What have they done to Gaelic football ?

[Zulu]

As for the main issue, we do need a debate on where football is going and if we are going to do so on this board I'd ask the Ulster posters ( the Tyrone one's in particular) to leave your paranoia at the door.

Fair enough Zulu, but when this particular genius comes out with: "I was disgusted to see Tyrone back in Croke Park with all their negative football. I blame them for much of what has happened to football over the past decade and am no fan of Micky Harte and his legacy to Gaelic football."

It's hardly paranoia, is it? And this amadán doesn't even have the integrity to put his/her name to it, such is the courage of his/her convictions. That article's a cheap shot, of the lowest, gutter-dwelling, order, no mistake. Like Mickey Harte has personally been touring the counties and teaching footballers how not to score. Total confusion reigns here, in that amadán can't separate discipline, passion, will-to-win, determination, and no little skill from purely bad football. Not to mention the jealously and bitterness.

I'd agree FOSB that the article is rubbish and the above quote about Tyrone is pure tripe but there is a discussion needed about the direction football is going. And what, if anything, we need to do to make sure football remains a compelling sporting attraction. Personally I'll always love football but too many games like Kildare/Fermanagh and not enough of Mayo/Dublin will make the promotion of football very difficult in an increasingly competitive market place. Less people playing and watching football makes for a poorer game in the longterm.

[Frank Casey]

Zap - I'm speechless.

[Fear ón Srath Bán]

Personally I'll always love football but too many games like Kildare/Fermanagh and not enough of Mayo/Dublin will make the promotion of football very difficult in an increasingly competitive market place. Less people playing and watching football makes for a poorer game in the longterm.

Agreed, we've had some indictments of games this year, no mistaking. But, if even one of those teams had been half-good the other was history. Perhaps it was more of an indictment of the All-Ireland system, that allowed such to get so far in the competition.

Sign me up Zap 

[ONeill]

Yes, Fermanagh's to blame. I warned you all about this a month ago.

[Armamike]

The glass is half empty brigade are jumping on the Fermanagh Kildare game as some sort of indicator of the way football has gone in recent years. It was abysmal yes, but wasn't it only a one-off? How many games this year or any other were quite as bad? Not too many.

[Gaffer]

tut, tut..such hostility against an alternative point of view.

Despite ye're denials you lads really do care what the southerners think of you. I can see no other reason for this over the top reaction.

Mike Sheehy is scared stiff of Tyrone after what she saw last Saturday, 
( but Mike thought the match was on Sunday, silly girl! )

[thirteen03]

Reading through this thread and others on similar topics I've noticed a few underlying things that I think most posters agree on.

1) Skillful football (e.g. accurate kicking) is good. It makes for entertaining games and should be encouraged
2) Teams like winning and they'll go to great lengths to do so
3) Tyrone/Armagh won All Irelands with a new approach to football, lets call it 'blanket defence'. Others tried to copy them but were unsucessful and there were bad games as a result (sorry fermanagh/kildare)
4) Teams playing the most skillful football this year have won their matches e.g. Tyrone vs Dublin, Kerry vs Galway (Galway were good too but Kerry were better), Dulbin vs Lenister

As I've said, I think most people would agree with each of these points individually. So assuming point 4) continues to hold, the best, most skillful footballers will be in the All Ireland final and the best team should win. Then what happens? Other teams looking at the All Ireland champions will ask "What can they do that we can't?". In the past the answer was "They're super fit and can swarm defence, so that's what we'll work on". Now they'll say "They're fast and fit but also very skillful. They can kick accuratly both passing and shooting and they don't get swarmed because they release the ball before they run into a tackle. We'll work on that". And in the end good/skillful football is promoted.

So my point is that although 'negative' football did feature in this years championship, it didn't fare well, therefore it won't be coached and will fade out without a rule change.

[Mike Sheehy]

Mike Sheehy is scared stiff of Tyrone after what she saw last Saturday, 
( but Mike thought the match was on Sunday, silly girl! )

  christ, you're hilarious...how do you come up with such classics

[Hardy]

Why do some Ulster contributors interpret suggestions for rule changes as a slight on Ulster football? Paranoia reigns. I, for one, am not discussing Ulster, at all, but football in general. Neither have I made any comparisons with "the good old days". The standard of football is infinitely higher today than it was twenty years ago. But it's possible to recognise that and at the same time recognise that injury feigning has crept in, diving is worse, there's too much handpassing, there's not enough kick passing, the physical contact is being systematically removed from the game.

Bleating about people calling for rule changes because Ulster teams are (sorry, were) successful holds no water at all. The only time I can remember rules being changed because they were making one team too successful was the handpass changes in the seventies/eighties.

My argument is for continuous improvement. Lose the paranoia lads and debate the issues. Do we want more or less handpassing? More or less high catching? More or less long range scoring? More or less diving? More or less injury feigning? Should the rules (and their interpretation) favour the essential skills and penalise the undesirable tendencies, or not? That's all I was asking. And I'm not supporting the writer of that piece of nonsense at all. As I said I stopped reading early. But it gave rise to this more sensible debate.

Please try to answer without mentioning Ulster. I know it won't be easy, but try. Please.

[RMDrive]

One of the main elements of skill that has almost died out over the past decade is kicking a dead ball on the ground - almost all pointed frees these days come from the hands which although is easy to do is difficult to master right and leads to a lot of mis-hit shots.

Therefore the only things I would propose is that a free kick would only be taken from the hands by the player who was fouled or by the player who was closest to the ball - any other player taking the free would have to do so from the ground.

Why do you care whether free's are taken from the hand or from the ground? Teams are well able to decide for themselves which is the more accurate way and if they decide to kick from the hands then obviously that is the more accurate method for that player. I've heard people calling for this enforced kicking from the ground before and I can only put it down to nostalgia. The only thing that matters is that the free is scored. Whether that is out of the hands, from the ground or with his arse shouldn't matter to you.

[ONeill]

Could someone tell me what's wrong with the handpass right now? None of the top teams overuse it. Those sides who perhaps over indulge in it are usually over-run as Fermanagh found out against Armagh. Winning formulas are usually mimicked and the Tyrones, Kerrys, Corks of this world use a healthy mix. I cannot see what the problem is. Some sides will prefer the handpass approach as it suits their players and system - many don't. I think it's healthy that we have that mix of tactics and strengths.

[ONeill]

The problem lies in that very few children, if any, are now coached into being able to kick a dead ball from the ground which is still important to learn for players to take 45's or penalties. I've lost count of games where teams have been awarded 45's and nobody is willing to step up to take a kick because they don't know how to and have never been coached into doing so, therefore most of them play a short one-two instead. It's the same with penalties because most players haven't a clue to take such an important kick - this includes "star forwards" who might rake up something like 3-6 in a game, get a late penalty to take and then either completely fluffs it or just toe pokes it and hopes for the best with no effort to place the ball.

Absolute bollocks. "Most players" haven't a clue how to take penalties! I suppose they were saying that about Bill McCorry too. Most players play other ground sports as well. 

[Hardy]

BTW Hardy, when the handpassed goal was banned, so too was the handpassed point. The handpassed point was only allowed again when free kicks from the hand were allowed also in 1991 (I think).

I didn't know (or remember) that. To be pedantic, the handpassed point is still not allowed - it has to be fisted. Not that you'd notice, since most referees don't seem to give a toss or know the rule - I don't know which.

You have a point about penalties. The standard this year, at senior inter-county level, has been appalling. It's not helped, again, by referees either not knowing the rule or not giving a damn where the goalie goes. In most cases he's out near the edge of the small square by the time the ball is kicked.

[RMDrive]

One of the main elements of skill that has almost died out over the past decade is kicking a dead ball on the ground - almost all pointed frees these days come from the hands which although is easy to do is difficult to master right and leads to a lot of mis-hit shots.

Therefore the only things I would propose is that a free kick would only be taken from the hands by the player who was fouled or by the player who was closest to the ball - any other player taking the free would have to do so from the ground.

Why do you care whether free's are taken from the hand or from the ground? Teams are well able to decide for themselves which is the more accurate way and if they decide to kick from the hands then obviously that is the more accurate method for that player. I've heard people calling for this enforced kicking from the ground before and I can only put it down to nostalgia. The only thing that matters is that the free is scored. Whether that is out of the hands, from the ground or with his arse shouldn't matter to you.

It's very simple - levels of skill. Its nothing to do with levels of nostalgia for me as most of my time spent playing/coaching football has been done with any player able to kick a free from the hands.

The problem lies in that very few children, if any, are now coached into being able to kick a dead ball from the ground which is still important to learn for players to take 45's or penalties. I've lost count of games where teams have been awarded 45's and nobody is willing to step up to take a kick because they don't know how to and have never been coached into doing so, therefore most of them play a short one-two instead. It's the same with penalties because most players haven't a clue to take such an important kick - this includes "star forwards" who might rake up something like 3-6 in a game, get a late penalty to take and then either completely fluffs it or just toe pokes it and hopes for the best with no effort to place the ball.

It's also false that kicking the ball from the hands is more accurate than kicking a dead ball on the ground - because a kicked ball from the hands is moving when it is struck it is much more likely to go in a direction other than where the player wants it whereas a dead ball, when learned correctly, is much easier to control its direction.

I take your point about the 45's and as don't get me started on penalty kicks (Michael Murphy for Donegal seems to be one of the few that I have seen that look very confident taking a penalty). I have to disagree about the accuracy differences between kicking from the ground vs the hands. Surely the top players and coaches are going to go with the method that is most accurate. If Finlay wants to kick from his hands then surely thats because it is the more accurate way. I know you could argue that if he was never coached to kick from the ground that he may not have the option to kick from the ground but look at Colm McFadden who is a great striker of the ball off the ground. He still chooses to take his frees from the hand.

[scalder]

Lads when was this 'golden age' of pure skilful football? Because when you look back at old games its that impressive really, go back a few decades and the game was more like soccer with a huge amount of kicking the ball on the ground, go back to the early 1900's and the solo had yet to be invented, took a Mayoman to come up with it!
The game today has problems, many of which could be dealt with a few rule changes,  they trailed it in the past why not try it again, make a player who receives a hand pass kick the ball, rule out the hand passed score too.