Gaelic Football - Rules & Regulations discussion/clarification

[Armagh18]

Any truth in a hand pass must be followed by a kickpass being trialled? Sounds like it could be awfully clumsy

Read that as well but not from anywhere official, jesus that would be awful.

[Rossfan]

That was trialled alright according to reports.
Name of the game is FOOTball mind you.

[David McKeown]

Stopping 3 extra men flooding back into defence leave gaps vs what we were used to , allowing less pass intercepts in attacking zone and more gaps to play in.

Of course its too small a sample to be definitive at this stage but it seems simple cause and effect.

It cant be cause and effect though because theres rule that is fundamentally impacting on the cause that is there presently. If its removed it doesnt follow that the same pattern will continue.

At the minute statistically speaking if you have a better than 40% chance of scoring a 2 pointer you are better to try that shot than to hold the ball and try and work an opportunity to score a say near 80% one point score. Conversely teams are better to try and force you to eschew the 2 point try in favour of the one.  If you remove that 2 point incentive what is equally likely to happen is that a lot of teams will defend deeper making the longer supposedly harder shots slightly easier but reducing the space inside to reduce the ease of creating high percentage shots.  The consequence of that is teams may become more conservative in their approach not wanting to shoot the low percentage shot from distance because there is not an incentive to do so and instead focusing on keeping the ball in tight spaces and recycling it to create higher percentage shots that are harder to come by.

What I am trying to say is that we don't know what a removal of the 2 point score would with the 3v3 rule intact. It might result in more scores but equally it may result in more passive play as teams defend deeper whilst attacking teams become more patient in looking for a score.  Thats why I would be reluctant to just say ditch the 2 point rule even though I dont like it
 

Most coaches and their tribe of backroom staff and statisticians are risk averse and if that figure of 40% success rate when taking on a 2 pointer is accurate you can be sure coaches aren't encouraging it.

Yet if you look at the AI final the 2 pointer was the reason Kerry had such a big winning margin over Donegal. It's not the reason they won as they were much the better team.

Under previous rules Donegal were probably looking at going into the final 10 minutes maybe 2 or 3 points down even when being outplayed for large parts of the game and maybe would have changed things up a bit for a final push to the end. The margin and the use of the 2 pointers by Kerry meant that they'd no chance of of closing the gap and TBH they never really looked like having a real go at Kerry which for me is poor management from Jim when the game was going away from them.
He'd thrown the towel in.

Donegal did everything to avoid a shootout with Kerry, but Kerry went and had their shootout anyway.

The new rules favour the teams with the best scoring forwards, is there anything wrong with that?

Time to encourage scoring forwards to go for scores and time to teach lads how to defend one-on-one.

I'm sure if that figure was accurate they would be coaching it. A 40% chance of a two pointer is better than anything up to an 80% chance of 1 pointer

I also don't think you can disassociate Kerry's advantage in the All Ireland final from the rules. Kerry dominated because Paudie Clifford and Gavin White had the freedom of the park. The main reason for that is because Donegal over compensated for David Clifford considering the impact two pointers allow him to have and therefore didn't have the men to close down that space as they would have been able to under the old rules. 

I also don't think the rules favour the teams with the best forwards. I think they favour those able to get on the most ball. Scoring now is considerably easier. All scores are worth comparatively less than they used to be.

I'm not a fan of the new rules as I think the game is unfairly unbalanced. That said I'm content to give them a while longer and see how we get on over several seasons.

[David McKeown]

A technical/procedural question. If a player commits a black card infraction, ref gives a free, player gets up and takes a quick free. The ref allows the quick free but waits for play to stop again before giving the offender a black card, can a ref do this?

Could be a tricky one, obviously you dont want a team to lose the chance of a quick free/solo and go especially if it leads to a scoring chance, but what if the player who should have been black carded ends up making a goal line block at the end of that play?

That's the ref's discretion with regards to allowing the play to continue after a black card offence.

Most ref's will deal with black, yellows or reds immediately as it can lead unfortunately to something else

Been plenty of games that black cards are given after a play when a linesman informs the ref that a black card offence has happened and the ref issues a black card, that player could have been involved in a goal line clearance before the ref was alerted

Is it not a new phase of play. My understanding was if you restarted play you couldn't go back but if play just continued then you could. How far back can you go?  Can you change your mind 6 or 7 restarts later?  Is it different if it's something brought to your attention later compared to something you saw and wanted to go back for?

[Milltown Row2]

The new rule of solo and go was designed to move the game quicker, dealing with an incident after play is common enough (even before the new rules)when brought to a ref's attention by linesmen or umpires.

Personally, if dealing with a black or red, regardless of the potential of an advantage I'll stop play

But it's still ok to allow play to develop which now with the new rules advantage is whatever the ref feels.

In the case above it was one phase, not sure the ref would allow multiple phases, as in more restarts.

[Saffron_sam20]

they surely are taking the piss with trialing more changes, a kick pass after a hand pass? Surely teams will let one hand pass go then swarm the man with the ball as he has to kick it. We really really are making a new sport. Keep solo and go, 3 men up and no pass back to the keeper and we really do have a winner it's that simple.

[David McKeown]

The new rule of solo and go was designed to move the game quicker, dealing with an incident after play is common enough (even before the new rules)when brought to a ref's attention by linesmen or umpires.

Personally, if dealing with a black or red, regardless of the potential of an advantage I'll stop play

But it's still ok to allow play to develop which now with the new rules advantage is whatever the ref feels.

In the case above it was one phase, not sure the ref would allow multiple phases, as in more restarts.

Is there a rule to cover it?

[Milltown Row2]

The new rule of solo and go was designed to move the game quicker, dealing with an incident after play is common enough (even before the new rules)when brought to a ref's attention by linesmen or umpires.

Personally, if dealing with a black or red, regardless of the potential of an advantage I'll stop play

But it's still ok to allow play to develop which now with the new rules advantage is whatever the ref feels.

In the case above it was one phase, not sure the ref would allow multiple phases, as in more restarts.

Is there a rule to cover it?

On legislation/rule books and the like, I'd say you have a better interpretation on those things than me lol

I tend to at times use the common sense rule lol, its defo not in the rule book

I assume that we can and many examples over the years have shown that giving a card, of whatever description, is normal enough after a phase of play has occurred be it for allowing an advantage in the guise of a solo and go now or the old advantage rule..

Should a ref not have been aware of a card offence, from not getting hearing initially from a linesman, its still ok to give a card that is warranted   

[AustinPowers]

they surely are taking the piss with trialing more changes, a kick pass after a hand pass? Surely teams will let one hand pass go then swarm the man with the ball as he has to kick it. We really really are making a new sport. Keep solo and go, 3 men up and no pass back to the keeper and we really do have a winner it's that simple.

It's an  absolute farce  at this stage.

[GTP]

From an article in the Irish Times by a player who participated in the sandbox games
"Then, for the final 20 minutes, another rule was introduced: a player receiving a hand pass would have to kick pass. In other words a team could not play two hand passes in a row.

This led to more chaos, more verticality and more turnovers, and it was probably the most enjoyable part to play in."

- You would hope that an entire sport wouldn't be changed on the basis of a 20 minute trial.

[David McKeown]

The new rule of solo and go was designed to move the game quicker, dealing with an incident after play is common enough (even before the new rules)when brought to a ref's attention by linesmen or umpires.

Personally, if dealing with a black or red, regardless of the potential of an advantage I'll stop play

But it's still ok to allow play to develop which now with the new rules advantage is whatever the ref feels.

In the case above it was one phase, not sure the ref would allow multiple phases, as in more restarts.

Is there a rule to cover it?

On legislation/rule books and the like, I'd say you have a better interpretation on those things than me lol

I tend to at times use the common sense rule lol, its defo not in the rule book

I assume that we can and many examples over the years have shown that giving a card, of whatever description, is normal enough after a phase of play has occurred be it for allowing an advantage in the guise of a solo and go now or the old advantage rule..

Should a ref not have been aware of a card offence, from not getting hearing initially from a linesman, its still ok to give a card that is warranted   

Yeah it's been more than 15 years since I had anything to do with the rule book. My concern is simply that's one of those things that should be in the rule book to avoid the potential for controversy down the line.

[thewobbler]

From an article in the Irish Times by a player who participated in the sandbox games
"Then, for the final 20 minutes, another rule was introduced: a player receiving a hand pass would have to kick pass. In other words a team could not play two hand passes in a row.

This led to more chaos, more verticality and more turnovers, and it was probably the most enjoyable part to play in."

- You would hope that an entire sport wouldn't be changed on the basis of a 20 minute trial.

Of all the potential rule changes discussed the past 2 years, this is by some distance the most seismic.

I don't even know if it's a bad idea or not, for it's just too big to consider properly. I do see how it would hand some of the initiatives back to defenders: it's one less option to consider on every other tackle.

But I don't know how a club in e.g. coastal Donegal would go about resetting their entire footballing principles, nor do I see how a 25 year old could rewire 20 years of practice without regularly losing the plot. And my biggest worry of all would be that we would inevitably see handpassing being replaced by ponderous and ugly 5 yard kick passes.

[BigGreenField]

From an article in the Irish Times by a player who participated in the sandbox games
"Then, for the final 20 minutes, another rule was introduced: a player receiving a hand pass would have to kick pass. In other words a team could not play two hand passes in a row.

This led to more chaos, more verticality and more turnovers, and it was probably the most enjoyable part to play in."

- You would hope that an entire sport wouldn't be changed on the basis of a 20 minute trial.

Of all the potential rule changes discussed the past 2 years, this is by some distance the most seismic.

I don't even know if it's a bad idea or not, for it's just too big to consider properly. I do see how it would hand some of the initiatives back to defenders: it's one less option to consider on every other tackle.

But I don't know how a club in e.g. coastal Donegal would go about resetting their entire footballing principles, nor do I see how a 25 year old could rewire 20 years of practice without regularly losing the plot. And my biggest worry of all would be that we would inevitably see handpassing being replaced by ponderous and ugly 5 yard kick passes.

We can't loose the three man weave!

I wouldn't agree with this potential change at all, while I like a kicking based game there is a lot of skill and beauty in a well executed, swift running or hand passing game.

It's the side to side stuff that is shite and that Dan happen in a kicking game!

Jesus just bring in a shot clock.


.

[lenny]

From an article in the Irish Times by a player who participated in the sandbox games
"Then, for the final 20 minutes, another rule was introduced: a player receiving a hand pass would have to kick pass. In other words a team could not play two hand passes in a row.

This led to more chaos, more verticality and more turnovers, and it was probably the most enjoyable part to play in."

- You would hope that an entire sport wouldn't be changed on the basis of a 20 minute trial.

Of all the potential rule changes discussed the past 2 years, this is by some distance the most seismic.

I don't even know if it's a bad idea or not, for it's just too big to consider properly. I do see how it would hand some of the initiatives back to defenders: it's one less option to consider on every other tackle.

But I don't know how a club in e.g. coastal Donegal would go about resetting their entire footballing principles, nor do I see how a 25 year old could rewire 20 years of practice without regularly losing the plot. And my biggest worry of all would be that we would inevitably see handpassing being replaced by ponderous and ugly 5 yard kick passes.

We can't loose the three man weave!

I wouldn't agree with this potential change at all, while I like a kicking based game there is a lot of skill and beauty in a well executed, swift running or hand passing game.

It's the side to side stuff that is shite and that Dan happen in a kicking game!

Jesus just bring in a shot clock.


.

Even with all the rule changes which have been welcomed by most the latter stages of the championship were disappointing. The biggest issue I have is it's still way too easy for teams to keep possession. We're now seeing teams getting the ball with 2 minutes to the halftime hooter and they just play keep ball until the hooter goes and then they try for a score. With the better teams it's impossible to get the ball off them. That's why this rule of a hand pass followed by a kick pass is definitely worth looking at. The game will more than likely be more scrappy and disjointed but there should be more contests for possession. It's definitely worth looking at anyway because the scourge of long periods of possession is still in the game and it's boring to watch.

[DaleCooper]

My Alternative to a clock.

If you begin horizontal or backpassing it triggers the 3 hand pass rule. 3 hand passes before possession is conceded automatically, forcing positive play towards goal rather than away from goal.

It would mean more turnovers but might make it more exciting for crowd whilst limiting handpassing.

You are allowed unlimited handpasses so long as ball is going up the field.