different to previous years.

Some levels of scoring is similar.

As a ref, the best is the dissent rule which had nullified the crap ya get

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on May 11, 2025, 10:21:00 PMLook, there are positives and negatives with all the rules, anyone saying they are a huge success is going a bit over the top..

I've ref'd plenty and I've noticed nothing massively different to previous years.

Some levels of scoring is similar.

As a ref, the best is the dissent rule which had nullified the crap ya get

Yis c***ts deserve every bit of it.

Sensible calm post David.

I agree with a lot of what you have been saying for the last few months.

The arc on both sides of the pitch is what I dislike the most.

At the end of the Leinster final Louth got 2 points from a dubious free which effectively won them the game and then I went to a club game this evening and 2 such calls went in favour of one team to win them the game.

I have said it before but I would love to see a game played now without the arc.

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on May 11, 2025, 10:21:00 PMLook, there are positives and negatives with all the rules, anyone saying they are a huge success is going a bit over the top..

I've ref'd plenty and I've noticed nothing massively different to previous years.

Some levels of scoring is similar.

As a ref, the best is the dissent rule which had nullified the crap ya get

Well that's one positive but I still think there's better ways of achieving that.

Quote from: David McKeown on May 11, 2025, 10:48:49 PM

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on May 11, 2025, 10:21:00 PMLook, there are positives and negatives with all the rules, anyone saying they are a huge success is going a bit over the top..

I've ref'd plenty and I've noticed nothing massively different to previous years.

Some levels of scoring is similar.

As a ref, the best is the dissent rule which had nullified the crap ya get

Well that's one positive but I still think there's better ways of achieving that.

I'm not sure there is if I'm being honest.. I'm zero tolerance to it even way before the 50m rule came in and it never stopped it, I'd go further to include the supporters lol..

Although I love a bitta banter I'm bored of the, they always foul us and we never win a free..

I also hate a player telling me that's a card, sorry, that'll be a hop ball now

Quote from: thewobbler on May 10, 2025, 06:51:24 PMJust wow.

FRC deserve plaudits beyond words

Exactly that! Ulster & Leinster finals epic excitement and action... very entertaining U20 All Ireland semi-final.
Two things in life I've learned: it's OK to be wrong and it's OK to change your mind. Not easy for some people  :D
Gaelic football has been saved 🙌

Well it's much improved anyway.

Personally I think it's definitely improved a lot though I mostly watch on tv these days so I find the comment about people at games not generally sharing the same opinion as people who watch on tv.

It is looking like this will do the usual kind of debated and the you are either strongly for me or strongly against me and there can be nowhere near the middle  ::)

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on May 11, 2025, 11:26:34 PM

Quote from: David McKeown on May 11, 2025, 10:48:49 PM

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on May 11, 2025, 10:21:00 PMLook, there are positives and negatives with all the rules, anyone saying they are a huge success is going a bit over the top..

I've ref'd plenty and I've noticed nothing massively different to previous years.

Some levels of scoring is similar.

As a ref, the best is the dissent rule which had nullified the crap ya get

Well that's one positive but I still think there's better ways of achieving that.

I'm not sure there is if I'm being honest.. I'm zero tolerance to it even way before the 50m rule came in and it never stopped it, I'd go further to include the supporters lol..

Although I love a bitta banter I'm bored of the, they always foul us and we never win a free..

I also hate a player telling me that's a card, sorry, that'll be a hop ball now

10 meters and a yellow card, not too many do it then. I just think it really cheapens the worth of scores when the ball is being brought up 50m. It really annoys me when a player catches a kick out comes down runs into someone and ball moved 50m its not good.

I've said before, keep the 3 up and solo and go and the game would have been much better, i was against the 3 up at the start but it does open the game up. By having it you really don't need the 2pt, the 40m arc is just encouraging players to play round it and try get 2pt. I'd rather with that space they try work goals more but why would you when the shot from 40m (which has been shown any county and most club players can do with ease) gets you 2/3rds the point value.

Quote from: Saffron_sam20 on May 12, 2025, 09:12:02 AM

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on May 11, 2025, 11:26:34 PM

Quote from: David McKeown on May 11, 2025, 10:48:49 PM

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on May 11, 2025, 10:21:00 PMLook, there are positives and negatives with all the rules, anyone saying they are a huge success is going a bit over the top..

I've ref'd plenty and I've noticed nothing massively different to previous years.

Some levels of scoring is similar.

As a ref, the best is the dissent rule which had nullified the crap ya get

Well that's one positive but I still think there's better ways of achieving that.

I'm not sure there is if I'm being honest.. I'm zero tolerance to it even way before the 50m rule came in and it never stopped it, I'd go further to include the supporters lol..

Although I love a bitta banter I'm bored of the, they always foul us and we never win a free..

I also hate a player telling me that's a card, sorry, that'll be a hop ball now

10 meters and a yellow card, not too many do it then. I just think it really cheapens the worth of scores when the ball is being brought up 50m. It really annoys me when a player catches a kick out comes down runs into someone and ball moved 50m its not good.

I've said before, keep the 3 up and solo and go and the game would have been much better, i was against the 3 up at the start but it does open the game up. By having it you really don't need the 2pt, the 40m arc is just encouraging players to play round it and try get 2pt. I'd rather with that space they try work goals more but why would you when the shot from 40m (which has been shown any county and most club players can do with ease) gets you 2/3rds the point value.

I have said a few times on here I'd like to have seen one or the other tried between the 3 up and the two point arc but not both. There are problems with both for me mind but I'd like to see them separately before I could make a definitive call on them.

The 3 up and Tap and Go are great.

Kids grew up playing Go Games with the sections so it will be more natural for them through the years.

Im from Kildare and I do enjoy the longer kickouts - but it might be different without Feely!

I think the handing back and obstruction is messy as lads are simply running into opponents.

The dissent is a bit much.

I'm 50 50 on 2 pointers but I don't like them for frees.

The new rules have been a badly needed. The 3 up has gave better shape to the game. touch and go is good and the keeper restrictions are brilliant. kick outs are great too.
1 rule i cant have though is the new one introduced where a player who catches a ball from the kickout cant be tackled for up to 8m etc. It not natural to see players step out of there way for what is normally a good midfield contest.
No idea why this was introduced as the catcher always had the option to call a mark if he wanted space to kick it.
The penalty is very severe and i've seen several club matches where the the ball receiver basically ran straight at his opponent and was rewarded with a free 50m towards goal.   

Quote from: donelli on May 12, 2025, 10:08:22 AMThe new rules have been a badly needed. The 3 up has gave better shape to the game. touch and go is good and the keeper restrictions are brilliant. kick outs are great too.
1 rule i cant have though is the new one introduced where a player who catches a ball from the kickout cant be tackled for up to 8m etc. It not natural to see players step out of there way for what is normally a good midfield contest.
No idea why this was introduced as the catcher always had the option to call a mark if he wanted space to kick it.
The penalty is very severe and i've seen several club matches where the the ball receiver basically ran straight at his opponent and was rewarded with a free 50m towards goal.   

I dont agree with you generally but your opinion is obviously as equally valid as my own.  I do think though this highlights an under discussed issue within the media.  Perhaps I am wrong but anyone I talk to about the rules who likes them always says I like most of them but this one and there seems to be no clear consensus on which rule comes after the but.  How do we deal that at the end of the year?  How are the FRC to decide which of the rules to keep and which to ditch? What might the knock on consequences be of ditching one or two? I think we still need more time to look at these and I think pre and post season competitions over many years should be used to trial rules which if successful could then be introduced gradually.  This whole raft of changes every 5 years I dont see as ever being good for the game.  I know that (ironically) requires a rule change but I think its a necessary one moving forward.

For example I really despised the goal keeper in their own half rule but the tweak to the 3 v 3 rule addressed a lot of my issues with it.  I don't think that was an intended consequence of the rule tweak of the 3 v 3 rule but I think it made a big difference.  It meant an attacking team could no longer out number a defensive team in that half of the pitch particularly on defensive free kicks where the attacking team could have two extra players effectively in the area so it is now considerably less important to have to have access to a keeper.  What impact would other rules being removed have on the ones being retained? If the impact is negative are we stuck with what we get untested for 4 years?

Quote from: donelli on May 12, 2025, 10:08:22 AMThe new rules have been a badly needed. The 3 up has gave better shape to the game. touch and go is good and the keeper restrictions are brilliant. kick outs are great too.
1 rule i cant have though is the new one introduced where a player who catches a ball from the kickout cant be tackled for up to 8m etc. It not natural to see players step out of there way for what is normally a good midfield contest.
No idea why this was introduced as the catcher always had the option to call a mark if he wanted space to kick it.
The penalty is very severe and i've seen several club matches where the the ball receiver basically ran straight at his opponent and was rewarded with a free 50m towards goal.   

Its not a new rule though, the old Mark which this is, was always the case he couldn't be tackled for 4 meters and not 8m as you have stated..

I'm hearing this a lot in games and slightly confused as to why people think its new. the only difference is the player is given automatically that time after the catch without having to put his hand up, the ref still blows for the mark (if the player raises his hand he has to take the mark as normal) as he did before, but now players are backing away as its dissent if they tackle, that now brings 50meters rather than the original 13m had been tackled.

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on May 12, 2025, 11:54:56 AM

Quote from: donelli on May 12, 2025, 10:08:22 AMThe new rules have been a badly needed. The 3 up has gave better shape to the game. touch and go is good and the keeper restrictions are brilliant. kick outs are great too.
1 rule i cant have though is the new one introduced where a player who catches a ball from the kickout cant be tackled for up to 8m etc. It not natural to see players step out of there way for what is normally a good midfield contest.
No idea why this was introduced as the catcher always had the option to call a mark if he wanted space to kick it.
The penalty is very severe and i've seen several club matches where the the ball receiver basically ran straight at his opponent and was rewarded with a free 50m towards goal.   

Its not a new rule though, the old Mark which this is, was always the case he couldn't be tackled for 4 meters and not 8m as you have stated..

I'm hearing this a lot in games and slightly confused as to why people think its new. the only difference is the player is given automatically that time after the catch without having to put his hand up, the ref still blows for the mark (if the player raises his hand he has to take the mark as normal) as he did before, but now players are backing away as its dissent if they tackle, that now brings 50meters rather than the original 13m had been tackled.

I think a lot of it depends on how it is refereed as well.  During the league and early part of the championship it seemed like every piece of contact including clearly accidentally contact on landing was being moved up (in games I was at) whereas now we are seeing sometimes clear violations being ignored.  I do think though its one of those where the punishment doesn't always really fit the crime.  A catch in crowded midfield where the player making the mark is obviously going backwards or side wards shouldn't result in a 40m kick for two points.  A cynical tackle to prevent a fast break might but how do you distinguish?

Quote from: David McKeown on May 12, 2025, 01:48:04 PM

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on May 12, 2025, 11:54:56 AM

Quote from: donelli on May 12, 2025, 10:08:22 AMThe new rules have been a badly needed. The 3 up has gave better shape to the game. touch and go is good and the keeper restrictions are brilliant. kick outs are great too.
1 rule i cant have though is the new one introduced where a player who catches a ball from the kickout cant be tackled for up to 8m etc. It not natural to see players step out of there way for what is normally a good midfield contest.
No idea why this was introduced as the catcher always had the option to call a mark if he wanted space to kick it.
The penalty is very severe and i've seen several club matches where the the ball receiver basically ran straight at his opponent and was rewarded with a free 50m towards goal.   

Its not a new rule though, the old Mark which this is, was always the case he couldn't be tackled for 4 meters and not 8m as you have stated..

I'm hearing this a lot in games and slightly confused as to why people think its new. the only difference is the player is given automatically that time after the catch without having to put his hand up, the ref still blows for the mark (if the player raises his hand he has to take the mark as normal) as he did before, but now players are backing away as its dissent if they tackle, that now brings 50meters rather than the original 13m had been tackled.

I think a lot of it depends on how it is refereed as well.  During the league and early part of the championship it seemed like every piece of contact including clearly accidentally contact on landing was being moved up (in games I was at) whereas now we are seeing sometimes clear violations being ignored.  I do think though its one of those where the punishment doesn't always really fit the crime.  A catch in crowded midfield where the player making the mark is obviously going backwards or side wards shouldn't result in a 40m kick for two points.  A cynical tackle to prevent a fast break might but how do you distinguish?

Yeah I'm all for that, its down to how the ref sees it as being deliberate or accidental, I've seen plenty of catches on tv and the player coming in behind lands on the person catching the ball, its not deliberate and the Mark should be just that or you can make a call that it's a free based on the other player landing on his back.

Deliberate is, my view anyways, and this isn't the technical term, if the player is acting the bollox, they are easy to spot.. 

You'll not see that term in the rules though ;D

I have for whatever reason seen it in intercounty games, not so much in club games