|
We've now had a full season with the new 2-pointer and while it's brought some positive changes, it's also starting to show its flaws.
Yes, the rule has done a good job in encouraging teams to push up and engage defensively, rather than sitting deep and crowding the scoring zone. That's definitely been a breath of fresh air in terms of how games are being played.
But the 2 points feels like too much. It's doubles the reward of a regular point and 66% of a goal. How can a lad cutting in a beauty tight from sideline be worth half of a simple pop over from edge of the zone. I think of the worldies from the likes of Andy Moran or Paddy Andrews. Now the risk v reward means that ball gets recycled out.
Teams will focus harder in off season improving those long range skills and it risks becoming a bit like basketball, where the high reward for long shots starts to dominate tactics. We could end up losing the kind of close-range, quick-passing moves or tight-angle scores from the wings that light up games.
A fairer middle ground might be awarding 1.5 points for those longer efforts. That would still encourage ambition and skill, but without overshadowing other types of scoring. Granted, bringing in half scores would be a big shift for fans, commentators, and scoreboards, but it's something worth considering if we want to keep the game varied.
The new rule has improved certain aspects of play, but we need to be careful not to flatten out the rest of the game in the process.
Also if we go for 4 for goal, I think teams would almost give up trying for 1 pointers in time.
shaggykev (Donegal) - Posts: 421 - 28/07/2025 10:23:03
2628519
Link
0
|
|
Replying To shaggykev: "We've now had a full season with the new 2-pointer and while it's brought some positive changes, it's also starting to show its flaws.
Yes, the rule has done a good job in encouraging teams to push up and engage defensively, rather than sitting deep and crowding the scoring zone. That's definitely been a breath of fresh air in terms of how games are being played.
But the 2 points feels like too much. It's doubles the reward of a regular point and 66% of a goal. How can a lad cutting in a beauty tight from sideline be worth half of a simple pop over from edge of the zone. I think of the worldies from the likes of Andy Moran or Paddy Andrews. Now the risk v reward means that ball gets recycled out.
Teams will focus harder in off season improving those long range skills and it risks becoming a bit like basketball, where the high reward for long shots starts to dominate tactics. We could end up losing the kind of close-range, quick-passing moves or tight-angle scores from the wings that light up games.
A fairer middle ground might be awarding 1.5 points for those longer efforts. That would still encourage ambition and skill, but without overshadowing other types of scoring. Granted, bringing in half scores would be a big shift for fans, commentators, and scoreboards, but it's something worth considering if we want to keep the game varied.
The new rule has improved certain aspects of play, but we need to be careful not to flatten out the rest of the game in the process.
Also if we go for 4 for goal, I think teams would almost give up trying for 1 pointers in time." I think the 2 point rule has been a great addition, but I think in Gaelic football a goal should be worth 4 if the 2 point rule is kept. There has to be more incentive to go for goals, if you can score 2 pointers.
slayer (Limerick) - Posts: 6523 - 28/07/2025 10:49:04
2628536
Link
1
|
|
How about just extending the arc all the way into the end line, instead of stopping it at the 20m line?
Have a look at the image here to see what I mean -
link
Imagine you're on the 13m line, just inside the sideline. You'd clearly still be more than 40m from goal, but a score from there would only be worth one point. Bringing the arc all the way back would mean you'd be rewarded with two points instead.
Pikeman96 (Wexford) - Posts: 2990 - 28/07/2025 10:55:07
2628540
Link
1
|
|
Replying To Pikeman96: "How about just extending the arc all the way into the end line, instead of stopping it at the 20m line? Have a look at the image here to see what I mean - linkImagine you're on the 13m line, just inside the sideline. You'd clearly still be more than 40m from goal, but a score from there would only be worth one point. Bringing the arc all the way back would mean you'd be rewarded with two points instead."
Still think the general concept is wrong though.
In basketball the three pointer is a 50% bonus.
Gaelic football it's a 100% bonus.
I'd go 50% bonus in Gaelic too.
The options would be either half points or make a point worth two, outside the 40 worth three and a goal worth six.
Neither would be ideal from a psychological perspective but from a logical perspective it would be the right option.
If a goal is worth four, it's too big a gap from a normal point imo.
shaggykev (Donegal) - Posts: 421 - 28/07/2025 11:23:36
2628561
Link
3
|
|
Yeah the ratio 1:2:3 is wrong. I'd think it would be 1:1.5:3.5 (2:3:7). That would probably be a bit convoluted though?
My biggest issue with the new rules was that technical fouls 40 - 55 meters out being rewarded by a 2 point free. No way should the penalty for an over carry or pick up be worth 2 points.
brianb (Kildare) - Posts: 482 - 28/07/2025 11:28:19
2628563
Link
1
|
|
Well it's clear now that if you don't have players that can kick 2 pointers your not going to win an all Ireland.
yew_tree (Mayo) - Posts: 11712 - 28/07/2025 11:36:06
2628570
Link
2
|
|
Replying To shaggykev: " Replying To Pikeman96: "How about just extending the arc all the way into the end line, instead of stopping it at the 20m line? Have a look at the image here to see what I mean - linkImagine you're on the 13m line, just inside the sideline. You'd clearly still be more than 40m from goal, but a score from there would only be worth one point. Bringing the arc all the way back would mean you'd be rewarded with two points instead." Interesting. For attack I'd agree but wouldn't want kick out rule to get that advantage too with markings. Still think the general concept is wrong though. In basketball the three pointer is a 50% bonus. Gaelic football it's a 100% bonus. I'd go 50% bonus in Gaelic too. The options would be either half points or make a point worth two, outside the 40 worth three and a goal worth six. Neither would be ideal from a psychological perspective but from a logical perspective it would be the right option. If a goal is worth four, it's too big a gap from a normal point imo."
The FRC mentioned wanting to preserve the past also. For example, Padraic Joyce is the highest scoring player in an all ireland final this century. Stuff like that would become obsolete under a new scoring system
I personally think they should change however, its a very logical next step
PressureKick (UK) - Posts: 307 - 28/07/2025 11:42:52
2628576
Link
0
|
|
@shaggykev - there wouldn't be an advantage for the kick-out. Kick-outs are taken from the centre point of the 20m line and there's already a rule that they must travel forward. You couldn't kick it back to somebody standing on the 13m line outside where the arc meets it.
And even if that rule didn't exist, I don't think there'd be an advantage anyway. The kick would still have to travel the same distance. Even if a defender did stand on the 13m line instead of just outside the 20m line, the corresponding forward would just have to push up on him there, and the defender would then be closed down in the same way anyway.
Pikeman96 (Wexford) - Posts: 2990 - 28/07/2025 11:55:38
2628581
Link
0
|
|
I do think that the 2 pointers have too much of an impact on the game.
Yesterday, for all Kerry's superiority with about 15 mins left, both teams had put the ball over the bar 17 times. It would have made for a very different ending to the game.
The 2 pointers were the area of the game yesterday that Kerry were really superior in. I think Donegal actually did a bit better in the rest of play than people think, as they're being influenced by the scoreboard.
That's not to take from Kerry's win btw. The rules were the same for both sides and Kerry took advantage.
The outsized importance of the 2 pointer will ultimately lead to more slow, handpassing around the arc. We saw a lot of that from Kerry yesterday. The final overall was a poor spectacle.
MesAmis (Dublin) - Posts: 13837 - 28/07/2025 12:10:14
2628589
Link
0
|
|
With the amount of 2 pointers missed it almost seems teams were more successful with long-range shots when they were only worth 1 point.
M Lyster (Antrim) - Posts: 472 - 28/07/2025 12:39:24
2628603
Link
0
|
|
Replying To PressureKick: " Replying To shaggykev: "[quote=Pikeman96: "How about just extending the arc all the way into the end line, instead of stopping it at the 20m line? Have a look at the image here to see what I mean - linkImagine you're on the 13m line, just inside the sideline. You'd clearly still be more than 40m from goal, but a score from there would only be worth one point. Bringing the arc all the way back would mean you'd be rewarded with two points instead." Interesting. For attack I'd agree but wouldn't want kick out rule to get that advantage too with markings. Still think the general concept is wrong though. In basketball the three pointer is a 50% bonus. Gaelic football it's a 100% bonus. I'd go 50% bonus in Gaelic too. The options would be either half points or make a point worth two, outside the 40 worth three and a goal worth six. Neither would be ideal from a psychological perspective but from a logical perspective it would be the right option. If a goal is worth four, it's too big a gap from a normal point imo."
The FRC mentioned wanting to preserve the past also. For example, Padraic Joyce is the highest scoring player in an all ireland final this century. Stuff like that would become obsolete under a new scoring system
I personally think they should change however, its a very logical next step"]Yeah and a point should be worth a point. It's just ingrained into our brains which makes the shot outside 40 being my suggestion for a half point as a kind of fudge but I know that too would be hard to adjust to mentally.
I guarantee the two pointer will become obsolete in a few years when we see what will definitely happen and we end up with a game of long shots all day.
Also the fact many grounds have one side much more suited to two points including Croke Park can give one team a huge advantage as teams either chase 2s like Meath in semi final or can really pull away from other team with the two points on in second half like Louth did to Meath in Leinster final.
If it was either keep it at 2 or lose it, I'm afraid I'd vote lose it even though I would worry it would mean team retreat back again more.
shaggykev (Donegal) - Posts: 421 - 28/07/2025 12:39:29
2628605
Link
0
|
|
Replying To slayer: "I think the 2 point rule has been a great addition, but I think in Gaelic football a goal should be worth 4 if the 2 point rule is kept. There has to be more incentive to go for goals, if you can score 2 pointers." Makes absolutely no sense in stopping the arc at the 20m line. An attempt from inside the 20m line is way more difficult than from outside.
cluichethar (Mayo) - Posts: 566 - 28/07/2025 12:47:01
2628611
Link
0
|
|
Replying To yew_tree: "Well it's clear now that if you don't have players that can kick 2 pointers your not going to win an all Ireland." That is chiseled in granite right now Yew, no two pointers no Sam, it is that simple.
cluichethar (Mayo) - Posts: 566 - 28/07/2025 12:51:42
2628617
Link
0
|
|
'The outsized importance of the 2 pointer will ultimately lead to more slow, handpassing around the arc. We saw a lot of that from Kerry yesterday. The final overall was a poor spectacle'
Hard to argue with it though. From a minute before the half time hooter, they completely slowed the game down around the arc. I was looking at it thinking 'what the Jaysus are they at?' and next thing Clifford is on the end of it and scored a 2 pointer. Extending the lead to 7 at half time gave them a great cushion.
slayer (Limerick) - Posts: 6523 - 28/07/2025 12:54:29
2628620
Link
0
|
|
Replying To MesAmis: "I do think that the 2 pointers have too much of an impact on the game.
Yesterday, for all Kerry's superiority with about 15 mins left, both teams had put the ball over the bar 17 times. It would have made for a very different ending to the game.
The 2 pointers were the area of the game yesterday that Kerry were really superior in. I think Donegal actually did a bit better in the rest of play than people think, as they're being influenced by the scoreboard.
That's not to take from Kerry's win btw. The rules were the same for both sides and Kerry took advantage.
The outsized importance of the 2 pointer will ultimately lead to more slow, handpassing around the arc. We saw a lot of that from Kerry yesterday. The final overall was a poor spectacle." Agreed, not to take away from Clifford in any way, or compare the players, but for example Jordan Morris' 1-6 against Galway is much more impressive than Clifford's 0-9 yesterday and should have a higher value
Breffni40 (Cavan) - Posts: 12481 - 28/07/2025 13:30:37
2628639
Link
0
|
|
Slightly different take on 2 point rule
I was thinking the 2 points should be reserved for points scored from play only.
Any shots off the ground or for a free from the hands stay at 1 point. This eliminates the anomaly of a 45 only counting as 1 whereas a free from the same point gets 2.
It also eliminates the 2 points reward for an infraction way out the field where the ball is carried up, and stops the players taking such a ball back outside the arc.
This will also speed the game up as we don't have to wait for goalkeepers to trundle up the field to take the kick in circumstances where the regular free taker could tap over from the original (closer) position.
All for extending the arc to the end line and making a goal worth 4.
TearsIn85 (Monaghan) - Posts: 214 - 28/07/2025 13:53:32
2628652
Link
0
|
|
Replying To Breffni40: "Agreed, not to take away from Clifford in any way, or compare the players, but for example Jordan Morris' 1-6 against Galway is much more impressive than Clifford's 0-9 yesterday and should have a higher value" I know there's nordie meltdown this weekend but this takes the biscuit altogether.
Seanfan (Roscommon) - Posts: 23 - 28/07/2025 13:57:54
2628655
Link
1
|
|
Replying To brianb: "Yeah the ratio 1:2:3 is wrong. I'd think it would be 1:1.5:3.5 (2:3:7). That would probably be a bit convoluted though?
My biggest issue with the new rules was that technical fouls 40 - 55 meters out being rewarded by a 2 point free. No way should the penalty for an over carry or pick up be worth 2 points." Agree completely on the technical foul comment. It happened in the Ulster final. Donegal get the goal in et and are two points up. The next score for Armagh was a free outside the arc that came from a Donegal over carry. It was too harsh a punishment to my mind.
Ulsterchamps_32 (Donegal) - Posts: 922 - 28/07/2025 14:06:42
2628661
Link
0
|
|
Yesterday final was enough evidence needed to scrap two pointers altogether I'd start with two pointer frees first.
The_analyser (Roscommon) - Posts: 4131 - 28/07/2025 14:09:14
2628662
Link
0
|
|
I think we need a few years with the new rules and then make a decision. Overall the new rules have improved the game. Would it be sensible to get rid of 2 points for a free outside the arc?
The only downside of the new rules that I can see is that you might get a lot more one sided games.
Green_Gold (Donegal) - Posts: 1928 - 28/07/2025 14:09:33
2628663
Link
0
|
