Inter-Provincial Series showcasing new rules..

[thewobbler]

This handing the  ball to an opponent......

What if the opponent deliberately  drops the ball? Is it moved up  because the  opponent didn't  put it into his hands? Why not just drop the ball  where  the foul is blown?

What's this about the attacking  mark , and getting a 2nd chance?........

Connacht player caught  it, played on, shot, Morgan saved. Then he  was allowed to  take the mark  again? WTF?

Agree with Rian/Forker on the 4 point  goals........

  I recorded the match and watched it back. I actually had to pause it to add  up the scores . 

The lads on RTE  made a good point  re: the 3v3.  It actually pays to have the keeper up in opponents half , as it creates  an extra  man (with more space ). So if the Rules men had ideas about  hoping this  would  force keepers to stay in goal , it looks like it will have the opposite affect. Roaming keepers will become  even more  important 

The 2nd chance at a mark is the new rule - after meeting the criteria of the mark you then get a choice to play on for a shot at goal but defenders can tackle. If it doesn't go into the net or over the bar, it is taken back for the original mark. It is to give further incentive to the risk of playing a long high ball in towards the goals which has been deemed as happening too infrequently in the modern game.

It is not the intention of the FRC to force goalkeepers to stay in goal. It is the intention for the goalkeeper to not be used as a defensive outlet for easy "piggy in the middle". In their proposals they have deliberately made the rules so that he can join back into play after he crosses the half way line. This is to allow modern innovations to continue.

It is to allow the modern innovation of piggy in the middle in the attacking half by bringing the keeper up to join the attack so that the attacking team has a man extra.  If this stays the same we will see games next summer where teams will hold the ball in the attacking half for the final 5 minutes of a game to run the clock down as they have a plus one.  It will be virtually impossible for the defending team to disposses them. 
The only way to counteract that is for the keeper to move to corner backk, the corner back shifts out to half back and a hal back picks up the attacking keeper.  But surely the FRC can't say this is the remedy to the loophole they are creating?

I'm not sure why the defending keeper couldn't press the attacking goalkeeper himself in such a scenario?

If anything it's the logical play, if for no other reason than it immediately reverses the poles in a turnover ie the keeper chasing the lead can now cross into the opposition half and become a fully active player, whereas his direct opponent's only options are too mark him directly or sprint back to goals.

[Spiderlegs]

It is to allow the modern innovation of piggy in the middle in the attacking half by bringing the keeper up to join the attack so that the attacking team has a man extra.  If this stays the same we will see games next summer where teams will hold the ball in the attacking half for the final 5 minutes of a game to run the clock down as they have a plus one.  It will be virtually impossible for the defending team to disposses them. 
The only way to counteract that is for the keeper to move to corner backk, the corner back shifts out to half back and a hal back picks up the attacking keeper.  But surely the FRC can't say this is the remedy to the loophole they are creating?

By the new rules, the potential for piggy in the middle is restricted to one half of the pitch only. Currently, the entire pitch can be used to do it. So I don't agree it will be virtually impossible to dispossess, and teams absolutely should be allowed to be in control of a game by way of retaining possession. Some teams will opt for having a goalkeeper who stays in goal because to be turned over with a committed goalkeeper could be fatal with the 3v3.... or, they just won't have a goalkeeper capable of getting up and down.
I think the tactical and formational options available to players and coaches is a very good thing to come out of these rules.

[Smokin Joe]

I'm not sure why the defending keeper couldn't press the attacking goalkeeper himself in such a scenario?

[/quote]

Because the attacking team could kick the ball into the empty net when the defending keeper is on his way out to press the attacking keeper?

Alternatively instead of this being the suggested solution the FRC could just tidy up this loophole by matching the numbers up without the defending keeper being told the only way for his team to get the ball back is to leave his goals empty.  Surely that wouldn't be too much to ask for?

[Smokin Joe]

It is to allow the modern innovation of piggy in the middle in the attacking half by bringing the keeper up to join the attack so that the attacking team has a man extra.  If this stays the same we will see games next summer where teams will hold the ball in the attacking half for the final 5 minutes of a game to run the clock down as they have a plus one.  It will be virtually impossible for the defending team to disposses them. 
The only way to counteract that is for the keeper to move to corner backk, the corner back shifts out to half back and a hal back picks up the attacking keeper.  But surely the FRC can't say this is the remedy to the loophole they are creating?

By the new rules, the potential for piggy in the middle is restricted to one half of the pitch only. Currently, the entire pitch can be used to do it. So I don't agree it will be virtually impossible to dispossess, and teams absolutely should be allowed to be in control of a game by way of retaining possession. Some teams will opt for having a goalkeeper who stays in goal because to be turned over with a committed goalkeeper could be fatal with the 3v3.... or, they just won't have a goalkeeper capable of getting up and down.
I think the tactical and formational options available to players and coaches is a very good thing to come out of these rules.

How about taking this opportunity to not have it an almost certainty that piggy in the middle will be played in the attacking half.  I mean we have this opportunity to define the game in whatever way we want.

Keep the concept of 3v3 but allow one of the 3 players on the defensive team drop back into his own half if the attacking keeper moves into the half.  I think that works as it's up to the attacking team whether they want to attack into 11 defenders or 12 (if they bring their keeper up).

[thewobbler]

I'm not sure why the defending keeper couldn't press the attacking goalkeeper himself in such a scenario?

Because the attacking team could kick the ball into the empty net when the defending keeper is on his way out to press the attacking keeper?

Alternatively instead of this being the suggested solution the FRC could just tidy up this loophole by matching the numbers up without the defending keeper being told the only way for his team to get the ball back is to leave his goals empty.  Surely that wouldn't be too much to ask for?
[/quote]

I get this Joe.

But if one team needs the ball back in a hurry, and the other doesn't wish to give it up, then the challenge for the harrying team is to pursue the ball and/or lay traps. They shouldn't expect to come from a losing position without taking a risk.

——

As mentioned before I find it bizarre (even staggering) that a half court rule hasn't been brought in to trial to counter this situation. It's so obvious, so straightforward to referee.

But in the absence of that, for whatever inexplicable reason, then restricting the natural plus one is probably the best approach to take.

[SouthOfThe Bann]

If a shot is outside the 40 metre arc and a keeper gets a finger tip to it before it goes over the bar us it a + point or 2 point score does anyone know?

[Smokin Joe]

If a shot is outside the 40 metre arc and a keeper gets a finger tip to it before it goes over the bar us it a + point or 2 point score does anyone know?

I never seen mention of that, but I presume it would be 1 point

[gallsman]

Why? I'd have thought the natural assumption would be that it would be a 2pt score, as the criteria would be from where the shot is taken.

[armaghniac]

Why? I'd have thought the natural assumption would be that it would be a 2pt score, as the criteria would be from where the shot is taken.

How about it drops into the square and a forward gets a finger tip to it and puts it over the bar?
I think the last contact has to be outside the big arc.

[AustinPowers]

How about if  a defender  kicks it back to  a teammate  from outside the arc , and  the wind carries it over the bar? Is that  two points  for the opposition?

[gallsman]

Why? I'd have thought the natural assumption would be that it would be a 2pt score, as the criteria would be from where the shot is taken.

How about it drops into the square and a forward gets a finger tip to it and puts it over the bar?
I think the last contact has to be outside the big arc.

Then it's pretty clearly a 1 pt score, credited to the forward in the square. If it goes over the bar without another attacking player touching it, or the ball bouncing, then it should remain a 2pt score.

To be clear, you think the keeper should be rewarded for "almost stopping" a shot by having the value of the score halved?

[J70]

Why? I'd have thought the natural assumption would be that it would be a 2pt score, as the criteria would be from where the shot is taken.

Big time.

Can you imagine the whining and the rows?

"He got a fingernail to it! It's only a one-pointer!"

"No he didn't! The spin of the ball didn't change!"

[Mikhailov]

If a shot is outside the 40 metre arc and a keeper gets a finger tip to it before it goes over the bar us it a + point or 2 point score does anyone know?

I never seen mention of that, but I presume it would be 1 point

Stranger one - what happens if a shot from outside the arc bounces short but goes over the bar? I assume 2 points

[Rossfan]

Is the CC meeting this weekend?

[Cavan19]

Is a goal from a ball kicked from outside Noah's Ark counted as 6 points?