NFL Division 1

[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.

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. 

A  turnover and  a long hoof upfield , would put that  idea to bed

[Armagh18]

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. 

A  turnover and  a long hoof upfield , would put that  idea to bed

Didn't tend to work like that though! Great memories of Barry McCambridge running the legs of Clifford in 2024.

[EoinW]

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.

Kerry - who set the standard for top teams - couldn't defend a 2 point attempt in the dying moments against Galway.  Begs the question: can the 2 pointer be defenced when the opposition has a strong wind at their back?

[EoinW]

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.

The FRC was trying to address the "packed defence" problem.  I'd say they were successful.  However couldn't it have been done just with the 3v3 rule?  Three less defenders means no packed defence.  The 2 pointer appears to be stealing the idea of college basketball's 3 point shot.

Really either change was an option.  To have included both seems redundant.

[EoinW]

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!

Going forward, this will be the interesting thing about the new rules.  How will the game evolve in reaction to this imposition from above?  Players have been trained all their lives to play the 2024 game.  That game doesn't really exist any longer.  Thus we await new thinking from managers and new innovation from players.

Given the controlling aspect of coaching in all sports this century, I expect managers to have a response to the new rules.  The fun part is trying to anticipate how and when this will happen.

Keep in mind, coaches have also spent their career in the 2024 game.  It could take quite some time for them to get a handle on it all.  Or it could take a new generation of coaches to take the game to its next evolution.

Every action has a natural reaction.  The FRC has served.  We await the return from managers/players.

[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. 

A  turnover and  a long hoof upfield , would put that  idea to bed

What idea, leaving 3 men up and allowing 14 inter county level footballers to attack  defence consisting of 11 defenders. You'd be hoping for a hefty turnover % and some quality hoofing to make much hay.

Say the 14 man attacking unit faces the 11 defenders 20 times, with extra space and 2 on 1s happening inside the scoring zone, how many times would you guess the 11 defenders would turn the ball over and score up the other end ? And how many times do you think the 14 attackers will create a scoring chance ? To conclude , the team leaving 2 or 3 men up would be destroyed, hence every manager deploying the masses defence.

[David McKeown]

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.

As a life long holder of minority opinions I don't really have an issue with that. I'm also not sure that we overly disagree.

By better score I meant to write better scoring opportunity. I feel the current rules actually discourages risk taking.

Statistically speaking and I'm using numbers that aren't necessarily accurate to illustrate a point but are you not better at taking 20 two points shots with a 1/3rd chances of going over than you are taking 20 one point shots with a 60% chance.

If so what's the bigger risk the shots from distance which will at worst end up wide or in the keepers hands or trying to work an opportunity and risk a turnover further out the field?

My concern is we are seeing more and more pot shots from distance and more and more conservative play in attack to allow the pot shot from distance than I feel we would see if the 2 point arc didn't exist.

That's why I would like to have seen the two rules tried independently. But regardless of that they are here now so I'll keep an open mind going forward. I didn't like any of the new rules initially and through time I like a couple of them and don't hate some of the other ones as much as I did. So happy to see how it pans out.

[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.

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. 

A  turnover and  a long hoof upfield , would put that  idea to bed

What idea, leaving 3 men up and allowing 14 inter county level footballers to attack  defence consisting of 11 defenders. You'd be hoping for a hefty turnover % and some quality hoofing to make much hay.

Say the 14 man attacking unit faces the 11 defenders 20 times, with extra space and 2 on 1s happening inside the scoring zone, how many times would you guess the 11 defenders would turn the ball over and score up the other end ? And how many times do you think the 14 attackers will create a scoring chance ? To conclude , the team leaving 2 or 3 men up would be destroyed, hence every manager deploying the masses defence.

Well ok, let's say you left Clifford up top ,  not on the edge of the square, but  25-30 yards from goal.  As a defender, wouldn't you be nervous venturing upfield knowing this boy is  left  all alone? One mistake, fumble, dispossession... Guaranteed goal . Anyway, that was under the old rules.

The FRC  could have just brought in  a no back pass rule into your own half. Yes, there would  still be congestion, but  less  space to play piggy in the middle. And more chance of  a dispossession, and quick break.

My worry going forward is if the game  morphs into a  2 point shootout, with little goals scored,  and  it is a disaster as a spectacle...... and the FRC  want to tweak/change things again, they'll change  it from NOW, and not from the  old 2024 rules.  Tweaking the tweaks, that were tweaked  a number of times (think Father Ted's car).  Before you know it ,  the game is  totally unrecognisable as Gaelic football

[Rossfan]

Can't ye just enjoy the fkn games instead of ye're "were doomed, doomed I tell ye".
By the way the FRC doesn't exist anymore.

[AustinPowers]

We ARE doomed, I tells ye.

[JPO]

To reduce the number of 2 pointers being scored I suggest defenders actually mark closer and not allow so many free shots.Defending man on man was a part of the game for aa hundred years. It doesnt require any new innovations from our well paid coaches. Defending was a  basic skill taught to underage players for generations. Not this generation however. Its much too simple of course for our modern coaches..
     

[Armagh18]

To reduce the number of 2 pointers being scored I suggest defenders actually mark closer and not allow so many free shots.Defending man on man was a part of the game for aa hundred years. It doesnt require any new innovations from our well paid coaches. Defending was a  basic skill taught to underage players for generations. Not this generation however. Its much too simple of course for our modern coaches..
     

It's been made a lot more difficult with ref's giving frees now for looking at a man wrong and allowing forwards 8 steps. Next to impossible to defend 1v1 there.

[JPO]

As highlighted in a clip on Sunday night....at one stage in the Tyrone Cavan game there were 11 Cavan players inside the arc shuffling about but doing nothing really while Tyrone players shuffled about outside the arc handpassing across and back until one has a shot. We see this every week in games and it's becoming boring by now.

[JPO]

Very true. Far far too many frees given for nothing.

[thewobbler]

As highlighted in a clip on Sunday night....at one stage in the Tyrone Cavan game there were 11 Cavan players inside the arc shuffling about but doing nothing really while Tyrone players shuffled about outside the arc handpassing across and back until one has a shot. We see this every week in games and it's becoming boring by now.

My take on this is that we've returned to roughly the same status as every other field sport ie there are some utterly forgettable games, and there will be some periods in some games that will send us asleep. But at the same we are also now getting plenty of absolutely fabulous, end-to-end matches, and plenty of matches that feature stunning comebacks.

This is a staggering improvement on what was unfolding a couple of years ago.

Spending time nowadays worrying about the direction football might take from here is like packing an overcoat for Spain in mid-summer. It being a prudent choice every once in a blue moon does not make you right.

 Life is better when you enjoy the sunshine lads.