Possible Rule changes

[blewuporstuffed]

Ban the fcukn hand pas - it's an abomination and is totally mind numbingly boring to watch  and has destroyed our game.
Name of the game is FOOTball so let's go all revolutionary and start kickin the effin ball.

sometimes I wonder what people want from the game.

An end to orgies of hand passing as I saw a game described in one paper.

so you want a game where you can ONLY kick it?

seriously?

Ye Nordies are really enmeshed in gaelichandball
Name of our game is Gaelic FOOTball. Kicking, which is the fastest method of moving the ball from A to Z should be prime. Might be a role for occasional fist passes though.
In Gaelichandball to get the ball from A to Z entails 24 handballs from B to Y taking about 3 minutes.

I read this all the time and it is one of the stupidest arguments for rule change you could possible use.
There is also American FOOTball and Australian Rules FOOTball , that doesn't mean there shouldn't be other skills involved.
We get it, you don't like hand passing , but if you prefer watching  sport where the ball tarvels as quickly as possible from A to B and there are more 1 v1 battles, maybe you should watch more hurling.

[Zulu]

While I don't agree with Rossfan's call to ban the hand pass I think he is correct to say the spectacle is under threat. All sports have changed over recent years but if I was to think of the standout skills in other sports then I think we still see plenty of them in those sports. Can the same be said of football? High fielding opportunities are constantly reducing, kicking into the full forward line is rare and when it's done it more often leads to a hand pass back out rather than a score attempt.

It's hard to say what we can do but I don't think a running massed defence brand of football is particularly enjoyable to watch and I don't think we can allow the game become that.

[westbound]

if it's massed defences that we want to remove, the simplest way to do that is limit the number of players allowed inside your own 45 at any one time. (or force a minimum number of players to stay in the opposition's have at all times). A limit of 9 might make sense (i.e. gk, 6 defs and 2 mids)

A rule change like that is the most effective method to get rid of the massed defences (if that is what we want to do!)

Amending rules to limit the number of hand passes / kick passes / bringing in the mark etc. is only a stickey plaster type fix and won't remove massed defences in my opinion.

[thewobbler]

So yer man wants to watch old fashioned ball.

The problem is that most people like this just want to decry the modern game, and don't take time to understand the yin that comes with the yang when they make a suggested rule change.

- - -

For example, every single modern tactic that favours possession over territory can be traced back to the fundamental rule change in 1990 that saw frees and sideline balls being kicked from the hand. although it took over a decade for everyone really catch on, it finally became possible to play a possession game.

That rule change (probably the best decision ever made imho, for I personally have no interest in watching people aimlessly gift away possession, in any sport) wasn't vested in turning the sport into a possession game. Indeed this wasn't even considered at the time. The purpose of the rule change was to create a more fluid game. Which is what we had for 20 years or so, and arguably still have.

Either way, if anyone was to even contemplate returning football frees to off-the-ground only, I'd quite happily lop off their head.

- - -

Similarly, the change from 20m/5m yard kick-outs to 13m kickouts, then subsequently to anywhere inside the 13m was devised with a thought that it would improve fluidity. Which it does to an extent, but the yin, whereby goalkeepers are capable of restarting play at the very second the previous play finished, has (in my mind) made the role of a goalkeeper too important, too influential on proceedings. 10 years ago, goalkeepers were the bystanders at training sessions; now they're the focus. I'm no fan.

- - -

So If I was to recommend a rule change experimentation, it would be something as minimal as forcing goalkeepers to take all kick-outs from the 20m line (again).

The advantages would be that:

a) it creates a natural pause between plays.
b) it removes 560 (7 * 90) square metres of playing area from the defending team's half, giving them less room to run short kick-out plays, and an increased chance of conceding a goal if they make a mistake.
c) by moving kick-outs forward, it innately makes the territorial option more appealing.
d) it would take no getting used too; everyone used to play this way.
e) it reduces the importance of having a sweeper keeper.

I don't see any major disadvantages other than it would take us back to the land of 30 seconds a kick-out.

(personally I'd like to back to the 5m/20m kick-outs as it makes it easier to know if a ball went over the bar or wide, in a friendly match... but I'd concede this is of no help to the game in general)

- - -

One other change I think worth experimenting with would be that a team cannot retreat across the "big" lines once they've crossed them.... with the "big" lines being both 45s and both 65s.

Something I've read about somewhere and been thinking about since.

Basically, if you choose to run, kick or fist pass a ball backwards over these lines, it's a free against, from the spot where the ball finishes. In essence, it's not much different to how sidelines work.

Some allowance would need to be given for times when possession is not clearly secured (e.g. if MDMA was to break one of Clucko's long kick-outs back across the 65 to his own player, this couldn't be construed as a foul - but if MDMA was to win a catch then pass back to the same player, it would be).

The purpose of this change would be obvious enough: to help reduce the current trend for endlessly recycling the ball across halfback and midfield lines, by reducing the spaces in which this can be done.

By creating "points of no return" it would be possible to coach players to fence in their opponents and force a turnover.

It should also encourage greater levels of kick passing (well, hoofing anyway) as players would more regularly be faced with the dilemma (like rugby players often do) of having to release the ball as far up the field as possible for fear of being in possession close to their own posts.

It would also put a greater emphasis on the spare men of a blanket defence to creep forward; ultimately once the ball passes the next game line, in terms of a support role they are out of the game until they also cross that line. 

The aggressive tackling close to the game lines would surely be something to behold

I do foresee some issues with the concept.

For example I'd expect to see a greater instance of players kicking the ball over the sideline as a safe option when cornered.

And there would be times when the lines would produce outright cruel results (e.g. a CHF running onto a reverse pass at speed, but taking the pass just the wrong side of the line).

I'd also expect it to heighten the usual absolute bullshit that runs throughout our game whereby players, managers and supporters spend the entire match waiting to lynch a referee once a 50-50 call ("his feet were over, the ball wasn't") goes against them... but personally I'd be promoting that black cards are also issued with absolute gay abandon in situations like this; just to get the message across.

But I do think it's worth trialling. And this is from someone who vehemently opposes rule changes.

[The Raven]

I posted this back in March

"A few simple solutions
1. All frees and sidelines to be kicked off ground
2. Maximum 2 fist passes in a row
3. Forwards must take frees in forward half, backs in defence
4. Kick outs resulting from goals and wides taken from 21yard line, points from 14yard line
5. All kickouts must cross the 50yard line

Worth a go couldn't be any worse than what we have now"

[DuffleKing]

if it's massed defences that we want to remove, the simplest way to do that is limit the number of players allowed inside your own 45 at any one time. (or force a minimum number of players to stay in the opposition's have at all times). A limit of 9 might make sense (i.e. gk, 6 defs and 2 mids)

A rule change like that is the most effective method to get rid of the massed defences (if that is what we want to do!)

Amending rules to limit the number of hand passes / kick passes / bringing in the mark etc. is only a stickey plaster type fix and won't remove massed defences in my opinion.

Limiting numbers in a certain area of the field in any way is a non runner. Imagine a middle of the pack referee in your own county policing that in club championship games to reaslise why.

[6th sam]

Now we're talking.
The 20m rule makes sense, and is very simple, an added bonus is the possible reduction of pitch wear centrally around the 13m , as an area of heavy traffic(penalty area/closer to goal etc) . An even simpler addition would be to forbid  quick kick outs or insist on >10 secs, on referees whistle, to prevent the short kickouts which are undoubtedly reducing the single most attractive skill in our game (the high catch). This slower kickout Could then allow for a keeper to kick from anywhere around  the 20m line, again saving pitch wear and easing the burden on referees who currently have to police exactly Central kick-outs.
The forbidden backward play across the lines is again simply officiated, and basically promotes forward over backward play. Deliberate over the sideline kick could incur a sanction, though I dont like the current definition and application of cards, and I would propose  a further sanction for cynicism should include a 1 minute of  additional time to compensate for the "running down the clock" element of the cynicism. This would be very easily applied & would reduce players  "taking a card for the team" whilst actually being rewarded by the time delay associated with applying a card.
The major problem with any of rules initiatives however is that  they could increase the burden on referees , who already have an extremely difficult task

[blewuporstuffed]

I posted this back in March

"A few simple solutions
1. All frees and sidelines to be kicked off ground
2. Maximum 2 fist passes in a row
3. Forwards must take frees in forward half, backs in defence
4. Kick outs resulting from goals and wides taken from 21yard line, points from 14yard line
5. All kickouts must cross the 50yard line

Worth a go couldn't be any worse than what we have now"

March 1962?

[Rossfan]

Good to see I'm not the only one who is fed up of gaelicthrowball.
Telling people who want to see a good spectacle of a game to go and watch hurling is a ridiculous head in the sand comment.
Reminds me of the TUV mindset.
Some mad, some sensible and easy to work solutions being thrown out.
Even if there are no rule changes can Refs please enforce the rule where the ball must travel 13 m from a place kick before anyone else can touch it? The amount of 5m tippy tappy frees usually backwards to a team mate has reached epidemic proportions.

[Keyser soze]

Howabout implementing a rule, as in 7's football, of no backwards handpassing in your own half. Relatively easy to referee in comparison to counting number of passes. It would also encourage teams to pressure the ball carrier coming out of defence high up the field.

Eliminating the practice of more than one player tackling at a time should also be enforced. At the minute it appears to be allowable for a number of players to put their hands on the player with the ball, which is an illegal tackle according to the existing rules. It inevitably appears to result in an overcarrying penalty for the player in possession, in contrast to when a player is being tackled 1 on 1 when any contact whatsoever is deemed a foul in favour of the attacking player. A more robust enforcement of mutilpe tacklers and a less strict interpretation of the 1 on 1 tackle might result in less massed defenders and more scope for flair players to do their thing.

The 20 metre kickout has merit too.

PS Haven't read all of the thread, so if someone else has posted similar my apologies.

[Throw ball]

Good to see I'm not the only one who is fed up of gaelicthrowball.
Telling people who want to see a good spectacle of a game to go and watch hurling is a ridiculous head in the sand comment.
Reminds me of the TUV mindset.
Some mad, some sensible and easy to work solutions being thrown out.
Even if there are no rule changes can Refs please enforce the rule where the ball must travel 13 m from a place kick before anyone else can touch it? The amount of 5m tippy tappy frees usually backwards to a team mate has reached epidemic proportions.

Leave me out of it please!

[blewuporstuffed]

Good to see I'm not the only one who is fed up of gaelicthrowball.
Telling people who want to see a good spectacle of a game to go and watch hurling is a ridiculous head in the sand comment.
Reminds me of the TUV mindset.
Some mad, some sensible and easy to work solutions being thrown out.
Even if there are no rule changes can Refs please enforce the rule where the ball must travel 13 m from a place kick before anyone else can touch it? The amount of 5m tippy tappy frees usually backwards to a team mate has reached epidemic proportions.

But that's YOUR view if what a good spectacle is, that doesn't mean we all have to agree.

I would much rather watch a team keeping the ball for 3/4 hand passes until the right option opens up and then delivering an accurate kick-pass when its on, rather than watching a team balloon the ball as far as they can forward as soon as they get it, only for the other team to win it back and do the same.

What remind me of a TUV mindset, is proposing  complete ban on something just because you don't particularly like it.

[westbound]

if it's massed defences that we want to remove, the simplest way to do that is limit the number of players allowed inside your own 45 at any one time. (or force a minimum number of players to stay in the opposition's have at all times). A limit of 9 might make sense (i.e. gk, 6 defs and 2 mids)

A rule change like that is the most effective method to get rid of the massed defences (if that is what we want to do!)

Amending rules to limit the number of hand passes / kick passes / bringing in the mark etc. is only a stickey plaster type fix and won't remove massed defences in my opinion.

Limiting numbers in a certain area of the field in any way is a non runner. Imagine a middle of the pack referee in your own county policing that in club championship games to reaslise why.

I'd have to disagree with you there, I actually think the 'middle of the park referee' would be perfect for enforcing this rule! He'd be able to see both halves of the pitch very clearly!

In fairness if you think counting to 9 is beyond referees then the rule could be changed so that they only had to count to 6 (i.e. 6 players in the opposition half!

[westbound]

Good to see I'm not the only one who is fed up of gaelicthrowball.
Telling people who want to see a good spectacle of a game to go and watch hurling is a ridiculous head in the sand comment.
Reminds me of the TUV mindset.
Some mad, some sensible and easy to work solutions being thrown out.
Even if there are no rule changes can Refs please enforce the rule where the ball must travel 13 m from a place kick before anyone else can touch it? The amount of 5m tippy tappy frees usually backwards to a team mate has reached epidemic proportions.

But that's YOUR view if what a good spectacle is, that doesn't mean we all have to agree.

I would much rather watch a team keeping the ball for 3/4 hand passes until the right option opens up and then delivering an accurate kick-pass when its on, rather than watching a team balloon the ball as far as they can forward as soon as they get it, only for the other team to win it back and do the same.

What remind me of a TUV mindset, is proposing  complete ban on something just because you don't particularly like it.

I'd agree with most of what you have said, but the problem is that teams don't stop at 3/4 hand passes! It can often be double that (or more!).
That's not to say that limiting the number of handpasses to 3 is a good idea. I believe this will only ensure teams get get more defensive in the knowledge that after 3 handpasses the ball will have to be kicked!

[Zulu]

Howabout implementing a rule, as in 7's football, of no backwards handpassing in your own half. Relatively easy to referee in comparison to counting number of passes. It would also encourage teams to pressure the ball carrier coming out of defence high up the field.

Eliminating the practice of more than one player tackling at a time should also be enforced. At the minute it appears to be allowable for a number of players to put their hands on the player with the ball, which is an illegal tackle according to the existing rules. It inevitably appears to result in an overcarrying penalty for the player in possession, in contrast to when a player is being tackled 1 on 1 when any contact whatsoever is deemed a foul in favour of the attacking player. A more robust enforcement of mutilpe tacklers and a less strict interpretation of the 1 on 1 tackle might result in less massed defenders and more scope for flair players to do their thing.

The 20 metre kickout has merit too.

PS Haven't read all of the thread, so if someone else has posted similar my apologies.

I like the first two suggestions and think they'd be worth looking at though the backward hand pass would have to be a clear backward pass so as not to be getting into rugby territory of whether it was lateral or backwards. Nevertheless, both that and reducing the number of tacklers has merit and would be relatively easy to implement.

I use the one tackler rule with kids and it helps the player in possession and forces kids to learn to tackle and move properly. No reason it couldn't work at adult level.

On the aesthetics of the game, I think there is no doubt it has deteriorated and is something we need to monitor at least. This isn't a choice between hoof and hope or endless hand passing and we shouldn't simplify it in those terms. However, football played as an ultra conservative possession game isn't ever going to be a great spectacle and if we want to pass on the game in rude health to the next generation then we must be conscious of the spectacle as well.