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

[Milltown Row2]

In the rugby with regards to the advantage, there's a part where if they have moved the ball sufficiently enough to a place which is more advantageous then the advantage rule is cancelled..

[Saffron_sam20]

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.

What other team game after conceding a score do you have to play a ball not in your favour? Every other sport a team gets the chance to restart. As someone pointed out, with the keeper not able to get involved the kick outs didn't need changed

[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.

What other team game after conceding a score do you have to play a ball not in your favour? Every other sport a team gets the chance to restart. As someone pointed out, with the keeper not able to get involved the kick outs didn't need changed

I'm sort of trying to understand the logic. Kick outs have always been about, either from the corner of the square or now from the 21, teams have always had to 'work' a kick out to gain possession and the other team have always tried to nullify that by pressing up so when the keeper has to kick the ball into the center then its still an opportunity to for your team to win possession? 

Do people want the team that has the kick out to get automatic possession?

[Saffron_sam20]

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.

What other team game after conceding a score do you have to play a ball not in your favour? Every other sport a team gets the chance to restart. As someone pointed out, with the keeper not able to get involved the kick outs didn't need changed

I'm sort of trying to understand the logic. Kick outs have always been about, either from the corner of the square or now from the 21, teams have always had to 'work' a kick out to gain possession and the other team have always tried to nullify that by pressing up so when the keeper has to kick the ball into the center then its still an opportunity to for your team to win possession? 

Do people want the team that has the kick out to get automatic possession?

I get what youre saying, what I mean is teams should be allowed to work their kick out as they see fit not be forced into something they dont want to do. as I say I watched a game last week and one team prob won 1 of their own kick outs. should be able to work a short, given that the keeper cant take the ball in his own half it kind of makes the having to go long pointless as the team wont have a spare man. if anything the new kick out is a disadvantage to the team taking it as the opposition can push their keeper up and gives them an extra man.

[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.

What other team game after conceding a score do you have to play a ball not in your favour? Every other sport a team gets the chance to restart. As someone pointed out, with the keeper not able to get involved the kick outs didn't need changed

I'm sort of trying to understand the logic. Kick outs have always been about, either from the corner of the square or now from the 21, teams have always had to 'work' a kick out to gain possession and the other team have always tried to nullify that by pressing up so when the keeper has to kick the ball into the center then its still an opportunity to for your team to win possession? 

Do people want the team that has the kick out to get automatic possession?

I get what youre saying, what I mean is teams should be allowed to work their kick out as they see fit not be forced into something they dont want to do. as I say I watched a game last week and one team prob won 1 of their own kick outs. should be able to work a short, given that the keeper cant take the ball in his own half it kind of makes the having to go long pointless as the team wont have a spare man. if anything the new kick out is a disadvantage to the team taking it as the opposition can push their keeper up and gives them an extra man.

It will bring about a change in kick outs for sure, winning dirty ball and high fielding being the most important.. Obviously having big men to win the balls will disadvantage smaller less physical teams, I can certainly look at a few Antrim club teams that will have a field day with this, management will have to adopt their styles

From a neutral view though I'm seeing teams retreating back to the 40 arc and setting their stall there
I like contested kick outs
Match I did yesterday they policed 3v3 rule well
Only once did the keeper collect a pass
A few times handing the ball back to the players was not done correctly, so I just informed them it could be better and in the league you'll force the ref to move the ball 50 meters
No back chat dissent, just asking reason gave explanation and they moved on.
One forward mark and I explained the reasoning of the unlimited time for that advantage, though I ballsed up and when I realised that the person that took the mark didn't take the Mark! In all my explaining to the players around me I didn't notice
Not many did the solo and go, I did speak with managers and players that its solo and go and after 4 meters you can be tackled, not enough done on this during game to see how that will pan out

[Saffron_sam20]

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.

What other team game after conceding a score do you have to play a ball not in your favour? Every other sport a team gets the chance to restart. As someone pointed out, with the keeper not able to get involved the kick outs didn't need changed

I'm sort of trying to understand the logic. Kick outs have always been about, either from the corner of the square or now from the 21, teams have always had to 'work' a kick out to gain possession and the other team have always tried to nullify that by pressing up so when the keeper has to kick the ball into the center then its still an opportunity to for your team to win possession? 

Do people want the team that has the kick out to get automatic possession?

I get what youre saying, what I mean is teams should be allowed to work their kick out as they see fit not be forced into something they dont want to do. as I say I watched a game last week and one team prob won 1 of their own kick outs. should be able to work a short, given that the keeper cant take the ball in his own half it kind of makes the having to go long pointless as the team wont have a spare man. if anything the new kick out is a disadvantage to the team taking it as the opposition can push their keeper up and gives them an extra man.

It will bring about a change in kick outs for sure, winning dirty ball and high fielding being the most important.. Obviously having big men to win the balls will disadvantage smaller less physical teams, I can certainly look at a few Antrim club teams that will have a field day with this, management will have to adopt their styles

From a neutral view though I'm seeing teams retreating back to the 40 arc and setting their stall there
I like contested kick outs
Match I did yesterday they policed 3v3 rule well
Only once did the keeper collect a pass
A few times handing the ball back to the players was not done correctly, so I just informed them it could be better and in the league you'll force the ref to move the ball 50 meters
No back chat dissent, just asking reason gave explanation and they moved on.
One forward mark and I explained the reasoning of the unlimited time for that advantage, though I ballsed up and when I realised that the person that took the mark didn't take the Mark! In all my explaining to the players around me I didn't notice
Not many did the solo and go, I did speak with managers and players that its solo and go and after 4 meters you can be tackled, not enough done on this during game to see how that will pan out

I think from a neutral point of view contested balls are good, but if youre a manager or supporter of a team you dont want contested balls. I just think a lot of things are being done for armchair supporters.

the 3v3 is ok but its just rigid, for example a player who intercepts a ball near half way might not be able to go on the attack as not enough back etc but think its a good enough rule for county. just when competitive club football starts itll be a nightmare for refs, supporters shouting on etc ref need eyes in the back of their head.

I think youre going to take a common sense approach with the dissent, I think players should be able to be frustrated without having a go at the referee. hope all refs take same approach. the handing the ball back is a nonsense and really is the first one id like to see binned, as ive said on here before just book a player whos acting the p***k, if youre a defender and get booked early on for throwing a ball away or slowing the ball up youre walking a tight rope for the rest of the game for stupidity. thats where soccer has it right

[Milltown Row2]

I said the players if its a loose ball from a free, you don't have to retrieve it, if you do give it to the nearest player, don't throw it or set it down or gentle roll it towards him lol. I'm up for binning that straight away. Moving the ball 50m for that is a hard one to swallow

[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.

What other team game after conceding a score do you have to play a ball not in your favour? Every other sport a team gets the chance to restart. As someone pointed out, with the keeper not able to get involved the kick outs didn't need changed

I'm sort of trying to understand the logic. Kick outs have always been about, either from the corner of the square or now from the 21, teams have always had to 'work' a kick out to gain possession and the other team have always tried to nullify that by pressing up so when the keeper has to kick the ball into the center then its still an opportunity to for your team to win possession? 

Do people want the team that has the kick out to get automatic possession?

Everything you have said about kickouts can still be applied without the 40m arc. Without the get out of the goalkeeper you can really go after kickouts without any other amendments. The rule serves no productive purpose. As I've said, a team should not be limited in the space to take their own restart that is advantageous to the opposition. The rule as it stands does exactly this.

[DuffleKing]

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

Could it really be possible you need this explained to you?

[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.

What other team game after conceding a score do you have to play a ball not in your favour? Every other sport a team gets the chance to restart. As someone pointed out, with the keeper not able to get involved the kick outs didn't need changed

I'm sort of trying to understand the logic. Kick outs have always been about, either from the corner of the square or now from the 21, teams have always had to 'work' a kick out to gain possession and the other team have always tried to nullify that by pressing up so when the keeper has to kick the ball into the center then its still an opportunity to for your team to win possession? 

Do people want the team that has the kick out to get automatic possession?

Everything you have said about kickouts can still be applied without the 40m arc. Without the get out of the goalkeeper you can really go after kickouts without any other amendments. The rule serves no productive purpose. As I've said, a team should not be limited in the space to take their own restart that is advantageous to the opposition. The rule as it stands does exactly this.

So when a team presses up on the kick outs there is limited space, no availability to pass to the keeper as the ball will be contested, its only great when teams for whatever reasons retreat on kick outs and allow the opposition to rebuild from the back, which for me was a daft tactic by teams, its the same for both teams also. I'm not sure why its advantageous when its the same for both. Win your own kick outs and you'll be fine, if a tweak is needed then the opposition keeper shouldn't be allowed to contest kick outs 

[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

Could it really be possible you need this explained to you?

As in the average club keeper? Them's the rules, not everyone myself included is liking them, but that's what managers have to deal with, if my current club keeper can't kick the ball a distance required in the wind then I'll need to find someone who can, otherwise my team is in trouble.

Some teams will see this an advantage to their team others will not, changing the dynamic of the game, think this was the intention, whether its good or bad will depend on how its reviewed over the year, these rules will need a period of adjustment

[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.

What other team game after conceding a score do you have to play a ball not in your favour? Every other sport a team gets the chance to restart. As someone pointed out, with the keeper not able to get involved the kick outs didn't need changed

I'm sort of trying to understand the logic. Kick outs have always been about, either from the corner of the square or now from the 21, teams have always had to 'work' a kick out to gain possession and the other team have always tried to nullify that by pressing up so when the keeper has to kick the ball into the center then its still an opportunity to for your team to win possession? 

Do people want the team that has the kick out to get automatic possession?

Everything you have said about kickouts can still be applied without the 40m arc. Without the get out of the goalkeeper you can really go after kickouts without any other amendments. The rule serves no productive purpose. As I've said, a team should not be limited in the space to take their own restart that is advantageous to the opposition. The rule as it stands does exactly this.

So when a team presses up on the kick outs there is limited space, no availability to pass to the keeper as the ball will be contested, its only great when teams for whatever reasons retreat on kick outs and allow the opposition to rebuild from the back, which for me was a daft tactic by teams, its the same for both teams also. I'm not sure why its advantageous when its the same for both. Win your own kick outs and you'll be fine, if a tweak is needed then the opposition keeper shouldn't be allowed to contest kick outs 

Don't see how you're missing the issue. You now have a team pressed up on you completely including a spare man in their GK. You have an area of the pitch that you can't receive the ball in so you're at a disadvantage straight away.

That huge area that is now inside the arc should be available to be used to at least counter that disadvantage - eg either receive the short kickout or used to try to create space to receive a kickout anywhere you can work it by drawing forwards in to follow your runs. But now why would a forward track you in there when they know you can't receive it?

The fact is without the goalkeeper to go back to, the arc isn't needed. That in itself encourages you to press. If you press that leads to contests if it goes short, or the big aerial contests it you force the kickout long. The best of both - without completely punishing the team taking the kickout.

[SaffronSports]

Could there be grounds for a solo and go from the goalkeeper instead of a kick out?

I know in juvenile football if you score once you can put pressure on the kick outs and keep a team in for a few scores. Once you have attacked, you've either scored or missed a chance to score so maybe the opposition deserve the chance to have possession?

[Milltown Row2]

Could there be grounds for a solo and go from the goalkeeper instead of a kick out?

I know in juvenile football if you score once you can put pressure on the kick outs and keep a team in for a few scores. Once you have attacked, you've either scored or missed a chance to score so maybe the opposition deserve the chance to have possession?

Yes, but a solo a go only after they have scored..

I', not sure why its a problem though for 50/50 chances to win possession. It's on a team to ensure they have the right personnel in place to win back possession or gain possession

I agree that juveniles is going to be a lot harder for those smaller weaker teams but with the ages groups being better defined nowadays in comparison it should have like for like in most teams for height and strength 

[Cavan19]

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.

What other team game after conceding a score do you have to play a ball not in your favour? Every other sport a team gets the chance to restart. As someone pointed out, with the keeper not able to get involved the kick outs didn't need changed

I'm sort of trying to understand the logic. Kick outs have always been about, either from the corner of the square or now from the 21, teams have always had to 'work' a kick out to gain possession and the other team have always tried to nullify that by pressing up so when the keeper has to kick the ball into the center then its still an opportunity to for your team to win possession? 

Do people want the team that has the kick out to get automatic possession?

I get what youre saying, what I mean is teams should be allowed to work their kick out as they see fit not be forced into something they dont want to do. as I say I watched a game last week and one team prob won 1 of their own kick outs. should be able to work a short, given that the keeper cant take the ball in his own half it kind of makes the having to go long pointless as the team wont have a spare man. if anything the new kick out is a disadvantage to the team taking it as the opposition can push their keeper up and gives them an extra man.

Was interesting to watch the Cavan V Down game last week to seen the contrasts in both teams on kickouts. Down didn't want Cavan to go long on kickouts and left a Cavan player free who the keeper used quiet often. Up the other end Cavan tried to give no option to Down to go short and wanted them to go long all the time.