National Forum

Experimental Rule Changes Proposed For Gaelic Football

(Oldest Posts First) - Go To The Latest Post


So i wonder are the GAA being political here, introduce a raft of proposed new rules controversially, let there be a internal and public reaction to flying the kite and bring in the least controversial ones. It gives them the opportunity to say they tried, and offered the opportunity and a consensus was reached with key stake holders. Get them of the hook really.

I honestly dont think they are naive - for want of a different word - to introduce most of those rules to be honest.

I hope it doesn't make a farce of the league which has been going from strength to strength in the last few years.

TheUsername (Dublin) - Posts: 1834 - 04/10/2018 10:28:38    2145072

Link

Replying To bdbuddah:  "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."
Why won't teams be able to get back into the blanket defence?

The ball is kicked out and by the time the ball is won there and ready to be delivered in a number of players will have been able to run from one 45 to the other 45.

MesAmis (Dublin) - Posts: 12053 - 04/10/2018 10:43:47    2145074

Link

Replying To culmore:  "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 ."
To be honest this does sound like the most simple solution. One negative would be that a forward wouldn't be allowed to track his man back so teams would get overlaps all the time, scores might actually be too easy as you could have 8 attacking players against 6 backs. Would you also have to keep 6 back at all times?

One other simple rule that might help would be to ban all passes that go backwards? I think we have to take small steps rather than just introducing a loads of new rules at once.

Green_Gold (Donegal) - Posts: 1308 - 04/10/2018 11:01:38    2145078

Link

Replying To omahant:  "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 ?"
Would it not be simpler just to bring in a rule to get players to line up in their 'zones' for kick outs ?. That's a simple rule to follow/ referee and I think one which would transform the game making it more satisfying to play/watch ?. This could lead naturally to a game most want to get to and probably mean not having to bring in a rule restricting the number of hand passes (I think there would naturally be more kicking, with kicks being aimed into players in space/ for players to contest and field with this rule in place).

bdbuddah (Meath) - Posts: 476 - 04/10/2018 11:12:12    2145083

Link

Replying To culmore:  "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 ."
How in the name of god would that work then you would have 6 forwards that cant track there markers over the half way which could lead to 12 on 8 (6 backs 2 defenders) in some cases, wouldnt work

Tarismelting22 (Roscommon) - Posts: 314 - 04/10/2018 11:16:50    2145084

Link

Replying To Green_Gold:  "To be honest this does sound like the most simple solution. One negative would be that a forward wouldn't be allowed to track his man back so teams would get overlaps all the time, scores might actually be too easy as you could have 8 attacking players against 6 backs. Would you also have to keep 6 back at all times?

One other simple rule that might help would be to ban all passes that go backwards? I think we have to take small steps rather than just introducing a loads of new rules at once."
The Kilmacud 7s have a rule that you can't pass the ball backwards in your own half. It's simple to understand and officiate and it overcomes most of the ills of the modern game. It would be surely worth trying more than a whole host of complicated changes.

Soma (UK) - Posts: 2213 - 04/10/2018 11:22:09    2145086

Link

Replying To Green_Gold:  "To be honest this does sound like the most simple solution. One negative would be that a forward wouldn't be allowed to track his man back so teams would get overlaps all the time, scores might actually be too easy as you could have 8 attacking players against 6 backs. Would you also have to keep 6 back at all times?

One other simple rule that might help would be to ban all passes that go backwards? I think we have to take small steps rather than just introducing a loads of new rules at once."
I'm hoping the whole suggestion of keeping 6 backs and 6 fowards on separate sides of the pitch is a joke? Could you actually imagine that...Lee Keegan, Jack McCaffrey and Ryan McHugh etc wouldn't be allowed to attack..haha. That would be the height of stupidity.

In relation to no passes going backwards...again really??? Conor McManus, Dean Rock and Paddy McBrearty would love that considering how often they score taking a ball on the loop. Then you would need the ref having the perfect angle for every pass to make sure it didn't go backwards. The average score in games would actually drop big time.

For me the easier solution and a rule that already exists in 7 aside football is no backwards passing in your own half or back into your own half when you cross the half way line. This would encourage teams to put pressure on teams high up the field as it would be easier to turnover the ball in the oppositions half. The new mark rule is something that gives the attacking team an advantage and I think that's what needs to be done rather than implementing restrictions of hand passes and or not allowing quick kickouts etc. I never knew sideline balls going backwards were a huge issue and that again restricts options for teams in possession if awarded a sideline ball because the defending team know that the ball has to go forward and can drop 15 men back.

Out of the 5 suggested rule changes the only one that encourages attacking play is the new mark. The sin bin also sounds like a decent idea and I wouldn't mind these 2 trialed in the league. Try these two first and see how they work. 5 changes in one go with be a disaster.

Mobot (Donegal) - Posts: 345 - 04/10/2018 11:57:06    2145094

Link

Replying To Tarismelting22:  "How in the name of god would that work then you would have 6 forwards that cant track there markers over the half way which could lead to 12 on 8 (6 backs 2 defenders) in some cases, wouldnt work"
yes but when the ball is won by defenders and as Michael O Neiher use to say a long relieving clearance up the field with six forwards up there to score with ease , the defenders would have to track back very quick and stay back if their opposite number put the ball in the net Gaelic Football again and not pass the ball

culmore (None) - Posts: 1295 - 04/10/2018 12:15:48    2145099

Link

Replying To MesAmis:  "Why won't teams be able to get back into the blanket defence?

The ball is kicked out and by the time the ball is won there and ready to be delivered in a number of players will have been able to run from one 45 to the other 45."
The kick outs would land in an uncluttered midfield area and if caught cleanly there would be time to deliver it forward before the addition players got back. Even when players did get back they would be running back rather than standing in place waiting to block off space so not as effective and much harder to organise. In most games there must be about 25 scores and maybe 15 wides in a game. Thats a lot of kickouts in a 70 min inter county game. Take into account also the delay for the taking each kick out and the playing time between each kick out is not that much and the amount of times a forward would have to be running back from a forward position to get into the blanket would be a huge. This is not even taking into consideration that managers would have extra incentive to leave their forward players in an attacking position as they would pose a bigger threat as the opposition would not be allowed to have a blanket of their own in place from the kick out. A rule stating that a players should be in a 'zone' for the kick out is realistic to referee where as one stating players have to stay in a 'zone' in a free moving game would be impossible to referee and impractical to play.

bdbuddah (Meath) - Posts: 476 - 04/10/2018 14:14:01    2145120

Link

Replying To culmore:  "yes but when the ball is won by defenders and as Michael O Neiher use to say a long relieving clearance up the field with six forwards up there to score with ease , the defenders would have to track back very quick and stay back if their opposite number put the ball in the net Gaelic Football again and not pass the ball"
AH stop that is one of the most silly ideas ever, the attacking team should be scoring with every attack

Tarismelting22 (Roscommon) - Posts: 314 - 04/10/2018 15:05:34    2145126

Link

Replying To MesAmis:  "Why won't teams be able to get back into the blanket defence?

The ball is kicked out and by the time the ball is won there and ready to be delivered in a number of players will have been able to run from one 45 to the other 45."
100% again. The 6 defenders could well end up playing Zonal defense as well dropping back and letting their men make runs away from goal towards the half way line to let the retreating forwards on their team pick them up as they sprint back. People have to understand that coaching teams will automatically think defense first in these scenarios unless they're losing towards the end and then might decide to take some risks.

If one player catches a ball clean from a kick out you're going to see a lot of slowing down the play from his marker to give time for his team to retreat. Most kick outs should be won by the team taking the kick out as they will control the run and in a lot of cases you might see one of the defending midfielders dropping back as the ball is in the air so their defense isn't left exposed and will have a sweeper in place.

Mobot (Donegal) - Posts: 345 - 04/10/2018 15:06:36    2145127

Link

I like the idea of no backward passes in their own half but i would bring it one stepp further and say once they are in the 45 you cant pass back outside

Tarismelting22 (Roscommon) - Posts: 314 - 04/10/2018 15:08:15    2145128

Link

John Hayes former Cork footballer on the main page.
It's time we moved away from the 13-, 20- and 45m lines. Instead, if we had a 20m arc and a 45m arc, at both ends of the pitch, I think it would be more suitable for the game. If a score from outside the 45m arc was rewarded with two points and a goal rewarded with four points, it would encourage the attacking aspect of the game
This seems like a fairly sound plan, it should definitely be considered!!!

theweanling (Cavan) - Posts: 276 - 04/10/2018 15:29:20    2145135

Link

Replying To Mobot:  "I'm hoping the whole suggestion of keeping 6 backs and 6 fowards on separate sides of the pitch is a joke? Could you actually imagine that...Lee Keegan, Jack McCaffrey and Ryan McHugh etc wouldn't be allowed to attack..haha. That would be the height of stupidity.

In relation to no passes going backwards...again really??? Conor McManus, Dean Rock and Paddy McBrearty would love that considering how often they score taking a ball on the loop. Then you would need the ref having the perfect angle for every pass to make sure it didn't go backwards. The average score in games would actually drop big time.

For me the easier solution and a rule that already exists in 7 aside football is no backwards passing in your own half or back into your own half when you cross the half way line. This would encourage teams to put pressure on teams high up the field as it would be easier to turnover the ball in the oppositions half. The new mark rule is something that gives the attacking team an advantage and I think that's what needs to be done rather than implementing restrictions of hand passes and or not allowing quick kickouts etc. I never knew sideline balls going backwards were a huge issue and that again restricts options for teams in possession if awarded a sideline ball because the defending team know that the ball has to go forward and can drop 15 men back.

Out of the 5 suggested rule changes the only one that encourages attacking play is the new mark. The sin bin also sounds like a decent idea and I wouldn't mind these 2 trialed in the league. Try these two first and see how they work. 5 changes in one go with be a disaster."
You are right of course about the backward pass, it would rule out those scores that forwards get on the loop. I like the idea of not being able to pass the ball backwards when in your own half, would be easy enough to implement and by the sounds of it already used in the Kilmacud 7s. As you say 5 changes in one go would be a nightmare.

Green_Gold (Donegal) - Posts: 1308 - 04/10/2018 15:46:00    2145139

Link

Replying To Soma:  "The Kilmacud 7s have a rule that you can't pass the ball backwards in your own half. It's simple to understand and officiate and it overcomes most of the ills of the modern game. It would be surely worth trying more than a whole host of complicated changes."
Yeah I think if I'd one rule to implement it would be this one. It'd be high impact, simple but not too radically changing the game. Which I think are the key things we need to look for in a rule change.

Whammo86 (Antrim) - Posts: 2129 - 04/10/2018 18:20:48    2145165

Link

How about enforcing what exists first. In both codes the hand pass implementation. The elbow should be seen to move back creating separation between the ball and open hand (fist also football) with a striking motion to deliver the pass. After that then look at how and where it can be used. May be if you receive a hand pass you can not deliver one.
Why has the hand pass got to how it is now delivered (throwing) ? Players in possession are bottled up, swarmed on and can not use their hand freely. Once player is in possession one player allowed to challenge him and take back the ball by blocking, hooking or intercepting the pass. What happens if the ball is dropping between several players ? No one is in possession yet and all can fight for it. The minute some one has the ball in their hand all but on must back off and allow him tackle.
A referee on his own could not enforce. A second referee or more suitable are the two guys who just wave a flag when the ball goes over the side line should flag these infringements also. Players would adapt quickly and the games open up.
Lets curtail the rucks and swarming of the player in possession.

Canuck (Waterford) - Posts: 346 - 04/10/2018 18:41:15    2145167

Link

There are rules and the intention of the rules. Why do we have in a solo consisting of a bounce followed by a kick? The intention is to the force players to not just bounce the ball, some could argue it slows the player in possession down and gives the defender an advantage. But someone had the intent to say this is football and so they decided to restrict the usage of the bounce at the expense of slowing the player with the ball. It is no different with the hand pass, a decision is being made this game is Gaelic football not basketball or rugby the irony is to read here that the hand pass helps the game of football. when the fact is they are not doing away with the handpass just restricting its use - like the bounce in the solo. Let us see how this works out.

arock (Dublin) - Posts: 3842 - 04/10/2018 20:00:23    2145172

Link

Replying To arock:  "There are rules and the intention of the rules. Why do we have in a solo consisting of a bounce followed by a kick? The intention is to the force players to not just bounce the ball, some could argue it slows the player in possession down and gives the defender an advantage. But someone had the intent to say this is football and so they decided to restrict the usage of the bounce at the expense of slowing the player with the ball. It is no different with the hand pass, a decision is being made this game is Gaelic football not basketball or rugby the irony is to read here that the hand pass helps the game of football. when the fact is they are not doing away with the handpass just restricting its use - like the bounce in the solo. Let us see how this works out."
It rewardis catching of the ball and introducing zones. I know the point you are making, but for every hark at why Gaelic football is football and the difference between Gaelic football and Rugby and Baketball, there are other things in these rules that bring the game more like those sports and god help us with the introduction of high catching marks and zones, American Football.

Touchdown.

TheUsername (Dublin) - Posts: 1834 - 04/10/2018 20:40:48    2145174

Link

Replying To Dubh_linn:  "An oval ball ?
Seriously, I mean really an oval ball is the solution.
Please enlighten me if you will."
Australia has them and I think Rugby also, along with sin bins and all that, It's tongue in cheek a mhac, I have no solutions to be honest

maroondiesel (Mayo) - Posts: 808 - 04/10/2018 21:13:42    2145177

Link

It is definitely the case of a committee designing a horse and coming up with a camel.

gunman (Donegal) - Posts: 457 - 04/10/2018 21:32:13    2145178

Link