Ulster Senior football championship 2024

[J70]

Yeah, that five penalty takers on repeat rule is ridiculous.

What's the rationale anyway? To be different from soccer?

Then you end up with poor Armagh lad who missed twice against Monaghan last year.

It's cruel sending a lad who already missed up again.

[general_lee]

If there's a silver-lining to yesterday's performance it's that Armagh put on an exhibition on why the attacking mark should be ditched. Such a stupid rule.

Odd take. I think the attacking mark works. I also don't know why you would get rid of it because 2 Armagh players didn't have a shot.

It's a terrible rule. Doesn't encourage high fielding or long kicking. It slows the game down whenever it's used. It's shite.

[Captain Obvious]

Yeah, that five penalty takers on repeat rule is ridiculous.

What's the rationale anyway? To be different from soccer?

Then you end up with poor Armagh lad who missed twice against Monaghan last year.

It's cruel sending a lad who already missed up again.

Yes that's it,  taking one penalty is more than enough for fellas to take. When copying another sport to decide matches it should be copied fully.

[Itchy]

If there's a silver-lining to yesterday's performance it's that Armagh put on an exhibition on why the attacking mark should be ditched. Such a stupid rule.

Odd take. I think the attacking mark works. I also don't know why you would get rid of it because 2 Armagh players didn't have a shot.

Why does it work? It stops players from taking a man on and the art of 1 v 1 defending in many instances. I think the general concensus would be that the majority would like to see a player take his man on as that is what gets punters off their seats, not someone being able to take a free shot at goal or worse slow down the attack then kick it back. 

It does not stop that, you can still take a man on and many teams do. It does stop a man catching a long ball in and getting swamped by 3 defenders and getting turned over.

You might well be the only person in Ireland who's in favour of the forward mark.

I doubt it since it was voted in at Congress. However I do have a mind of my own and i think unfortunately we have a sheep mentality in GAA where everyone is against everything. People forget what it was like before the rule came in.

[OakLeaf]

That's both his and Campbells in the one play. Campbell had missed a slightly easier one by a country mile earlier in the 2nd half.

https://x.com/cahairokane1/status/1789950367871947054?s=46

Were either of those marks 20m from the point where the ball was kicked, to where it was caught? I'm not a fan of the forward mark either.

[tonto1888]

Yeah, that five penalty takers on repeat rule is ridiculous.

What's the rationale anyway? To be different from soccer?

Then you end up with poor Armagh lad who missed twice against Monaghan last year.

It's cruel sending a lad who already missed up again.

Callum comiskey. Not on the panel this year and I wonder if that had anything to do with it. Not that anyone from Armagh put any blame on him

[Keyser soze]

Armagh hadnt scored in the 15 mins before that. And tbh hadn't had many chances that they missed during that period AFAIR either so makes it even more hard to comprehend why they didn't have a go at one of those.

[yellowcard]

The talk of Jarly Og's mark is a red herring, if Jarly was given a bag of O Neills and stood on that spot in Clones till next Sunday he wouldn't have make that kick. Soup should have had a pop at his , but again he had just missed a similar one so he maybe didnt feel good about it. A wild wide and handing back procession to Patton was not the right option. When Conaty dropped short was a turning point I feel,he should have recycled, maybe bit of inexperience but the lad had a great game other than that and his wide at the last.

Very harsh and don't agree with that at all, Jarly Og is well capable of kicking a ball over the bar from 35-40m on the correct side of the pitch given his kicking style. If that was the case he shouldn't have bothered calling the mark in the first instance. I don't particularly like the rule to begin with but it is there to be taken advantage of where spaces in defence are tight in the closing stages of games.

It's a sad indictment of gaelic football that some people think a ball should be recycled backwards from a shooting position inside the 45m line and that they can't trust a player to have a shot at the posts. Playing the low risk percentages might be part of the reason why we can't see out these matches, its a fear mindset.   

I'm not so sure that he is. Jarly óg falls into the category of players we have that IMO are told to not shoot unless it's almost a certainty. You can see it in our build up play.  Quite a few of our lads are not going to attempt to threaten the scoreboard (in certain positions) and I'm sure the opposition know this too.

He's a natural midfielder and was an Allstar nominee 2 years ago along with Soupy. If supporters can't trust top players to take a free kick at goals 35-40 metres out but rather that he kick it backwards then we have simply become conditioned to a risk free, low percentage game. At what point do we roll the dice, when we are 70, 80 or 90% certain of a score. Nobody is criticising Kelly or McPartland this morning for missing big kicks, that's just part of the game. No guts no glory. 

[statto]

If there's a silver-lining to yesterday's performance it's that Armagh put on an exhibition on why the attacking mark should be ditched. Such a stupid rule.

Odd take. I think the attacking mark works. I also don't know why you would get rid of it because 2 Armagh players didn't have a shot.

Why does it work? It stops players from taking a man on and the art of 1 v 1 defending in many instances. I think the general concensus would be that the majority would like to see a player take his man on as that is what gets punters off their seats, not someone being able to take a free shot at goal or worse slow down the attack then kick it back. 

It does not stop that, you can still take a man on and many teams do. It does stop a man catching a long ball in and getting swamped by 3 defenders and getting turned over.

Any player worth their salt that catches the ball within 30/35 yards is going to take a free shot at the posts in the majority of circumstances.  The only reason you maybe wouldn't if chasing a game looking and need a goal. 

[Armagh18]

If there's a silver-lining to yesterday's performance it's that Armagh put on an exhibition on why the attacking mark should be ditched. Such a stupid rule.

Odd take. I think the attacking mark works. I also don't know why you would get rid of it because 2 Armagh players didn't have a shot.

Why does it work? It stops players from taking a man on and the art of 1 v 1 defending in many instances. I think the general concensus would be that the majority would like to see a player take his man on as that is what gets punters off their seats, not someone being able to take a free shot at goal or worse slow down the attack then kick it back. 

It does not stop that, you can still take a man on and many teams do. It does stop a man catching a long ball in and getting swamped by 3 defenders and getting turned over.

Any player worth their salt that catches the ball within 30/35 yards is going to take a free shot at the posts in the majority of circumstances.  The only reason you maybe wouldn't if chasing a game looking and need a goal. 

Just watched jarly og and soupys marks back and to be fair I think Jarlys would have been scorable but not easy for a free taker which he certainly is not. My issue with his is why take the mark at all, you've got the ball in a decent postion try to take a man on and work something. Soupys was on the wrong side for a right footed player.

[gallsman]

It does stop a man catching a long ball in and getting swamped by 3 defenders and getting turned over.

Is this what people want to stop?

[Taylor]

It does stop a man catching a long ball in and getting swamped by 3 defenders and getting turned over.

Is this what people want to stop?

The mark has been rarely used for this in recent times.

[Blowitupref]

It does stop a man catching a long ball in and getting swamped by 3 defenders and getting turned over.

Is this what people want to stop?

Going to take a guess and say Itchy was a forward in his playing days?

[Wildweasel74]

Both marks should have been went for, both men have the distance, so hitting it hard enough to go dead,  instead of a Donegal counter attack.

[Armagh18]

Both marks should have been went for, both men have the distance, so hitting it hard enough to go dead,  instead of a Donegal counter attack.

Disagree tbh, Jarly Og probably hasn't kicked 10 shots with his feet his whole Armagh career, Soupys was the wrong side.