Exprimental Football Rules

[DuffleKing]

Surely its ok to ask what a man's position is within the association when he has been put in charge of muscling these rule changes through and seemingly the man in charge of the PR drive of same?

No supported points? what about

cork and dublin also yes. other probable yes votes include all living presidents and central council members.

Noone has made a single coherent arguent for making these rule changes

The only thing that these experimental things have introduced is a hugely increased likelihood that you'll be sent off for genuinely attempting to make a tackle.

The only people i see talking in positive terms about this experiment are these bigwigs in headquarters (o'neill, duffy, brennan, etc.) and county board officials.

Since the middle of the league, county managers have consistently argued against them. the county players, who are the people actually trying to chang their games to suit, voted 82% to bin the. coloqueal (sp) evidence suggests that a vast majoriy of gaels are opposed.

Most Clubs weren't asked by their county boards. county executives made their own decesions without consulting with any membership.

All accurate contributions to this thread.

that leaves out my opinions - which i'm entitled to. I have my own reasons for regarding daly in the manner i do.
by all means lay out liam o'neill's credentials to be the man to make decisions on the future of our games

if you wish to argue this case then argue it. don't try and reason by discrediting those who disagree with you.

[INDIANA]

You've discredited everyone from our point of view- I've made some very valid points for their retention- but you don't want to acknowledge them. Its all about opinions and not rubbishing others like your doing. Answer Zulu's question on Pat Daly please- your comments on that man are the height of ignorance.

[Celt_Man]

Most Clubs weren't asked by their county boards. county executives made their own decesions without consulting with any membership.

duffy, daly and o'neill called county chairmen to a meeting in croke park 3 weeks ago to explain to them that they had to ignore the canvassing of managers and players and get these rules through. these change were essential to take the association forward apparently and chairmen needed to show "real leadership" and mandate accordingly.

This sounds very interesting if it's true - where did you hear about this?
Wouldn't be one bit surprised at all

[tyronefan]

congress has voted against the new rules


http://www.rte.ie/sport/gaa/championship/2009/0418/gaarules.html

[Zulu]

Surely its ok to ask what a man's position is within the association when he has been put in charge of muscling these rule changes through and seemingly the man in charge of the PR drive of same?

No supported points? what about

cork and dublin also yes. other probable yes votes include all living presidents and central council members.

Noone has made a single coherent arguent for making these rule changes

The only thing that these experimental things have introduced is a hugely increased likelihood that you'll be sent off for genuinely attempting to make a tackle.

The only people i see talking in positive terms about this experiment are these bigwigs in headquarters (o'neill, duffy, brennan, etc.) and county board officials.

Since the middle of the league, county managers have consistently argued against them. the county players, who are the people actually trying to chang their games to suit, voted 82% to bin the. coloqueal (sp) evidence suggests that a vast majoriy of gaels are opposed.

Most Clubs weren't asked by their county boards. county executives made their own decesions without consulting with any membership.

All accurate contributions to this thread.

that leaves out my opinions - which i'm entitled to. I have my own reasons for regarding daly in the manner i do.
by all means lay out liam o'neill's credentials to be the man to make decisions on the future of our games

if you wish to argue this case then argue it. don't try and reason by discrediting those who disagree with you.

Lets go through your list of supported points in relation to the rules and whether they should be retained;

Cork and Dublin etc. supported the retention, what is your point?

I did and I pointed it out to you, Indiana has done so too.

Purely speculative and the league games don't support you contention.

You can read at least two who are not on the top table on this board who support them and I know quite a few other football men who agree with us. And the vote suggests that 65% of the delegates supported them too, not that a discussion on this board should be clouded by what other people think.

I'd say that is true of most of the motions that went top congress but this again is an entirely different issue to the one relating to the rules.

So to sum up you have only addressed the rules and their effect on the games on one occassion and then you speculated as to what might happen in the future without any supporting evidence.

Surely its ok to ask what a man's position is within the association when he has been put in charge of muscling these rule changes through and seemingly the man in charge of the PR drive of same?

He was head of the group that proposed these rules arfter much work and consultation of course he is going to push for their retention, Mickey Harte and Brian Coady let everyone know where they stood, which is fair enough but their opinion shouldn't hold anymore water that O'Neill's.

you wish to argue this case then argue it. don't try and reason by discrediting those who disagree with you.

I've argued my point but nobody, including you, has challenged any of it, instead you've just come back with the same, 'these will ruin football' type statements.

[Redhandfan]

congress has voted against the new rules


http://www.rte.ie/sport/gaa/championship/2009/0418/gaarules.html

Excellent news.  However, I fear that some very prominent GAA administrators will have had their pride dented by this decision and an even bigger effort will be made to get these silly new rules passed next year.

[Hardy]

Yes, I suppose it would be too much to expect that these people would now get the message and devote their energies to doing something about the real problems besetting the game (simulation, the GPA, club vs. county conflicts, structure of the championships, Ausssie poaching, creeping professionalism) instead of making up imaginary problems to be solved in order to be seen to have left a legacy.

[Edit - In my list of problems I forgot to mention refereeing standards and proper and uniform implementation of ALL the rules in the rule book, which, it were done, would eliminate the need for tinkering with penalties and fluting about with cards. For instance, there is a rule that specifies penalties for pretending to be fouled or feigning an injury. I have never seen it implemented. Why don't the Brennans and Dalys and O'Neills explain why they're presiding over this wholesale flouting of the rules by officials? Why do they expect us to take them seriously when they propose new rules if they can't even manage the proper implementation of the existing ones?]

[Throw ball]

Lets hope that is the end of new rules of any sort for a couple of years. The constant changing is not good for the game and how can we expect referees to be consistent when the rules keep changing!

[magpie seanie]

Yes, I suppose it would be too much to expect that these people would now get the message and devote their energies to doing something about the real problems besetting the game (simulation, the GPA, club vs. county conflicts, structure of the championships, Ausssie poaching, creeping professionalism) instead of making up imaginary problems to be solved in order to be seen to have left a legacy.

[Edit - In my list of problems I forgot to mention refereeing standards and proper and uniform implementation of ALL the rules in the rule book, which, it were done, would eliminate the need for tinkering with penalties and fluting about with cards. For instance, there is a rule that specifies penalties for pretending to be fouled or feigning an injury. I have never seen it implemented. Why don't the Brennans and Dalys and O'Neills explain why they're presiding over this wholesale flouting of the rules by officials? Why do they expect us to take them seriously when they propose new rules if they can't even manage the proper implementation of the existing ones?]

Not for the first time - spot on.

[mountainboii]

Why, when the GAA brings in new rules, are they always trialed at the highest level? Other sports trial their experimental rules at low levels of the game where they can get a fair run without creating much controversy. Why couldn't these rules, and others in the future, be trialed at Junior level in say 4 or 5 counties around the country? Some of these games could be videoed, reports could be done on them, etc., and most importantly they could get a good run for a whole year to see how they pan out.

[magickingdom]

Yes, I suppose it would be too much to expect that these people would now get the message and devote their energies to doing something about the real problems besetting the game (simulation, the GPA, club vs. county conflicts, structure of the championships, Ausssie poaching, creeping professionalism) instead of making up imaginary problems to be solved in order to be seen to have left a legacy.

[Edit - In my list of problems I forgot to mention refereeing standards and proper and uniform implementation of ALL the rules in the rule book, which, it were done, would eliminate the need for tinkering with penalties and fluting about with cards. For instance, there is a rule that specifies penalties for pretending to be fouled or feigning an injury. I have never seen it implemented. Why don't the Brennans and Dalys and O'Neills explain why they're presiding over this wholesale flouting of the rules by officials? Why do they expect us to take them seriously when they propose new rules if they can't even manage the proper implementation of the existing ones?]

Not for the first time - spot on.

ffs wake up, anything but spot on. really hardy who are these people? and get what message? 177 for and 100 against - its enough to make me sick

[Zulu]

Watching the last two 'tackles'(fouls) in the Down/Mayo game which have cost Mayo two good scoring chances only re-enforces the the need for the new rules. Two lads soloing through both dragged down and done so because lads are willing to take the yellow rather than attempt a proper tackle. 

[Bogball XV]

Watching the last two 'tackles'(fouls) in the Down/Mayo game which have cost Mayo two good scoring chances only re-enforces the the need for the new rules. Two lads soloing through both dragged down and done so because lads are willing to take the yellow rather than attempt a proper tackle. 

would a sin bin not provide the same solution?

[mountainboii]

Watching the last two 'tackles'(fouls) in the Down/Mayo game which have cost Mayo two good scoring chances only re-enforces the the need for the new rules. Two lads soloing through both dragged down and done so because lads are willing to take the yellow rather than attempt a proper tackle. 

Wouldn't have stopped them doing it. In fact if they were to receive reds it still probably wouldn't stop those fouls. Cynicism at the end of close games is a feature of every field game, its naive to think that any rules the GAA dream up can make gaelic football immune to this.

[Hardy]

ffs wake up, anything but spot on. really hardy who are these people? and get what message? 177 for and 100 against - its enough to make me sick

Why do you have to ask, "who are these people"? I named them in the post. And the message you ask about is the one delivered today by the membership in refusing to accept this ludicrous, ill-designed package already clearly shown to be detrimental to the game in the short duration of the experiment (notwithstanding their laughable attempts to interpret the experiment in the opposite way). This despite their intensive lobbying, high-level PR campaign and ridiculous spinning. Democracy is wonderful and serves us well, even under unfair pressure.