Donegal v Meath R4 NFL Mac Cumhaill Park, Ballyboyey 9/3/2014 @ 2:00pm

[Hardy]

Well put it like this. I'm a coach, and I'll be coaching my players, from #2 to #15,  in the art of defending the ball. Near hand in, getting down on a lads foot to block, staying goalside when the attacker has the ball, anticipation and reading the game. All what I would call old school defending. In my mind this bolloxology of grabbing lads and dragging them down is not manly, and is not something that should be hankered after as some sort of golden age of defending. What it did was erode actual good defending technique, because it became easier to be a pure spoiler and lads basically fouled with impugnity out the field, and often took the lazy way out.

I think eliminating that from the game is a good thing. And if our defenders are suddenly unable to defend fairly, then it shows how much they were relying on the shitehawkery.

I don't think eliminating the drag down, the trip or the off the ball body check is reducing the manliness in the game. I think it is forcing you to play like a real man.

I couldn't disagree with much of that, AZ. But if it was meant as a rebuttal of what I said, I think we're talking about different things.

My point is that refereeing standards are miserable. The only consistent thing about them is their awfulness. The rules were fine but were rarely applied properly, consistently or, sometimes, at all.  Last year's classic semi-final was under the old rules, remember.

All the new rules contribute is more opportunities for referees to make mistakes. (That is apart from the advantage rule, which is good, though predictably wildly differently interpreted by referees.) And, not unexpectedly, the mistakes they make are biased against defenders. Hence the cricket scores we're seeing now.

The definition of the tackle has not changed. It was always a tackle on the ball and not the man. The "near hand" stuff is just shite. It's just a directive and it's clearly designed to prevent incidental contact in the tackle. There was never anything wrong with incidental contact if the object was the ball. Now it's effectively outlawed, and even where it would have been allowed, players won't chance it because, nine times out of ten, they'll be blown.

Hence the ridiculous spectacle, that never existed in our game (and still doesn't in hurling - but of course hurling doesn't need cleaning up), of lads pirouetting and holding their hands up as players run past to show they're not making contact. It's not football and I hate it. The full-blooded collision, incidental to the contest for the ball, was central to the game. Now it's gone in a wrong-headed attempt to solve a problem that didn't exist, with the wrong solution and with the effect of turning the game into a farce.

If we think we're seeing some nonsensical scorelines in the league,  where teams are somewhat evenly  matched, look out for the Championship, when Dublin attackers meet Carlow defenders who are not allowed to defend.

[seafoid]

Only one thing left to say........
........take it away Doris http://youtu.be/yVuEC3r7a-o

What about Gloria 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBR2G-iI3-I

Meath could just grant Donegal a walkover and go on a spa weekend

[Main Street]

If we have our first 15 available we can physically compete with most teams come championship.
However, there is a massive drop-off in terms of conditioning when you look at the fringe players.
I watched the highlights of Dublin vs. Cork and Kildare vs. Tyrone.
All the subs coming on were strong, fast and of a particular body type.
We have lads coming on with their jersey billowing in the wind.
In all the serious football powers now, any club player worth his salt knows what he has to do to get into his county squad.
He has to walk the walk basically.
We somehow manage to carry players that exhibit no discernible physical development despite being on the panel for a couple of years.
In my opinion, that's largely down to the players themselves.
And before anyone starts going on about gym monkeys, Dublin have the best footballers AND the best athletes.
It's not a zero sum game.

If that game against Armagh was a fair indication of where Meath are at, then a good place to start would be with the basic match fitness levels, stamina not muscle.
Meath just gradually  disappeared from view in the last 15 minutes, I think I saw some players at the edge of the screen, actually bent over gasping for air.

[AZOffaly]

Well put it like this. I'm a coach, and I'll be coaching my players, from #2 to #15,  in the art of defending the ball. Near hand in, getting down on a lads foot to block, staying goalside when the attacker has the ball, anticipation and reading the game. All what I would call old school defending. In my mind this bolloxology of grabbing lads and dragging them down is not manly, and is not something that should be hankered after as some sort of golden age of defending. What it did was erode actual good defending technique, because it became easier to be a pure spoiler and lads basically fouled with impugnity out the field, and often took the lazy way out.

I think eliminating that from the game is a good thing. And if our defenders are suddenly unable to defend fairly, then it shows how much they were relying on the shitehawkery.

I don't think eliminating the drag down, the trip or the off the ball body check is reducing the manliness in the game. I think it is forcing you to play like a real man.

I couldn't disagree with much of that, AZ. But if it was meant as a rebuttal of what I said, I think we're talking about different things.

My point is that refereeing standards are miserable. The only consistent thing about them is their awfulness. The rules were fine but were rarely applied properly, consistently or, sometimes, at all.  Last year's classic semi-final was under the old rules, remember.

All the new rules contribute is more opportunities for referees to make mistakes. (That is apart from the advantage rule, which is good, though predictably wildly differently interpreted by referees.) And, not unexpectedly, the mistakes they make are biased against defenders. Hence the cricket scores we're seeing now.

The definition of the tackle has not changed. It was always a tackle on the ball and not the man. The "near hand" stuff is just shite. It's just a directive and it's clearly designed to prevent incidental contact in the tackle. There was never anything wrong with incidental contact if the object was the ball. Now it's effectively outlawed, and even where it would have been allowed, players won't chance it because, nine times out of ten, they'll be blown.

Hence the ridiculous spectacle, that never existed in our game (and still doesn't in hurling - but of course hurling doesn't need cleaning up), of lads pirouetting and holding their hands up as players run past to show they're not making contact. It's not football and I hate it. The full-blooded collision, incidental to the contest for the ball, was central to the game. Now it's gone in a wrong-headed attempt to solve a problem that didn't exist, with the wrong solution and with the effect of turning the game into a farce.

If we think we're seeing some nonsensical scorelines in the league,  where teams are somewhat evenly  matched, look out for the Championship, when Dublin attackers meet Carlow defenders who are not allowed to defend.

Not sure what you mean by that Hardy. The 'near hand' stuff is not a directive by anyone, it's just acknowledged as best practice/technique. If you are running side by side with a ball carrier, use your near hand to dispossess him because if you reach over with your outside hand you are a) off balance, b) liable to give away a free because you will tend to grab at him, and c) easier to turn if I sidestep behind you.

A good defender, who can run with a man carrying a ball, has a great chance to dispossess or force an overcarrying foul because the ball carrier has to hop the ball or solo it every 4 steps. Someone who is proficient at the near hand technique will have opportunities to dispossess or disrupt the ball carrier. That's good defending in my view.

In the same situation, if the defender graps 8 inches of real estate from the back of the jersey, or deliberately trips him up, that's not good defending. That's lazy, poor technique, cynicism, tiredness or a combination of all 4.

[macdanger2]

incidental contact in the tackle t

Is that code for flaking someone out of it and pretending you're going for the ball?? 

[Jinxy]

If we have our first 15 available we can physically compete with most teams come championship.
However, there is a massive drop-off in terms of conditioning when you look at the fringe players.
I watched the highlights of Dublin vs. Cork and Kildare vs. Tyrone.
All the subs coming on were strong, fast and of a particular body type.
We have lads coming on with their jersey billowing in the wind.
In all the serious football powers now, any club player worth his salt knows what he has to do to get into his county squad.
He has to walk the walk basically.
We somehow manage to carry players that exhibit no discernible physical development despite being on the panel for a couple of years.
In my opinion, that's largely down to the players themselves.
And before anyone starts going on about gym monkeys, Dublin have the best footballers AND the best athletes.
It's not a zero sum game.

If that game against Armagh was a fair indication of where Meath are at, then a good place to start would be with the basic match fitness levels, stamina not muscle.
Meath just gradually  disappeared from view in the last 15 minutes, I think I saw some players at the edge of the screen, actually bent over gasping for air.

Sure we are probably in the middle of our 'heavy training'.

[Rossfan]

Well put it like this. I'm a coach, and I'll be coaching my players, from #2 to #15,  in the art of defending the ball. Near hand in, getting down on a lads foot to block, staying goalside when the attacker has the ball, anticipation and reading the game. All what I would call old school defending. In my mind this bolloxology of grabbing lads and dragging them down is not manly, and is not something that should be hankered after as some sort of golden age of defending. What it did was erode actual good defending technique, because it became easier to be a pure spoiler and lads basically fouled with impugnity out the field, and often took the lazy way out.

I think eliminating that from the game is a good thing. And if our defenders are suddenly unable to defend fairly, then it shows how much they were relying on the shitehawkery.

I don't think eliminating the drag down, the trip or the off the ball body check is reducing the manliness in the game. I think it is forcing you to play like a real man.

I couldn't disagree with much of that, AZ. But if it was meant as a rebuttal of what I said, I think we're talking about different things.

My point is that refereeing standards are miserable. The only consistent thing about them is their awfulness. The rules were fine but were rarely applied properly, consistently or, sometimes, at all.  Last year's classic semi-final was under the old rules, remember.

All the new rules contribute is more opportunities for referees to make mistakes. (That is apart from the advantage rule, which is good, though predictably wildly differently interpreted by referees.) And, not unexpectedly, the mistakes they make are biased against defenders. Hence the cricket scores we're seeing now.

The definition of the tackle has not changed. It was always a tackle on the ball and not the man. The "near hand" stuff is just shite. It's just a directive and it's clearly designed to prevent incidental contact in the tackle. There was never anything wrong with incidental contact if the object was the ball. Now it's effectively outlawed, and even where it would have been allowed, players won't chance it because, nine times out of ten, they'll be blown.

Hence the ridiculous spectacle, that never existed in our game (and still doesn't in hurling - but of course hurling doesn't need cleaning up), of lads pirouetting and holding their hands up as players run past to show they're not making contact. It's not football and I hate it. The full-blooded collision, incidental to the contest for the ball, was central to the game. Now it's gone in a wrong-headed attempt to solve a problem that didn't exist, with the wrong solution and with the effect of turning the game into a farce.

If we think we're seeing some nonsensical scorelines in the league,  where teams are somewhat evenly  matched, look out for the Championship, when Dublin attackers meet Carlow defenders who are not allowed to defend.

Not sure what you mean by that Hardy. The 'near hand' stuff is not a directive by anyone, it's just acknowledged as best practice/technique. If you are running side by side with a ball carrier, use your near hand to dispossess him because if you reach over with your outside hand you are a) off balance, b) liable to give away a free because you will tend to grab at him, and c) easier to turn if I sidestep behind you.

A good defender, who can run with a man carrying a ball, has a great chance to dispossess or force an overcarrying foul because the ball carrier has to hop the ball or solo it every 4 steps. Someone who is proficient at the near hand technique will have opportunities to dispossess or disrupt the ball carrier. That's good defending in my view.

In the same situation, if the defender graps 8 inches of real estate from the back of the jersey, or deliberately trips him up, that's not good defending. That's lazy, poor technique, cynicism, tiredness or a combination of all 4.

If only that were applied...... Defenders would have some chance.
However refs tend not to count any steps taken while a lad is being tackled in any shape or form.
Too lazy to look up the rule but I doubt if it says steps taken while being tackled don't count?

[Asal Mor]

If only that were applied...... Defenders would have some chance.
However refs tend not to count any steps taken while a lad is being tackled in any shape or form.
Too lazy to look up the rule but I doubt if it says steps taken while being tackled don't count?

That's a good point Rossfan. They do usually wait until the player has broken the tackle and start counting again.

[Rossfan]

1.4 When a player is in possession of the ball, it
may be:-
(a) carried for a maximum of four consecutive
steps or held in the hand(s) for no longer
than the time needed to take four steps;
(b) played from the foot to the hand(s) -toetapped;
(c) bounced once, and once after each toetap;
(d) changed from one hand to the other once,
with the original holding hand maintaining
contact until the change is completed;
(e) played away with:
(i) a fist
(ii) an open hand-in which instance there
shall be a definite underhand striking
action
(f) released for a kick, a toe-tap or a pass with
a fist or an open hand.
The ball may be knocked from an opponent's
hand(s) by flicking it with the open hand.

RULE 4 - TECHNICAL FOULS
4.1 To overcarry or overhold the ball.

[Hardy]

Well put it like this. I'm a coach, and I'll be coaching my players, from #2 to #15,  in the art of defending the ball. Near hand in, getting down on a lads foot to block, staying goalside when the attacker has the ball, anticipation and reading the game. All what I would call old school defending. In my mind this bolloxology of grabbing lads and dragging them down is not manly, and is not something that should be hankered after as some sort of golden age of defending. What it did was erode actual good defending technique, because it became easier to be a pure spoiler and lads basically fouled with impugnity out the field, and often took the lazy way out.

I think eliminating that from the game is a good thing. And if our defenders are suddenly unable to defend fairly, then it shows how much they were relying on the shitehawkery.

I don't think eliminating the drag down, the trip or the off the ball body check is reducing the manliness in the game. I think it is forcing you to play like a real man.

I couldn't disagree with much of that, AZ. But if it was meant as a rebuttal of what I said, I think we're talking about different things.

My point is that refereeing standards are miserable. The only consistent thing about them is their awfulness. The rules were fine but were rarely applied properly, consistently or, sometimes, at all.  Last year's classic semi-final was under the old rules, remember.

All the new rules contribute is more opportunities for referees to make mistakes. (That is apart from the advantage rule, which is good, though predictably wildly differently interpreted by referees.) And, not unexpectedly, the mistakes they make are biased against defenders. Hence the cricket scores we're seeing now.

The definition of the tackle has not changed. It was always a tackle on the ball and not the man. The "near hand" stuff is just shite. It's just a directive and it's clearly designed to prevent incidental contact in the tackle. There was never anything wrong with incidental contact if the object was the ball. Now it's effectively outlawed, and even where it would have been allowed, players won't chance it because, nine times out of ten, they'll be blown.

Hence the ridiculous spectacle, that never existed in our game (and still doesn't in hurling - but of course hurling doesn't need cleaning up), of lads pirouetting and holding their hands up as players run past to show they're not making contact. It's not football and I hate it. The full-blooded collision, incidental to the contest for the ball, was central to the game. Now it's gone in a wrong-headed attempt to solve a problem that didn't exist, with the wrong solution and with the effect of turning the game into a farce.

If we think we're seeing some nonsensical scorelines in the league,  where teams are somewhat evenly  matched, look out for the Championship, when Dublin attackers meet Carlow defenders who are not allowed to defend.

Not sure what you mean by that Hardy. The 'near hand' stuff is not a directive by anyone, it's just acknowledged as best practice/technique. If you are running side by side with a ball carrier, use your near hand to dispossess him because if you reach over with your outside hand you are a) off balance, b) liable to give away a free because you will tend to grab at him, and c) easier to turn if I sidestep behind you.

A good defender, who can run with a man carrying a ball, has a great chance to dispossess or force an overcarrying foul because the ball carrier has to hop the ball or solo it every 4 steps. Someone who is proficient at the near hand technique will have opportunities to dispossess or disrupt the ball carrier. That's good defending in my view.

In the same situation, if the defender graps 8 inches of real estate from the back of the jersey, or deliberately trips him up, that's not good defending. That's lazy, poor technique, cynicism, tiredness or a combination of all 4.

The 'near hand' thing seems to be more than just good practice at this stage, AZ. Referees now seem to be giving frees for using the outside hand, whether there's an actual foul or not. Especially if the tackled player decides to fall. That's why I assumed it was a directive to referees.

In the same situation, if the defender graps 8 inches of real estate from the back of the jersey, or deliberately trips him up, that's not good defending. That's lazy, poor technique, cynicism, tiredness or a combination of all 4.

Of course. Where does this come into the discussion? This was always a foul. That's not to say it was always penalised, which is my point, at the risk of labouring it. There was little wrong with the rules, but a lot wrong with the refereeing. Now, in a misguided attempt to fix things, we've created a whole set of new rules that do nothing about the problem of not implementing the old rules, but threaten to ruin the game as a spectacle. For everyone, that is, except those who enjoy non-contact exhibition basketball.

incidental contact in the tackle t

Is that code for flaking someone out of it and pretending you're going for the ball?? 

On the off chance you're being serious – no. I'm talking about playing within the (old)  rules where you try to play the ball away from the player in possession as specified in the definition of the tackle. Nine times out of ten, it's impossible to do this without some contact, from the innocuous to the spectacular collision, since both players are in (usually fast) motion and not necessarily in the same direction. The new rules outlaw this, or at least are being interpreted as doing so. The result is that players are afraid to tackle and forwards are scoring unopposed in many cases. See scorelines like 3-18 to 4-11, 4-16 to 0-9, etc.

[J70]

Back to the game itself...

Donegal team named. One change only. Lacey gets a rest (from the start at least). Eamon McGee back in (first start since his stamp against Mayo?). Patrick McBrearty is out injured. Once again ten starters from the 2012 AI winning team. The younger McHugh and MacNiallais will be pushing hard for first 15 places in Celtic Park if they maintain their form so far, although if Donegal win this game they'll probably get a rest from the seniors with the U-21s coming up. A win here would leave us on eight points, with a win in the home game against Louth probably enough to secure promotion. IF that happens, McGuinness can give the other younger lads a start against Down and Armagh.

Paul Durcan;
Eamon McGee, Neil McGee, Frank McGlynn;
Ryan McHugh, Leo McLoone, Anthony Thompson;
Rory Kavanagh, Martin McElhinney;
Mark McHugh, Christy Toye, Odhran MacNiallais;
Colm McFadden, Michael Murphy, Dermot Molloy.

[thejuice]

Meath (FL v Donegal) -

P O'Rourke;

D Keogan, K Reilly, M Burke;
P Harnan, B Menton, E Harrington;

A Tormey, S O'Rourke;

D Tobin, D Carroll, B McMahon;
E Wallace, S Bray, M Newman

.

Subs - Conor McHugh, David Bray, Graham Reilly, Seamus Kenny, Dalton Mc Donagh, Paddy Gilsenan, David Larkin, Mark O'Sullivan, Sean Curran.

Don't see anything to indicate we'll have a more defensive approach this.

[Jinxy]

Tobin is actually a good wing forward option.
Well able to motor up and down and was always an attacking wing-back by trade.

[Ard-Rí]

First I heard of Mark O'Sullivan in a while. Paddy Gilsenan is surely worth a shot somewhere ... ahead of Harrington or Harnan maybe. Tobin in wing forward is an interesting move, but O'Dowd may be thinking of dropping him back behind the midfield. We'll see, I guess. I can't see us going close, but at least we're unpredictable. 

[agorm]

That'd be fine, AZ if the hand in, the fair shoulder, etc. were not penalised more than half the time. The new rules are not being reffed any better than the old ones, as far as I can see, which simply confirms what we knew - the problem was not the rules but the refereeing. In fact, I think there's a new drive to be hard on defenders, with everyone, referees included, caught up in the enthusiasm for "free-flowing football" that's coming from all the hoo-ha about the new rules.

I haven't checked the numbers (but I will) but it seems clear already that scoring rates have soared in the league, with some ridiculous totals being run up. Most people actually seem to think that's a good thing. This has a self-reinforcing effect, in that it will be pointed to as proof that the new rules are working. Well, for me, defending is as integral a part of football as attacking. I'd be willing to bet, though, that the rate of frees being awarded is probably twice as high against defenders as against attackers in this new set-up.

Do we want to make our game even more like basketball than before? In that game, nearly every attack results in a score. The Harlem Globetrotters attract huge crowds wherever they go, with their brand of high scoring mixed with fancy tricks. In their shows, the defenders are only there to be the straight-men in the comedy routine. It's an exaggeration for effect, but I get the feeling our legislators have as little feel for the essence of Gaelic football as a Harlem Globetrotters audience has for sport.

Some interesting  points there Hardy. I think that one of the drawbacks of having a sport that is isolated within one country is that we have total control over the rules of the game within this country. I cannot remember changes to soccer rules in my lifetime, perhaps some changes to the offside rule. It is nearly too easy to make changes to the rules and sometimes they are welcome but we have to be really really careful. It is like in any organisation or business......do you change the rules or do you properly implement your existing rules when problems are evident.

I am not certain of the dynamic of the ways the various committees operate when reviewing the state of the game but I suspect that the discussions move very quickly towards new ways of doing things. I know that it is difficult to get motions through Congress but, just because a motion gets through Congress, that doesn't mean that it is correctly worked through.

I was on a national GAA committee reviewing sliothar standards and tests a number of years ago. We were told up front that as the GAA is an amateur organisation we weren't being paid for our time except for some university guy who was coming from the UK who was being paid. Thinking back I just wonder are the GAA professional in some ways but not identifying core issues in other ways.

I remember in a manufacturing company I used to work that when there were problems we used to say to go back to basics. I am not sure if the GAA ever really looks at going back to basics. Refereeing standards are so varied across the country. I couldn't believe the way the Tyrone guy took at least 8 steps in the lead up to the winning goal last weekend and there has been very little about it. In my opinion the widespread misinterpretation of the steps rule is a bigger issue than the one-off Joe Sheridan last minute goal against Louth.