National Forum

Brolly's Exclusion Zone

(Oldest Posts First) - Go To The Latest Post


Replying To tearintom:  "Would an easier to police simpler rule not be that all teams must leave at least 3 or maybe even 4 forwards with 3 or 4 markers inside the 45 at all times?

Simply put a team cannot bring all 15 players behind the opposition 45 at all.

A Gaa pitch is still a big pitch so even if you have 10 men between their 45 and your goal there is still plenty of room for skilled and well drilled teams to work through for a score. Ball is turned over and its quick ball into the forwards, coming off the shoulder interplay at speed attacking."
Can a team bring 13 players forward attacking?

gotmilk (Fermanagh) - Posts: 4864 - 02/10/2018 12:03:04    2144743

Link

Would this result in teams putting a big lad in full forward and leaving all other forwards outside the zone? The attacking team just has to lump the ball in his general direction and, with only one marker, he is very likely to win it and would have an opportunity for goal nearly every time? He could also knock the ball down to a speedy forward who will always have a run on his man as his direct opponent cannot enter the exclusion zone before him. Conversely, a nippy forward could be put inside on his own with acres of room to run onto a ball played inside and would be very difficult to legally stop him having a run on goal. No matter how fast a marker is, if the forward makes a run and the ball is half-way decent, the forward will win this 99% of the time (think Murchan vs.Burke in the Dublin vs. Galway game - Murchan is as fast as they come but Burke made good runs and, once found, was very difficult to stop one-on-one). If you have a forward who is tall and fast (e.g. Mannion), he would literally be impossible to stop if the isolated forward tactic is used and the service is of any level of quality.

I think the isolation tactic will result in a ridiculously high return of goals. The whole point of goals is that they are supposed to be difficult to get and the lift to the team / crowd is commensurate when they are scored. With the new system, goals may likely become more commonplace than points and their value will be diluted, as a result (though not on the actual scoreboard, obviously).

Kurt_Angle (Dublin) - Posts: 422 - 02/10/2018 12:21:08    2144746

Link

Replying To Kurt_Angle:  "Would this result in teams putting a big lad in full forward and leaving all other forwards outside the zone? The attacking team just has to lump the ball in his general direction and, with only one marker, he is very likely to win it and would have an opportunity for goal nearly every time? He could also knock the ball down to a speedy forward who will always have a run on his man as his direct opponent cannot enter the exclusion zone before him. Conversely, a nippy forward could be put inside on his own with acres of room to run onto a ball played inside and would be very difficult to legally stop him having a run on goal. No matter how fast a marker is, if the forward makes a run and the ball is half-way decent, the forward will win this 99% of the time (think Murchan vs.Burke in the Dublin vs. Galway game - Murchan is as fast as they come but Burke made good runs and, once found, was very difficult to stop one-on-one). If you have a forward who is tall and fast (e.g. Mannion), he would literally be impossible to stop if the isolated forward tactic is used and the service is of any level of quality.

I think the isolation tactic will result in a ridiculously high return of goals. The whole point of goals is that they are supposed to be difficult to get and the lift to the team / crowd is commensurate when they are scored. With the new system, goals may likely become more commonplace than points and their value will be diluted, as a result (though not on the actual scoreboard, obviously)."
But sure isn't that what we want see, we all miss the contests of old, jod had a savage 1-1 battle with Keith Higgins in the 2014 replay who wouldn't want to see more battles like that.

I'd love to see more 1-1 duals and if the forwards can beat their markers they still have a goalie to beat .

I'd also go as far as to say that the keeper can't leave his big square we don't need them adding to the clutter.

KingdomBoy1 (Kerry) - Posts: 7761 - 02/10/2018 13:10:53    2144756

Link

Just tie a rope onto two opposing players that will ensure one on one marking and make it easier for the refs to police this new idea of Brolly.

KY4SAM2015 (Kerry) - Posts: 725 - 02/10/2018 15:27:35    2144778

Link

Really like the effort to come up with new idea but I think serious flaws in this.

1. Surely team will set up with one man inside (best ball winner). Lump it in long and almost a goal chance every time.

2. Teams might put no forward in the zone and then chip balls into the zone for incoming forwards to sprint onto (through on goal)

3. Teams could get men inside to all spirnt out of the area thus leaving a sudden hole in defence which hard runners through middle will exploit and be virtually unstaoppable.

Novel idea but would most likely result in farcical situations and seems too easy to come up with tactical plans to make system look silly.

Too much is left up to the forwards decision making. All defenders being obliged to follow there man even if they know hes a decoy seems daft.

Kingofthehill100 (Mayo) - Posts: 21 - 02/10/2018 15:40:10    2144782

Link

Replying To KingdomBoy1:  "But sure isn't that what we want see, we all miss the contests of old, jod had a savage 1-1 battle with Keith Higgins in the 2014 replay who wouldn't want to see more battles like that.

I'd love to see more 1-1 duals and if the forwards can beat their markers they still have a goalie to beat .

I'd also go as far as to say that the keeper can't leave his big square we don't need them adding to the clutter."
I see what you're getting at but think that the aforementioned scenarios are so weighted in favour of the forward that they're not actually one-on-ones but, rather, damage limitation on behalf of the last defender. In the past, the forward would still have make space for himself to receive the ball and take on his man. This space is now artificially created so is no longer a fair contest.

Kurt_Angle (Dublin) - Posts: 422 - 02/10/2018 17:04:29    2144802

Link

Replying To Kurt_Angle:  "I see what you're getting at but think that the aforementioned scenarios are so weighted in favour of the forward that they're not actually one-on-ones but, rather, damage limitation on behalf of the last defender. In the past, the forward would still have make space for himself to receive the ball and take on his man. This space is now artificially created so is no longer a fair contest."
@KurtAngel - re: full forward and one back only kn zone -
That's a fair point - Brolly's idea can be improved - should we set a minim of two or players per team in the zone instead of the proposed none.
I genuinely like Brolly's idea - but any serious challenges should not lead to throwing it all out.

omahant (USA) - Posts: 1356 - 02/10/2018 23:26:44    2144883

Link

Replying To omahant:  "@KurtAngel - re: full forward and one back only kn zone -
That's a fair point - Brolly's idea can be improved - should we set a minim of two or players per team in the zone instead of the proposed none.
I genuinely like Brolly's idea - but any serious challenges should not lead to throwing it all out."
Perhaps that could be a solution but it would be very difficult to effectively police. It would also limit supporting a swift counter as the defender could pass the ball and run for a return, only to find himself conceding a free for leaving the exclusion zone. Similarly, if an opponent is lining up a shot just outside the exclusion zone, the nearest defender may be in the zone but unable to attempt a block as he would concede an easier scoring chance by leaving the zone.

I think Brolly's premise is a proactive suggestion to help address the current issues of the game. I guess the issues with suggestions like this only come fully to light when trialled. Its also easier to poke holes in a suggestion than come up with a working solution so I guess all suggestions are worth debate, irrespective of whether they're ultimately successful or unworkable.

Kurt_Angle (Dublin) - Posts: 422 - 03/10/2018 10:34:18    2144915

Link

Replying To arock:  "The rules need to be simplified and made enforceable, not more complicated. But changes are needed."
Agree with this, rule changes are needed but not overly complicated ones that are difficult to enforce. Personally I am not a fan of changing the rules of the game but the our game has gone more like rugby and basketball with every passing year. Every single team in the Super 8's this year, bar Kerry, were playing more or less the same system. Loads of men behind the ball, trying to force turnovers and break up the field. The only contested ball is the kickout, hence the over emphasis on them. By the end of the season I was completely fed up with analysis on kickouts. Obviously some team are much more efficient at this type of game i.e. Dublin.

Rather than changing rules, how about an innovative coach coming along and coming up with a system to beat the blanket defence?

Green_Gold (Donegal) - Posts: 1308 - 03/10/2018 10:36:38    2144917

Link

Replying To Kurt_Angle:  "Perhaps that could be a solution but it would be very difficult to effectively police. It would also limit supporting a swift counter as the defender could pass the ball and run for a return, only to find himself conceding a free for leaving the exclusion zone. Similarly, if an opponent is lining up a shot just outside the exclusion zone, the nearest defender may be in the zone but unable to attempt a block as he would concede an easier scoring chance by leaving the zone.

I think Brolly's premise is a proactive suggestion to help address the current issues of the game. I guess the issues with suggestions like this only come fully to light when trialled. Its also easier to poke holes in a suggestion than come up with a working solution so I guess all suggestions are worth debate, irrespective of whether they're ultimately successful or unworkable."
To address good issues you brought up here, I tweak further -
1) Each team is allowed 'UP TO TWO players in the zone AT ANY TIME', marked or unmarked.
Now the sweeper penalty applies when the 3rd defender (or more) is a headcount in excess of the attacking team.

2) To make policing of the rule easier - perhaps the bright yellow boundary should be a straight line.

3) Given the extra crowding outside the zone, perhaps we need 13-a-side.

With Brolly's changes, we could leave the rest of the game alone - there is less need for the official 5 GAA changes proposed yesterday - let teams determine if kicking to the zone is preferable to handpassing; no incentive to back kick sideline balls; less need for mark inside 20m (maybe we keep it); let there be more finesse with kickouts (option to go long or short, most likely long given limited two defenders in zone if unaccompanied per my change above).
I would rather tweak Brolly's than go with the 5 that may not address the blanket defence problem.

omahant (USA) - Posts: 1356 - 03/10/2018 11:33:50    2144926

Link

Replying To omahant:  "To address good issues you brought up here, I tweak further -
1) Each team is allowed 'UP TO TWO players in the zone AT ANY TIME', marked or unmarked.
Now the sweeper penalty applies when the 3rd defender (or more) is a headcount in excess of the attacking team.

2) To make policing of the rule easier - perhaps the bright yellow boundary should be a straight line.

3) Given the extra crowding outside the zone, perhaps we need 13-a-side.

With Brolly's changes, we could leave the rest of the game alone - there is less need for the official 5 GAA changes proposed yesterday - let teams determine if kicking to the zone is preferable to handpassing; no incentive to back kick sideline balls; less need for mark inside 20m (maybe we keep it); let there be more finesse with kickouts (option to go long or short, most likely long given limited two defenders in zone if unaccompanied per my change above).
I would rather tweak Brolly's than go with the 5 that may not address the blanket defence problem."
I like your tweaks there. I think this merits consideration, one police-able rule rather that loads of rules that make the referees job virtually impossible and some which could compound the problem of mass defenses such as the forward only sidelines. This Brolly rule need not even fall to the referee, it could be a linesmans job like spotting offside in soccer.

Much as Brolly is a bit of a mad hatter he is a smart guy who could well come up with a clever fix. It would have been worth having him on the rule changes committee.

I suppose this is a complete non runner now though is it? The other 5 rules will be trialled in the 2019 league and it's those rules or nothing right?

tomhealycork (Cork) - Posts: 4 - 09/10/2018 09:03:14    2145719

Link

I'll add -
4) Attacking team cannot pass back over the opponent 65 after they already crossed this line.

5) Long range kicked scores (beyond 45) from play only - I hear awarding two points - but I think 2 of these scores should be worth 3 pts, versus 2 pts inside, as this 'basketball' ratio is about right.

2 revised) - keep the arc, but use a rope (like a cricket boundary), and colour it fluorescent pink/yellow so the zone is easier to see - particularly for Junior B refs acting alone. Otherwise, the zones could be behind each 20 metre line.

omahant (USA) - Posts: 1356 - 11/10/2018 01:40:10    2146019

Link

Not surprised at Brolly and his zoning proposal- maybe we should add a section of the pitch as a player free zone and give a black card to anyone who enters the said zoned area.

browncows (Meath) - Posts: 1886 - 11/10/2018 13:35:36    2146082

Link