Goals = infinite points?

Legend_DIT

My gf suggested to me that she would prefer it if Goals in both Hurling and Football carried infinite points, so that 1-1 would beat 0-17 (just for a very extreme example)

I dislike this idea and discussing it with someone else, they suggested goals should only be worth 2 points.

Where do you stand on the value of goals in matches?

jameshayes

I dont think it's a good idea because i enjoy GAA because it can be a really close game right to the end.. i think if a team was to go 2-0 to 0-6 it would be really depressing and it might kill the match...

SuperSean11

i think 3 points is good cause it can change the whole game but not make players only go for goals

Nalced_irl

We were talking about that at the beers last night. Aparentally it actually used to be like that. If that was brought in again, you would see the ultra defensive styles of playing we see in soccer these days. If you go 2-0 to 0-6 up for example, you will see teams simply defend beyond belief to protect against goals. I do think goals could be worth more however, getting 3 points is alot easier than a goal. Maybe if they were worth 5 points or something but infinate would be awful. I dont really see any reason to change it but if it was to happen, maybe 4 or 5 points would be the only one needed.

mikemac

Reminds of when I first started watching GAA as a child, maybe 5 years old

I thought there were different types of points:
Insurance point: Your team is 3 points and you score to be 4 points up.
Consolation point: Getting hammered but you score anyway.

Since most hurlers and footballers strike the ball/sliotar with their right I thought you scored one of these with your left.
As in commentators often say "he passes the ball left-handed" but never the other way around so I thought you got a bonus for this

Off topic, carry on

Nalced_irl

Us lefties would have a distinct advantage there Well, left footers that is.

Pigman II

If a goal carried "infinite points" then any match where both teams scored 1 or more goals would always be a draw irregardless of the final score.

WellyJ

It would be cool if in the case of a draw, the team with the most goals would win,

Eg.

Team A 2-13 Team B 1-16

Team A win because of the two goals even though it is a draw.

The OPs idea seems a bit silly to be honest,

One shot on target could win the game even if the other team score 50 points

jameshayes

WellyJ wrote:

It would be cool if in the case of a draw, the team with the most goals would win,

Eg.

Team A 2-13 Team B 1-16

Team A win because of the two goals even though it is a draw.

I like this idea but the GAA wouldn't go for it... it would lose them too much money..

TirEoghain

I mentioned this on sunday, I had read this a few years back, but I cant remember where.

I did a bit of searching there, and found this link.

http://www.kilruanemacdonaghs.com/history1.php


In the early years the rules were few and simple.

* Twenty-one a side in hurling and football
* The game was of one and a half hours duration, with a change of ends at half time.
* Points counted only if no goals were scored, or if both teams scored an equal number of goals.


Between 1888 and 1894 a few new rules were introduced

* The number of players on hurling and football teams was reduced from twenty one to seventeen in 1892.
* County teams in future could be picked from the entire county.
* One goal would equal five points

K-9

TirEoghain wrote:

I mentioned this on sunday, I had read this a few years back, but I cant remember where.

I did a bit of searching there, and found this link.

http://www.kilruanemacdonaghs.com/history1.php


In the early years the rules were few and simple.

* Twenty-one a side in hurling and football
* The game was of one and a half hours duration, with a change of ends at half time.
* Points counted only if no goals were scored, or if both teams scored an equal number of goals.


Between 1888 and 1894 a few new rules were introduced

* The number of players on hurling and football teams was reduced from twenty one to seventeen in 1892.
* County teams in future could be picked from the entire county.
* One goal would equal five points

Thought I'd remembered seeing that before. May have been the GAA site and their roll of honour.

The programme after the match, the "Green and Gold" made reference to the game being reduced from 17 to 15 players. Made a huge difference to the game they said. More handpassing.

Good programme as well. Covered Down and Galway in the 60's, the 70's, Darby's goal, Ulster in the early 90's and this decade quite well.

What is it with Jack O'Connor and Northern teams? Seems the Down team in the sixties had a similar problem. They used try and bypass midfield and use the half back and half forward line more. The simple reason being, "why kick into Mick O'Connell in midfield", nothing else.

someothername

WellyJ wrote:

It would be cool if in the case of a draw, the team with the most goals would win,

Eg.

Team A 2-13 Team B 1-16

Team A win because of the two goals even though it is a draw.

The OPs idea seems a bit silly to be honest,

One shot on target could win the game even if the other team score 50 points

i would actually prefer it if Team B won here - they got more scores ..... granted its harder to score a goal but shows that their total scores were more and they were more attacking ? i.e 15 scores to 17
it would reward more attacking teams ?

but as someone said already the GAA would never go for it cause of money! :rolleyes:

WellyJ

Quiff81 wrote:

i would actually prefer it if Team B won here - they got more scores ..... granted its harder to score a goal but shows that their total scores were more and they were more attacking ? i.e 15 scores to 17
it would reward more attacking teams ?

but as someone said already the GAA would never go for it cause of money! :rolleyes:

Yeh but let's be honest,

Whenever someone is through on goal you are screaming at them to take the goal! Nothing beats a good goal.

No one would if it was simply down to scores.

No cos points would be so unbelievably devalued.



Look at how the Kerry goal basically won the game on Sunday, it was a great finish and a moment of genius and the goal made the difference but we watched an open and competitive game right until the end....

An Citeog

This thread reminds me of this.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

Old_-_School

When a goal outweighed any number of points the goals were only about 9 feet wide so goals were very hard to score.

Steve_o

Deleted User wrote:

No cos points would be so unbelievably devalued.



Look at how the Kerry goal basically won the game on Sunday, it was a great finish and a moment of genius and the goal made the difference but we watched an open and competitive game right until the end....

They'd be pointless actually, if 1 goal could beat 20 points, what'd be the point, everyone would just go for goals!!!

yop

Steve_o wrote:

They'd be pointless actually, if 1 goal could beat 20 points, what'd be the point, everyone would just go for goals!!!

I think that game is called soccer

MGrah

Pigman II wrote:

If a goal carried "infinite points" then any match where both teams scored 1 or more goals would always be a draw irregardless of the final score.

I love it - you come on to make the most pedantic point and then......

Pigman II wrote:

irregardless

yahoo_moe

An Citeog wrote:

If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

personally, I think it's impossible to put an exact figure on how much more or less a goal should be worth than a point or how much harder one is than the other so i'd agree - why change anything?

i can't think of a match off hand that has been won by the worst team or lost by the better team purely because goals are worth too much/aren't worth enough... anyway, the best points you see are still only worth the same as easy points - and should arguably be worth more than some of the ****e goals i've seen - so the scoring system can never be exact in terms of reflecting difficulty/skill

Pigman II

MGrah wrote:

I love it - you come on to make the most pedantic point and then......

Try saying that again in a way that actually highlights whatever it is you're trying to say.

Nalced_irl

I would love to know what his point is meant to be also Pigman.

MGrah

Pigman II wrote:

Try saying that again in a way that actually highlights whatever it is you're trying to say.

Just being equally pedantic Pigman, try looking up the word 'regardless' and the correct usage of the prefix 'ir..', don't want to get into an argument on semantics as it's totally off topic, just found the irony of it amusing.

blackbelt

yahoo_moe wrote:

personally, I think it's impossible to put an exact figure on how much more or less a goal should be worth than a point or how much harder one is than the other so i'd agree - why change anything?i can't think of a match off hand that has been won by the worst team or lost by the better team purely because goals are worth too much/aren't worth enough... anyway, the best points you see are still only worth the same as easy points - and should arguably be worth more than some of the ****e goals i've seen - so the scoring system can never be exact in terms of reflecting difficulty/skill

I think a goal being worth 3 points is perfect.Where a team concedes a goal,3 points is sufficient enough reward for the goal but at the same time does not totally put the game out of reach for the conceding team.If say a team is level and then concedes a goal,those three points is just rewards for the scoring team but gives the conceding team 3 easier attacking opportunities to draw level or go down the other route of scoring a goal themselves.

Take last years semi-final between Mayo and Dublin.The score was 1-16 to 2-12.If a goal was worth 5 points,Dublin would have won by a point and we'd all say Dublin played better that day.The scoring system allows for reasonable penalisation.However if goals were worth more than 3 points,the amount of over the bar points being scored would decrease significantly and would take away from the game.