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

[twohands!!!]

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.

Pretty sure they already tried the rugby approach in the trial games and it was a disaster.
Someone involved with the FRC spoke about it on the radio or a podcast or something a few months back around the time the trial games were taking place (maybe Fitzmaurice?)

A big issue was that in a lot of games, the team leading could simply finish the game by fouling the opposition. If your lead was enough, you could simply foul the opposition, let them take their chance at a score knowing even if they convert the score wouldn't be enough to change the result. Any rule that encourages foul play can't be a good idea.

[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.

Pretty sure they already tried the rugby approach in the trial games and it was a disaster.
Someone involved with the FRC spoke about it on the radio or a podcast or something a few months back around the time the trial games were taking place (maybe Fitzmaurice?)

A big issue was that in a lot of games, the team leading could simply finish the game by fouling the opposition. If your lead was enough, you could simply foul the opposition, let them take their chance at a score knowing even if they convert the score wouldn't be enough to change the result. Any rule that encourages foul play can't be a good idea.

You mean like the not allowed to pass to your keeper in your own half rule?

[Milltown Row2]

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.

Pretty sure they already tried the rugby approach in the trial games and it was a disaster.
Someone involved with the FRC spoke about it on the radio or a podcast or something a few months back around the time the trial games were taking place (maybe Fitzmaurice?)

A big issue was that in a lot of games, the team leading could simply finish the game by fouling the opposition. If your lead was enough, you could simply foul the opposition, let them take their chance at a score knowing even if they convert the score wouldn't be enough to change the result. Any rule that encourages foul play can't be a good idea.

You mean like the not allowed to pass to your keeper in your own half rule?

You can inside the small square 

[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.

Pretty sure they already tried the rugby approach in the trial games and it was a disaster.
Someone involved with the FRC spoke about it on the radio or a podcast or something a few months back around the time the trial games were taking place (maybe Fitzmaurice?)

A big issue was that in a lot of games, the team leading could simply finish the game by fouling the opposition. If your lead was enough, you could simply foul the opposition, let them take their chance at a score knowing even if they convert the score wouldn't be enough to change the result. Any rule that encourages foul play can't be a good idea.

You mean like the not allowed to pass to your keeper in your own half rule?

You can inside the small square 

Although even that leaves you at a significant disadvantage it seems

[ONeill]

Thought Malachy O'Rourke's comments were interesting after today's game, even though he was on the committee.

It appears that he's not fond of the kick-out rule as it results in too many 50/50s. Also, the black card disadvantage isn't a disadvantage.

[The Boy Wonder]

Thought Malachy O'Rourke's comments were interesting after today's game, even though he was on the committee.

It appears that he's not fond of the kick-out rule as it results in too many 50/50s. Also, the black card disadvantage isn't a disadvantage.

What nonsense - the game itself (where teams are at same level) are usually 50/50 or thereabouts.
And what's wrong with man to man contests for possession ?
High fielding at midfield was one of the highlights of the game - think Jacko, Willie Joe, Fenton etc.

[Wildweasel74]

What's to stop a team playing the goalkeeper out the field the entire game up front, and put in the actual goalkeeper as a defender in nets. This cut out the pass bck to the goalkeeper as he's in the forwards. Maybe am over thinking it.

[Milltown Row2]

What's to stop a team playing the goalkeeper out the field the entire game up front, and put in the actual goalkeeper as a defender in nets. This cut out the pass bck to the goalkeeper as he's in the forwards. Maybe am over thinking it.

Nothing, kick outs would need be sorted though, had the keeper would need to stay in the box or kick it

[ONeill]

Thought Malachy O'Rourke's comments were interesting after today's game, even though he was on the committee.

It appears that he's not fond of the kick-out rule as it results in too many 50/50s. Also, the black card disadvantage isn't a disadvantage.

What nonsense - the game itself (where teams are at same level) are usually 50/50 or thereabouts.
And what's wrong with man to man contests for possession ?
High fielding at midfield was one of the highlights of the game - think Jacko, Willie Joe, Fenton etc.

I know what you mean, but modern managers, especially at that level, have systems set in stone they're loyal to and it means a quick kick out to maintain possession. Soccer is doing that now too.

[on the sideline]

What's to stop a team playing the goalkeeper out the field the entire game up front, and put in the actual goalkeeper as a defender in nets. This cut out the pass bck to the goalkeeper as he's in the forwards. Maybe am over thinking it.

The actual goalkeeper has to stay in his square if he is not taking the kickout.

[Delgany 2nds]

3v3 needs reviewed. When Kerry had 2 black cards, tyrone had 3 men marking 1 kerry forward,  as under the current rules that how it works. It is an unfair advantage to the team with the black cards.
Either let tyrone push 2 up to gain advantage of black cards or force Kerry to keep 3 up ! Bit of sense needed

[on the sideline]

Thought Malachy O'Rourke's comments were interesting after today's game, even though he was on the committee.

It appears that he's not fond of the kick-out rule as it results in too many 50/50s. Also, the black card disadvantage isn't a disadvantage.

What nonsense - the game itself (where teams are at same level) are usually 50/50 or thereabouts.
And what's wrong with man to man contests for possession ?
High fielding at midfield was one of the highlights of the game - think Jacko, Willie Joe, Fenton etc.

I know what you mean, but modern managers, especially at that level, have systems set in stone they're loyal to and it means a quick kick out to maintain possession. Soccer is doing that now too.

Posted this in another thread:
As it sits, the kickout rule is more like a punishment for the team taking it. Your own restart is now a lottery. You should be able to use all space available on the pitch on your kickout, not have it restricted to try to help the opponent.

The rule isn't needed now either - especially now the goalkeeper is no longer an option for an easy out, short kickouts can be pressed. 

So teams can press the shorts & still force the long kickout - giving the best of both worlds & variation. Not just hit it long & see what happens.

I know there was a gale force wind in Salthill but seeing how Patton struggled kicking into it highlighted the shortsightedness of the rule too. That's a keeper with a bomb of a kickout struggling at times to get it 45m. Now think of an average club keeper or underage keeper. Be an absolute mess in less windy conditions.

[on the sideline]

3v3 needs reviewed. When Kerry had 2 black cards, tyrone had 3 men marking 1 kerry forward,  as under the current rules that how it works. It is an unfair advantage to the team with the black cards.
Either let tyrone push 2 up to gain advantage of black cards or force Kerry to keep 3 up ! Bit of sense needed

Yeah this needs to be sorted asap if the rule are going to stay.

[Milltown Row2]

Thought Malachy O'Rourke's comments were interesting after today's game, even though he was on the committee.

It appears that he's not fond of the kick-out rule as it results in too many 50/50s. Also, the black card disadvantage isn't a disadvantage.

What nonsense - the game itself (where teams are at same level) are usually 50/50 or thereabouts.
And what's wrong with man to man contests for possession ?
High fielding at midfield was one of the highlights of the game - think Jacko, Willie Joe, Fenton etc.

I know what you mean, but modern managers, especially at that level, have systems set in stone they're loyal to and it means a quick kick out to maintain possession. Soccer is doing that now too.

Posted this in another thread:
As it sits, the kickout rule is more like a punishment for the team taking it. Your own restart is now a lottery. You should be able to use all space available on the pitch on your kickout, not have it restricted to try to help the opponent.

The rule isn't needed now either - especially now the goalkeeper is no longer an option for an easy out, short kickouts can be pressed. 

So teams can press the shorts & still force the long kickout - giving the best of both worlds & variation. Not just hit it long & see what happens.

I know there was a gale force wind in Salthill but seeing how Patton struggled kicking into it highlighted the shortsightedness of the rule too. That's a keeper with a bomb of a kickout struggling at times to get it 45m. Now think of an average club keeper or underage keeper. Be an absolute mess in less windy conditions.

If Patton, a county keeper can't kick the ball 20 meters he needs replacing, regardless of how strong the wind is

[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.

Pretty sure they already tried the rugby approach in the trial games and it was a disaster.
Someone involved with the FRC spoke about it on the radio or a podcast or something a few months back around the time the trial games were taking place (maybe Fitzmaurice?)

A big issue was that in a lot of games, the team leading could simply finish the game by fouling the opposition. If your lead was enough, you could simply foul the opposition, let them take their chance at a score knowing even if they convert the score wouldn't be enough to change the result. Any rule that encourages foul play can't be a good idea.

Afaik the rugby rules allow for the team to continue to play until the ball goes dead, if they win a penalty then they can kick to touch and still take the line out - it's only when they foul or lose possession that the game will be ended.

I don't see that it would cause much of an issue in football and would definitely add to excitement.
In the scenario where a team is 2pts down and in possession, the hooter goes, they know they've to try and work a 2-pointer (or a goal), the opposition have to try and win it and get it out of play, it's not like the old days David, everyone knows where they stand, it's not an arbitrary call by a referee on whether or not to give one more chance to a team.
I don't see the downside myself.