National Forum

Experimental Rule Changes Proposed For Gaelic Football

(Oldest Posts First) - Go To The Latest Post


Replying To muffinbutton:  "I'm more and more convinced that there exists a committee at HQ who make up stuff like this just to justify their own existence.

It's about time the GAA stopped reacting to whoever had the loudest rant on the Sunday Game."
The thing I constantly hear people saying is massed defenses and constant handpassing are destroying the game and the GAA are doing nothing. I think its great they may be trying to do something about it.

bdbuddah (Meath) - Posts: 490 - 03/10/2018 08:58:47    2144906

Link

Replying To Skippy2:  "How many average club goalkeepers can kick the ball past the 45 consistently. Add in a stiff wind and they are really in trouble. Can't see that one working. How many handpasses did Meath make for one of the most famous goals of all time against the dubs in 1990. Good handpassing moves can be great to watch."
A goal like Meath v. Dublin 1991 would not be scored in a modern game because of massed defensives.

bdbuddah (Meath) - Posts: 490 - 03/10/2018 09:15:43    2144907

Link

Replying To bdbuddah:  "Are you talking about Brollys ideas about kick outs ?, are the kick outs/ zonal rules here not similar to Brollys ideas ?"
I'm talking about brollys idea of the attacking zone where the attacking team decided how many defenders are allowed into the zone. After considering the kickout rule it does have some merit but have they taken into account the time wasting that will come with that, you score and have several players upfield who can now slow down the opposing teams kick by not getting back to their own 45 going down injured etc if someone is down between the two 45s the ref can't restart the game

Barrowsider (Carlow) - Posts: 1177 - 03/10/2018 10:07:45    2144911

Link

Replying To bdbuddah:  "A goal like Meath v. Dublin 1991 would not be scored in a modern game because of massed defensives."
How many scores would Dublin have put up against Tyrone in the All-Ireland Semi-Final in 2017 had they been limited to 3 handpasses in a row?

They wouldn't have gotten near 2-17 against as well an organised defence as Tyrone's that day.

Limiting hand passing takes away a team's best weapon in counteracting mass defences.

I seriously cannot understand how people still can't see this. It's nearly 20 years since the advent of mass defences yet people still think that it can be beaten by kicking the ball into it! That's something that has literally never worked yet people still think it can work if only teams weren't hand passing instead!

MesAmis (Dublin) - Posts: 12115 - 03/10/2018 10:11:35    2144912

Link

Replying To bdbuddah:  "The aim is to stop the short kick outs going about 5 meters which are a disease in the game. In reality we won't go back to 2 big midfielders competing for high kick outs most of the time but the goal keeper kicking the ball wide for players to run into. But this should be a big improvement on where we at and in parallel with zonal rule for kickouts there will be much more space for a midfielder to kick the ball into the forwards."
I understand it's aim, all of them focus on a symptom of the blanket defence, not the cause.

The kick out will be a farce. Once the ball is dead, the six in the full line just scratch. No marking by the forward, no runs by the backs. The 6 in the half line will mass on the 45, waiting for the ball to fly over/past/bobble, then run like madmen for a break, or to defend in their own 45.

The kick out will be won by the fastest man. No skill there. No more kicks to the wing foward moving in to space, no more kicks to the wing back running forward(McCaffery), no more kicks to the corner back because the forward is too dozy to mark up, no more kicks to your playmaking center back. No more chances of f-ups by the keeper. I am a keeper. No more fun. Boring, boring, boring.

m_the_d (None) - Posts: 1035 - 03/10/2018 10:15:07    2144913

Link

Replying To bdbuddah:  "The thing I constantly hear people saying is massed defenses and constant handpassing are destroying the game and the GAA are doing nothing. I think its great they may be trying to do something about it."
I think it's terrible that the people in charge of this have given things zero thought what so ever. These rule changes have been picked apart and destroyed since they've been announced. People giving out about hand passing so they limit it it with considering the consequences.

tipp11 (Tipperary) - Posts: 318 - 03/10/2018 10:38:29    2144918

Link

Just to state I'm not against rule changes at all but just that limiting handpasses is literally stupid. There is so much wrong with it that you'd really have to question people's motives for suggesting that handpasses be limited.

Constant handpasses are a symptom of negative football not the cause of it, hand passing is the best way of counteracting the blanket defence.

The kick out rule seems a bit much and artificially creating a contest in a game. Since before the mark was even introduced there was a move to push up on your opponent's kick outs so more and more kicks were going long so I don't see the need for the change.

Again, short kick outs are as a result of teams playing negatively not the reason why teams are playing negatively.

The offensive mark is okay. I don't like the idea of giving free kicks to players for performing basic skills of the game but for some reason a lot of people want to protect one skill above all others. If this rule change was to be successful what do we get? A load of handy tap over frees, oh my what skill!

I'm in favour of a sin bin rule.

The sideline kick rule is silly too. If concede a sideline ball, delay it and drop everyone behind the ball and force the opponent to kick the ball into a 50/50. You're taking away any advantage to getting a sideline ball between your opponents 14m line and half way really.

MesAmis (Dublin) - Posts: 12115 - 03/10/2018 10:39:27    2144919

Link

All these proposed changes will do sweet penny farthing all to the game in my opinion. For the three handpass rule - what you will see is lads falling exuberantly to the ground after the second handpass for no reason, then pick it off the ground and repeat. Some craic that would be watching lads run into the tackle on purpose well played.

the black card implementation for a sending off for 10 minutes could work - but as rugby is an 80 minute game it could be a contentious issue for how long of a period he should be off for.

One rule not mentioned which wouldn't be a bad idea is to bring in an electronic clock system to accurately calculate how much time is left each half. Instead of this 10 mins stoppage time, trying to get a draw nonsense that we see today

WaitingInTheLongGrass (Roscommon) - Posts: 134 - 03/10/2018 11:07:23    2144923

Link

Replying To Kickitwillya:  "A shot clock.
Must take a shot within a certain time period or hand over possession.
Done in many sports. Would stop the passing over and back"
I'm sorry but have you any idea what you are saying? This only encourages mass defence!!! Drop everyone into your own 45 and wait for clock to run down. Boom possession regained.

Kingofthehill100 (Mayo) - Posts: 22 - 03/10/2018 11:08:38    2144924

Link

I am not sure what these guys are at with so many changes. The rule changes should be made in such a way as to simplify the job of the Ref-not the other way around. As previous posters have said the match time should be done in the same way as proven in the ladies football. The sin bin is an obvious choice but all the other ones are changing for the sake of changing. Anything that slows down the game is not going to improve viewing. My view is that these rules changes have been poorly thought out just as the black card has been proven difficult to implement properly and fairly. There is nothing in the new rules to properly penalise a tug of the person/jersey slowing down a player going at full speed past an opponent.

browncows (Meath) - Posts: 1907 - 03/10/2018 11:38:08    2144927

Link

Replying To bennybunny:  "If it is a guaranteed score, might it encourage more attacking play? Why not give it a chance?"
Better if the attacker tries to catch in one-on-one, than six-on-one. It's only a mark when it's possible to execute.

omahant (USA) - Posts: 1403 - 03/10/2018 11:46:52    2144929

Link

Replying To TheUsername:  "The hand pass rule isn't needed either, I think it's enough to incentivize attacking play with the expansion of the mark.

Imagine the scenario a brilliant bit of attacking play player bearing down and goal, man inside, won't pass it because he can't be accurate with a kick pass hitting the buy line so instead goes for the safety option of the man behind.

Also, I think it creates a role for a safety player probably the sweeper. So teams break as usual. Nothing on they do three hand passes in front of of a blanket, nothing on , if no obvious kick pass is on, they kick it back back to the safety player and go again.

Take Dublin playing and probing for an opening in front of a blanket, would change just means they kick it back to the safety player likely a Kilkenny or a O Sullivan every third hand pass.

We will be bemoaning the backward kick pass soon enough.

It's a model for time wasting and taking the sting or momentum out of the game."
What momentum ? The game is clogged.

omahant (USA) - Posts: 1403 - 03/10/2018 11:51:38    2144933

Link

Replying To MesAmis:  "How many scores would Dublin have put up against Tyrone in the All-Ireland Semi-Final in 2017 had they been limited to 3 handpasses in a row?

They wouldn't have gotten near 2-17 against as well an organised defence as Tyrone's that day.

Limiting hand passing takes away a team's best weapon in counteracting mass defences.

I seriously cannot understand how people still can't see this. It's nearly 20 years since the advent of mass defences yet people still think that it can be beaten by kicking the ball into it! That's something that has literally never worked yet people still think it can work if only teams weren't hand passing instead!"
Most sense I've seen written about the limit on hand passes rule I've read yet. People need to think about how it actually will work to the way they hope it will. Limiting the number of hand passes will not stop teams from passing the ball over and back the field as it is very easy to throw in a kick pass on every 3rd or 4th pass when the speed of the game is at a near standstill. What limiting the number of hand passes will do is bring an end to fast free flowing attacks where teams work the ball through the hands to create an overlap and potentially end up with a goal scoring chance. I'm thinking scores that are easy on the eye that the likes of a Jack McCaffrey or Ryan McHugh get a lot of will become a thing of the past. Is that what people want? You could end of with the farcical situation of having someone free in front of the goals for a palm into an empty net with a player coming in the end line not being able to pass to him and having to shoot from an acute angle....where is the sense in that?

Then we have the new kickout rule....what is wrong with the current kickout rules? The introduction of mark and kicks having to go beyond the 21m line in recent years have left us with the best feature of a match in modern day football which is the kickout battle. Most teams now push up on kickouts putting severe pressure on keepers to get their kick right and the 2 best in the business, Cluxton and Beggan, are really a joy to watch at their best. How are refs supposed to organise the new structure and how do you stop teams killing the clock near the end of a game if ahead if everyone has to be in their proper position for the kickout?

I do like the idea of the sin bin and the new mark but if you limit the number of hand passes then the introduction of the new mark won't be as effective because defending teams will know when the kick is coming and will get the blanket set up rather than attacking teams having the possibility to either kick it in or run at the extra space that should be there if defending teams decide to drop back on the full forward to stop the mark opportunity.

Mobot (Donegal) - Posts: 355 - 03/10/2018 11:51:44    2144934

Link

Replying To bdbuddah:  "A goal like Meath v. Dublin 1991 would not be scored in a modern game because of massed defensives."
What about Corofin' s goal earlier this year? 15 hand passes finished with a goal. One of the greatest goals you will ever see. 9 different players involved with lads running off at different angles at speed. A truly unbelievable goal.

Watch Ryan McHugh's goal v Dublin in 2016. Not one kick pass between them, 6 or 7 hand passes later they had sliced their way through the Dublin defense and finished off a brilliant move.

This is how you beat a defensive structure and it is a skill to be applauded, not discouraged.

I just find the 3 hand pass rule one of the most ridiculous things ever proposed. No foresight whatsoever.

HandballRef (Donegal) - Posts: 443 - 03/10/2018 12:08:14    2144936

Link

Replying To MesAmis:  "How many scores would Dublin have put up against Tyrone in the All-Ireland Semi-Final in 2017 had they been limited to 3 handpasses in a row?

They wouldn't have gotten near 2-17 against as well an organised defence as Tyrone's that day.

Limiting hand passing takes away a team's best weapon in counteracting mass defences.

I seriously cannot understand how people still can't see this. It's nearly 20 years since the advent of mass defences yet people still think that it can be beaten by kicking the ball into it! That's something that has literally never worked yet people still think it can work if only teams weren't hand passing instead!"
Precisely this, I can guarantee there are defensive coaches out there this morning rubbing their hands with glee. What I'm predicting you will see now is 3 hand passes then a backwards kick to a safe option then start again

Barrowsider (Carlow) - Posts: 1177 - 03/10/2018 12:46:13    2144943

Link

Replying To omahant:  "What momentum ? The game is clogged."
By momentum i meant the momentum of an individual game. As we know the game exists across a spectrum of momentum at different points and is ultimately determined by those who captilise on that momentum and minimize the momentum of the opposition.

I think you can implement rule changes to gerrymander any particular outcome in a game that you want. Two things stand out for me, a lot of people want an awful lot of different things out of the game and secondly i think it calls into question sporting integrity if too many rules are brought in to have a direct outcome or the game funneled a particular way. There is of course a place for rule changes,but there is also a limit where you aren't funneling outcomes.

TheUsername (Dublin) - Posts: 1893 - 03/10/2018 13:43:41    2144960

Link

Replying To TheUsername:  "By momentum i meant the momentum of an individual game. As we know the game exists across a spectrum of momentum at different points and is ultimately determined by those who captilise on that momentum and minimize the momentum of the opposition.

I think you can implement rule changes to gerrymander any particular outcome in a game that you want. Two things stand out for me, a lot of people want an awful lot of different things out of the game and secondly i think it calls into question sporting integrity if too many rules are brought in to have a direct outcome or the game funneled a particular way. There is of course a place for rule changes,but there is also a limit where you aren't funneling outcomes."
I think funnelling the type of game spectacle we want is ok.
I'd rather start with Brolly's exclusion zone idea and tweak as necessary from there. It directly attacks the blanket defence - and should return the game to catch and kick.

Two tweaks I'd make - allow up to 2 players per team in the exclusion zone, marked oe unmarked. This cuts out a one-on-one tussle by a strong full forward. And, given extra non-zone congestion, cut teams to 13-a-side.

omahant (USA) - Posts: 1403 - 03/10/2018 13:58:55    2144962

Link

Just one thought form reading all the posts is that there are lots of suggestions and everybody has different ideas on how to make gaelic football more attractive. I just wonder are we in danger of introducing a lot of rules, completely changing the game and making things worse. Surely introducing 5 rule changes like this in one foul swoop is a step too far. I am all for rule changes if they help the game but not sure about introducing them all at once.

Green_Gold (Donegal) - Posts: 1320 - 03/10/2018 14:31:02    2144965

Link

Any rule change should be thought of in terms of average club level. Are these changes feasible for an average club level referee to implement. That's a very important consideration.

890202 (Wexford) - Posts: 988 - 03/10/2018 15:03:24    2144975

Link

Replying To omahant:  "I think funnelling the type of game spectacle we want is ok.
I'd rather start with Brolly's exclusion zone idea and tweak as necessary from there. It directly attacks the blanket defence - and should return the game to catch and kick.

Two tweaks I'd make - allow up to 2 players per team in the exclusion zone, marked oe unmarked. This cuts out a one-on-one tussle by a strong full forward. And, given extra non-zone congestion, cut teams to 13-a-side."
I think rules need to be simplistic and without loopholes, i like two of the new rules namely the sin bin and the sideline ball.

I think Brolly's exclusion zone is by far well worth trialing as i think it would impact almost every team and cause a rethink, it would create a more attacking free flowing game without, multiple marks and stops, while i think it doesnt discriminate against players who would be disenfranchised under the new rules, for example the forward mark disenfranchises players of a different skillset like McBerearty, Geany, O Donoughue - im talking in the main not exclusively here, if high fielding isnt in their highest natural skillets but are pacey, good ball carriers, angle makers and technical finishers. It also means someone like David Clifford wouldn't have 10 fellas hanging out of him fielding a ball, or someone like Bernard Brogan or Con O Callaghan being triple marked.

In all honestly the rest of the new rules would be horendous in my honest opinion.

TheUsername (Dublin) - Posts: 1893 - 03/10/2018 15:34:31    2144978

Link