Rules Shambles

[orangeman]

Extended whinge of the year award.

John, there may be an important clue in here: "we've been pulled 18 or 19 times in the three games".

You'd have thought the stats man might have told him that before now ! 

[mountainboii]

I see Kieran McGeeney was in the paper yesterday saying that the constantly changing interpretations of rules was making football uncoachable. He called football a game of half rules.

[guevara]

Good article in todays Irish News by Kenny Archer on the topic of "Punishment for Crimes" & how outdated & unfair the GAA's current disciplinary system is!

[Puckoon]

I see Kieran McGeeney was in the paper yesterday saying that the constantly changing interpretations of rules was making football uncoachable. He called football a game of half rules.

Nail on head from Geezer for sure.

[Celt_Man]

I see Kieran McGeeney was in the paper yesterday saying that the constantly changing interpretations of rules was making football uncoachable. He called football a game of half rules.

Which paper was that in?

[mountainboii]

I see Kieran McGeeney was in the paper yesterday saying that the constantly changing interpretations of rules was making football uncoachable. He called football a game of half rules.

Which paper was that in?

Was in the Irish Daily Mail *spit* on Tuesday.

[Oak Leaf Magazine]

Handpass rule is a fuckin joke, lads spend 15 years applying one of the basic facets of the game and then in their 20s they have to change it.

[Rossfan]

Shockin isnt it ?
Next thing they'll be expected to kick the bloody ball 

[EagleLord]

It does do my head in, when a man is coming off your shoulder at pace, you just want to slip it to him, not drive a big fist of a ball through his chest!

[Hardy]

Just pondering the handpass debate - I think anything that works to reverse the development of the running and close-passing game is a good thing. If I want to watch a running competition I'll go to the Cork City Sports. If I want to watch lads handing the ball to each other in a tight circle until one of them drops it, I'll watch basketball.

It's not surprising, in fact it's proper, that coaches should look to develop tactics, often inspired by other sports, to give their team an edge. It's their job to exploit the rules and mould the tactics as far as the rules allow to the advantage of their team. That's how sport works. Conversely, it's the job of the sport's administrators to preserve the ethos of the sport and modify the rules if, in the consensus opinion, they're taking the sport in an undesirable direction. Every sport does this - rugby is an obvious example.

Gaelic football was conceived as a kicking game. Originally and up until the fifties, it was a series of individual contests for possession. There was little effort at combination play. The object was to win your own contest for possession and move the ball forward and rely on your team mate to win his, and so on. That has great attractions as a sporting contest - to me, anyway - and was what distinguished football from the two other great ball sports, each of which also had its attractions. Soccer tactics rely on patterns of movement and passing to create space and scoring opportunities. Rugby relies on a team effort to secure and retain possession until a movement of combined runners gets in position to attempt a score.

GAA coaches saw the obvious potential in improving retention of possession and imported tactics from both rugby and soccer to achieve this – emphasis on precise passing and off the ball running from soccer and support play/concerted movement/availability to receive a handpass from rugby. The obvious effect of years of unchecked development of these tactics, in my opinion anyway, is that there's now too much handpassing and running and not enough kicking and contests for the ball.

I don't think we can or should go back to the 14 individual contests but I'm saying the rules should favour tactics that preserve the essence of the sport. That essence for me includes long accurate kicking and high catching. So we should be actively discouraging excessive use of the hand or fist and reliance on running and rewarding good kicking, catching and long range score taking.

That's what I think anyway.

[blewuporstuffed]

Just pondering the handpass debate - I think anything that works to reverse the development of the running and close-passing game is a good thing. If I want to watch a running competition I'll go to the Cork City Sports. If I want to watch lads handing the ball to each other in a tight circle until one of them drops it, I'll watch basketball.

It's not surprising, in fact it's proper, that coaches should look to develop tactics, often inspired by other sports, to give their team an edge. It's their job to exploit the rules and mould the tactics as far as the rules allow to the advantage of their team. That's how sport works. Conversely, it's the job of the sport's administrators to preserve the ethos of the sport and modify the rules if, in the consensus opinion, they're taking the sport in an undesirable direction. Every sport does this - rugby is an obvious example.

Gaelic football was conceived as a kicking game. Originally and up until the fifties, it was a series of individual contests for possession. There was little effort at combination play. The object was to win your own contest for possession and move the ball forward and rely on your team mate to win his, and so on. That has great attractions as a sporting contest - to me, anyway - and was what distinguished football from the two other great ball sports, each of which also had its attractions. Soccer tactics rely on patterns of movement and passing to create space and scoring opportunities. Rugby relies on a team effort to secure and retain possession until a movement of combined runners gets in position to attempt a score.

GAA coaches saw the obvious potential in improving retention of possession and imported tactics from both rugby and soccer to achieve this – emphasis on precise passing and off the ball running from soccer and support play/concerted movement/availability to receive a handpass from rugby. The obvious effect of years of unchecked development of these tactics, in my opinion anyway, is that there's now too much handpassing and running and not enough kicking and contests for the ball.

I don't think we can or should go back to the 14 individual contests but I'm saying the rules should favour tactics that preserve the essence of the sport. That essence for me includes long accurate kicking and high catching. So we should be actively discouraging excessive use of the hand or fist and reliance on running and rewarding good kicking, catching and long range score taking.

That's what I think anyway.

a better and more thought out argument that the usual 'just ban the bloody handpass altogether' that you usually get in defence of the new rule, but i have to say, I still disagree hardy.
The hand pass is an important part of the modern game, and IMO the modern game is quicker, more skillfull and much better to watch than its counterpart in the era you have mentioned when it was 'series of individual contests for possession'. If i wanted to watch a game like this, i just would watch hurling.
I would much rather  watch a team with support play, intelligent running and retention of the ball than one  just aimlessly hoofing it into a big forward for him and the defender to fight for it.
Thats just the type of football i'd rather watch, but then others seem to be different

[Bogball XV]

Just pondering the handpass debate - I think anything that works to reverse the development of the running and close-passing game is a good thing. If I want to watch a running competition I'll go to the Cork City Sports. If I want to watch lads handing the ball to each other in a tight circle until one of them drops it, I'll watch basketball.

It's not surprising, in fact it's proper, that coaches should look to develop tactics, often inspired by other sports, to give their team an edge. It's their job to exploit the rules and mould the tactics as far as the rules allow to the advantage of their team. That's how sport works. Conversely, it's the job of the sport's administrators to preserve the ethos of the sport and modify the rules if, in the consensus opinion, they're taking the sport in an undesirable direction. Every sport does this - rugby is an obvious example.

Gaelic football was conceived as a kicking game. Originally and up until the fifties, it was a series of individual contests for possession. There was little effort at combination play. The object was to win your own contest for possession and move the ball forward and rely on your team mate to win his, and so on. That has great attractions as a sporting contest - to me, anyway - and was what distinguished football from the two other great ball sports, each of which also had its attractions. Soccer tactics rely on patterns of movement and passing to create space and scoring opportunities. Rugby relies on a team effort to secure and retain possession until a movement of combined runners gets in position to attempt a score.

GAA coaches saw the obvious potential in improving retention of possession and imported tactics from both rugby and soccer to achieve this – emphasis on precise passing and off the ball running from soccer and support play/concerted movement/availability to receive a handpass from rugby. The obvious effect of years of unchecked development of these tactics, in my opinion anyway, is that there's now too much handpassing and running and not enough kicking and contests for the ball.

I don't think we can or should go back to the 14 individual contests but I'm saying the rules should favour tactics that preserve the essence of the sport. That essence for me includes long accurate kicking and high catching. So we should be actively discouraging excessive use of the hand or fist and reliance on running and rewarding good kicking, catching and long range score taking.

That's what I think anyway.

a better and more thought out arguement that the usual 'just ban the bloody handpass altogether' that you usually get in defence of the new rule, but i have to say, i still disagree hardy.
the hand pass is an important part of the modern game, and IMO the modern game is quicker, more skillfull and much better to watch than its counterpart in the eras you have mentioned when it was 'series of individual contests for possession'. if i wanted to watch a game like this, i just would watch hurling.
i would much rather  watch a team support play, intelligent running and retention of the ball that just aimlessly hoofing it into a bif forward for him and the defender to fight for it.
thats just the type of football i'd rather watch, but then others seem to be different

agree, Hardy's post is my nomination for "post of the year", I don't agree with the game he likes at all, but it is the first time that an 'anti basketball' begrudger has described how and why the game developed and why he prefers the old way.

[Hardy]

Just pondering the handpass debate - I think anything that works to reverse the development of the running and close-passing game is a good thing. If I want to watch a running competition I'll go to the Cork City Sports. If I want to watch lads handing the ball to each other in a tight circle until one of them drops it, I'll watch basketball.

It's not surprising, in fact it's proper, that coaches should look to develop tactics, often inspired by other sports, to give their team an edge. It's their job to exploit the rules and mould the tactics as far as the rules allow to the advantage of their team. That's how sport works. Conversely, it's the job of the sport's administrators to preserve the ethos of the sport and modify the rules if, in the consensus opinion, they're taking the sport in an undesirable direction. Every sport does this - rugby is an obvious example.

Gaelic football was conceived as a kicking game. Originally and up until the fifties, it was a series of individual contests for possession. There was little effort at combination play. The object was to win your own contest for possession and move the ball forward and rely on your team mate to win his, and so on. That has great attractions as a sporting contest - to me, anyway - and was what distinguished football from the two other great ball sports, each of which also had its attractions. Soccer tactics rely on patterns of movement and passing to create space and scoring opportunities. Rugby relies on a team effort to secure and retain possession until a movement of combined runners gets in position to attempt a score.

GAA coaches saw the obvious potential in improving retention of possession and imported tactics from both rugby and soccer to achieve this – emphasis on precise passing and off the ball running from soccer and support play/concerted movement/availability to receive a handpass from rugby. The obvious effect of years of unchecked development of these tactics, in my opinion anyway, is that there's now too much handpassing and running and not enough kicking and contests for the ball.

I don't think we can or should go back to the 14 individual contests but I'm saying the rules should favour tactics that preserve the essence of the sport. That essence for me includes long accurate kicking and high catching. So we should be actively discouraging excessive use of the hand or fist and reliance on running and rewarding good kicking, catching and long range score taking.

That's what I think anyway.

a better and more thought out arguement that the usual 'just ban the bloody handpass altogether' that you usually get in defence of the new rule, but i have to say, i still disagree hardy.
the hand pass is an important part of the modern game, and IMO the modern game is quicker, more skillfull and much better to watch than its counterpart in the eras you have mentioned when it was 'series of individual contests for possession'. if i wanted to watch a game like this, i just would watch hurling.
i would much rather  watch a team support play, intelligent running and retention of the ball that just aimlessly hoofing it into a bif forward for him and the defender to fight for it.
thats just the type of football i'd rather watch, but then others seem to be different

agree, Hardy's post is my nomination for "post of the year", I don't agree with the game he likes at all, but it is the first time that an 'anti basketball' begrudger has described how and why the game developed and why he prefers the old way.

Hey!

[Puckoon]

If you have to go up above your head to fetch a ball with a man marking you - then the previous action by your team mate - isnt long accurate kicking Hardy?

Its an atrocious ball that is realistically giving the opposition as much chance to regain possession as it is for you to retain it.
Long accurate kicking (which in my opinion is still evident in todays game, although it is more thought out than previous decades) is the ball into space after a quick break from defence - or the ball into a forwards chest when he is out in front. Not a ball hoofed up into the square and coming down with snow on it.

[Zulu]

I don't think the handpass is the problem in football at all and a well constructed hand passing move at pace is as exhilarating as anything in sport. Nor do I think coaches (in the main) don't want their players kicking the ball, the opposite would be the case I'd argue. Once a team gets to midfield most coaches try to get their team to deliver a ball into their forward line as quickly as possible to avoid a massed defence situation. The problem with football is the tackle and the inconsistent application of the tackle  which, as McGeeney points out makes it nigh on impossible to coach properly.

Although I like to watch a kicking style of football more than a 'running' style, I think the modern game is a far better spectacle than the game of the 70's and 80's. The balance between kicking and carrying the ball may not be quite right but I don't want the game to go down a route where we are all forced to play a particular type of game by the administrators.

Anyway what qualifies Liam Sammon, Anthony Rainbow, John Kiely  , etc. to decide the future direction of football? Instead of these mickey mouse committies there should be a nationwide consultation process (let it take 3 years if needs be) to get an idea of what we want football to be for the next hundred years. Then trial some of these new rules in underage competitions, O'Byrne cups etc. to give them a good chance rather than having to hear IC managers snip at them having seen them only once or twice during a national league. There are numerous low profile IC and club competitions let us try out rule changes there first and if they work we can see how they go in at IC level.