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

[weareros]

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.

[David McKeown]

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.

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.

[weareros]

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.

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.

[David McKeown]

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.

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.

 

[Rossfan]

Not everyone is negative in Armagh....

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

[Milltown Row2]

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

[thebigfullforward]

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.

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?

[Rossfan]

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

[clonian]

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.

[Dreadnought]

King 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

[The Boy Wonder]

King 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.

[ClubScene13]

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.

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

[weareros]

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.

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.

[Rossfan]

Isnt the "defensive mark" still there?

[JoG2]

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.

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.