National Forum

Experimental Rule Changes Proposed For Gaelic Football

(Oldest Posts First) - Go To The Latest Post


Replying To MesAmis:  "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."
Good post Mes

neverright (Roscommon) - Posts: 1362 - 03/10/2018 16:34:29    2144987

Link

The time to experiment with rules is in the league campaign, we are making assumptions based on our own perceptions. I can see merits in some of these suggestions but not in others. A game (any game) that allows two teams to retreat in to their own halves and play keep ball is clearly on the road to nowhere. I distinctly remember getting drenched in Croke park at a game between Derry and Dublin when the Dublin fans booed what was on offer. The writing was on the wall then it is now in big bold red letters. If you constantly say no to change without offering and alternative you are as blind as the die-hard ostriches who believe there is nothing wrong. Alternatives please and those who think nothing is wrong go move to Tory island.

arock (Dublin) - Posts: 3842 - 03/10/2018 17:09:30    2144990

Link

Replying To arock:  "The time to experiment with rules is in the league campaign, we are making assumptions based on our own perceptions. I can see merits in some of these suggestions but not in others. A game (any game) that allows two teams to retreat in to their own halves and play keep ball is clearly on the road to nowhere. I distinctly remember getting drenched in Croke park at a game between Derry and Dublin when the Dublin fans booed what was on offer. The writing was on the wall then it is now in big bold red letters. If you constantly say no to change without offering and alternative you are as blind as the die-hard ostriches who believe there is nothing wrong. Alternatives please and those who think nothing is wrong go move to Tory island."
The game is in desperate need of change.

My big problem is not that they're trying to change. It's the way they go about these things and they are so badly thought out.

Making 5 changes is idiotic. It's incredibly drastic. It makes it way harder to actually know the impact of any individual rule change. If the games end up being rubbish do all the rules get dumped.

The hand pass rule has been trialled previously in college football and was poor. What people predict happened. Teams ended up playing safe backwards kick passes to retain possession. Possession is king.

One of the main problems to be honest is that teams are over coached. There's money in GAA management and it's led to these safe strategies where managers don't look badly when they lose playing these "sophisticated" defensive strategies. Really, if the GAA tackled payment of managers properly I think a lot of the fun and excitement could flow back in. If you don't have a career to lose maybe your teams can be more adventurous.

Sort out the schedule. I'd also enforced strict designated club breaks in and around intercounty action. During a club break, county panels cannot train together. Enforce it. Penalize infractions.

The game is in a bad way but when you see a losing team not going out to win back possession it's not a problem with the rules causing that. It's a problem with coaching and the power these guys wield now.

Whammo86 (Antrim) - Posts: 2129 - 03/10/2018 18:56:01    2145001

Link

One simple rule would solve all the problems, the six forwards cannot come back into their own half of the field , nothing else need to be done .

culmore (None) - Posts: 1295 - 03/10/2018 19:00:50    2145002

Link

The biggest issue I have with the new proposals is that they don't actually address what the perceived problems in the game are. The three handpass rule is supposed to deal with the 'scourge' of lateral possession football, but as many have said that type of football is generally only played against massed blanket defences, by restricting it football will become even more cautious and reduce attacking plays.
The sin bin I'm in favour of. I've always felt that the black card favours the stronger teams, be they club or county, and being down to 14 for 10 minutes is much more of a punishment.
The kick out proposals I can't see working. I was at a junior Z game last Sunday and one of the keepers only cleared the 45 twice from about 20 kick outs. I know that is a million miles from inter County but it's still part of the GAA and has to be covered by the same rules.
The offensive mark might have merit, but we have to be careful not to turn the game into a game of marks similar to Aussie rules. The skill of the catch might be there but the game is mind numbing with the constant stop start nature of it. We have to retain a game where Brogan or the Gooch are still the marquee forwards, not one where they couldn't get a game ahead of an O Gara or Donaghy.

AHP (Dublin) - Posts: 317 - 03/10/2018 19:04:48    2145003

Link

One thing I'd warn against is the assumption that man marking is better to watch than zonal marking defenses.

I'd be worried that you get a lot fewer tight games, way less chance of upsets.

There isn't a problem with having a bit of resistance making scoring difficult. The problem is that teams don't break out of their shells to engage the ball.

Forcing teams to keep 3 man inside the attacking 45 could hel things. Restricting teams from playing the ball back behind the 65 could help too.

Whammo86 (Antrim) - Posts: 2129 - 03/10/2018 20:00:51    2145012

Link

If the 'Mark' is intended to promote high fielding, then it needs to be more clearly defined. Catching a ball on your chest, or even lower down, does little to improve high fielding.
I don't see how kicking a line ball backward to a team-mate is seen as negative, whilst kicking the ball forward into an area where players are tightly marked is seen as positive.

neverright (Roscommon) - Posts: 1362 - 03/10/2018 20:12:55    2145013

Link

Just the black card rule alone was never implemented correctly, it was a complete farce where we had to guess the colour of the card. Most hand passes were throws this year, refs hardly ever enforced the rule. Why do people think that a bunch of new rules can save gaelic football? Cynical tackles are disguised as fair challenges. The rules will not be enforceable by one ref. I agree with Turlough O Brian to be honest.

suckvalleypaddy (Galway) - Posts: 1052 - 03/10/2018 21:18:32    2145023

Link

would love to see an oval ball experimentally in the National League, this could solve all other problems

maroondiesel (Mayo) - Posts: 808 - 03/10/2018 21:49:56    2145027

Link

Most of the proposed changes have little or no chance of getting voted in and they smell of ticking boxes. They do however have every chance of ruining the NFL. They could have tried one plus the sin bin in each of the pre season competitions and seen how they worked

lillyboy (Kildare) - Posts: 386 - 03/10/2018 21:53:16    2145029

Link

Replying To Whammo86:  "One thing I'd warn against is the assumption that man marking is better to watch than zonal marking defenses.

I'd be worried that you get a lot fewer tight games, way less chance of upsets.

There isn't a problem with having a bit of resistance making scoring difficult. The problem is that teams don't break out of their shells to engage the ball.

Forcing teams to keep 3 man inside the attacking 45 could hel things. Restricting teams from playing the ball back behind the 65 could help too."
Steve Covey in '7 Habits' advises - 'start with the end in mind' and work backwards on how to get there.
So - what spectacle do we want ? - we can then devise restrictions that produce the desired product. Call it engineering or whatever you like - but the game has to be enjoyed by all - player, spectator and others.

I'd start with the Brolly Zone and tweak from there (yes, I agree these are needed).
Straight away - I offer two tweaks -

1) Each team is allowed UP TO TWO PLAYERS in the exclusion zone AT ANY TIME, marked or unmarked. This adjustment is to counter a team, who would otherwise, put a strong full forward in the zone, one-on-one, and make it less than a team effort.
2) Given the non-zone is more crowded, let's go for 13-a-side.

What do you think ?

omahant (USA) - Posts: 1356 - 03/10/2018 22:22:02    2145033

Link

Replying To Whammo86:  "One thing I'd warn against is the assumption that man marking is better to watch than zonal marking defenses.

I'd be worried that you get a lot fewer tight games, way less chance of upsets.

There isn't a problem with having a bit of resistance making scoring difficult. The problem is that teams don't break out of their shells to engage the ball.

Forcing teams to keep 3 man inside the attacking 45 could hel things. Restricting teams from playing the ball back behind the 65 could help too."
Steve Covey in '7 Habits' advises - 'start with the end in mind' and work backwards on how to get there.
So - what spectacle do we want ? - we can then devise restrictions that produce the desired product. Call it engineering or whatever you like - but the game has to be enjoyed by all - player, spectator and everyone.

I'd start with the Brolly Zone and tweak from there (yes, I agree these are needed).
Straight away - I offer two tweaks -

1) Each team is allowed UP TO TWO PLAYERS in the exclusion zone AT ANY TIME, marked or unmarked. This adjustment is to counter a team, who would otherwise, put a strong full forward in the zone, one-on-one, and make it less than a team effort. Also, this provides some finesse on the kick out - go long or short - teams can vary.
2) Given the non-zone is more crowded, let's go for 13-a-side.

What do you think ?

omahant (USA) - Posts: 1356 - 03/10/2018 22:26:01    2145034

Link

Replying To m_the_d:  "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."
The cause of the blanket defence is that under the current rules and with modern fitness levels it is the most effective way if playing and it is boring boring boring. The new kick out/ zonal rules together will make accurate kicking/ quickly transferring the ball in the most effective way of playing. There is so many kick outs in a match I don't think it will be feasible for teams to play a blanket under these rules, they will not have time to get back and set themselves up.

bdbuddah (Meath) - Posts: 476 - 03/10/2018 23:28:31    2145039

Link

Replying To tirawleybaron:  "Fully agree with Damo.
You always get 80% of GAA people who'll say it won't work but to hell with them. Give it a go and see what happens.
Get all officials involved and all rules can be easily implemented.
Linesmen can watch the kick out and sideline kick
7 offical to watch the sin bin/cards and hand passes
Umpires call the mark inside the 20min
All the rest the red can watch easily enough

They won't all work but they are all worth trying.
I'd throw in an illegal Defense rule like NBA basketball (which bans zonal Defense) and cut subs to 3 personally"
So where do all these neutral linesmen and umpires come from in a junior b fixture. Time to get real

mayotyroneman (Tyrone) - Posts: 1599 - 04/10/2018 07:15:05    2145048

Link

Have to echo a number of sentiments here

I can see theses changes actually making it easier for a blanket defence.

Handpassing is a way to counter negative football, it's a direct consequence of negative football not the cause.

But listen trial them I guess..

Two refs would make these changes a lot easier to implement imo

Refs are already struggling and heaping more work upon them doesn't seem very logical

More will be missed as a consequence and more flabbergasting outrage will follow

jimbodub (Dublin) - Posts: 18605 - 04/10/2018 08:26:10    2145052

Link

Replying To maroondiesel:  "would love to see an oval ball experimentally in the National League, this could solve all other problems"
An oval ball ?
Seriously, I mean really an oval ball is the solution.
Please enlighten me if you will.

Dubh_linn (Dublin) - Posts: 1800 - 04/10/2018 08:28:34    2145053

Link

I cant actually believe people think the proposed hand pass rule is a positive thing to be honest.

I think its the most ridiculous rule change proposal of the whole lot, hand passing or consecutive hand passing isnt the problem in the first place, negative football and negative tactics are the problem, hand passing being over used is a symptom.

tearintom (Wexford) - Posts: 742 - 04/10/2018 09:03:59    2145056

Link

why not just have all passed both kick and hand have to go forward in your own half of field and all six forwards have to stay in opponents half of field at all times , that should bring us back to real Gaelic Football

culmore (None) - Posts: 1295 - 04/10/2018 09:07:49    2145058

Link

If they are trying to make the game un-refereeable then this is a good start.
There are already enough rules that are not enforced. Steps, throw balls, square balls etc.
The handpass rule wont work, the game will still be lateral with hand passes replaced with very short foot passes.
A rule where all scores have to be from a kick would be better. The majority of points scored with the hand are from illegal throws anyway.
The sin bin is a no brainer but the proposal is very convoluted especially when the black card is still a mystery to everyone.
The mark won't make any difference.
The GAA would be better served in defining the tackle better and looking at why teams think that defending with 14 men is the best way to win a game.
FIFA faced a similar problem in the 90's and introduced the back pass rule. That changed soccer entirely and for the good. None of the GAA proposals will have any real impact.

AC (None) - Posts: 295 - 04/10/2018 09:37:30    2145062

Link

When you think on it these new rules are something akin to a conditioned game you would make up for 10-12 year olds, only we are looking to do it to adults. If you don't have two excellent midfielders you are in big trouble with the lockout as you will find yourself with overlaps from every play, I wonder will we see teams conceding the opposition's kickout to avoid this

Barrowsider (Carlow) - Posts: 1145 - 04/10/2018 10:02:06    2145066

Link