(Oldest Posts First) - Go To The Latest Post
Certainly fairer. In the old days (pre-2000) a red card used to have a free man in defence or attack but not both. I think an option would be to have to leave 3 back when attacking but allow the team to leave just 2 up when defending that way the red card would blunt your attacking abilities but not lead to a massive blow out which would happen where it ends up being 12 v 10 or 9 in the Galway situation. The team with 15 would have an added incentive to move the ball forward quickly to where the extra man was. brianb (Kildare) - Posts: 398 - 26/02/2025 09:22:39 2593282 Link 0 |
Look at the intent of the 3v3 rule - it's to create space inside the attacking half ie a 11v11 or in some cases a 12v11. Having one team be able to bring an extra player forward or back - or 2 players - breaks this as suddenly it will be a 13 or 14 v 11 - and what if one team has 3 players off the field it's going to be back to a 15 man mass defence which is really what the rule wanted to get rid of. systematic (Galway) - Posts: 129 - 26/02/2025 12:02:44 2593317 Link 0 |
A red card in most team ball sports is pretty much a handicap but that is what its meant to do. If a player persitently gets red carded he is pretty much useless to a team and a liability. And on wrong calls, refs are only human they make mistakes no rules are going to correct human error in real time. Its lousy when it happens to your team but it happens. arock (Dublin) - Posts: 4953 - 26/02/2025 12:51:47 2593325 Link 0 |
It just seems if you are reduced to 14, you should still have to keep 3 up and 3 back. The team with 15 players can use the extra man in defence and attack. legendzxix (Kerry) - Posts: 8546 - 26/02/2025 17:31:50 2593385 Link 0 |
The easiest solution is to keep the 3 up rule all the time tirawleybaron (Mayo) - Posts: 1231 - 27/02/2025 17:23:25 2593543 Link 0 |
Should that be keep 3 up and 3 back?
legendzxix (Kerry) - Posts: 8546 - 27/02/2025 17:49:24 2593544 Link 0 |