Gaelic Football - Rules & Regulations discussion/clarification

[EoinW]

One other problem: you are allowing a small committee to have complete say over the entire game.  It appears they've been given carte blanche to do whatever they like.  Is there any time limit to FRC activities or is their dictatorial power over the game open ended?

Thus the goal is more entertainment and more action.  The FRC believes Kerry hitting long balls to David Clifford to be good for the game...which is fine.  When Ethan Rafferty, and other Ulster goalkeepers, run riot through opposing defences the FRC suddenly isn't interested in more excitement and scoring and put a stop to it.  You see the problem?  The FRC is picking winners and losers.

No major sport has ever overhauled its entire game like the GAA has just done.  Normally it's one rule change, to test the waters, then another and so on.  The National Football League has been desperate to get more offence into its game.  Every rule change going back to the 1970s has been in favour of the offence and to handicap the defence.  They've finally accomplished what they wanted: all offence, all passing and all action.  What the NFL took decades to do, the GAA is trying to do in months.  Football traditionalists will tell you both organisations have one goal: to destroy the offence-defence balance.  In other words, ruin the game.

I'm not trying to say who is right or wrong.  Obviously I'm in the camp of the traditionalists but that doesn't mean I'm right.  I'm simply trying to point out that a sport with the history and tradition of Gaelic football needs to mind that history and tradition and keep an eye on the long term consequences of any changes.

The moment you open Pandora's Box and allow so many changes at once, you open the door to endless changes.  Isn't that a slippery slope?

The FRC was given a remit to make gaelic football the best amateur sport in the world to watch and play.
There are fairly rigorous governance structures in place which all the new rules had to progress through and a lesser process for subsequent tweaks.
The reason why there has been such a radical overhaul of rules all at once is because of the very strict timelines imposed by Congress on the trialling of new rules.
New rules can only be introduced once every 5 years. These trial rules which were approved by special congress last October are in place until October this year. Congress (or special congress) will vote on the final package, it is probable that what we see now will see significant amendment before a final package of changes is agreed. I don't agree that the FRC is picking winners and losers based on geographical bias, if you look at the membership, there's balanced representation from all regions and indeed the gaa president who instigated the review is an Armagh man. They are reacting to feedback and statistical evidence.
They have a statistical unit analysing a large number of games from this year and comparing versus previous year's data (I believe this unit is led by a Derry man?).
The data and the feedback from their ongoing public surveys has shaped the initial proposals and the subsequent tweaks. My understanding is that no more tweaks are proposed prior to the final package being agreed for the October vote.
If we really want to shape the decisions then I think it's important to complete the feedback surveys on an ongoing basis (it's not a one and done thing and remains open) and probably more importantly, make sure that your county's delegates to the October vote understand your county's position and can articulate that position in a manner that can influence delegates.

Up Derry!

@ Eoin, "both organisations have one goal.....ruin the game."

Really?

Rules need tweaking and 1 major one (long lottery kickouts) scrapped, but it's a much much better spectacle atm imo... I've started watching more games again, the last 10 years it was only really games I had an emotional attachment to

You're quoting me out of context.  If offence/defence balance is lost then it can ruin the game.

That aside, I agree with you that the 50/50 kickouts are disturbing.  Every game seems to have moments in which one team can't get possession and get scored on multiple times.

I also don't like the 2 point rule.  As I've warned in the past, I believe it will eventually lead to every team structuring their offence around it.  For now managers are stuck in their old ways.  They will regain a certain amount of control eventually.

Which gets back to the lack of defence.  The games are more action packed because there is little defence.  Managers have not yet figured out ways to defend the new rules.  In fact I've seen limited innovation from any of them.  They can't even figure out a ball possession system to make the short kick outs work.

Perhaps one must give it time.  Managers will figure out how to defend the new rules and you'll have balance again.  It's all new ground.  Only natural for any fan who enjoyed the 2024 version to be uncomfortable.   Those who hated the 2024 version already felt they'd lost the game so they have nothing to lose by changing everything.

[Milltown Row2]

People are being too dramatic either way, one man's view on kick outs varies to the next and so on..

I'm my opinion football very rarely hit any great heights till the latter stages.. that's club football too, a game broke out in the last ten minutes.

I measured a senior game in terms of distance travelled for me as a ref, normally in a good up and down game you could be getting close to 4 miles, this one game was 2.7 miles, if that was what people were wanting or coaching it was wrong. Some people like that, not sure why.

[Truthsayer]

People are being too dramatic either way, one man's view on kick outs varies to the next and so on..

I'm my opinion football very rarely hit any great heights till the latter stages.. that's club football too, a game broke out in the last ten minutes.

I measured a senior game in terms of distance travelled for me as a ref, normally in a good up and down game you could be getting close to 4 miles, this one game was 2.7 miles, if that was what people were wanting or coaching it was wrong. Some people like that, not sure why.

Best era I saw of football was 2000 decade (and i recall back to '70s) ... I remember many games were enthralling throughout.. involving Dublin-Kerry-Tyrone-Armagh-Mayo.. even Sligo and Donegal. Ulster final 2003 Tyrone-Down draw was a thriller long before the last few minutes..  I think is more recent where nothing happens for 65 minutes and then is bedlam and excitmemt for last 5 and maybe 5 injury time..

[Rossfan]

I can't understand the point that if teams have a bad midfield we have to bring back the old rules.
What next?
Abolish goals because some teams don't score any?

I'm well aware we have a poor midfield but changing kick out rules is not the answer.
Up to our management to try and remedy it.

[AustinPowers]

Seen highlights of Munster and Ulster semis. Alot  of times , no forwards near the goal mouth at all

Maybe they should bring in  2 pointers for  points nearer the goal,  rather than  50+ yards

Might bring the play  , and a bit of excitement, closer to the  goals, which  is what we want to see , is it not?

This current 2 pointer lark  is a huge backward step for the game.

[Truthsayer]

Seen highlights of Munster and Ulster semis. Alot  of times , no forwards near the goal mouth at all

Maybe they should bring in  2 pointers for  points nearer the goal,  rather than  50+ yards

Might bring the play  , and a bit of excitement, closer to the  goals, which  is what we want to see , is it not?

This current 2 pointer lark  is a huge backward step for the game.

Did you not think the Cork-Kerry game was exciting? It was a thriller. And the Ulster games had plenty too..

[thewobbler]

It's been a tough weekend so far for the "football wasn't broken" contrarians.

They could really do with a blowout game today.

Another tough weekend for themmuns. It looks like they're gonna need an entertainment implosion when Croke starts going to get used.

[Captain Scarlet]

In Louth v Kildare the hooter went and the Louth man booted over the end line.
Everyone thought that was that, but it was a 45. Then it was taken and resulted in another 45.
Eventually Kildare hit it wide and game over.

What's the story there?

[gallsman]

When the ball goes for a 45 after the hooter sounds, it's take the 45 and play on.

Somewhat bizarrely, if the ball went for a 45 and then the hooter sounded, the only option is for the 45 to be taken and scored from directly - no other player can touch the ball.

Same applies to penalties. Bit bizarre, feels like they should be there other way around to me.

[tiempo]

Seen highlights of Munster and Ulster semis. Alot  of times , no forwards near the goal mouth at all

Maybe they should bring in  2 pointers for  points nearer the goal,  rather than  50+ yards

Might bring the play  , and a bit of excitement, closer to the  goals, which  is what we want to see , is it not?

This current 2 pointer lark  is a huge backward step for the game.

Its obviously going to split opinion and while I'm a traditionalist and think the 2 pointer is somewhat overpowered, it has played its part in teams coming back from behind rapidly, overall I think its worth retaining for the simple fact that prodigiously talented footballers are now given an incentive to showcase that talent than go side to side forever and a day. Its not perfect but its better than before

[David McKeown]

When the ball goes for a 45 after the hooter sounds, it's take the 45 and play on.

Somewhat bizarrely, if the ball went for a 45 and then the hooter sounded, the only option is for the 45 to be taken and scored from directly - no other player can touch the ball.

Same applies to penalties. Bit bizarre, feels like they should be there other way around to me.

Is that right?  I tried looking at the rule book there but can't find anything on it either way. Seems nonsensical

[EoinW]

Seen highlights of Munster and Ulster semis. Alot  of times , no forwards near the goal mouth at all

Maybe they should bring in  2 pointers for  points nearer the goal,  rather than  50+ yards

Might bring the play  , and a bit of excitement, closer to the  goals, which  is what we want to see , is it not?

This current 2 pointer lark  is a huge backward step for the game.

Its obviously going to split opinion and while I'm a traditionalist and think the 2 pointer is somewhat overpowered, it has played its part in teams coming back from behind rapidly, overall I think its worth retaining for the simple fact that prodigiously talented footballers are now given an incentive to showcase that talent than go side to side forever and a day. Its not perfect but its better than before

For some reason the 21st century sporting mind equates more points to mean more excitement.  Thus we see this obsession to create more scoring in all sports.

The Dublin-Meath game displayed the flaws in the 2 point idea.  How does #14 and #15 playing 45 meters from goal benefit the game?

I'll concede the games have been very entertaining.  I can live with most of the rule changes.  Just lose the 2 pointer.  It really doesn't work at all on a windy day.  Plus I don't think artificially inflating scoring should be the objective.

[thewobbler]

Seen highlights of Munster and Ulster semis. Alot  of times , no forwards near the goal mouth at all

Maybe they should bring in  2 pointers for  points nearer the goal,  rather than  50+ yards

Might bring the play  , and a bit of excitement, closer to the  goals, which  is what we want to see , is it not?

This current 2 pointer lark  is a huge backward step for the game.

Its obviously going to split opinion and while I'm a traditionalist and think the 2 pointer is somewhat overpowered, it has played its part in teams coming back from behind rapidly, overall I think its worth retaining for the simple fact that prodigiously talented footballers are now given an incentive to showcase that talent than go side to side forever and a day. Its not perfect but its better than before

For some reason the 21st century sporting mind equates more points to mean more excitement.  Thus we see this obsession to create more scoring in all sports.

The Dublin-Meath game displayed the flaws in the 2 point idea.  How does #14 and #15 playing 45 meters from goal benefit the game?

I'll concede the games have been very entertaining.  I can live with most of the rule changes.  Just lose the 2 pointer.  It really doesn't work at all on a windy day.  Plus I don't think artificially inflating scoring should be the objective.

I don't think that first paragraph is true in the slightest.

What people, I believe, do not want to watch is over coached robots shadow boxing their way through a contest of who can make the fewest mistakes.

That's where we were.

The solution to that problem is to make taking a risk a more attractive proposition than ball retention. The 2 pointer is one of a raft of changes designed to do exactly this.

Naturally we are going to have higher scoring games when more risks are taken.

But I do believe you're confusing symptoms and diagnosis.

[GTP]

Has the two pointer resulted in more scores per game or a higher total score?
And does it lead to more risk? There is still passing along the 45 waiting for space to open up or for someone to take a 2 point shot. There is little risk hitting a 2 point shot wide since the kick out can be pressured and if it falls short you can 'create' a goal chance with a bit of chaos. I'm not convinced it adds anything given the other changed especially 4 back.

[EoinW]

Seen highlights of Munster and Ulster semis. Alot  of times , no forwards near the goal mouth at all

Maybe they should bring in  2 pointers for  points nearer the goal,  rather than  50+ yards

Might bring the play  , and a bit of excitement, closer to the  goals, which  is what we want to see , is it not?

This current 2 pointer lark  is a huge backward step for the game.

Its obviously going to split opinion and while I'm a traditionalist and think the 2 pointer is somewhat overpowered, it has played its part in teams coming back from behind rapidly, overall I think its worth retaining for the simple fact that prodigiously talented footballers are now given an incentive to showcase that talent than go side to side forever and a day. Its not perfect but its better than before

For some reason the 21st century sporting mind equates more points to mean more excitement.  Thus we see this obsession to create more scoring in all sports.

The Dublin-Meath game displayed the flaws in the 2 point idea.  How does #14 and #15 playing 45 meters from goal benefit the game?

I'll concede the games have been very entertaining.  I can live with most of the rule changes.  Just lose the 2 pointer.  It really doesn't work at all on a windy day.  Plus I don't think artificially inflating scoring should be the objective.

I don't think that first paragraph is true in the slightest.

What people, I believe, do not want to watch is over coached robots shadow boxing their way through a contest of who can make the fewest mistakes.

That's where we were.

The solution to that problem is to make taking a risk a more attractive proposition than ball retention. The 2 pointer is one of a raft of changes designed to do exactly this.

Naturally we are going to have higher scoring games when more risks are taken.

But I do believe you're confusing symptoms and diagnosis.

I suspect our sporting background is different.  Mine is North American and in every sport over here - baseball, basketball, football and hockey - rule changes to create more scoring have been going on for decades.  I won't bore you with details.

I 100% agree with you on the over-coaching issue.  I've seen a sport(box lacrosse) ruined by it.  For some cultural reason we got away from the "throw the ball on the pitch and let the players go at it" to control freak coaches/managers manipulating every action of every player.  We're never going back to the old way, therefore the FRC was right to address this issue.

Yes I was wrong but simply guilty of enjoying football in 2024 and taking an "if it ain't broken, don't fix it" attitude.  For lifetime fans, such as the knowledgeable posters here, it was broken and they seem to have done a fine job fixing that.  I'll defer to your opinions on that one.

I disagree with you on the 2 pointer for the simple reason that you are wrong about risk.  Four players recycling the ball outside the arc, waiting for the opening to take a shot, has almost zero risk.  Moving the ball inside to attempt a goal is high risk.  As it only gives one extra point, why take that risk at all?

It is interesting to observe how managers are still "all at sea" when it comes to the new rules.  I'm disturbed by the lack of defence, also by the teams inability to win their kick outs, however I expect managers to eventually get on top of these problems.  They will do what they can to retake control.  It does take time though.

However I stand by my earlier prediction that the 2 pointer will eventually create more problems than positives for the game.  The 3 point shot changed NCAA college basketball completely(and not for the better).  It took a decade for the impact to really hit and by that time the 3 pointer was so established they didn't dare get rid of it.  I'd hate to see the GAA make the same mistake with its 2 pointer.

Two things I can predict with confidence(though I can't say how long before managers adjust) are:

1) games will turn into 2 point shooting contests, with hardly any attempts at goal because it's not worth risking the turnover.

2) teams will begin to defend leads by "taking the air out of the ball".  They'll play the possession game, especially when going into a strong wind or when a man down(black/red card situation).  Maybe not to the Dean Smith "Four Corner Offence" extreme but who knows.

Banning the 2 pointer after this season will avoid these future problems.