NFL Division 1 2025

[APM]

So effectively Tyrone's 15 v Kerry's 13 yesterday was really 13 v 13 because Tyrone had to keep 3 players back.
Hence the lack of Tyrone killer punch in that key 50th-60th minute period. The two black cards didn't really have much effect.
Kerry played better & managed the rules better during that 10 minutes.

Is that correct though? Surely Tyrone didn't need to keep 3 players back if Kerry only needed to keep one in the forward line. Do the rules not allow you to take the risk of playing all 15 players in the opposition half if you choose?

That's the rules. The full team need to keep 3 back at all times, the team with lesser numbers gets to drop players back. Completely stupid when you think these rules have been thought about for 1 year and no one thought about this.

That's mad considering the rule changes were to encourage players taking more risk, but they are prevented from doing so in this case

[statto]

So effectively Tyrone's 15 v Kerry's 13 yesterday was really 13 v 13 because Tyrone had to keep 3 players back.
Hence the lack of Tyrone killer punch in that key 50th-60th minute period. The two black cards didn't really have much effect.
Kerry played better & managed the rules better during that 10 minutes.

Is that correct though? Surely Tyrone didn't need to keep 3 players back if Kerry only needed to keep one in the forward line. Do the rules not allow you to take the risk of playing all 15 players in the opposition half if you choose?

That's the rules. The full team need to keep 3 back at all times, the team with lesser numbers gets to drop players back. Completely stupid when you think these rules have been thought about for 1 year and no one thought about this.

Would Tyrone not have been better pushing Morgan into the Kerry half full time during the black card and keeping one of the 3 defenders as sub keeper?

[Wildweasel74]

Yes they could, I mentioned pushing keeper way up on another thread. Apparently he just needs to be bck for the kickout if a point or wide recorded.

[statto]

Yes they could, I mentioned pushing keeper way up on another thread. Apparently he just needs to be bck for the kickout if a point or wide recorded.

Given that he clocked 10k in a previous game wouldn't have been an issue. 

[Wildweasel74]

I think teams clock onto it in games going forward.

[statto]

I think teams clock onto it in games going forward.

Yes they should do but the wider point is that the rule needs amended. A junior b goalkeeper not overly fit would be dead weight in that scenario and the penalty for ill discipline isn't as severe. 

[Milltown Row2]

I think teams clock onto it in games going forward.

Something I've seen that will probably be used (during kickouts) is to have an attacking player sit inside the arc hoping for a break in the ball and being fed to you quickly, the keeper is making his way back and could catch him out, probably more in clubs games but if your keeper is up contesting for kickouts then the spare man inside will be an advantage

[tyrone08]

So effectively Tyrone's 15 v Kerry's 13 yesterday was really 13 v 13 because Tyrone had to keep 3 players back.
Hence the lack of Tyrone killer punch in that key 50th-60th minute period. The two black cards didn't really have much effect.
Kerry played better & managed the rules better during that 10 minutes.

Is that correct though? Surely Tyrone didn't need to keep 3 players back if Kerry only needed to keep one in the forward line. Do the rules not allow you to take the risk of playing all 15 players in the opposition half if you choose?

That's the rules. The full team need to keep 3 back at all times, the team with lesser numbers gets to drop players back. Completely stupid when you think these rules have been thought about for 1 year and no one thought about this.

That's mad considering the rule changes were to encourage players taking more risk, but they are prevented from doing so in this case

Yip completely mad. When kerry went down to 13 players Tyrone had only 12 players to attack with, as they had to keep 3 back. Kerry even though 2 men down could afford to defend with 12 men against tyrones 12 attackers. If Tyrone didn't bring morgan forward they would be attacking with 11 against 12 kerry defenders.

[Milltown Row2]

So effectively Tyrone's 15 v Kerry's 13 yesterday was really 13 v 13 because Tyrone had to keep 3 players back.
Hence the lack of Tyrone killer punch in that key 50th-60th minute period. The two black cards didn't really have much effect.
Kerry played better & managed the rules better during that 10 minutes.

Is that correct though? Surely Tyrone didn't need to keep 3 players back if Kerry only needed to keep one in the forward line. Do the rules not allow you to take the risk of playing all 15 players in the opposition half if you choose?

That's the rules. The full team need to keep 3 back at all times, the team with lesser numbers gets to drop players back. Completely stupid when you think these rules have been thought about for 1 year and no one thought about this.

That's mad considering the rule changes were to encourage players taking more risk, but they are prevented from doing so in this case

Yip completely mad. When kerry went down to 13 players Tyrone had only 12 players to attack with, as they had to keep 3 back. Kerry even though 2 men down could afford to defend with 12 men against tyrones 12 attackers. If Tyrone didn't bring morgan forward they would be attacking with 11 against 12 kerry defenders.

I think losing the game was a Tyrone mismanagement thing rather than looking to the rules? 

[David McKeown]

So effectively Tyrone's 15 v Kerry's 13 yesterday was really 13 v 13 because Tyrone had to keep 3 players back.
Hence the lack of Tyrone killer punch in that key 50th-60th minute period. The two black cards didn't really have much effect.
Kerry played better & managed the rules better during that 10 minutes.

Is that correct though? Surely Tyrone didn't need to keep 3 players back if Kerry only needed to keep one in the forward line. Do the rules not allow you to take the risk of playing all 15 players in the opposition half if you choose?

That's the rules. The full team need to keep 3 back at all times, the team with lesser numbers gets to drop players back. Completely stupid when you think these rules have been thought about for 1 year and no one thought about this.

Did Kerry score goals when Tyrone had more defenders than they had forwards?

Did Kerry ever have less forwards I thought they maintained 12 v 12 at all times?

[tyrone08]

So effectively Tyrone's 15 v Kerry's 13 yesterday was really 13 v 13 because Tyrone had to keep 3 players back.
Hence the lack of Tyrone killer punch in that key 50th-60th minute period. The two black cards didn't really have much effect.
Kerry played better & managed the rules better during that 10 minutes.

Is that correct though? Surely Tyrone didn't need to keep 3 players back if Kerry only needed to keep one in the forward line. Do the rules not allow you to take the risk of playing all 15 players in the opposition half if you choose?

That's the rules. The full team need to keep 3 back at all times, the team with lesser numbers gets to drop players back. Completely stupid when you think these rules have been thought about for 1 year and no one thought about this.

That's mad considering the rule changes were to encourage players taking more risk, but they are prevented from doing so in this case

Yip completely mad. When kerry went down to 13 players Tyrone had only 12 players to attack with, as they had to keep 3 back. Kerry even though 2 men down could afford to defend with 12 men against tyrones 12 attackers. If Tyrone didn't bring morgan forward they would be attacking with 11 against 12 kerry defenders.

I think losing the game was a Tyrone mismanagement thing rather than looking to the rules? 

100% and no one is arguing otherwise however with the current rules you can afford to lose 2 players and not be negativity impacted is just stupid and needs changed.

[galwayman]

So effectively Tyrone's 15 v Kerry's 13 yesterday was really 13 v 13 because Tyrone had to keep 3 players back.
Hence the lack of Tyrone killer punch in that key 50th-60th minute period. The two black cards didn't really have much effect.
Kerry played better & managed the rules better during that 10 minutes.

Is that correct though? Surely Tyrone didn't need to keep 3 players back if Kerry only needed to keep one in the forward line. Do the rules not allow you to take the risk of playing all 15 players in the opposition half if you choose?

That's the rules. The full team need to keep 3 back at all times, the team with lesser numbers gets to drop players back. Completely stupid when you think these rules have been thought about for 1 year and no one thought about this.

That's mad considering the rule changes were to encourage players taking more risk, but they are prevented from doing so in this case

Yip completely mad. When kerry went down to 13 players Tyrone had only 12 players to attack with, as they had to keep 3 back. Kerry even though 2 men down could afford to defend with 12 men against tyrones 12 attackers. If Tyrone didn't bring morgan forward they would be attacking with 11 against 12 kerry defenders.

I think losing the game was a Tyrone mismanagement thing rather than looking to the rules? 

100% and no one is arguing otherwise however with the current rules you can afford to lose 2 players and not be negativity impacted is just stupid and needs changed.

It's a tough one. Playing devil's advocate here. If you get a man sent off early and you have to defend in your own half with 10 outfield players for the rest of the game against an opposition's 12 attacking players (including the keeper) that could be game over straight away. So a red card effectively decides the game like has often been the case in rugby over the years. This is one of the reasons why the 20 minute red card is being trialled at the moment.
So I can see why the rule is there.
But can see the other side of it also.

[APM]

So effectively Tyrone's 15 v Kerry's 13 yesterday was really 13 v 13 because Tyrone had to keep 3 players back.
Hence the lack of Tyrone killer punch in that key 50th-60th minute period. The two black cards didn't really have much effect.
Kerry played better & managed the rules better during that 10 minutes.

Is that correct though? Surely Tyrone didn't need to keep 3 players back if Kerry only needed to keep one in the forward line. Do the rules not allow you to take the risk of playing all 15 players in the opposition half if you choose?

That's the rules. The full team need to keep 3 back at all times, the team with lesser numbers gets to drop players back. Completely stupid when you think these rules have been thought about for 1 year and no one thought about this.

That's mad considering the rule changes were to encourage players taking more risk, but they are prevented from doing so in this case

Yip completely mad. When kerry went down to 13 players Tyrone had only 12 players to attack with, as they had to keep 3 back. Kerry even though 2 men down could afford to defend with 12 men against tyrones 12 attackers. If Tyrone didn't bring morgan forward they would be attacking with 11 against 12 kerry defenders.

I think losing the game was a Tyrone mismanagement thing rather than looking to the rules? 

100% and no one is arguing otherwise however with the current rules you can afford to lose 2 players and not be negativity impacted is just stupid and needs changed.

It's a tough one. Playing devil's advocate here. If you get a man sent off early and you have to defend in your own half with 10 outfield players for the rest of the game against an opposition's 12 attacking players (including the keeper) that could be game over straight away. So a red card effectively decides the game like has often been the case in rugby over the years. This is one of the reasons why the 20 minute red card is being trialled at the moment.
So I can see why the rule is there.
But can see the other side of it also.

That's not the case. If you have a man sent off, you only need to keep two forwards up the pitch instead of three. But the defending team needs to always keep three defenders back, even if there is only 2 or even one player to mark

[Applesisapples]

Enjoyable game but some poor misses from both teams.

Armagh back to doing what they were at two years ago, blowing up and throwing games away.

[armaghniac]

Enjoyable game but some poor misses from both teams.

Armagh back to doing what they were at two years ago, blowing up and throwing games away.

Div 1 teams are all pretty able, you need to keep your concentration and workrate going throughout the game and Armagh have not.