NFL Division 1 2025

[J70]

So effectively Tyrone's 15 v Kerry's 13 yesterday was really 13 v 13 because Tyrone had to keep 3 players back.
Hence the lack of Tyrone killer punch in that key 50th-60th minute period. The two black cards didn't really have much effect.
Kerry played better & managed the rules better during that 10 minutes.

Is that correct though? Surely Tyrone didn't need to keep 3 players back if Kerry only needed to keep one in the forward line. Do the rules not allow you to take the risk of playing all 15 players in the opposition half if you choose?

That's the rules. The full team need to keep 3 back at all times, the team with lesser numbers gets to drop players back. Completely stupid when you think these rules have been thought about for 1 year and no one thought about this.

That's mad considering the rule changes were to encourage players taking more risk, but they are prevented from doing so in this case

Yip completely mad. When kerry went down to 13 players Tyrone had only 12 players to attack with, as they had to keep 3 back. Kerry even though 2 men down could afford to defend with 12 men against tyrones 12 attackers. If Tyrone didn't bring morgan forward they would be attacking with 11 against 12 kerry defenders.

I think losing the game was a Tyrone mismanagement thing rather than looking to the rules? 

100% and no one is arguing otherwise however with the current rules you can afford to lose 2 players and not be negativity impacted is just stupid and needs changed.

It's a tough one. Playing devil's advocate here. If you get a man sent off early and you have to defend in your own half with 10 outfield players for the rest of the game against an opposition's 12 attacking players (including the keeper) that could be game over straight away. So a red card effectively decides the game like has often been the case in rugby over the years. This is one of the reasons why the 20 minute red card is being trialled at the moment.
So I can see why the rule is there.
But can see the other side of it also.

That's not the case. If you have a man sent off, you only need to keep two forwards up the pitch instead of three. But the defending team needs to always keep three defenders back, even if there is only 2 or even one player to mark

McGuinness was asking this question after yesterday's game.

Galway were down two men for two different periods, but Donegal still had to keep three men back to mark one forward.

[galwayman]

So effectively Tyrone's 15 v Kerry's 13 yesterday was really 13 v 13 because Tyrone had to keep 3 players back.
Hence the lack of Tyrone killer punch in that key 50th-60th minute period. The two black cards didn't really have much effect.
Kerry played better & managed the rules better during that 10 minutes.

Is that correct though? Surely Tyrone didn't need to keep 3 players back if Kerry only needed to keep one in the forward line. Do the rules not allow you to take the risk of playing all 15 players in the opposition half if you choose?

That's the rules. The full team need to keep 3 back at all times, the team with lesser numbers gets to drop players back. Completely stupid when you think these rules have been thought about for 1 year and no one thought about this.

That's mad considering the rule changes were to encourage players taking more risk, but they are prevented from doing so in this case

Yip completely mad. When kerry went down to 13 players Tyrone had only 12 players to attack with, as they had to keep 3 back. Kerry even though 2 men down could afford to defend with 12 men against tyrones 12 attackers. If Tyrone didn't bring morgan forward they would be attacking with 11 against 12 kerry defenders.

I think losing the game was a Tyrone mismanagement thing rather than looking to the rules? 

100% and no one is arguing otherwise however with the current rules you can afford to lose 2 players and not be negativity impacted is just stupid and needs changed.

It's a tough one. Playing devil's advocate here. If you get a man sent off early and you have to defend in your own half with 10 outfield players for the rest of the game against an opposition's 12 attacking players (including the keeper) that could be game over straight away. So a red card effectively decides the game like has often been the case in rugby over the years. This is one of the reasons why the 20 minute red card is being trialled at the moment.
So I can see why the rule is there.
But can see the other side of it also.

That's not the case. If you have a man sent off, you only need to keep two forwards up the pitch instead of three. But the defending team needs to always keep three defenders back, even if there is only 2 or even one player to mark

I know that. My point was if that wasn't in place (and you still had to keep three up top after having a man red or black carded) you would be defending with 10 outfield players in your own half against an opposition who have 12 (once they bring up the goalie). At the top level that means a red card effectively decides a game. Which is what they are trying to avoid with the rule the way it is.
Not saying this because we benefitted yesterday either by the way. I'm just thinking of the overall effect of changing thet rule.

[Manning18]

[

100% and no one is arguing otherwise however with the current rules you can afford to lose 2 players and not be negativity impacted is just stupid and needs changed.

Of course they were negatively impacted. In Kerry's case they either had to attack with two fewer players or they had to leave two Tyrone forwards scot free on the half way line and be screwed by a quick kickpass if they lost possession. In attack they can't transition quick because they're outnumbered 3 to 1 on the far side of the field

Obviously it's less of a negative impact than it was last year, that's undebateable. However if you change the rule and the penalized team must keep 3 up and back then it becomes a much greater impact than last year

Not saying one is right or one is wrong. The team I support generally has an excellent disciplinary record so I should probably be wanting the latter

Not saying Tyrone are a dirty team in the slightest but their displinary record would be slightly worse than the D1 average for the past few years. It's a case of careful what you wish for

[tyrone08]

[

100% and no one is arguing otherwise however with the current rules you can afford to lose 2 players and not be negativity impacted is just stupid and needs changed.

Of course they were negatively impacted. In Kerry's case they either had to attack with two fewer players or they had to leave two Tyrone forwards scot free on the half way line and be screwed by a quick kickpass if they lost possession. In attack they can't transition quick because they're outnumbered 3 to 1 on the far side of the field

Obviously it's less of a negative impact than it was last year, that's undebateable. However if you change the rule and the penalized team must keep 3 up and back then it becomes a much greater impact than last year

Not saying one is right or one is wrong. The team I support generally has an excellent disciplinary record so I should probably be wanting the latter

Not saying Tyrone are a dirty team in the slightest but their displinary record would be slightly worse than the D1 average for the past few years. It's a case of careful what you wish for

If you can lose 2 men and can still defend with the same number of people as the attacking team then you are not impacted. All kerry had to do in that 10 min period was to slow the game down and not concede any points which they successfully did. They they are back up to full strength.

The point of losing players is so that there is a reward for the more disciplined team e.g a greater chance of scoring which there no longer is.

Also these rules changes were supposed to speed up the game. Now any team with a few men down will simply sit back and defend with the same number of players as the attacking team.

[bennydorano]

Armagh v Dublin sold out by the looks of it

[Manning18]

Yep you can defend with the same number but like I said it screws you on the transition attack as you're completely outnumbered up the field

But yeah it probably should and will be changed. It will then become a greater penalty than it was under the old rules, and referees will decide far more games with red & black card decisions than they did previously. I just hope some people and especially managers who complain about referees at the best of times are ready for that

[galwayman]

Yep you can defend with the same number but like I said it screws you on the transition attack as you're completely outnumbered up the field

But yeah it probably should and will be changed. It will then become a greater penalty than it was under the old rules, and referees will decide far more games with red & black card decisions than they did previously. I just hope some people and especially managers who complain about referees at the best of times are ready for that

Be careful what you wish for in this instance.
Do people seriously want a rule that forces teams to leave 3 up top if they have someone red carded? That means 12 attackers vs 10 outfield defenders. So a red card will effectively decide the game.
That's far worse than the rule that's there now.
It will completely ruin games.

[Armamike]

This is the problem when the powers that be start to get too prescriptive about positions on a pitch. 

[SouthOfThe Bann]

Yep you can defend with the same number but like I said it screws you on the transition attack as you're completely outnumbered up the field

But yeah it probably should and will be changed. It will then become a greater penalty than it was under the old rules, and referees will decide far more games with red & black card decisions than they did previously. I just hope some people and especially managers who complain about referees at the best of times are ready for that

Be careful what you wish for in this instance.
Do people seriously want a rule that forces teams to leave 3 up top if they have someone red carded? That means 12 attackers vs 10 outfield defenders. So a red card will effectively decide the game.
That's far worse than the rule that's there now.
It will completely ruin games.

Yeah but you can;t have it both ways and that's the way it is now. Should it not depend on who is sent off?

[Milltown Row2]

Yep you can defend with the same number but like I said it screws you on the transition attack as you're completely outnumbered up the field

But yeah it probably should and will be changed. It will then become a greater penalty than it was under the old rules, and referees will decide far more games with red & black card decisions than they did previously. I just hope some people and especially managers who complain about referees at the best of times are ready for that

This bit in bold, explain it a bit further as I'm at a loss here...

The referee will apply a card if needs be for the ACTION ONF THE PLAYER... It is down to the players poor decisions in the game that decide whether his team finishes with 15 players or not.

[thewobbler]

Yep you can defend with the same number but like I said it screws you on the transition attack as you're completely outnumbered up the field

But yeah it probably should and will be changed. It will then become a greater penalty than it was under the old rules, and referees will decide far more games with red & black card decisions than they did previously. I just hope some people and especially managers who complain about referees at the best of times are ready for that

This bit in bold, explain it a bit further as I'm at a loss here...

The referee will apply a card if needs be for the ACTION ONF THE PLAYER... It is down to the players poor decisions in the game that decide whether his team finishes with 15 players or not.

Lol I'm fully with you here MR2.

All too many of our own don't want independent arbitration of games, they just want every blow of a whistle to go their way, and someone to blame when even that is not enough.

[Spiderlegs]

Armagh v Dublin sold out by the looks of it

It wasn't possible to buy tickets for a brief time earlier in the week but they came back on sale again.
Whilst the crowd will be very big, it's not going to be a total sellout.

[Manning18]

Yep you can defend with the same number but like I said it screws you on the transition attack as you're completely outnumbered up the field

But yeah it probably should and will be changed. It will then become a greater penalty than it was under the old rules, and referees will decide far more games with red & black card decisions than they did previously. I just hope some people and especially managers who complain about referees at the best of times are ready for that

This bit in bold, explain it a bit further as I'm at a loss here...

The referee will apply a card if needs be for the ACTION ONF THE PLAYER... It is down to the players poor decisions in the game that decide whether his team finishes with 15 players or not.

A very simple example is Sunday just past where Tierney goes for a shoulder, a player ducks into him at the last second and its ambigious even on slow motion camera afterwards whether there's contact with the head

Nobody truly 100% knows if that's a redcard or not. All pundits on TG4 said afterwads it wasn't. Reaction is more split online, probably 70/30 in favour of it not being a red

However the referee and linesman took an interpretation and gave the red. Under changed rules that decision will very likely decide a game between two even teams in championship. Under the current red card rules its less likely to

[clonian]

Yep you can defend with the same number but like I said it screws you on the transition attack as you're completely outnumbered up the field

But yeah it probably should and will be changed. It will then become a greater penalty than it was under the old rules, and referees will decide far more games with red & black card decisions than they did previously. I just hope some people and especially managers who complain about referees at the best of times are ready for that

This bit in bold, explain it a bit further as I'm at a loss here...

The referee will apply a card if needs be for the ACTION ONF THE PLAYER... It is down to the players poor decisions in the game that decide whether his team finishes with 15 players or not.

A very simple example is Sunday just past where Tierney goes for a shoulder, a player ducks into him at the last second and its ambigious even on slow motion camera afterwards whether there's contact with the head

Nobody truly 100% knows if that's a redcard or not. All pundits on TG4 said afterwads it wasn't. Reaction is more split online, probably 70/30 in favour of it not being a red

However the referee and linesman took an interpretation and gave the red. Under changed rules that decision will very likely decide a game between two even teams in championship. Under the current red card rules its less likely to

Pundits nearly always say what they think should happen not what the rules say should happen.

[galwayman]

Yep you can defend with the same number but like I said it screws you on the transition attack as you're completely outnumbered up the field

But yeah it probably should and will be changed. It will then become a greater penalty than it was under the old rules, and referees will decide far more games with red & black card decisions than they did previously. I just hope some people and especially managers who complain about referees at the best of times are ready for that

This bit in bold, explain it a bit further as I'm at a loss here...

The referee will apply a card if needs be for the ACTION ONF THE PLAYER... It is down to the players poor decisions in the game that decide whether his team finishes with 15 players or not.

A very simple example is Sunday just past where Tierney goes for a shoulder, a player ducks into him at the last second and its ambigious even on slow motion camera afterwards whether there's contact with the head

Nobody truly 100% knows if that's a redcard or not. All pundits on TG4 said afterwads it wasn't. Reaction is more split online, probably 70/30 in favour of it not being a red

However the referee and linesman took an interpretation and gave the red. Under changed rules that decision will very likely decide a game between two even teams in championship. Under the current red card rules its less likely to

That's it in a nutshell.
If they changed it to make teams that are down a man leave 3 up top then this is exactly what would happen.
The team with 15 men will almost always win as it will be just too easy to pick off the opposition.