FRC Feedback - poll on new rules - which do you like least?

[SaffronSports]

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.

[giveherlong]

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

[onefineday]

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.

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.

[David McKeown]

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

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.

[David McKeown]

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.

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.

[tonto1888]

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

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

[Saffron_sam20]

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

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.

[tbrick18]

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

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.

[Saffron_sam20]

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

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

[statto]

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

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). 

[Dreadnought]

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

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

[statto]

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

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. 

[David McKeown]

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

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.

[statto]

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

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. 

[David McKeown]

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

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.