Congress 2016

[Rossfan]

I have to say, I have been disappointed with congress this year.
I wouldn't have been for the mark (at least without a proper trial) but i suppose we will just have to wait and see how that works.
The biggest disappointment though is not moving the AI finals forward and not getting rid of replays.
These are the two things that could have helped club football and club fixtures hugely and somehow we have decided not to do it.

I cant really understand the logic for defeating either motion.   

Replays = € for the Powerful Provincial Councils
Earlier AI Finals - loss of more media space to soccer/rubby.

[blewuporstuffed]

The provincial councils dont have a vote at congress AFAIK?
How would the earlier finals lose media space?

The money argument is incredibly short sighted. Passing those two motions would have done more for the club game than any amount of money for reinvestment.
At times we have lost sight of what the real goals are. The objective should always be to promote and improve our games, not increase revenue.

[Rossfan]

Provincial Councils don't need a vote in Congress to influence things buicìn .
Big media coverage of Gaelic games ends with the AIFs.

[blewuporstuffed]

Provincial Councils don't need a vote in Congress to influence things buicìn .
Big media coverage of Gaelic games ends with the AIFs.

Big deal.
Shorting the county season had the potential to improve the club scene and therefore  improve participation.

[Rossfan]

Provincial Councils don't need a vote in Congress to influence things buicìn .
Big media coverage of Gaelic games ends with the AIFs.

Big deal.
Shorting the county season had the potential to improve the club scene and therefore  improve participation.

True but I'm telling you why it wasn't voted through.

[blewuporstuffed]

Provincial Councils don't need a vote in Congress to influence things buicìn .
Big media coverage of Gaelic games ends with the AIFs.

Big deal.
Shorting the county season had the potential to improve the club scene and therefore  improve participation.

True but I'm telling you why it wasn't voted through.

If that's the case we have lost the run of ourselves.

[muppet]

The blame for the changes lie with the likes of Jimmy McGuinnes and Mickey Harte who have ruined Gaelic football at county level as a spectacle... the other clowns then copied them

The mark doesn't address this at all.

In fact if you think of McGuinness early days, they conceded the kickouts and didn't bother contesting them. I can see that happening more now as defence minded teams can simply retreat for opposition kickouts. They will happily concede a mark anywhere up to half way if they have 13 defenders in their own half.

[Beffs]

Replays = € for the Powerful Provincial Councils
Earlier AI Finals - loss of more media space to soccer/rubby.

Yeah, but the way things are now, the AI semi finals and finals are competing with the soccer for coverage. There is all the pre season drama, all the hype around transfer deadline day on August 31st and when September kicks off, its a brand spanking new Premier league season. The first months worth of games always have match ups between the big heavy hitters, which puts the sport even more front and centre in the media. The AI semi finals and final are having to compete with all that for media coverage and attention. If they are moved up a bit, they would have more time to themselves.

Anyway, I think that the issue of who gets more coverage, is a problem that that the GAA have created. It isn't that the media don't want to cover them more, its that there is so little to cover. In the run up to the big games, entire teams go to ground and so do the managers. No one speaks to the media, unless they have to. Then when they do, it's the bare minimum, like a 30 second interview on the Sunday Game after a match. The players and managers disappear into a bubble of their own making.

As a journalist or media outlet, how are supposed to cover them, or the team, or the sport, when the players and managers involved won't talk to you, for the entire month of August and September? Contrast that with 20 odd Premier League managers doing press conferences every day, clubs with their own tv stations and online fanzines, non stop drama with La Liga & what ever Lionel Messi and Ronaldo are up to, SKY pimping the sport non stop. The GAA have none of that.

So is it any wonder the likes of RTE or Newstalk or the Indo choose to cover soccer and rugby instead? They give them the material and access to the players and managers. The GAA doesn't. If that changed, so would the coverage the GAA gets, all year around, not just the AI finals.

[PAULD123]

Five seconds is actually quite  along time. If you are standing with the ball looking around you. But I guess the time allowed includes teh first second or two for the players around to clear away from the marker. So in reality from the point where the guy is actually in a position to take a kick to the point where it is actually kicked will be more like 2-3 seconds.

My issue would be that if you dont use it in 5 seconds it isa  hop ball, which i think is harsh.
It would have been better if you haven't used it in 5 seconds the referee calls play on, and you're fair game to be tackled again, as is the rule in the AFL

Agreed that it sounds better, but then you would have players hovering around just in case the guy runs out of time. So the very idea of the mark clearing bodies out of midfield quickly would be self-defeated.

Also if players did clear away the marker would just simply change his mind, opt to play on, dart forward 5-10 yards and have a shot.

So it needs to be definitive. If a guy accepts a free, meaning opposition have to retreat, then he cannot be allowed to just run into that empty space because no one is available to pass to. In all other frees, if the player delays kicking it then the free is removed and the ball is hopped. So the rule for the mark is fairly consistent.

[blewuporstuffed]

Five seconds is actually quite  along time. If you are standing with the ball looking around you. But I guess the time allowed includes teh first second or two for the players around to clear away from the marker. So in reality from the point where the guy is actually in a position to take a kick to the point where it is actually kicked will be more like 2-3 seconds.

My issue would be that if you dont use it in 5 seconds it isa  hop ball, which i think is harsh.
It would have been better if you haven't used it in 5 seconds the referee calls play on, and you're fair game to be tackled again, as is the rule in the AFL

Agreed that it sounds better, but then you would have players hovering around just in case the guy runs out of time. So the very idea of the mark clearing bodies out of midfield quickly would be self-defeated.

Also if players did clear away the marker would just simply change his mind, opt to play on, dart forward 5-10 yards and have a shot.

So it needs to be definitive. If a guy accepts a free, meaning opposition have to retreat, then he cannot be allowed to just run into that empty space because no one is available to pass to. In all other frees, if the player delays kicking it then the free is removed and the ball is hopped. So the rule for the mark is fairly consistent.

I suppose the difference in the AFL is that the defending player can stand in the spot where the mark is taken and it is up to the player in possession to go back the 10 metres or whatever it is.He can then take the kick from anywhere up to where the defender is stationed.

[PAULD123]

The blame for the changes lie with the likes of Jimmy McGuinnes and Mickey Harte who have ruined Gaelic football at county level as a spectacle... the other clowns then copied them

The mark doesn't address this at all.

In fact if you think of McGuinness early days, they conceded the sickouts and didn't bother contesting them. I can see that happening more now as defence minded teams can simply retreat for opposition kickouts. They will happily concede a mark anywhere up to half way if they have 13 defenders in their own half.

Why would defences do that? The mark doesn't have to be taken. The catcher can play on. If no one challenges him and they have all retreated I'm pretty sure a catcher would just turn and run at the defence. So in that way it is exactly the same as the rules now. But currently I don't see defences leaving opposition midfielders isolated for the very reason I've given. So with the (optional) mark rule they still won't. They will have to challenge to prevent the catcher turning and running into space.

What we are likely to see is a lot of teams trying to break the ball to prevent clean catches. Which is okay by me if there is a clear break-ball strategy to recycle and move it quickly. The problem now is teams trying to catch the ball clean and then getting swarmed and the game slowing down.

[muppet]

The blame for the changes lie with the likes of Jimmy McGuinnes and Mickey Harte who have ruined Gaelic football at county level as a spectacle... the other clowns then copied them

The mark doesn't address this at all.

In fact if you think of McGuinness early days, they conceded the sickouts and didn't bother contesting them. I can see that happening more now as defence minded teams can simply retreat for opposition kickouts. They will happily concede a mark anywhere up to half way if they have 13 defenders in their own half.

Why would defences do that? The mark doesn't have to be taken. The catcher can play on. If no one challenges him and they have all retreated I'm pretty sure a catcher would just turn and run at the defence. So in that way it is exactly the same as the rules now. But currently I don't see defences leaving opposition midfielders isolated for the very reason I've given. So with the (optional) mark rule they still won't. They will have to challenge to prevent the catcher turning and running into space.

What we are likely to see is a lot of teams trying to break the ball to prevent clean catches. Which is okay by me if there is a clear break-ball strategy to recycle and move it quickly. The problem now is teams trying to catch the ball clean and then getting swarmed and the game slowing down.

They already did it with Donegal under McGuinness. My point was that this does nothing whatsoever to counter defensively oriented teams who I believe will have a couple of lads maybe contest the mark and pull everyone else back. The risk/reward is in their favour as lose the mark and they have everyone back, win the mark and they don't lose the ball due to having everyone back and the man isolated.

[PAULD123]

Muppet, I agree that this will not do much to counter the defensive blanket that teams often use. What it will do is counter the swarming of midfielders, the melee that ensues and the slowing down of the play. It will speed up the midfield, and allow runners to attack. which is a positive in its own right.

But yes if teams put up a blanket defense then that will still be a problem. But the biggest factor to speak against blanket defense is that Donegal failed to win an All-Ireland with it and no one has done better. When Donegal won the Sam Maguire they had already modified their style to transition quickly to attack. I see far too many teams simply holding 12-13 players in their own half at all times. All this means is that you lose by a narrow margin. So you don't get stuffed. But also you have almost no chance of winning the game. Unless a team has very quick transition and fast runners, the space in the opponents half is never exploited (certainly not by 5 guys bring the ball slowly up teh pitch by lateral hand-passing)

[muppet]

Muppet, I agree that this will not do much to counter the defensive blanket that teams often use. What it will do is counter the swarming of midfielders, the melee that ensues and the slowing down of the play. It will speed up the midfield, and allow runners to attack. which is a positive in its own right.

But yes if teams put up a blanket defense then that will still be a problem. But the biggest factor to speak against blanket defense is that Donegal failed to win an All-Ireland with it and no one has done better. When Donegal won the Sam Maguire they had already modified their style to transition quickly to attack. I see far too many teams simply holding 12-13 players in their own half at all times. All this means is that you lose by a narrow margin. So you don't get stuffed. But also you have almost no chance of winning the game. Unless a team has very quick transition and fast runners, the space in the opponents half is never exploited (certainly not by 5 guys bring the ball slowly up teh pitch by lateral hand-passing)

I agree with most of that, but my concern is that certain managers will look at the risk/reward of the mark and will pull back 10-12 players. I think attack minded teams like the Dubs will ignore it, but with the possible exception of someone like Kerry or Mayo who might fancy winning a mark at midfield, I think the main outcome will be it encouraging more blankets.

[The Trap]

The mark will turn out to be fairly irrelevant.........what about talking about the under 17, under 20 and possibly under 18 championships in 2018 all played in the peak summer months. May as well just scrap club football that year!