This is one of those conversations that could go on for ever.
I agree with your dislike of cynical fouling but to call it a "system" is over egging the pudding a bit. I have no problem at all with good defensive play as defence is as much part of the game as attack & no way would I see this as "anti-football".

Surely systemic fouling is by definition, a system?


Neither do I think that we have to remain true to the ideas of the people who set up the game in the first place. If you are trying to tell me that you would want us to go back to the way football was played in their day then I wish you good luck with that. Even the football from the 60's is desperate stuff to watch nowadays & they are adhering to your man to man approach.

That isnt what I am saying though. You are deliberately stating an extreme in an attempt to belittle the point. Im not saying we have to play like it was in teh 60s. Im saying we make efforts to maintain the ethos that the game was founded on.


Many of the games I watched last year were very entertaining, maybe because I can also appreciate good defence as well as good forward play. They are certainly light years ahead of the man to man games from years ago. As for new rules, please no.

I appreciate good defending also, more than most actually. Crowding out the goals isnt good defending. Systemic fouling isnt good defending. These are spoiling tactics that remove the necessity of actual good defending. The offside rule is the definitive example. It improved soccer and stopped guys hanging around the goals, which in turn made the game a better spectacle and more about the skills of the game. Now there was nothing in the rules that said guys couldnt stand on the edge of the 6 yard box all day, but clearly it was an issue, so they addressed it. This in turn transformed the game because it had so many good knock on effects on the play. The same would apply to gaa.

TheMaster (Mayo) - Posts: 16187 - 22/03/2013 12:41:16    1354038

22/03/2013 12:41:16
TheMaster
County: Mayo
Posts: 6287


Surely systemic fouling is by definition, a system?

This is a perfect example of why debating with you is a waste of time. Nowhere have I used the term "systemic". Systemic is not the same as "cynical". You did the same thing earlier on, replacing "system" with "ethos". These terms all have completely different meanings & unless you want a career in politics stick to the point!!!



You are deliberately stating an extreme in an attempt to belittle the point. Im not saying we have to play like it was in teh 60s. Im saying we make efforts to maintain the ethos that the game was founded on.

If you want to play 1-6-2-6 then 1960's style football is what you are going to get with no movement. Things move on, everything evolves.


Crowding out the goals isnt good defending. These are spoiling tactics that remove the necessity of actual good defending. The offside rule is the definitive example. It improved soccer and made the game a better spectacle and more about the skills of the game.

Most good defensive systems operate well away from the goals, if you are defending that close to the goals then you are in real trouble. The offside rule is about the worst example you could have used with teams putting hours of practise into cynically catching the opposition in offside traps. It is truly horrible to watch and really goes against the ethos of the game's founding fathers.

MuckrossHead (Donegal) - Posts: 5030 - 22/03/2013 13:12:25    1354065

Muckross

You're right.

AnRaibh (Donegal) - Posts: 134 - 22/03/2013 13:51:32    1354114

This is a perfect example of why debating with you is a waste of time. Nowhere have I used the term "systemic". Systemic is not the same as "cynical". You did the same thing earlier on, replacing "system" with "ethos". These terms all have completely different meanings & unless you want a career in politics stick to the point!!!

But cynical fouling has been around for years. It is systemic cynical fouling that has pushed this issue to the fore, and this is the issue that is killing the game. Also, I never said an ethos was a system, I said there was a different ethos behind this system.


If you want to play 1-6-2-6 then 1960's style football is what you are going to get with no movement. Things move on, everything evolves.

No it isnt. There is no requirement to hoof the ball up the field. Just a requirment to stick to the positions on the field as they are designed. Is rugby still in the 1800s because they stick to the same positions? This argument is purposely over-simplistic and a little facetious.


Most good defensive systems operate well away from the goals, if you are defending that close to the goals then you are in real trouble. The offside rule is about the worst example you could have used with teams putting hours of practise into cynically catching the opposition in offside traps. It is truly horrible to watch and really goes against the ethos of the game's founding fathers.

Did I say play the offside exactly like soccer? Obviously we can come up with our own offside rule. For instance, no forward inside his own 40 before the ball and no defender inside the opposition 40 before the ball. Very simple, very easy to operate and most important, it makes teams play the game.

TheMaster (Mayo) - Posts: 16187 - 22/03/2013 14:01:59    1354129

Muckross,

Is gairid ár gcairt ar an saol seo.....

this will go on and on............

Lockjaw (Donegal) - Posts: 10370 - 22/03/2013 14:34:41    1354153

TheMaster
County: Mayo
Posts: 6291

1353503 Quite a waffly answer muckross. The reality is the 'system' kerry played was actually how the game was defined in the first place, 1 33 2 33, man for man, play the ball and may the most skillful team win. So in truth, they werent playing a system, they were playing gaelic football. That was how the game was defined and how it was meant to be played. Now if you cant play it that way to a level where you are as good as the best, i.e. winning an equal amount as the top teams, then you can either get better, or try to spoil that type of play using various crowding-out systems, and search out and exploit weaknesses in the rules to gain an advantage. And thus, anti-football was born. But it wouldnt have been born if all things were equal, because if that was the case then everyone would have an equal amount of wins before anti-football was introduced.

Would it not be fair to say that "The Kerry System or style" was among the first to be broadcast on television here in Ireland, and clearly the system to be seen most often on television due to their sustained success over the decades since then. Commentators would remark "this is how the game should be played" during a 2nd half of Kerry hammering Monaghan or some team not in their class or league in a 1970's or 1980's All Ireland Semi final.
So maybe at a subconscious level you have grown up with these thoughts planted deep in your mind courtesy of RTE :-).

In todays game, we still have 15 men vs 15 men on a pitch. Modern day teams are more organised, conditioned and more pacey than previous generations.
If a team have 3 men surrounding a single opposition player, I often look for the oppositions 2 free players to see what are they doing while their markers are crowding out their colleague.

GaryMc82 (Derry) - Posts: 3057 - 22/03/2013 14:42:11    1354163

TheMaster
County: Mayo

But cynical fouling has been around for years. It is systemic cynical fouling that has pushed this issue to the fore, and this is the issue that is killing the game.

By systemic cynical fouling I assume you mean something that is planned in advance & practised. The problem with focussing on this is how is the referee supposed to seperate a systemic cynical foul from an ordinary cynical foul? He can't. Neither is this issue "killing the game". The game is in rude good health. It needs a few tweaks here & there but not at a risk of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.


No it isnt. There is no requirement to hoof the ball up the field. Just a requirment to stick to the positions on the field as they are designed. Is rugby still in the 1800s because they stick to the same positions?

You seriously want players to "stick to the positions on the field as they are designed". There is no way in the wide world that that is ever going to happen. As for rugby, modern day rugby players appear all over the place at the moment. The forwards & backs still have basic functions, so do Gaelic players but their roles are far more fluid than they used to be.

Did I say play the offside exactly like soccer? Obviously we can come up with our own offside rule. For instance, no forward inside his own 40 before the ball and no defender inside the opposition 40 before the ball. Very simple, very easy to operate and most important, it makes teams play the game.

What you did say and I quote "The offside rule is the definitive example. It improved soccer and stopped guys hanging around the goals, which in turn made the game a better spectacle" I would argue that it has not improved soccer and has not made it a better spectacle. Neither do you address the issue of the cynical nature of the offside trap, which given your abhorrance of cynicism, I thought you would have taken issue with.

As for your soloution it is neither simple nor easy. Who is going to police this? The officials can't implement the rules as they are & I for one do not want to spend Sun evenings watch slow motion replays of players who might or might not be inside the 40 not to mention threads calling for Hawkeye. We have enough rules as it is.

MuckrossHead (Donegal) - Posts: 5030 - 22/03/2013 14:42:49    1354165

What you did say and I quote "The offside rule is the definitive example. It improved soccer and stopped guys hanging around the goals, which in turn made the game a better spectacle" I would argue that it has not improved soccer and has not made it a better spectacle. Neither do you address the issue of the cynical nature of the offside trap, which given your abhorrance of cynicism, I thought you would have taken issue with.

Is the offside rule identical in every sport? Rugby and soccer are identical are they? Also, how has it not improved the game? This high level 'well I would say the opposite and im entitled to my opinion' spiel doesnt cut it. How has it not improved the game?
Also you ignore the fact that there can be no offside trap in what I suggested. The 40 doesnt move. But as regards the offside trap, I would say it is far less cynical than the systems of fouling that it would be put in place to remove.



As for your soloution it is neither simple nor easy. Who is going to police this? The officials can't implement the rules as they are & I for one do not want to spend Sun evenings watch slow motion replays of players who might or might not be inside the 40 not to mention threads calling for Hawkeye. We have enough rules as it is.

It is very simple. The umpire and ref could police it. Also, I couldnt care less how you want to spend your evenings, this would improve the game, therefore it is the right course of action. If you dont like it then maybe football isnt for you.

TheMaster (Mayo) - Posts: 16187 - 22/03/2013 17:00:08    1354294

TheMaster
County: Mayo
Posts: 6292


How has it not improved the game? How has it not improved the game?

The level of cynicsm associated with defences setting offside traps is really sickening. I thought that you, the scourge of all things cynical would agree.

This high level 'well I would say the opposite and I'm entitled to my opinion' spiel doesn't cut it.

But I do say the opposite & I am entitled to my opinion, just as you are.

But as regards the offside trap, I would say it is far less cynical than the systems of fouling that it would be put in place to remove.

How exactly does you 40 yard plan remove cynical fouling. Oranges & lemons.

It is very simple. The umpire and ref could police it.

Now we are truly entering Alice in Wonderland territory. The umpires are behind the goal, how are they supposed to tell if a player is in front or behind a line 40 yards away from them. I don't think you have thought this through fully Master.

Also, I couldnt care less how you want to spend your evenings, If you dont like it then maybe football isnt for you.

Touchy touchy, If you don't like it then maybe posting isn't for you.

MuckrossHead (Donegal) - Posts: 5030 - 22/03/2013 17:26:18    1354308

The key is who stays injury free.

Tyrone 08 winners lots of injuries 09
Kerry 09 winners lots of retirements, players to afl, injuries and suspensions 10
Cork 10 winners 11 lots of injuries
Dublin 11 winners Brogans injury in 12
Donegal 12 no major injuries.

That is the key . INJURIES. Murphy Lacey injury Donegal are a different team

Murph (Kerry) - Posts: 45 - 22/03/2013 21:39:56    1354427

Kerry for Sam

kerryrowz (Kerry) - Posts: 833 - 23/03/2013 10:38:33    1354480

The Master, all things were never equal. Ulster and Leinster teams have had the GAA's toughest provinces since its formation. Dublin have a fantastic record but look at their population. Mayo and Galway have in the past won one or two matches and been in a final. Now it is too crude to state that 'the best team will always win' but the truth is Tyrone, Armagh, Donegal play systems that suits. People like the Master don't seem to have their own opinions, just repeat what the analysts on the Sunday Game state. You seem uneducated on this, watch the All-Irleland final last year. Look how many players you's played behind the ball. Anyway- Dublin, Donegal, Cork, Tyrone or Kerry (not gone yet) , Mayo will win their usual 'one big match' but will not handle two tricky one's in a row

TheRightStuff (Donegal) - Posts: 1688 - 23/03/2013 11:17:17    1354498

The title of this post just goes to show what a dangerous pastime forecasting is.

After this weekend Donegal & Cork are back in the pack with only Dublin really looking the part & Tyrone behind them. This will probably change again before the championship gets under way. Wouldn't have it any other way!!

MuckrossHead (Donegal) - Posts: 5030 - 25/03/2013 09:42:03    1355605

Until Dublin get a convincing 6 and 8 I will remain pessimistic and worried
We have class forwards wing backs full backs goalies etc etc but until we pick a guy at 6 who can start attacks, stop attacks and offer an attacking threat ala Keith Barr then I will worry. I actually think if played there James McCarthy could be that man. He has it all but He has not been played there
Also of less importance with the way we play but still a worry is a lack of a number 8 beside MDMA
But until we come up with a top class 6, like all great teams have, I will worry for Dublin

Liamwalkinstown (Dublin) - Posts: 8170 - 25/03/2013 09:53:02    1355618

MuckrossHead
The level of cynicsm associated with defences setting offside traps is really sickening. I thought that you, the scourge of all things cynical would agree.

Nonsense. Considering it also eliminates huge amounts of anti-football, in comparison the above is a miniscule side effect. So basically, you are saying we will keep a vast amount of anti football because we dont want to introduce this small level of it in its place.


But I do say the opposite & I am entitled to my opinion, just as you are.

You also need to be able to argue them to a conclusion. You cannot.


How exactly does you 40 yard plan remove cynical fouling. Oranges & lemons.

It stops teams putting extra men back behind the ball as a rule. Which is the root of a lot of anti-football we see today. It doesnt stop cynical fouling, but any cynical foul from here on in is man for man, so it is easy to punish them. Currently, we see teams purposely crowd out opponents in a cynical manner, but it is hard to punish any 1 guy for this. Basically it puts the emphasis back on the core principles of the gaa.


Now we are truly entering Alice in Wonderland territory. The umpires are behind the goal, how are they supposed to tell if a player is in front or behind a line 40 yards away from them. I don't think you have thought this through fully Master.

Meant to say linesman.


Also, I couldnt care less how you want to spend your evenings, If you dont like it then maybe football isnt for you.
Touchy touchy, If you don't like it then maybe posting isn't for you.

No not touchy at all. I am simply sayig that what you want to do with your evenings is beside the point. These rules are needed in the gaa. If you cant be bothered enough for them to be enforced that you dont want to spend any time considering them then maybe your interest in the gaa is your issue?


Also, you gave the reason for this not to be introduced as 'we have enough rules'. Does that mean you are against introducing rules around racism, simply because we 'have enough rules' and your evenings are full up as it is?

TheMaster (Mayo) - Posts: 16187 - 25/03/2013 10:01:12    1355627

TheRightStuff, I agree all things were never equal. That is my point. Take that argument up with muckross

TheMaster (Mayo) - Posts: 16187 - 25/03/2013 10:02:36    1355630

Master,

Bored with this now. Goodbye.

MuckrossHead (Donegal) - Posts: 5030 - 25/03/2013 10:14:56    1355648