NFL Division 1

[David McKeown]

Think there were 25 or 26 seconds left when we got the last score.

28 by the clock in the ground which allows the keeper to not have to take the kick out before the hooter.

Daft rule!

One of many.  Like why is it a 20m free if you accidentally cause a 3 v 3 breach but a free on half way if you do it intending to get to win a ball?

[Substandard]

Think there were 25 or 26 seconds left when we got the last score.

28 by the clock in the ground which allows the keeper to not have to take the kick out before the hooter.

Daft rule!

One of many.  Like why is it a 20m free if you accidentally cause a 3 v 3 breach but a free on half way if you do it intending to get to win a ball?

On that point, if you haven't possession and you're 2/ 3 points up with under a minute to go, if your 3 up front charge back anyway,  couldn't you kill the game that way?

[David McKeown]

Think there were 25 or 26 seconds left when we got the last score.

28 by the clock in the ground which allows the keeper to not have to take the kick out before the hooter.

Daft rule!

One of many.  Like why is it a 20m free if you accidentally cause a 3 v 3 breach but a free on half way if you do it intending to get to win a ball?

On that point, if you haven't possession and you're 2/ 3 points up with under a minute to go, if your 3 up front charge back anyway,  couldn't you kill the game that way?

I don't see why that shouldn't result in a free from the edge of the arc and time stopped. Could advantage also be played?

[David McKeown]

If a county team is getting caught for breaches you really have to ask questions. I know at club level we go spare at them and always have a person on the half way line or thereabouts keeping them right but they are generally good at self managing it.

2 pointers are good in that they reward quality but it is an indictment of the way the game has gone as I am a 50 year old with bad feet and can still kick a ball over the bar from the edge of the arch!  Every forward at county level should be doing it consistently but they don't.

Every free taker should be able to do it but they don't. I suspect they can. Genuine question,  but do free takers just do free taking training?  I am not saying they don't but I know I have to tell lads to do it. It was a matter of course that the like of McConville and Anthony Cunningham did specific free taking drills. 40-50 free kicks a piece in a structured way. With all the stats we have surely you can determine where the core of fouls happen and let your players practice over and over in those spots.

Do you not contradict yourself there? I mean if every IC forward should be able to do it and you (not withstanding you were a great player)reckon you could do it consistently even now how is that rewarding a great skill. Surely it would be better to reward the skilful forward who is able to take on his man beat him and then score from 30 yards in a crowded defence?  I don't see how awarding something every player can do, double the amount that only a few top players can do consistently is rewarding skill. Similarly I don't see how it's not punishing skill when a 3 v 3 infringement or an innocuous foul 38m out can result in double the rewards.

More and more I feel that teams are playing not to make space inside and create easy scoring chances but to create space outside the arc and take poor choices because of the potential rewards. I don't think it will be too long before more and more teams realise that working two pointers even if you miss half of them is almost certainly going to result in higher scores than working easier scoring opportunities.

I would really have liked to see the 15 v 15 tried with the two point arc. That may have rewarded skill. I promise that's my last rant on the new rules.

[gallsman]

The idea is that even if most players at an IC level are capable of taking those scores, they weren't doing so. It had been coached out of them. It's incentivization.

[marty34]

People making a name for themselves now as a 2-pointer 'specialist'.

Thre's a bit more space in there now to get the shot off, which obviously helps. You'd think teams are 'training' more people or allowing more opportunities for shooting.

But I think it comes down to players. Some player are skillful and are accurate in their shooting. Others are notso accurate.

I remember we had 2 mid-fielders who could catch but their kicking was brutal. As a corner forward and you making a run, 9 times out of 10 they'd kick the ball over the side-line. They just could kick accurately. Horses for courses etc.

Maybe kicking has improved, probably has and is being worked on more nowadays also but it's a serious skill.

[imtommygunn]

The 2 pointer is great I think. One player who's value seems to have jumped up a lot with it is Stephen Sherlock. I would have thought McBrearty would have made hay with Donegal but I think his mobility just left him at the wrong time.

The only maybe one thing is that teams with long range free takers always have a massive chance in a very close game coming towards the end. e.g. Dingle, any Rory Beggan team etc It probably adds a bit more "jeopardy" in tight games though as you don't just have to go for goals now so there are pros and cons. You are seeing a lot of games where 2 pointers wing it right towards the end. Oddly it seems to happen against Cavan a lot. I think it happened against Down last year a bit too.

[Armagh18]

You'd imagine 2 pointer should be easy enough to prevent in most games down the stretch, most teams probably have a good few players capable but very few willing to go for it down the stretch, most will have maybe 3 with both the skills and the nerve to go for it when the pressure is on.

[brokencrossbar1]

The idea is that even if most players at an IC level are capable of taking those scores, they weren't doing so. It had been coached out of them. It's incentivization.

Exactly what I mean. While they all should be able to do it most of them can't/don't due to coaching, tactics or both. While I am flattered by David's words, (stretch to say I was a great player!) but the point I'm making is that it was a basic core skill of most players to be able to kick a ball accurately within the 45. There is still a reluctance to do this and there needs to be the incentive to do so.

I would agree that the individual brilliance of someone beating 2 men and sticking it over the bar is brilliant but how do you incentivise that and measure it?  You can't therefore the 2 point arch is a clean way to reward 'excellence',  albeit a bit meh to the 'back in my days' lads like me!

[David McKeown]

The 2 pointer is great I think. One player who's value seems to have jumped up a lot with it is Stephen Sherlock. I would have thought McBrearty would have made hay with Donegal but I think his mobility just left him at the wrong time.

The only maybe one thing is that teams with long range free takers always have a massive chance in a very close game coming towards the end. e.g. Dingle, any Rory Beggan team etc It probably adds a bit more "jeopardy" in tight games though as you don't just have to go for goals now so there are pros and cons. You are seeing a lot of games where 2 pointers wing it right towards the end. Oddly it seems to happen against Cavan a lot. I think it happened against Down last year a bit too.

I genuinely don't like them I think they devalue both goals and other scores. I just think it cheapens the value of a great score when you see a free kick or whatever from 38m being worth double.

I also think it leads to a situation where players are encouraged and incentivised to try their luck rather than trying to either work a better score or beat their man. I would love to have seen the two point rule tried separately to the 3v3 rule but we are where we are.

My other concern is while I understand the argument that it allows for comebacks etc which probably makes games more exciting for neutrals I don't think it's improved the quality of forward play.

Taking Sunday as an example I can only remember one or two passes into either forward line where I was thinking that's a great ball and good to see. I think had we not had the 2 point rule we might actually see more kick passing as teams try to exploit space rather than looking for 2 point opportunities

[imtommygunn]

It's kind of an opinion thing really but on point 2 I don't think I would agree. Football has been low risk at county level for a good few years and I haven't seen many games where there have been particularly many try your luck goes at it. For me it tends to be still get your best score takers taking the shots round the D and the opposition trying to find ways of not allowing that to happen.

I also think if there was no 2 point rule there'd be less space inside as your protect your goal but you now have to protect your D as well.

I don't necessarily think it will improve forward play that much tbh. It just makes it different.

[gallsman]

I also think it leads to a situation where players are encouraged and incentivised to try their luck rather than trying to either work a better score or beat their man.

Define a "better" score. Do you mean closer in and therefore higher % effort?

That's the entire point of the rule; rightly or wrongly the FRC, based on feedback, decided that risk taking (and therefore excitement) had been essentially coached out of the game. Players wouldn't shoot unless they were 20 yards from goal and there wasn't a man within 10 yards of them.

Now of course there is skill and no little ability in a team or individual players being able to work such an opportunity but the prevailing view was that the endless handpassing back and forth that was the primary avenue to opening up said opportunities was tedious beyond belief, sucking the life out of it as a spectacle, so they're doing something about it. As you say, players are encouraged a bit more to "try their luck". I'm ambivalent about most of the new rules except the solo and go and would have preferred to see a shot clock come in, but if teams are incentivized more to at least try and score (the fundamental objective of the game) rather than prioritizing not turning over the ball, then I'm all for it.

Disagree if you will, but you'll evidently be in the minority.

[Substandard]

I'd love to see a stat about teams building 8 or 9 or 10 point leads, and getting reeled back in.  We could very easily have been turned over Sunday, and was thinking afterwards if we hadn't the wind in the first half, the game could have been so different.
The wind makes the game a bit like cricket, having to chase a target.  Saturday in Salthill could go either way, but the wind will be a huge factor. 

[AustinPowers]

The 2 pointer is great I think. One player who's value seems to have jumped up a lot with it is Stephen Sherlock. I would have thought McBrearty would have made hay with Donegal but I think his mobility just left him at the wrong time.

The only maybe one thing is that teams with long range free takers always have a massive chance in a very close game coming towards the end. e.g. Dingle, any Rory Beggan team etc It probably adds a bit more "jeopardy" in tight games though as you don't just have to go for goals now so there are pros and cons. You are seeing a lot of games where 2 pointers wing it right towards the end. Oddly it seems to happen against Cavan a lot. I think it happened against Down last year a bit too.

I genuinely don't like them I think they devalue both goals and other scores. I just think it cheapens the value of a great score when you see a free kick or whatever from 38m being worth double.

I also think it leads to a situation where players are encouraged and incentivised to try their luck rather than trying to either work a better score or beat their man. I would love to have seen the two point rule tried separately to the 3v3 rule but we are where we are.

My other concern is while I understand the argument that it allows for comebacks etc which probably makes games more exciting for neutrals I don't think it's improved the quality of forward play.

Taking Sunday as an example I can only remember one or two passes into either forward line where I was thinking that's a great ball and good to see. I think had we not had the 2 point rule we might actually see more kick passing as teams try to exploit space rather than looking for 2 point opportunities

I  absolutely hate the 2 point arc , but I  could have maybe lived  with the 3v3 only.

Having said that , I can't understand why teams previously didn't leave  2 or 3 forwards up anyway.  If you  were a defender and you seen  the likes of  Canavan  , McCurry, staying up, you'd think   ...we need two or three men to stay back here.

[JoG2]

The 2 pointer is great I think. One player who's value seems to have jumped up a lot with it is Stephen Sherlock. I would have thought McBrearty would have made hay with Donegal but I think his mobility just left him at the wrong time.

The only maybe one thing is that teams with long range free takers always have a massive chance in a very close game coming towards the end. e.g. Dingle, any Rory Beggan team etc It probably adds a bit more "jeopardy" in tight games though as you don't just have to go for goals now so there are pros and cons. You are seeing a lot of games where 2 pointers wing it right towards the end. Oddly it seems to happen against Cavan a lot. I think it happened against Down last year a bit too.

I genuinely don't like them I think they devalue both goals and other scores. I just think it cheapens the value of a great score when you see a free kick or whatever from 38m being worth double.

I also think it leads to a situation where players are encouraged and incentivised to try their luck rather than trying to either work a better score or beat their man. I would love to have seen the two point rule tried separately to the 3v3 rule but we are where we are.

My other concern is while I understand the argument that it allows for comebacks etc which probably makes games more exciting for neutrals I don't think it's improved the quality of forward play.

Taking Sunday as an example I can only remember one or two passes into either forward line where I was thinking that's a great ball and good to see. I think had we not had the 2 point rule we might actually see more kick passing as teams try to exploit space rather than looking for 2 point opportunities

I  absolutely hate the 2 point arc , but I  could have maybe lived  with the 3v3 only.

Having said that , I can't understand why teams previously didn't leave  2 or 3 forwards up anyway.  If you  were a defender and you seen  the likes of  Canavan  , McCurry, staying up, you'd think   ...we need two or three men to stay back here.

No , as a defender you'd be thinking the other team daft for allowing you to have 2 or 3 extra attackers bombing forward everytime...aim of the game being to outscore the oppostion.