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

[Rossfan]

Most tackles are technically illegal but if refs blew for them all it would be 2 frees a minute.
Then various refs let some of them go and others let others go , then the lorry loads of steps to get past the foul tackle were allowed.......

[David McKeown]

Not sure what's the best way of wording that poll, I've grown with some of the rules from when they first came out..

I'm looking at them as a supporter and as an official, bit confusing but the least enhancement that really doesn't count is the forward mark, very rarely has it been done in all the game I've done so far. 1V1 at midfield players are still grappling for the ball and in occasions the lads that are on the 45 are still able to sprint in and collect the break.

The 3 up and 4 defenders is grand, as a supporter

The limits on using the keeper is great, the keeper should in fact not be outside the large rectangle, hard enough to listen to at the best of times but christ when they are up the pitch they all think they are The Gooch.

Solo and go is good

Kick outs are the same for both teams, learn to win your own ball, if the other team is always winning the ball, then managers need to look at their players

Scoring arc is good, but shouldn't be used for advanced dissent 2 pointers.. 2 pointers if from play only

I'd pretty much agree with all that - definitely agree on 2 pts from dead balls, but I really think not retaining the 4 point goal was a serious misstep.

I'm not a fan of the midfield mark rule and the ensuing 50m penalty for contact either.

I'd agree with some but not all of this.
2 point arc should go - points from outside the 45 for 2pts, meaning exceptional scores are rewarded and the value of a goal is retained. And I've no issue with any of the dissent rules - provided they are consistently applied. I don't like the hand the ball back rule.

Solo and go - keep it. The only rule which I think has added real value and maintains the flow of the game.

3v3 - I dont like. The point of it was to encourage kicking to the forwards and take away the ability to have 15 men behind the ball with lateral play. There has been very little increase in kicking into forwards and the majority of games have lateral play around the new arc with 12 behind the ball. Where is the benefit?

No issue with the keeper rule, and wouldn't have any issue with keeping them in the square (though it starts to feel like soccer). But, with 3v3 and keeper rule together I don't think it works.
Is there part of the rule that stops say, the corner back and gk swapping positions? So the cb steps into goals and lets the keeper play out - can they take a back pass then?

The kick out rule is my single biggest bug bearer. Why shouldn't they be allowed to set up to play to their own strengths with short kicks? Removing that ability removes a huge tactical dimension to the game. For those who say they can't watch teams running the ball from short kicks etc - to use your argument, surely its up to the other team to learn to counter that to win kcickouts? I think we're losing so much from the games in terms of strategy and defensive play.

We can counter your point on the kickout rule that why can't teams compete equally for the ball? Yes teams can press up and eliminate that but 9/10 they don't and christ, as a watcher of games I'm aghast at the allowing of teams to win possession without a glove put on them..

Anyone that moves into nets with another top on is just a player filling in at goal, he though loses his ability of not being tackled in the small square or allowing to pick the ball off the ground within that space, so loses his extras. Plus if someone other than the keeper takes the kickout the keeper has to stay in the square

The other main reason for the 3v3 was to keep players in all parts of the pitch, as we were have blanket defence, 15 behind the ball behind the halfway line

A goalkeeper can be tackled in the small square. He just can't receive a shoulder charge.

They can tackle but, any, and I mean touch that's not on the ball is a free out, as you have rightly said, the only physical tackle allowed in the game never mind just on the keeper in the square is shoulder to shoulder, that's it in a nutshell.

So this is why McColdrick was saying that the tackle isn't an easy thing to define

I think it's yet another example of the problem with the rule book.

The rule book says a keeper may not be charged which is defined but may be challenged. Challenged isn't defined and then to make matters worse the rule book says players may be tackled for the ball but doesn't say what that is or whether or not goal keepers can be tackled. That at the very least could be easily resolved.

[Milltown Row2]

Not sure what's the best way of wording that poll, I've grown with some of the rules from when they first came out..

I'm looking at them as a supporter and as an official, bit confusing but the least enhancement that really doesn't count is the forward mark, very rarely has it been done in all the game I've done so far. 1V1 at midfield players are still grappling for the ball and in occasions the lads that are on the 45 are still able to sprint in and collect the break.

The 3 up and 4 defenders is grand, as a supporter

The limits on using the keeper is great, the keeper should in fact not be outside the large rectangle, hard enough to listen to at the best of times but christ when they are up the pitch they all think they are The Gooch.

Solo and go is good

Kick outs are the same for both teams, learn to win your own ball, if the other team is always winning the ball, then managers need to look at their players

Scoring arc is good, but shouldn't be used for advanced dissent 2 pointers.. 2 pointers if from play only

I'd pretty much agree with all that - definitely agree on 2 pts from dead balls, but I really think not retaining the 4 point goal was a serious misstep.

I'm not a fan of the midfield mark rule and the ensuing 50m penalty for contact either.

I'd agree with some but not all of this.
2 point arc should go - points from outside the 45 for 2pts, meaning exceptional scores are rewarded and the value of a goal is retained. And I've no issue with any of the dissent rules - provided they are consistently applied. I don't like the hand the ball back rule.

Solo and go - keep it. The only rule which I think has added real value and maintains the flow of the game.

3v3 - I dont like. The point of it was to encourage kicking to the forwards and take away the ability to have 15 men behind the ball with lateral play. There has been very little increase in kicking into forwards and the majority of games have lateral play around the new arc with 12 behind the ball. Where is the benefit?

No issue with the keeper rule, and wouldn't have any issue with keeping them in the square (though it starts to feel like soccer). But, with 3v3 and keeper rule together I don't think it works.
Is there part of the rule that stops say, the corner back and gk swapping positions? So the cb steps into goals and lets the keeper play out - can they take a back pass then?

The kick out rule is my single biggest bug bearer. Why shouldn't they be allowed to set up to play to their own strengths with short kicks? Removing that ability removes a huge tactical dimension to the game. For those who say they can't watch teams running the ball from short kicks etc - to use your argument, surely its up to the other team to learn to counter that to win kcickouts? I think we're losing so much from the games in terms of strategy and defensive play.

We can counter your point on the kickout rule that why can't teams compete equally for the ball? Yes teams can press up and eliminate that but 9/10 they don't and christ, as a watcher of games I'm aghast at the allowing of teams to win possession without a glove put on them..

Anyone that moves into nets with another top on is just a player filling in at goal, he though loses his ability of not being tackled in the small square or allowing to pick the ball off the ground within that space, so loses his extras. Plus if someone other than the keeper takes the kickout the keeper has to stay in the square

The other main reason for the 3v3 was to keep players in all parts of the pitch, as we were have blanket defence, 15 behind the ball behind the halfway line

A goalkeeper can be tackled in the small square. He just can't receive a shoulder charge.

They can tackle but, any, and I mean touch that's not on the ball is a free out, as you have rightly said, the only physical tackle allowed in the game never mind just on the keeper in the square is shoulder to shoulder, that's it in a nutshell.

So this is why McColdrick was saying that the tackle isn't an easy thing to define

I think it's yet another example of the problem with the rule book.

The rule book says a keeper may not be charged which is defined but may be challenged. Challenged isn't defined and then to make matters worse the rule book says players may be tackled for the ball but doesn't say what that is or whether or not goal keepers can be tackled. That at the very least could be easily resolved.

It needs to be defined or it doesn't because the day it becomes a non contact sport (unless it's a shoulder on shoulder) then it'll lose its appeal

[David McKeown]

Not sure what's the best way of wording that poll, I've grown with some of the rules from when they first came out..

I'm looking at them as a supporter and as an official, bit confusing but the least enhancement that really doesn't count is the forward mark, very rarely has it been done in all the game I've done so far. 1V1 at midfield players are still grappling for the ball and in occasions the lads that are on the 45 are still able to sprint in and collect the break.

The 3 up and 4 defenders is grand, as a supporter

The limits on using the keeper is great, the keeper should in fact not be outside the large rectangle, hard enough to listen to at the best of times but christ when they are up the pitch they all think they are The Gooch.

Solo and go is good

Kick outs are the same for both teams, learn to win your own ball, if the other team is always winning the ball, then managers need to look at their players

Scoring arc is good, but shouldn't be used for advanced dissent 2 pointers.. 2 pointers if from play only

I'd pretty much agree with all that - definitely agree on 2 pts from dead balls, but I really think not retaining the 4 point goal was a serious misstep.

I'm not a fan of the midfield mark rule and the ensuing 50m penalty for contact either.

I'd agree with some but not all of this.
2 point arc should go - points from outside the 45 for 2pts, meaning exceptional scores are rewarded and the value of a goal is retained. And I've no issue with any of the dissent rules - provided they are consistently applied. I don't like the hand the ball back rule.

Solo and go - keep it. The only rule which I think has added real value and maintains the flow of the game.

3v3 - I dont like. The point of it was to encourage kicking to the forwards and take away the ability to have 15 men behind the ball with lateral play. There has been very little increase in kicking into forwards and the majority of games have lateral play around the new arc with 12 behind the ball. Where is the benefit?

No issue with the keeper rule, and wouldn't have any issue with keeping them in the square (though it starts to feel like soccer). But, with 3v3 and keeper rule together I don't think it works.
Is there part of the rule that stops say, the corner back and gk swapping positions? So the cb steps into goals and lets the keeper play out - can they take a back pass then?

The kick out rule is my single biggest bug bearer. Why shouldn't they be allowed to set up to play to their own strengths with short kicks? Removing that ability removes a huge tactical dimension to the game. For those who say they can't watch teams running the ball from short kicks etc - to use your argument, surely its up to the other team to learn to counter that to win kcickouts? I think we're losing so much from the games in terms of strategy and defensive play.

We can counter your point on the kickout rule that why can't teams compete equally for the ball? Yes teams can press up and eliminate that but 9/10 they don't and christ, as a watcher of games I'm aghast at the allowing of teams to win possession without a glove put on them..

Anyone that moves into nets with another top on is just a player filling in at goal, he though loses his ability of not being tackled in the small square or allowing to pick the ball off the ground within that space, so loses his extras. Plus if someone other than the keeper takes the kickout the keeper has to stay in the square

The other main reason for the 3v3 was to keep players in all parts of the pitch, as we were have blanket defence, 15 behind the ball behind the halfway line

A goalkeeper can be tackled in the small square. He just can't receive a shoulder charge.

They can tackle but, any, and I mean touch that's not on the ball is a free out, as you have rightly said, the only physical tackle allowed in the game never mind just on the keeper in the square is shoulder to shoulder, that's it in a nutshell.

So this is why McColdrick was saying that the tackle isn't an easy thing to define

I think it's yet another example of the problem with the rule book.

The rule book says a keeper may not be charged which is defined but may be challenged. Challenged isn't defined and then to make matters worse the rule book says players may be tackled for the ball but doesn't say what that is or whether or not goal keepers can be tackled. That at the very least could be easily resolved.

It needs to be defined or it doesn't because the day it becomes a non contact sport (unless it's a shoulder on shoulder) then it'll lose its appeal

Agreed I have no idea what the difference between a tackle and a challenge is.

[Main Street]

Not sure what's the best way of wording that poll, I've grown with some of the rules from when they first came out..

I'm looking at them as a supporter and as an official, bit confusing but the least enhancement that really doesn't count is the forward mark, very rarely has it been done in all the game I've done so far. 1V1 at midfield players are still grappling for the ball and in occasions the lads that are on the 45 are still able to sprint in and collect the break.

The 3 up and 4 defenders is grand, as a supporter

The limits on using the keeper is great, the keeper should in fact not be outside the large rectangle, hard enough to listen to at the best of times but christ when they are up the pitch they all think they are The Gooch.

Solo and go is good

Kick outs are the same for both teams, learn to win your own ball, if the other team is always winning the ball, then managers need to look at their players

Scoring arc is good, but shouldn't be used for advanced dissent 2 pointers.. 2 pointers if from play only

I'd pretty much agree with all that - definitely agree on 2 pts from dead balls, but I really think not retaining the 4 point goal was a serious misstep.

I'm not a fan of the midfield mark rule and the ensuing 50m penalty for contact either.

I'd agree with some but not all of this.
2 point arc should go - points from outside the 45 for 2pts, meaning exceptional scores are rewarded and the value of a goal is retained. And I've no issue with any of the dissent rules - provided they are consistently applied. I don't like the hand the ball back rule.

Solo and go - keep it. The only rule which I think has added real value and maintains the flow of the game.

3v3 - I dont like. The point of it was to encourage kicking to the forwards and take away the ability to have 15 men behind the ball with lateral play. There has been very little increase in kicking into forwards and the majority of games have lateral play around the new arc with 12 behind the ball. Where is the benefit?

No issue with the keeper rule, and wouldn't have any issue with keeping them in the square (though it starts to feel like soccer). But, with 3v3 and keeper rule together I don't think it works.
Is there part of the rule that stops say, the corner back and gk swapping positions? So the cb steps into goals and lets the keeper play out - can they take a back pass then?

The kick out rule is my single biggest bug bearer. Why shouldn't they be allowed to set up to play to their own strengths with short kicks? Removing that ability removes a huge tactical dimension to the game. For those who say they can't watch teams running the ball from short kicks etc - to use your argument, surely its up to the other team to learn to counter that to win kcickouts? I think we're losing so much from the games in terms of strategy and defensive play.

We can counter your point on the kickout rule that why can't teams compete equally for the ball? Yes teams can press up and eliminate that but 9/10 they don't and christ, as a watcher of games I'm aghast at the allowing of teams to win possession without a glove put on them..

Anyone that moves into nets with another top on is just a player filling in at goal, he though loses his ability of not being tackled in the small square or allowing to pick the ball off the ground within that space, so loses his extras. Plus if someone other than the keeper takes the kickout the keeper has to stay in the square

The other main reason for the 3v3 was to keep players in all parts of the pitch, as we were have blanket defence, 15 behind the ball behind the halfway line

A goalkeeper can be tackled in the small square. He just can't receive a shoulder charge.

They can tackle but, any, and I mean touch that's not on the ball is a free out, as you have rightly said, the only physical tackle allowed in the game never mind just on the keeper in the square is shoulder to shoulder, that's it in a nutshell.

So this is why McColdrick was saying that the tackle isn't an easy thing to define

I think it's yet another example of the problem with the rule book.

The rule book says a keeper may not be charged which is defined but may be challenged. Challenged isn't defined and then to make matters worse the rule book says players may be tackled for the ball but doesn't say what that is or whether or not goal keepers can be tackled. That at the very least could be easily resolved.

It needs to be defined or it doesn't because the day it becomes a non contact sport (unless it's a shoulder on shoulder) then it'll lose its appeal

Agreed I have no idea what the difference between a tackle and a challenge is.

I think it's clear enough if it's referring to action inside the "square" where the goalie is a protected species. An opposition player can challenge the goalie for possession of the ball, as in to try and out-jump/out-catch the goalie to the ball, but you can't tackle him (according to definition of the tackle) once he has possession of the ball.  Remember that incident with Rory Beggan  V Cavan or Fermanagh when attempting to catch or punch  a high dropping ball under the goalpost, he was challenged by an opposition player who hit the ball into the net. The challenge looked fair, Rory was simply outfoxed, alas the ref disallowed the goal and Monaghan held on for victory. In most peoples opinion the ref got it wrong.   

[David McKeown]

Not sure what's the best way of wording that poll, I've grown with some of the rules from when they first came out..

I'm looking at them as a supporter and as an official, bit confusing but the least enhancement that really doesn't count is the forward mark, very rarely has it been done in all the game I've done so far. 1V1 at midfield players are still grappling for the ball and in occasions the lads that are on the 45 are still able to sprint in and collect the break.

The 3 up and 4 defenders is grand, as a supporter

The limits on using the keeper is great, the keeper should in fact not be outside the large rectangle, hard enough to listen to at the best of times but christ when they are up the pitch they all think they are The Gooch.

Solo and go is good

Kick outs are the same for both teams, learn to win your own ball, if the other team is always winning the ball, then managers need to look at their players

Scoring arc is good, but shouldn't be used for advanced dissent 2 pointers.. 2 pointers if from play only

I'd pretty much agree with all that - definitely agree on 2 pts from dead balls, but I really think not retaining the 4 point goal was a serious misstep.

I'm not a fan of the midfield mark rule and the ensuing 50m penalty for contact either.

I'd agree with some but not all of this.
2 point arc should go - points from outside the 45 for 2pts, meaning exceptional scores are rewarded and the value of a goal is retained. And I've no issue with any of the dissent rules - provided they are consistently applied. I don't like the hand the ball back rule.

Solo and go - keep it. The only rule which I think has added real value and maintains the flow of the game.

3v3 - I dont like. The point of it was to encourage kicking to the forwards and take away the ability to have 15 men behind the ball with lateral play. There has been very little increase in kicking into forwards and the majority of games have lateral play around the new arc with 12 behind the ball. Where is the benefit?

No issue with the keeper rule, and wouldn't have any issue with keeping them in the square (though it starts to feel like soccer). But, with 3v3 and keeper rule together I don't think it works.
Is there part of the rule that stops say, the corner back and gk swapping positions? So the cb steps into goals and lets the keeper play out - can they take a back pass then?

The kick out rule is my single biggest bug bearer. Why shouldn't they be allowed to set up to play to their own strengths with short kicks? Removing that ability removes a huge tactical dimension to the game. For those who say they can't watch teams running the ball from short kicks etc - to use your argument, surely its up to the other team to learn to counter that to win kcickouts? I think we're losing so much from the games in terms of strategy and defensive play.

We can counter your point on the kickout rule that why can't teams compete equally for the ball? Yes teams can press up and eliminate that but 9/10 they don't and christ, as a watcher of games I'm aghast at the allowing of teams to win possession without a glove put on them..

Anyone that moves into nets with another top on is just a player filling in at goal, he though loses his ability of not being tackled in the small square or allowing to pick the ball off the ground within that space, so loses his extras. Plus if someone other than the keeper takes the kickout the keeper has to stay in the square

The other main reason for the 3v3 was to keep players in all parts of the pitch, as we were have blanket defence, 15 behind the ball behind the halfway line

A goalkeeper can be tackled in the small square. He just can't receive a shoulder charge.

They can tackle but, any, and I mean touch that's not on the ball is a free out, as you have rightly said, the only physical tackle allowed in the game never mind just on the keeper in the square is shoulder to shoulder, that's it in a nutshell.

So this is why McColdrick was saying that the tackle isn't an easy thing to define

I think it's yet another example of the problem with the rule book.

The rule book says a keeper may not be charged which is defined but may be challenged. Challenged isn't defined and then to make matters worse the rule book says players may be tackled for the ball but doesn't say what that is or whether or not goal keepers can be tackled. That at the very least could be easily resolved.

It needs to be defined or it doesn't because the day it becomes a non contact sport (unless it's a shoulder on shoulder) then it'll lose its appeal

Agreed I have no idea what the difference between a tackle and a challenge is.

I think it's clear enough if it's referring to action inside the "square" where the goalie is a protected species. An opposition player can challenge the goalie for possession of the ball, as in to try and out-jump/out-catch the goalie to the ball, but you can't tackle him (according to definition of the tackle) once he has possession of the ball.  Remember that incident with Rory Beggan  V Cavan or Fermanagh when attempting to catch or punch  a high dropping ball under the goalpost, he was challenged by an opposition player who hit the ball into the net. The challenge looked fair, Rory was simply outfoxed, alas the ref disallowed the goal and Monaghan held on for victory. In most peoples opinion the ref got it wrong.   

I'm not sure that's right though. In that scenario it should say may not be tackled but may be challenged. It specifically doesn't say that. It only bans the charge which is defined.

[Main Street]

Not sure what's the best way of wording that poll, I've grown with some of the rules from when they first came out..

I'm looking at them as a supporter and as an official, bit confusing but the least enhancement that really doesn't count is the forward mark, very rarely has it been done in all the game I've done so far. 1V1 at midfield players are still grappling for the ball and in occasions the lads that are on the 45 are still able to sprint in and collect the break.

The 3 up and 4 defenders is grand, as a supporter

The limits on using the keeper is great, the keeper should in fact not be outside the large rectangle, hard enough to listen to at the best of times but christ when they are up the pitch they all think they are The Gooch.

Solo and go is good

Kick outs are the same for both teams, learn to win your own ball, if the other team is always winning the ball, then managers need to look at their players

Scoring arc is good, but shouldn't be used for advanced dissent 2 pointers.. 2 pointers if from play only

I'd pretty much agree with all that - definitely agree on 2 pts from dead balls, but I really think not retaining the 4 point goal was a serious misstep.

I'm not a fan of the midfield mark rule and the ensuing 50m penalty for contact either.

I'd agree with some but not all of this.
2 point arc should go - points from outside the 45 for 2pts, meaning exceptional scores are rewarded and the value of a goal is retained. And I've no issue with any of the dissent rules - provided they are consistently applied. I don't like the hand the ball back rule.

Solo and go - keep it. The only rule which I think has added real value and maintains the flow of the game.

3v3 - I dont like. The point of it was to encourage kicking to the forwards and take away the ability to have 15 men behind the ball with lateral play. There has been very little increase in kicking into forwards and the majority of games have lateral play around the new arc with 12 behind the ball. Where is the benefit?

No issue with the keeper rule, and wouldn't have any issue with keeping them in the square (though it starts to feel like soccer). But, with 3v3 and keeper rule together I don't think it works.
Is there part of the rule that stops say, the corner back and gk swapping positions? So the cb steps into goals and lets the keeper play out - can they take a back pass then?

The kick out rule is my single biggest bug bearer. Why shouldn't they be allowed to set up to play to their own strengths with short kicks? Removing that ability removes a huge tactical dimension to the game. For those who say they can't watch teams running the ball from short kicks etc - to use your argument, surely its up to the other team to learn to counter that to win kcickouts? I think we're losing so much from the games in terms of strategy and defensive play.

We can counter your point on the kickout rule that why can't teams compete equally for the ball? Yes teams can press up and eliminate that but 9/10 they don't and christ, as a watcher of games I'm aghast at the allowing of teams to win possession without a glove put on them..

Anyone that moves into nets with another top on is just a player filling in at goal, he though loses his ability of not being tackled in the small square or allowing to pick the ball off the ground within that space, so loses his extras. Plus if someone other than the keeper takes the kickout the keeper has to stay in the square

The other main reason for the 3v3 was to keep players in all parts of the pitch, as we were have blanket defence, 15 behind the ball behind the halfway line

A goalkeeper can be tackled in the small square. He just can't receive a shoulder charge.

They can tackle but, any, and I mean touch that's not on the ball is a free out, as you have rightly said, the only physical tackle allowed in the game never mind just on the keeper in the square is shoulder to shoulder, that's it in a nutshell.

So this is why McColdrick was saying that the tackle isn't an easy thing to define

I think it's yet another example of the problem with the rule book.

The rule book says a keeper may not be charged which is defined but may be challenged. Challenged isn't defined and then to make matters worse the rule book says players may be tackled for the ball but doesn't say what that is or whether or not goal keepers can be tackled. That at the very least could be easily resolved.

It needs to be defined or it doesn't because the day it becomes a non contact sport (unless it's a shoulder on shoulder) then it'll lose its appeal

Agreed I have no idea what the difference between a tackle and a challenge is.

I think it's clear enough if it's referring to action inside the "square" where the goalie is a protected species. An opposition player can challenge the goalie for possession of the ball, as in to try and out-jump/out-catch the goalie to the ball, but you can't tackle him (according to definition of the tackle) once he has possession of the ball.  Remember that incident with Rory Beggan  V Cavan or Fermanagh when attempting to catch or punch  a high dropping ball under the goalpost, he was challenged by an opposition player who hit the ball into the net. The challenge looked fair, Rory was simply outfoxed, alas the ref disallowed the goal and Monaghan held on for victory. In most peoples opinion the ref got it wrong.   

I'm not sure that's right though. In that scenario it should say may not be tackled but may be challenged. It specifically doesn't say that. It only bans the charge which is defined.

I´m more right as to how the game has been played for decades, as to how refs apply the law, de facto vs de jure. Refs might not punish the half foul or the 3/4 foul (Dubs?) in general play, but if an opposition player attempts to "tackle" as in  slap  a goalie inside the square - its a foul.
In any sporting definition, 'contest possession' will have a different meaning than 'tackle' the goalie in possession.
Even in soccer the refs apply de facto rules, the goalkeeper gets protected, a protection which is clearly undefined but understood just the same.

[David McKeown]

Not sure what's the best way of wording that poll, I've grown with some of the rules from when they first came out..

I'm looking at them as a supporter and as an official, bit confusing but the least enhancement that really doesn't count is the forward mark, very rarely has it been done in all the game I've done so far. 1V1 at midfield players are still grappling for the ball and in occasions the lads that are on the 45 are still able to sprint in and collect the break.

The 3 up and 4 defenders is grand, as a supporter

The limits on using the keeper is great, the keeper should in fact not be outside the large rectangle, hard enough to listen to at the best of times but christ when they are up the pitch they all think they are The Gooch.

Solo and go is good

Kick outs are the same for both teams, learn to win your own ball, if the other team is always winning the ball, then managers need to look at their players

Scoring arc is good, but shouldn't be used for advanced dissent 2 pointers.. 2 pointers if from play only

I'd pretty much agree with all that - definitely agree on 2 pts from dead balls, but I really think not retaining the 4 point goal was a serious misstep.

I'm not a fan of the midfield mark rule and the ensuing 50m penalty for contact either.

I'd agree with some but not all of this.
2 point arc should go - points from outside the 45 for 2pts, meaning exceptional scores are rewarded and the value of a goal is retained. And I've no issue with any of the dissent rules - provided they are consistently applied. I don't like the hand the ball back rule.

Solo and go - keep it. The only rule which I think has added real value and maintains the flow of the game.

3v3 - I dont like. The point of it was to encourage kicking to the forwards and take away the ability to have 15 men behind the ball with lateral play. There has been very little increase in kicking into forwards and the majority of games have lateral play around the new arc with 12 behind the ball. Where is the benefit?

No issue with the keeper rule, and wouldn't have any issue with keeping them in the square (though it starts to feel like soccer). But, with 3v3 and keeper rule together I don't think it works.
Is there part of the rule that stops say, the corner back and gk swapping positions? So the cb steps into goals and lets the keeper play out - can they take a back pass then?

The kick out rule is my single biggest bug bearer. Why shouldn't they be allowed to set up to play to their own strengths with short kicks? Removing that ability removes a huge tactical dimension to the game. For those who say they can't watch teams running the ball from short kicks etc - to use your argument, surely its up to the other team to learn to counter that to win kcickouts? I think we're losing so much from the games in terms of strategy and defensive play.

We can counter your point on the kickout rule that why can't teams compete equally for the ball? Yes teams can press up and eliminate that but 9/10 they don't and christ, as a watcher of games I'm aghast at the allowing of teams to win possession without a glove put on them..

Anyone that moves into nets with another top on is just a player filling in at goal, he though loses his ability of not being tackled in the small square or allowing to pick the ball off the ground within that space, so loses his extras. Plus if someone other than the keeper takes the kickout the keeper has to stay in the square

The other main reason for the 3v3 was to keep players in all parts of the pitch, as we were have blanket defence, 15 behind the ball behind the halfway line

A goalkeeper can be tackled in the small square. He just can't receive a shoulder charge.

They can tackle but, any, and I mean touch that's not on the ball is a free out, as you have rightly said, the only physical tackle allowed in the game never mind just on the keeper in the square is shoulder to shoulder, that's it in a nutshell.

So this is why McColdrick was saying that the tackle isn't an easy thing to define

I think it's yet another example of the problem with the rule book.

The rule book says a keeper may not be charged which is defined but may be challenged. Challenged isn't defined and then to make matters worse the rule book says players may be tackled for the ball but doesn't say what that is or whether or not goal keepers can be tackled. That at the very least could be easily resolved.

It needs to be defined or it doesn't because the day it becomes a non contact sport (unless it's a shoulder on shoulder) then it'll lose its appeal

Agreed I have no idea what the difference between a tackle and a challenge is.

I think it's clear enough if it's referring to action inside the "square" where the goalie is a protected species. An opposition player can challenge the goalie for possession of the ball, as in to try and out-jump/out-catch the goalie to the ball, but you can't tackle him (according to definition of the tackle) once he has possession of the ball.  Remember that incident with Rory Beggan  V Cavan or Fermanagh when attempting to catch or punch  a high dropping ball under the goalpost, he was challenged by an opposition player who hit the ball into the net. The challenge looked fair, Rory was simply outfoxed, alas the ref disallowed the goal and Monaghan held on for victory. In most peoples opinion the ref got it wrong.   

I'm not sure that's right though. In that scenario it should say may not be tackled but may be challenged. It specifically doesn't say that. It only bans the charge which is defined.

I´m more right as to how the game has been played for decades, as to how refs apply the law, de facto vs de jure. Refs might not punish the half foul or the 3/4 foul (Dubs?) in general play, but if an opposition player attempts to "tackle" as in  slap  a goalie inside the square - its a foul.
In any sporting definition, 'contest possession' will have a different meaning than 'tackle' the goalie in possession.
Even in soccer the refs apply de facto rules, the goalkeeper gets protected, a protection which is clearly undefined but understood just the same.

I agree entirely. The point I'm making is that this is another example of where the rule book doesn't assist. Most referees will blow immediately for a touch on a keeper. They probably shouldn't though (going by the rule book) and those that don't whilst correct tend to get the most criticism.

Refereeing is a hard enough job particularly at the top level which is now arguably too big, too fast and too professional for a single amateur referee. They need all the help they can get and issues such as this and the hooter rule could be easily clarified which would assist just a little.

[David McKeown]

Ironically there was a point from a keeper being tackled in the small square.

[JoG2]

Ironically there was a point from a keeper being tackled in the small square.

Should have been a free out. Keeper can be tackled in the small square but not shoulder charged

[David McKeown]

Ironically there was a point from a keeper being tackled in the small square.

Should have been a free out. Keeper can be tackled in the small square but not shoulder charged

He wasn't shoulder charged. There was a 45 incorrectly given to Clare following a clear charge but I was referring to the Kerry score after there was a tackle on the keeper which Main Street and myself were agreeing is almost always given as a free out.

[AustinPowers]

Surely this 2 pointer  "touch" thing needs removing ASAP?

Clearly  nobody could tell whether the ball was over the bar before the Galway keeper got a  touch? 

They scrapped  the Anthony Nash  penalty  mid season , so surely they can do likewise here?

[Rossfan]

The word is there won't be further "tweaks".
Any such will have to wait for the Special Congress.

[AustinPowers]

The word is there won't be further "tweaks".
Any such will have to wait for the Special Congress.

Yet they could change  and remove  rules at will,  week on week during the league? 

[Rossfan]

It's only th'oul League