Messages

4 seconds without playing the ball is much too long.

A fast player at top speed could run from the 45 to the 14 yard line without playing the ball. (Usain bolt would make it from the 45 to the endline!!!).

How would you tackle a player with the ball under his arm for 30-40 metres? - No chance

Someone in the crowd shouting 'he's at that all day ref' despite the game only being 5 minutes in.

Ha Ha. I was told that one day by a ref when I was being sent off! I was on the receiving end of a kick (after a little provocation I must admit!). When I asked the ref what was he sending me off for he said "Ye are at it all day".
The game was on less than 10 mintutes!

I cant say I didn't deserve to be sent off, but I thought his reasoning was strange!

I'm going to ask what some people might see as a stupid question!

What problem are we trying to solve with all these proposed new systems?

There are several problems in the gaa (no doubt) but what specific problem(s) are we trying to solve here?

As far as I can see, the latest driving force for change was dublin's hammering of longford. But IMO the only change to the system to prevent hammerings between the top sides and the bottom sides is to avoid them playing each other. (And lots of people, including me, are not in favour of separate championships for the bottom teams).

So, what's the problem?

Something needs to be considered here first - WHAT IS THE PROBLEM WE ARE TRYING TO SOLVE?

Is it the problem of good teams hammering weaker teams (e.g. Dublin V longford?)
Is it the problem of unfair routes to All Ireland Q-final for teams in different provinces? (e.g. Ulster preliminary round Vs Kerry/Cork in provincial semi)

There are other issues too which need to be considered, e.g. fixtures/clubs, young player burnout, TV/marketing, etc.

The 'problem' needs to be agreed upon first, before there can be any hope of agreeing a solution.

At the moment, I don't really see much general consensus about what the problem is, other than that there is a problem!

Also, I sometimes wonder, are we always looking for a problem in Ireland! Last month defensive football was the worst plague ever to hit GAA and if we didn't do something about it it'd be the end of GAA in Ireland. Has that been forgotten about this month now that we have a new issue to discuss?

Perhaps we are being over-reactionary?

That's not to suggest that we don't need change - but lets be sure of what and why we want to change.

Did plato or Pythagoras play much football in their day lads? 

I've just joined now. I've the perfect excuse for the entire season - a two week handicap!!! 

If the gaa officials had a rule where they allowed the players to drop the gloves like they do in hockey how many of these mouth pieces would be interested in sorting out there problems Man to man ?
Not many I'd say most of them would be the ones looking for protection from the refs.

This could possibly be the best suggestion I have ever heard for a rule change.

1. Everybody loves a good brawl (exhibit A - aussie rules)
2. Sledging is minimised because 'Mouth pieces' are quietened!
3.  Game goes on whilst brawl is continuing thus reducing the numbers that can be utilised by a blanket defence.

No need for new playing rules trials at all, just bring this in straight away! I think it's fool proof!

So, lets say I name my team for sunday on thursday as required. I have 2 lads with niggly injuries but i risk them in the 26! Then on saturday a bug is picked up and 5 of the players are sick and cant play.

On sunday morning the 2 injured players are ruled out Leaving me with just 19 available of the 26 named.

I also have 10 fit players who have been part of the panel all year, but they'll be sitting in the stand because this new rule means they cant tog out!

whilst this an extreme hypothetical situation, I think this rule is fundamentally flawed!

Simple solution (IMO) is to name players in a list of numbers from 1-36 (or however how an individual team wants to go). Then before the game, give the team list of the starting 15 to the referee as always.

As I was typing, you made a very similar point to me captain. 

I'm a bit confused about this rule.

When the team is named on the Thursday morning, does this team have to start the game or can some of the subs number 16-26 start instead of the 1-15?

If nos. 16-26 can start then I see how this new rule is solving the perceived problem.

If no changes can be made to nos 1-15, what happens if a lad get a late injury?

I'm obviously missing something!

Please help me out here! 

Well said zulu.

Another problem is that so many players and supporters don't know the rules.

I'm not a referee, but refs get overly criticised by supporters. I was in croke park on sunday and one 'fan' behind me was blaming the referee for Down and Roscommon getting so many men behind the ball in the first half. I didn't engage with the man, but i'd loved to ask him what he expected the referee to do? Drag 6 forwards up the field by the collar to take up their forward positions???

I'm not saying refs are perfect, but a lot of the problem is as Zulu said, that if the rule book was interpreted strictly, the number of frees in games would increase significantly and then refs would be criticised for being whistle happy!
It's a thankless job that I would never do!

Have the Down folks any tips on a handy way of getting to Pairc Esler to avoid traffic or complicated town centre streets etc?
I'll be coming up the Mway from Drogheda or Dundalk.

And while you are at it, a handy place to park would be useful too!  Thanks in advance!

Is it just me, or were Liverpool not completely under the kosh for the entire second half. We defended reasonably well (Migs was excellent!), but we were under HUGE pressure. We had a couple of half chances but generally in the second half I thought we were outplayed.
First half was different - I thought we were excellent. And if countinho or moreno had taken their chances it would have been a totally different game!
Overall, very disappointing result, but until we get someone who can consistently stick the ball in the back of the net we will always struggle in these big games!

Also, I think we might have been better if lallana started and Gerrard came on from the bench after 50 mins or so. Gerrard is no longer fit enough for 120 mins, but I'd rather have him on the pitch at the end of the game and for extra-time and pens! I know that there was no guarantee that the game would go to extra-time and/or pens but I think I'd have held him back on the chance that it might. - but that's just me!

[A6]

In my problem formula, I was using Find and Replace to edit the text in the whole range of formulae to change A1 to A6. I was then going to do a subsequent Find and Replace to change A6 to A10. The last thing I expected a text editor to do was Change A1 to A5 when I told it to change it to A6. Even less did I expect it, if I had then told it to change A5 to A10 (which I didn't, since I now had A5:A5 as the formula text and it wouldn't make sense to change it to A10:A10) to find a non-existent A6 and change it to A10.


Am I making sense?

Not really making sense to me!

Couple of things;
1 - the subsequent Find and Replace should be to change A5 to A10. (not A6 to A10).
2 - it didn't Change A1 to A5. A5 is still in the formula (it just appears before A6 in the formula). A1 was replaced by A6, and A5 remained in the formula. You now have both A6 and A5 in the formula, but they are in the other order.
3 - You shouldn't have A5:A5 as the formula text at this stage. It should be A5 to A6.


The countif formula in excel is designed that the range must be in chronological order. To prove this point, type the following into an empty cell
=countif(A7:A4,B1)

When you hit enter and look back at what you have typed, excel has automatically corrected the formula to read as follows:
=countif(A4:A7,B1)

Hope this makes sense?

In Excel 2007, something weird happens when I try to do a Find and Replace in a range of COUNTIF formulae. Can anyone try the setup below and see if it happens and let me know the Excel version you're using? Also, any insight would be appreciated.



Column C is counting the number of instances of each category in the range A1 to A5. Now I want to count the number of instances of each category in the range A6 to A10. So I do a Find and Replace on the formula range C1 to C3. I put $1 in the Find box and $6 in the Replace box and hit Replace All.

Tell me what happens in your case.

Replaced $1 with $6 and it updated to the following - also using Excel 2007.

=COUNTIF(A$5:A$6,...

Tried:

Find: A$1:A$5
Replace with: A$6:A$10

That worked ok - not sure why the initial find and replace does that

I don't see what the problem is?

When you replace $1 with $6, the formula would read =countif(A$6:A$5,.......). But as 5 < 6 excel automatically puts the formula in chronological order, i.e. A$5:A$6.

If you then replace $5 with $10 you get the formula =countif(A$6:A$10........) as desired.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something but I don't see what the problem is?