Messages

Esmeralda, of course a keeper would have purpose to his team - but only when the opposition have the ball. But should his own team have the ball, it would result in a tap over free (or perhaps a penalty) should a team mate knowingly or unknowingly bring him into play. Therefore he would be better off standing behind the end line; for at least if he unwittingly receives a pass, it will result in a 45, and not a tap over free.

Surely you can accept the practical reality of what I'm saying here?

——

Surely also you can agree that the scenario I previously described is a narrow version of a situation that unfolds many times in every match, whereby a fullback or corner back takes a clean fetch, and needs an immediate outlet in order to mitigate the chance of over carrying.

From the earliest days of Gaelic football, the keeper has been that outlet; an outlet that means the corner back's strong defensive play creates a reward for his team.

This is not and has never been a problem in Gaelic football.

But a blanket rule change makes it a panic button situation.

——

Soccer fullbacks when they're in trouble can still pass to their goalkeeper. That he cannot pick the ball up is an aside; he is still an active participant on the field.

This mooted rule change would not have that effect: it reduces the team in possession to a 14 man team.

Like I said, kickouts and playing the ball when received from a shot dropped short are two examples of his purpose to the team. Obviously he would be of no use if his own team had the ball if the rule was brought in to cut off all backpasses. But that's not what you said.

On your second point, again of course I understood your point. I merely pointed out that in the situation you described, defending a last minute free, that you would have many other players back in and around the box, even as the rule stands now. I additionally pointed out that teams would adjust to the rule moreso and that it would hardly be that big of a step to pass it off to one of the other players. What's happened up to this point is irrelevant in the context of what the rule would bring and what changes it would require from defending teams.

I can't compare the soccer backpass rule to this one as this hasn't been proposed yet never mind discussed but again, I can obviously see the difference. As some others alluded to, the rule may be looked at in relation to the keeper being in a certain area of the field, perhaps ahead of the ball. Perhaps only being involved once before the opposition touch it, who knows. I think it's not worth discarding.

I don't know johnnycool, I didn't say it.

Anyone against looking at this actually able to say they feel that way?

Criticising Horan generally or saying there are other issues doesn't count.

Okay, we are deep in injury time and Mayo are protecting a one point lead. Dean Rock has a 55m kick and it drops just short and right. Colm Barrett is underneath it and takes a clean catch. He's immediately set upon by both Mannion and Costello. There's no options to his left, why would there be? He can't dodge them both.  If he holds onto the ball, it's overcarrying and a tap over free for Dublin to equalise. Inside him on the right is David Clarke, an outlet. His options are now, 1. throw it over the end line for a 45 in front of the posts, which makes him look like a ****, for Dean Rock doesn't miss those, 2. give it to Clarke anyway and let him share the blame - except what if Clarke freezes and refuses the ball, and there's danger everywhere, it could result in a goal - oh and what if because Clarke is in the small square, it might be deemed a penalty (tbc).

This is a f**king mess for Barrett, and all because he was doing the most natural thing in the world of stopping Rock's miscued free from dropping direct into the net.


Think about this folks. This is a f**king mess. It's the stupidest f**king rule change ever considered by the Association.

If you're defending a scoreable free deep in injury time surely you'll have a couple of men back on the line/in the box. Otherwise boot the ball out for a 45. That's like saying a player is being tackled by five lads and he can't quite manage to get a legit hand pass so he should do what's most natural and throw the ball or put the head down and charge out.

The rule would be brought in to try to restrict keep ball, something that everyone (up to now) has been roaring about so how would it be anywhere near the stupidest rule ever brought in? It's not even the worst this year,

Anyone against looking at this actually able to say why they feel that way?

Criticising Horan generally or saying there are other issues doesn't count.

Yes, I believe I can.
It quite simply has never presented itself as an issue that reflects negatively on the game, therefore the rule change is entirely futile and unnecessary.

So you also haven't noticed, nor were you one of the many complaining about keep ball?

If you don't understand that the scenario (if not the context) above is a regular occurrence in football, then you must never watch the game. Every keeper takes the central goal position in these scenarios.

What you're advocating here means that - in this scenario - he has no purpose for his team, he is a passenger, and indeed, any attempt to appear otherwise would in fact prove beneficial to the  opposition.

He would be training 12 months a year so that in certain high pressure situations the best move he can make for his team is to temporarily step over the end line.

This is absolute f**king insanity.

—-

There may of course may be a suitable rule change where passing to the keeper in teneted situations is outlawed. But approaching this issue with any sense of a blanket ban, marks you out as a thoughtless, dangerously thoughtless, person.

I'd prefer John Haran was moved along quickly at this point.

Jesus thewobbler you're usually sensible but that's one of the worst piles of shite I've read outside the usual looney posters.

Did I say goalkeepers don't take the central position? No, I didn't. I said if the rule came in then it might be in their interest, for example, to have the keeper go for the ball as he wouldn't be able to receive a subsequent pass. This was my initial reaction to your one specific hypothetical scenario. If a rule change comes then teams and players generally have to adjust. What's with this bullshit about having never watched a game? One of the go to phrases for someone up their own arse when giving their opinion. You have a masters in studying the game. Do you go down on one knee, chin in hand as you break it all down for us

Secondly, I'm advocating nothing. I found it strange that the reaction on the board is overwhelmingly negative to a suggestion to eliminate something that was one of the curses of the game last summer, or so we were told.

And the 'keeper would have no purpose for his team; bizarre comment again. High balls into the square, saving shots on goal, kick-outs, playing the ball out from his hands. He can even come up and take frees. Who is that doesn't watch games did you say?

And finally, I'm dangerously thoughtless. What in the f**k does that mean, even if I was advocating it, which I'm not, and if I was, who mentioned a blanket or any degree to which the back-pass would be outlawed? Nobody, because it was just something to look at.

I hope you'll take back most of what you've posted cos.........well it's brutal.

From what I've seen, it is very rare for the goalkeeper to be involved in keep ball. It usually happens between the 21 & 45 and the only roaring I do at it is at the team who don't make any effort to break from their comfort blanket to actually go out the field and win the ball back. These teams who are losing the game and still keep everyone back deserve absolutely nothing as far as I'm concerned. There are those who believe that it is up to the team in possession to bring the ball to them. That is beyond me.
Either way, taking the goalkeepers out of it is bullshit and will not stifle keep ball one iota.

I agree with your outlook on the other team needing to press up, but I seemed to be in the minority on that.

The goalkeeper mightn't actually have been involved in these scenarios that often but he's the safeguard at the back of the process who might actually deter a team from pressing up.

I'm not all out for this rule as I'm much more in the camp of let the game evolve, but compared to what we've been looking at with the sideline ball and handpass I think it's worth a look.

Anyone against looking at this actually able to say they feel that way?

Criticising Horan generally or saying there are other issues doesn't count.

Okay, we are deep in injury time and Mayo are protecting a one point lead. Dean Rock has a 55m kick and it drops just short and right. Colm Barrett is underneath it and takes a clean catch. He's immediately set upon by both Mannion and Costello. There's no options to his left, why would there be? He can't dodge them both.  If he holds onto the ball, it's overcarrying and a tap over free for Dublin to equalise. Inside him on the right is David Clarke, an outlet. His options are now, 1. throw it over the end line for a 45 in front of the posts, which makes him look like a ****, for Dean Rock doesn't miss those, 2. give it to Clarke anyway and let him share the blame - except what if Clarke freezes and refuses the ball, and there's danger everywhere, it could result in a goal - oh and what if because Clarke is in the small square, it might be deemed a penalty (tbc).

This is a f**king mess for Barrett, and all because he was doing the most natural thing in the world of stopping Rock's miscued free from dropping direct into the net.


Think about this folks. This is a f**king mess. It's the stupidest f**king rule change ever considered by the Association.

If you're defending a scoreable free deep in injury time surely you'll have a couple of men back on the line/in the box. Otherwise boot the ball out for a 45. That's like saying a player is being tackled by five lads and he can't quite manage to get a legit hand pass so he should do what's most natural and throw the ball or put the head down and charge out.

The rule would be brought in to try to restrict keep ball, something that everyone (up to now) has been roaring about so how would it be anywhere near the stupidest rule ever brought in? It's not even the worst this year,

Anyone against looking at this actually able to say why they feel that way?

Criticising Horan generally or saying there are other issues doesn't count.

Yes, I believe I can.
It quite simply has never presented itself as an issue that reflects negatively on the game, therefore the rule change is entirely futile and unnecessary.

So you also haven't noticed, nor were you one of the many complaining about keep ball?

Anyone against looking at this actually able to say why they feel that way?

Criticising Horan generally or saying there are other issues doesn't count.

I like parts of blewuporstuffed's proposal but I think relegating the provincials to a stand alone competition isn't a runner. Teams want to win their provincial championship because it's worth winning. If it's not linked to the All-Ireland series then the stronger teams won't care about it and so the smaller teams winning it becomes less significant.

I'm surprised by the replies. When a team tries to play keep-ball near the end of a game then they have their keeper as an extra man (unless the other team moves theirs out to mark someone). This would aim to remove that option.

Compared to the forward only sideline ball I think it's ingenious.

[There has to be a byway for teams to develop.]

Yeah well it works at club level.

Club level is sustained by local rivalries. Beating a team from 20 or even 40 miles away in a county junior final is special. Beating a county from the other side of the country proved rather less special when it came to the Tommy Cooper Cup.

Laythrim hurlers were mighty happy batin a team from another Country.
And it was special to them going by their celebrations in Carrick that night.

For over one hundred years hurling teams like Donegal had nothing to play for. Now they've won Lory meagher and Nicky rackard trophys both in Croke Park. Without tiering they had nothing to play for. I've a friend who plays for them. There's nobody on here who could tell him that those competitions don't matter or are second rate. He trains hard and to him those medals are the same as a Liam McCarthy medal. There are lots of football teams for whom a better than average summer is getting 3 matches. Half the teams every year are out after 3 matches. There has to be a byway for teams to develop.

The league already provides the opportunity to improve against teams of similar standard.

Question about the advantage rule. If a player is fouled in possession and within the 5 seconds (or whatever it is that the ref holds his hand up) the team manages to create a goal scoring opportunity and they miss - lets say, they hit the bar and the ball is cleared. Is that deemed as the advantage over as they where able to fashion a clear opportunity to score? Or is the only satisfactory advantageous outcome in that scenario a score, in which case the play is brought back for a free?

I play it as, if the tackle has no bearing on the shot being hit and the player is in a more advantageous position and misses, I take it as take your oil.

If the tackle has put the player off their shot, or say the bad tackle/grope has put them into a wider position and goal and Misses, I bring them back for the free.

I'd agree with that but I've been told that that is not what referees are being told to do. If the goal chance is missed, in this scenario, then I think the ref can bring it back.

The way that you and I agree it should be applied is as it is applied in soccer.

Yeah well it works at club level.

Club level is sustained by local rivalries. Beating a team from 20 or even 40 miles away in a county junior final is special. Beating a county from the other side of the country proved rather less special when it came to the Tommy Cooper Cup.

Sorry, I thought my jest was obvious.

The "it works at club level" seems to be the go-to argument when all else has been said.

If based on Division 2 positions at the start of the seasons, Down and Derry will be in the second tier next year if they don't reach the Ulster Final.  For two teams that gave both Mayo and Tyrone damn good games this year in the Qualifiers and Ulster Championship, can anyone explain to me what this is meant to do for interest in inter-county football in either Down or Derry.  Meanwhile, one of the biggest drubbings of the year so far was handed down to Meath in the Leinster Final and they will certainly be competing in the top tier next year (and the following year also at least). 

Cork meanwhile will play in Division 3 next year, but have a far better chance of reaching a provincial final than Down or Derry do in Ulster, and in most years they will play in Tier 1 regardless of league position.

The reality is that for the last four years we have had one team in the country way ahead of the rest.  That is the only line we can safely draw at the moment.  Yes, the best of the rest are a long way ahead of the worst.  However, the gaps are graduated and there isn't a natural line of demarcation between the bottom of Division 2 and the top of Division 3.  On their day, a team at the relegated from Division 2 (Cork) will have a damn good chance of beating a team at the bottom of Division 1 (Cavan).  A team in the middle of Division 3 (Longford) will stand a good chance of beating a Division 2 team (Kildare). 

The whole concept is a pile of crap and the more I hear from John Horan the less confidence I have in him.  A bullshitter!!

Yeah well it works at club level.

Literally any other team would have been a satisfactory draw for Cavan, but if there's an all Ulster pairing possible, out of the hat she'll come. So deflating and such an anti climax, super 8s would have been a great developer for the team and manager. A typically impotent exit, following the usual script when we play Tyrone, could actually send us backwards a few steps. You'd hope that the bit of steel we've been able to show at times this summer will at least see us emerge with a an enhanced reputation, but as for the result it's a foregone conclusion I'm afraid.

That's one of the most pessimistic posts I've ever read. Is this the feeling in Cavan generally?

If it is then the players living in Cavan will surely pick up on this vibe and may be beaten before they take the pitch.

I now hope it's brought in so we can put an end to the conversation about it.

Surely a banana skin and/or egg on face are enough of a health and safety issue to move the game.