Exprimental Football Rules

[Canalman]

Afaik the Ulster counties think the rule "changes" are an affront to their style of football. A huge bloc of No voters which will stymie the changes. They are dead in the water.

[Hardy]

The rules are a disaster and will ruin the game. They are the product of lazy, media-appeasing, misunderstanding, meddling minds that have no genuine feeling for the essence of the game (football, that is - hurling I can't comment on).

Watching that soccer game the other night reinforced for me the inevitable outcome of this tendency, if indulged. That game is practically unwatchable now, so bad has the obsession with eliminating physical contact become.

Scrap them now.

[Zulu]

That's grand to say Hardy but where is the evidence that this is what the rules are achieving, the worst game of football I saw this year was the club final. Now that obviously wasn't down to the old rules but things went on in that game that aren't going on in games under the new rules.

[Hardy]

Zulu, I've seen countless examples in the league of players being sent off merely for accidental contact in the challenge for the ball. It seems clear to me that these rules are specifically intended to reduce the amount of physical contact in the game. There seems to be a misguided mission on the part of the current administration to achieve what they see as the "cleaning up" of football. Their lack of understanding and appreciation of the basic ethos of the game translates this into a move to eliminate the physical clash.

If players cant go full-blooded for the ball without the fear of being sidelined for even an accidental collision, the game is ruined. There are already more than enough ball games where physical contact is barred - basketball, netball, soccer now, etc. I'm not interested in any of them. If they turn gaelic football into another one of them, I'm not interested in that either. 

[orangeman]

Zulu, I've seen countless examples in the league of players being sent off merely for accidental contact in the challenge for the ball. It seems clear to me that these rules are specifically intended to reduce the amount of physical contact in the game. There seems to be a misguided mission on the part of the current administration to achieve what they see as the "cleaning up" of football. Their lack of understanding and appreciation of the basic ethos of the game translates this into a move to eliminate the physical clash.

If players cant go full-blooded for the ball without the fear of being sidelined for even an accidental collision, the game is ruined. There are already more than enough ball games where physical contact is barred - basketball, netball, soccer now, etc. I'm not interested in any of them. If they turn gaelic football into another one of them, I'm not interested in that either. 

Well put Hardy -


Is there that much wrong with the games as they are at the minute ?? I don't think there is a lot wrong with the game as it is played.

[An Fhairche Abu]

I'd keep it for the late 3rd man tackle and scrap the rest of them.

[Zulu]

I don't think there is much wrong with the game at present but there are issues and they do need tackling and the only way to see if these rules will really be detrimental to the game is to see how they work in championship. I have seen some bad decisions but I can't say I feel football has become non-contact and I think we need to see them in the summer. If they really are bad for the game they can then be dumped but they have to be given a chance.

[Fear ón Srath Bán]

I don't think but that there is no doubt that the new rules, rather insidiously, have diminished the physical nature of the games. We had the hallowed chiefs singing their (the new rules) praises when they'd barely been a wet week in the offing, but as any fool should know, the first few games of a new League campaign is a time to hold counsel, not to spread the gospel.

All in all, and I've given them a fair wind, it's time to dump them, redraft, and try again for 2010.

[Rodman]

if you think the blanket defence adopted by some teams over the past few years was bad, wait until these new rules are applied for a period of time and then you will see a real balnket defence. Defenders will be afraid to touch the man in fear of the referee incorrectly interpreting his attempt at a tackle as a black or yellow card. Defenders will drop back off their men and play a zone defence like in basketball with about 13 men behind the ball, trying to force the other team to take pot shogs for 50+ yards.  If this rules are adopted it destroy football as we know it.  Football is a physical, contact sport and the rules are fine they way they were if applied correctly.  Why are the GAA trying their best to take the physicality out of the game.

[tyssam5]

I think we should consider 'team foul count' something like basketball. Any free not in scoring distance i.e. outside of 50 yard line gets makred down. every 5 (or 3) of these foul results in 50 in front of the goals. I think that might encourage less fouling of back coming out by defenders etc.?

Of course it would all be too complicated etc. etc. would need another official. etc. etc.

[Zulu]

if you think the blanket defence adopted by some teams over the past few years was bad, wait until these new rules are applied for a period of time and then you will see a real balnket defence. Defenders will be afraid to touch the man in fear of the referee incorrectly interpreting his attempt at a tackle as a black or yellow card. Defenders will drop back off their men and play a zone defence like in basketball with about 13 men behind the ball, trying to force the other team to take pot shogs for 50+ yards.  If this rules are adopted it destroy football as we know it.  Football is a physical, contact sport and the rules are fine they way they were if applied correctly.  Why are the GAA trying their best to take the physicality out of the game.

This is exactly the scare mongering type argument that too many GAA folk resort to when changes are proposed, I'm not saying these rules are necessarily the way to go but they need to be given time. There is a problem in football wih cynical and persistent fouling and most people accept this yet when moves are made to tackle it the same people try to tell us the game was fine as it was. We shouldn't be afraid of trying short term experiments for logterm gains.

[The GAA]

They've had 3 months. They've achieved nothing positive in my view

[Zulu]

And what would be positive GAA? Games haven't been ruined by them, have they? Off the top of my head I can think of 3 very good games that I've seen in this years league, Dub V Ty, Dry V TY and Kil V Mon so the argument that they are ruining football (if that is what we're saying) doesn't seem to stand up. Any of the poor games I've seen this year like Cork V Laois or Dub V Mayo had nothing to do with the rules, now while I don't think these rules are the best we can do, they seem to be a deterrent to players fouling and as such they must be good. It's grand to say we want a physical game, and I certainly want that, but there is a difference between physical football and lazy or cynical tackling.

As far as I can see the only point posters who want them binned are making is that they'll ruin football or make it non-contact, can anyone back this up with evidence? Yes some lads have been 'sent off' for very little but I think this can be ironed out with more time. We'll never have the perfect set of rules but unless the rules are ruining football as a spectacle or removing the physicality out of the game then they should be given more time. I see no evidence of the former and little of the latter.

[The GAA]

Ironically the games you have picked out are games where the referee has ignored the implementation of these new rules or at best applied them selectively.

The only rule i would be comfortable with is the ordering off, to be replaced, for cynically pulling a man to the ground. i can't think of too many of those incidents in championship football in any case and is generally confined to poor footballers.

As for the evidence of the reduced physicality? the evidence is before your eyes when you go to watch games. players are visibly standing off and "sheparding" the ball carrier like a farmer roundin up cattle. very few players are willing to commit to the difficult tackle and even fewer are committing to 60/40 loose balls.

i like hardy's sentiment where if a fella is disuaded in any way of going hell for leather for the ball when its there to be won, because of new rules then the new rules are not in keeping with the spirit and traditions of the game

[Zulu]

Ironically the games you have picked out are games where the referee has ignored the implementation of these new rules or at best applied them selectively

Every game I've seen the refs have applied the rules selectively, as they should, and I might add Dub V Kry to that list which marks 4 of the televised games down as good which isn't a bad strike rate under the new rules.

The only rule i would be comfortable with is the ordering off, to be replaced, for cynically pulling a man to the ground

What about body checking the runner? Or the tackle around the neck? or repeated fouling, which we're told some teams have done to a tee so that nobody gets sent off?

As for the evidence of the reduced physicality? the evidence is before your eyes when you go to watch games

Nonsense, I didn't hear too many complain about the level of physicality in any of the games I 've seen and anyway the league is always tamer than championship so even if you're right how do you know it is the rules that are causing this and not just lower fitness levels and softer ground etc.?

players are visibly standing off and "sheparding" the ball carrier like a farmer roundin up cattle. very few players are willing to commit to the difficult tackle

That's called good defending and is taught by most good coaches - stand them up and don't jump into the tackle.

i like hardy's sentiment where if a fella is disuaded in any way of going hell for leather for the ball when its there to be won, because of new rules then the new rules are not in keeping with the spirit and traditions of the game

I see little evidence of this but only doomsayers' saying this is what will happen, anyway it can be monitored and if refs are not reffing within the spirit of the game then they can be told to give the benefit of the doubt to tacklers. We could go back and forth here all day and we won't agree because it is a matter of opinion rather than fact but there is too much cynical fouling in football and the game can be very stop start which can lead to some awful spectacles and if rules need to be tinkered with to reduce these then I'm all for it and I definitely want to see how they pan out. It's too easy to say 'they don't work so get rid of them', it'll be much better if they are seen in championship and then we can make a decision rather than fellas proclaiming them a failure on the basis of the 4 or 5 games they've seen.