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

[statto]

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.

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. 

[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?

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

[Milltown Row2]

Isnt the "defensive mark" still there?

Gone but not forgotten

[David McKeown]

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.

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.

[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.

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.

[JoG2]

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.

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.

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.

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?

[statto]

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.

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.

[twohands!!!]

Eight 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?

[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.

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.

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.

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.

[David McKeown]

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

[onefineday]

I 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.

[AustinPowers]

I 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

[onefineday]

I 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!

[DubsforSam]

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

[David McKeown]

I 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.