Football Review Committee (FRC) proposalas

Fr Tod Umptious

Out toady according to RTE

Some recommendations

- Public clock to be introduced in Croke Park and all grounds used for provincial and All-Ireland series matches (similar to Ladies football)
- A 'mark' to be awarded for any clean catch of a kick-out on or beyond the 45-metre line
- Players issued with a yellow card to be replaced (substituted) for the rest of the game.
- After a team receives three yellow cards, no substitution of further yellow-carded players (i.e. team will be down a player)
- Duration of all adult matches to be 70 mins (currently 60 for club games)


I like the yellow card idea, it may cut out cynical fouling and is not as harsh as the sin bin rule from a few years back


The clock idea makes sense too

Report now on GAA site
http://www.gaa.ie/content/documents/publications/miscellaneous/FRC%20Final%20Report%202012.pdf

cormac halpin

That yellow card suggestion is utter utter bollocks. Sin bin maybe, but to rule a guy out of a game for one reckless challenge is prickology of the highest degree.

I don't see what lengthening Club matches to 70 minutes does either.

Big Pussy Bonpensiero

Not too sure about the third one tbh, if it does get the green light I'm presuming there'll be something else before a yellow e.g. black book, and referees will less keen to hand out yellows like some do for fun these days. Otherwise I can see massive controversy if a referee gives a few soft yellows to one team, and they end up with 13/14 players come the end of the game.
Apart from that suggestion I don't see much wrong with the other proposals. If the mark is introduced it will have to be properly managed though, i.e. 3 or 5 seconds to take the kick, otherwise it will slow down the play too much.

AGC

cormac halpin wrote: »

That yellow card suggestion is utter utter bollocks. Sin bin maybe, but to rule a guy out of a game for one reckless challenge is prickology of the highest degree.

I don't see what lengthening Club matches to 70 minutes does either.

Fully agree on the card issue. Crazy idea and would massively impact on counties with smaller panels.

hardybuck

Substitution for yellow carded players would be utter madness, unless they redefine what a yellow card is.

While we want to reduce cynical fouling as much as possible, we want to retain full blooded competitive tackling as well surely?

Imagine if you've trained for months for a Championship game and you're off after 10 minutes for a slightly late challenge even a jersey pull!?

Would not work.

Fr Tod Umptious

cormac halpin wrote: »

That yellow card suggestion is utter utter bollocks. Sin bin maybe, but to rule a guy out of a game for one reckless challenge is prickology of the highest degree.

I don't see what lengthening Club matches to 70 minutes does either.

But surely making a reckless challenge is something that should be punished in that way ?

If this is implemented then hopefully it will be done correctly with players and refs all knowing what will and will not get you a yellow card.

As others have suggested the definitation of what is a yellow will have to be tewaked.

One problrm these days is that there is no real punishmnet for persistent cynical fouling, this may cahnge that in the sense that if a player is seen to be constantly fouling then the yellow he eventually gets will mean that he is out of the game.

AGC

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

But surely making a reckless challenge is something that should be punished in that way ?

If this is implemented then hopefully it will be done correctly with players and refs all knowing what will and will not get you a yellow card under the new rule.

The penalty is in place, it's a red card.

The only change to the yellow card system should be a sin bin

cormac halpin

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

But surely making a reckless challenge is something that should be punished in that way ?

If this is implemented then hopefully it will be done correctly with players and refs all knowing what will and will not get you a yellow card under the new rule.

Its bullshiit, the penalty for a reckless challenge is a red card, the referees should impose and use it correctly. A yellow card is a minor infraction, to send someone off for a minor infraction is a disgrace. I hope there's better than this shiit in this thing or I weep at the thought of what they've been at all these weeks.

J Cheever Loophole

I'd expect referees would adapt their stance somewhat to take account of the new laws and what you might find is that some lesser infringements that might previously have been deemed a yellow, will now be a stern talking to.

cormac halpin

J Cheever Loophole wrote: »

I'd expect referees would adapt their stance somewhat to take account of the new laws and what you might find is that what might previously have been deemed a yellow will get away with a stern talking to.

They better, otherwise McKeever might has well retire now.

hardybuck

J Cheever Loophole wrote: »

I'd expect referees would adapt their stance somewhat to take account of the new laws and what you might find is that some lesser infringements that might previously have been deemed a yellow, will now be a stern talking to.

They shouldn't have to. You don't get too many opportunities to introduce new rules, those that are developed should be done properly.

Fr Tod Umptious

J Cheever Loophole wrote: »

I'd expect referees would adapt their stance somewhat to take account of the new laws and what you might find is that some lesser infringements that might previously have been deemed a yellow, will now be a stern talking to.

Exactly

People jump all over the place ranting and raving anytime a change like this is suggested without thinking that the implementation of what is a yellow etc would be tweaked also

AGC

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Exactly

People jump all over the place ranting and raving anytime a change like this is suggested without thinking that the implementation of what is a yellow etc would be tweaked also

Don't think it is a ranting and raving thing. People get yellow cards for minor incidents that don't warrant one and at the other end people get them who deserve a red.

If a county team like Dublin in hurling, who in recent years have made massive improvements, loose 3-4 players during a match they would be f**ked whereas a county like Kilkenny could handle it better.

Proposals should be brought in to have more teams challenging, not put further pressure on weaker and progressing counties

Fr Tod Umptious

cormac halpin wrote: »

Its bullshiit, the penalty for a reckless challenge is a red card,.

I don't get you

In the other post you said

Sin bin maybe, but to rule a guy out of a game for one reckless challenge is prickology of the highest degree

And now you are saying that the penalty for a reckless challenge is a red card anyway.

hardybuck

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Exactly

People jump all over the place ranting and raving anytime a change like this is suggested without thinking that the implementation of what is a yellow etc would be tweaked also

I think that is a little unfair. There are four key proposals outlined above - the clock, the mark, the yellow card and the game duration. One of these, the yellow card, is causing people to be very concerned, the others appear sensible enough and aren't drawing too many comments. I think that's pretty reasonable.

J Cheever Loophole

hardybuck wrote: »

They shouldn't have to. You don't get too many opportunities to introduce new rules, those that are developed should be done properly.

I'm afraid referees are as human as the rest of us, and these changes will be as strange to them as they are to anyone.

I'd imagine that they will be vey much aware that issuing a yellow will result in a player leaving the pitch and will ref accordingly, thus giving a lot more benefit of the doubt. It happened when the trial for the sin bin was introduced. It dilutes the impact of the rule change, yes, but will result in a standard of officiating that is more in keeping with what we have now and indeed what we all expect and maybe even accept as fair.

cormac halpin wrote: »

They better, otherwise McKeever might has well retire now.

I was about to say "people in glass houses" when I suddenly remembered you don't have a glass house!! Continue pegging, so.

hardybuck

J Cheever Loophole wrote: »

I'm afraid referees are as human as the rest of us, and these changes will be as strange to them as they are to anyone.

I'd imagine that they will be vey much aware that issuing a yellow will result in a player leaving the pitch and will ref accordingly, thus giving a lot more benefit of the doubt. It happened when the trial for the sin bin was introduced. It dilutes the impact of the rule change, yes, but will result in a standard of officiating that is more in keeping with what we have now and indeed what we all expect and maybe even accept as fair.

But they already do this with red cards. The difference is that for a red card a player's game is over due to a serious offence. Here a player's game isn't over due to a serious offence but a medium level one - no matter how you tweak it.

If you pull a lad's jersey as he's going past you do you deserve a yellow and possibly 10 mins on the sideline - yes probably. Do you deserve to be treated as harsly as someone who punches their opponent - absolutely not.

J Cheever Loophole

hardybuck wrote: »

But they already do this with red cards. The difference is that for a red card a player's game is over due to a serious offence. Here a player's game isn't over due to a serious offence but a medium level one - no matter how you tweak it.

If you pull a lad's jersey as he's going past you do you deserve a yellow and possibly 10 mins on the sideline - yes probably. Do you deserve to be treated as harsly as someone who punches their opponent - absolutely not.

The training:games ratio is bad en

Couldn't agree more - hence why I reckon referees will amend their interpretation of a 'yellow card offence'.

hardybuck

J Cheever Loophole wrote: »

Couldn't agree more - hence why I reckon referees will amend their interpretation of a 'yellow card offence'.

This interpretation will include a jersey pull definitely. No player deserves to have their game ended for one of those.

Fr Tod Umptious

AGC wrote: »

Don't think it is a ranting and raving thing. People get yellow cards for minor incidents that don't warrant one and at the other end people get them who deserve a red.

If a county team like Dublin in hurling, who in recent years have made massive improvements, loose 3-4 players during a match they would be f**ked whereas a county like Kilkenny could handle it better.

Proposals should be brought in to have more teams challenging, not put further pressure on weaker and progressing counties

But the reactions to any suggested changes to disciplinary matters is always the same, a statement like 'People get yellow cards for minor incidents' without actually considering that perhaps part of the plan is to also to review what a yellow card is, now that it means the player will have to be subbed.

I for one would like to see the these changes tried and tested properly, not is the same way as they did the sin bin a number of years ago when they abandoned it after a few games.
It's often been said that changes should be implemented at under-age or minor level to allow the rules and the players work through the system up to senior so they can be properly assessed, not just thrown into the next league campaign for a few months and then either kept or abandoned

Pharaoh1

I've read a fair bit on the FRC proposals in various media recently.
The one thing that surprises me is the absence of anything on the tackle.

Just watching a few club games in the last few weeks and it is the tackle/foul that causes the most disagreement/frustration for players and indeed spectators. I know it is probably magnified with winter football and bad conditions.

I know it is never going to be an exact science but it seems we have abandoned any notion of trying to define or improve it.
A couple of players from my own club (and many spectators) are firmly of the belief that any amount of open handed slapping with any force and frequency on their opponents body anywhere in the vicinity of the ball constitutes a tackle.
Cue absolute disbelief and outrage when they are blown up. They will do it again the next game and some days get away with a bit more slapping.

Are we (much like we did with the abortion issue for as long as we could) adopting the Irish solution to this problem with "when in doubt do nothing" the best plan?
Similar to the payments to managers thing when you think of it although there seems to be some moves on this too although they will probably amount to nothing.

Or is their just an acceptance that nothing can really be done unless we adopt a clearly defined tackle either full contact like Aussie rules or open handed on the ball only which would remove the physicality from the game?

Maybe the kind of compromise/fudge we have at the moment with huge discretion left to the ref is the only workable option.

J Cheever Loophole

hardybuck wrote: »

This interpretation will include a jersey pull definitely. No player deserves to have their game ended for one of those.

I have regularly seen players on a yellow card avoid a second yellow card for a jersey pull - why? - because the ref is aware of the consequences of the second yellow and is happy to show leniency in the interests of natural justice. The same will happen here.

Lando Griffin

The mark is a good idea but as previous poster stayed there needs to be a 3 or 5 second rule to play the ball by either kick or hand pass.

cormac halpin

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I don't get you

In the other post you said



And now you are saying that the penalty for a reckless challenge is a red card anyway.

I'm not sure what you don't get?

J Cheever Loophole wrote: »

I was about to say "people in glass houses" when I suddenly remembered you don't have a glass house!! Continue pegging, so.

Whats this now?

Frankie Lee

- Public clock to be introduced in Croke Park and all grounds used for provincial and All-Ireland series matches (similar to Ladies football)

This on paper seems a sensble decision, hopefully the time keeping is included in it and the clocked stopped for injuries and lenghty stoppages.

- A 'mark' to be awarded for any clean catch of a kick-out on or beyond the 45-metre line

I can see the merit in this but I don't agree. Granted high fielding will be rewarded but the downside will be the skill of high fielding and landing on your feet will be removed.

- Players issued with a yellow card to be replaced (substituted) for the rest of the game.
- After a team receives three yellow cards, no substitution of further yellow-carded players (i.e. team will be down a player)

This won't work until the rules around tackling are sorted and the standard of refereeing improves.

- Duration of all adult matches to be 70 mins (currently 60 for club games)

I like this.

hardybuck

J Cheever Loophole wrote: »

I have regularly seen players on a yellow card avoid a second yellow card for a jersey pull - why? - because the ref is aware of the consequences of the second yellow and is happy to show leniency in the interests of natural justice. The same will happen here.

Yes but one of the key reasons that this group was put in place was to try and curb cynical fouling. A jersey pull will definitely be seen as a yellow in these proposals, therefore rendering the player's game over.

iDave

Nothing about restructuring the season and the various imbalances we have.
The game of Gaelic Football is fine, the competition structure isnt.

Tom Joad

iDave wrote: »

Nothing about restructuring the season and the various imbalances we have.
The game of Gaelic Football is fine, the competition structure isnt.

AFAIK they will report seperately on this..

Prop Joe

iDave wrote: »

Nothing about restructuring the season and the various imbalances we have.
The game of Gaelic Football is fine, the competition structure isnt.

You are wrong,The review on competition structures will be released
in the new year :rolleyes:

Don't like the clock to be honest or the pick up.

Pick up is a skill keep it

Don't think the clock can be implemented across all grades which i dont like,Plus the ladies game is littered with teams playing keep ball in the final minutes.

J Cheever Loophole

hardybuck wrote: »

Yes but one of the key reasons that this group was put in place was to try and curb cynical fouling. A jersey pull will definitely be seen as a yellow in these proposals, therefore rendering the player's game over.

The sin bin scheme was also introduced on that same premise. I clearly remember that referees started to avoid issuing yellow cards for what can be best described as 'lesser offences', and instead startd flashing the black book. Essentially what we then had was that the black book became the old yellow, the yellow became the old red and the red was for GBH and upwards on the scale of violence.

The proposals will definitely consider a jersey pull as equating to a yellow card offence - but it won't be a yellow unless the ref issues it.

Tom Joad

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Out toady according to RTE

Some recommendations

- Public clock to be introduced in Croke Park and all grounds used for provincial and All-Ireland series matches (similar to Ladies football)

great idea and is most welcome.
- A 'mark' to be awarded for any clean catch of a kick-out on or beyond the 45-metre line

As long as it doesn't disrupt the flow of the game this is a cracking idea.
- Players issued with a yellow card to be replaced (substituted) for the rest of the game.

To work a clear definition of yellow card offences should be set out (I notice the report mentions in personal insults, feigning injury, not releasing off the ball for frees etc as issues - are these what it is trying to clamp down on?)
- After a team receives three yellow cards, no substitution of further yellow-carded players (i.e. team will be down a player)

Again like the above as long as everyone knows what a yellow card offence is.
- Duration of all adult matches to be 70 mins (currently 60 for club games)

Not sure I am too keen on this to be honest

..

Agus

Report is here with a more complete list of the 18 proposals if anyone wants to read them

http://gaa.ie/content/documents/publications/miscellaneous/FRC%20Final%20Report%202012.pdf

hardybuck

J Cheever Loophole wrote: »

The sin bin scheme was also introduced on that same premise. I clearly remember that referees started to avoid issuing yellow cards for what can be best described as 'lesser offences', and instead startd flashing the black book. Essentially what we then had was that the black book became the old yellow, the yellow became the old red and the red was for GBH and upwards on the scale of violence.

The proposals will definitely consider a jersey pull as equating to a yellow card offence - but it won't be a yellow unless the ref issues it.

Yes so we'll see the usual fair of teams in the earlier stages of the league and championship being yellow carded for soft fouls, and then when the bigger teams play in high profile games they'll revert back to type.

Pete_Cavan

I dont like the proposals at all.

The substitution for a yellow card, as has been mentioned several times already, seems a bit harsh. The majority of county players train extremely hard for only a short taste of championship action without cutting that shorter for a simple foul. Referees interpretations will change and we will just be left with a new set of problems.

I am not convinced about the mark but it is worth a try. Another option could be to leave only the four midfielders between the 45s until the kickout is kicked so midfielders can contest high balls without the entire half forward and half back line waiting to pounce on them.

The clean pick up is ridiculous, I know it would speed up the game but the emphasis should be on skill. Look at 7s rugby, incredibly fast game but no one really cares about it because they have removed most of the skills. Speeding a game up doesnt necessarily attract more viewers. Half the reason cited for getting rid of putting the toe under the ball is to do with overseas players and the other half is to do with refs inconsistency - I dont think either are good enough reasons to water down the game.

And if they are trying to get rid of refereeing inconsistencies, introducing the advantage rule is opening a whole new can of worms. "He must have given them 10 seconds of an advantage before they lost the ball and then gave them the free" or "He called us back for the free just as things began to open up for us".

There are a few other proposals I dont like but that is enough of a rant for now.

spiritcrusher

Were the yellow card, clean pick up, mark and timer/hooter rules not used in the league at various stages over the past few years? And none of them were kept on...

I think the mark rule, while good in theory, would kill the excitement of seeing a player pick a ball out of the sky and muscle his way through the crowd in midfield into space. A free kick just doesn't have the same effect.

The yellow card thing as well I think is a bit harsh. Sin bin would be a better idea, punishes one team and gives the other team a temporary advantage.

I like this proposal though

Proposal 11:
The FRC proposes that all offences currently attracting a 13-metre sanction should
attract a 30-metre sanction. The FRC also proposes that, in addition to the existing rules,
if the player who commits a foul has the ball he must place the ball on the ground
immediately and retreat the required distance. Failure to do so should attract a 30-
metre sanction

Nothing annoys me more than players whining to the referee over a decision that hasn't gone their way, rightly or wrongly. As if a referee has ever reversed a decision through players complaints.
Same with running off with the ball to annoy the other team. I get it, I think anyone who's played the game has probably done it but it really just comes across as childish.

This seems like an improvement on what we have too

Proposal 13:
“When a foul is committed the referee may allow the play to continue if he considers it
to be to the advantage of the offended team. He shall signal that advantage by raising
an arm upright. If he deems no advantage to have occurred he may subsequently award
a free for that foul, from where it occurred. The referee shall allow the advantage to run
by maintaining his arm in the upright position for up to 5 seconds after the initial foul or
for less time if it becomes clear that no advantage has accrued. He shall apply any
relevant disciplinary action.”

keane2097

My heart gave a little involuntary leap of joy when I read this:

The delays and aggravation often caused by players not releasing the ball immediately when a foul occurs should be punished by bringing the ball forward at least 30 metres as opposed to the present 13 metres. This would also apply to dissent and while our proposal in this regards is covered elsewhere in this report, it is worth stating at this juncture that if implemented, it would, in our view, go a long way towards eliminating dissent, thereby improving the lot of the referee.

The one measure I fervently hope to see introduced - if they change 30 yards to 50 yards it will fix some of the biggest issues in the game single-handedly and immediately.

Fr Tod Umptious

keane2097 wrote: »

My heart gave a little involuntary leap of joy when I read this:



The one measure I fervently hope to see introduced - if they change 30 yards to 50 yards it will fix some of the biggest issues in the game single-handedly and immediately.

It's a good idea, the offending team will not be a quick to give lip to the ref if the result means that the free is suddenly in a scoreable position for some long range free takers

A free 75m out suddenly become a 45m.

keane2097

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

It's a good idea, the offending team will not be a quick to give lip to the ref if the result means that the free is suddenly in a scoreable position for some long range free takers

A free 75m out suddenly become a 45m.

Yep, but better still if a 75m free became a 25m one. Abuse from players to referees would IMMEDIATELY end. Such a no brainer. Same fix for slowing down frees, blocking players' off the ball runs, time wasting etc.

Prop Joe

spiritcrusher wrote: »

I think the mark rule, while good in theory, would kill the excitement of seeing a player pick a ball out of the sky and muscle his way through the crowd in midfield into space. A free kick just doesn't have the same effect.

Agree 100%

Maybe as a previous poster stated that no1 can be between the 2 45's only mf's before a kick out is taken

Fr Tod Umptious

spiritcrusher wrote: »

Were the yellow card, clean pick up, mark and timer/hooter rules not used in the league at various stages over the past few years? And none of them were kept on...

I think the mark rule, while good in theory, would kill the excitement of seeing a player pick a ball out of the sky and muscle his way through the crowd in midfield into space. A free kick just doesn't have the same effect.

The yellow card thing as well I think is a bit harsh. Sin bin would be a better idea, punishes one team and gives the other team a temporary advantage.

I like this proposal though

Nothing annoys me more than players whining to the referee over a decision that hasn't gone their way, rightly or wrongly. As if a referee has ever reversed a decision through players complaints.
Same with running off with the ball to annoy the other team. I get it, I think anyone who's played the game has probably done it but it really just comes across as childish.

This seems like an improvement on what we have too

As I said before the trial of new rules has hardly been well though out over the years

they are usually trialed in the league for 7 or 8 weeks and then voted on in congress.

A better option would be to introduce them at under-age and minor for a number of years and evaluate the changes them long term.

keane2097

Just finished going through the report there, actually quite happy with it.

The idea that a yellow card can't be awarded for an accidental foul does a lot to curb the notion of swathes of innocent players getting sent to the line. Slight disappointment that the bringing the ball forward is only going to be 30m. Think 40 or 50 would have been a lot more effective.

bruschi

spiritcrusher wrote: »

I think the mark rule, while good in theory, would kill the excitement of seeing a player pick a ball out of the sky and muscle his way through the crowd in midfield into space. A free kick just doesn't have the same effect.

doesnt happen that often these days. usually what happens is you get the spectacular catch, and then 3 or 4 players mill around the catcher and make him over carry the ball and he concedes a free. a lot of teams purposly dont even try field the ball any more as it slows down play and gives oppositiuon a chance to contain the fielder.

keane2097

hardybuck wrote: »

Yes but one of the key reasons that this group was put in place was to try and curb cynical fouling. A jersey pull will definitely be seen as a yellow in these proposals, therefore rendering the player's game over.

Well we either consider jersey pulling a cynical form of fouling that we want to rid the game of or we don't.

I would suggest that almost everybody will agree that the game would be a lot better without it, and if it takes a few serial offenders poor créatúrs getting an early shower for not being able to keep their hands to themselves in the first couple of games then my heart bleeds for them but I'm sure they'll catch on quickly enough.

keane2097

bruschi wrote: »

doesnt happen that often these days. usually what happens is you get the spectacular catch, and then 3 or 4 players mill around the catcher and make him over carry the ball and he concedes a free. a lot of teams purposly dont even try field the ball any more as it slows down play and gives oppositiuon a chance to contain the fielder.

The mark rule also allows for the player to simply play on if it's advantageous to him, so in the rare instances where a player naturally would have caught the ball and burst through in the past he'll likely continue to do so under the new rules.

corny

spiritcrusher wrote: »

I like this proposal though

Nothing annoys me more than players whining to the referee over a decision that hasn't gone their way, rightly or wrongly. As if a referee has ever reversed a decision through players complaints.
Same with running off with the ball to annoy the other team. I get it, I think anyone who's played the game has probably done it but it really just comes across as childish.

This seems like an improvement on what we have too

I'd take it further tbh.

30 metres deep in the oppositions half doesn't make that much difference. Sure by the time the referee brings the ball forward its job done for the transgressor. For the blanket defence teams stopping the counter attack and getting numbers back in positions is all that matters. I'd advocate giving a 45 if any nonsense occurs. That would immediately stamp out the cynical approach of deliberately slowing the game up.

keane2097

corny wrote: »

I'd take it further tbh.

30 metres deep in the oppositions half doesn't make that much difference. Sure by the time the referee brings the ball forward its job done for the transgressor. For the blanket defence teams stopping the counter attack and getting numbers back in positions is all that matters. I'd advocate giving a 45 if any nonsense occurs. That would immediately stamp out the cynical approach of deliberately slowing the game up.

Yeah giving a 45 was another option I had thought was a decent idea. Would also encourage players to keep up the skill of kicking frees from the ground which some people seem to be worried about losing from the game.

cormac halpin

Ah sure bring it up to the 21 yard line altogether lads:rolleyes:

keane2097

cormac halpin wrote: »

Ah sure bring it up to the 21 yard line altogether lads:rolleyes:

Yep, pretty much. How long you think abuse to refs and cynical play would last after that?

cormac halpin

keane2097 wrote: »

Yep, pretty much. How long you think abuse to refs and cynical play would last after that?

Not long, especially seeing as you seem intent on yellow carding every player off the field.

corny

cormac halpin wrote: »

Not long, especially seeing as you seem intent on yellow carding every player off the field.

They won't be yellow carded if they obey the rules.

Syferus

Seems pointless increasing the length of club matches. I can only imagine the sludge most junior b players will be trying to work through in those extra ten minutes for absolutely no benefit.

Seems pointless increasing the length of club matches. I can only imagine the sludge most junior b players will be trying to work through in those extra ten minutes for absolutely no benefit.

It's not like those players are being trained up to play county, now is it?

Ten minutes less has always meant club teams can operate at a higher level overall because from inter-county games it's clear fatigue becomes an over-riding factor in the final ten and those are far more heavily drilled players. I'd expect far more ropey play late in games with 70 minute players even more and I don't like that prospect in the least, one of the greatest joys of club football is seeing the old hands still pulling the strings. They'll become much more of a liability in the extra ten minutes.

The shorter format gives the club games their own unique flavour and are much appreciated in the autumn, winter and spring by both player club games. It'd also have the unintended side-effect of increasing the already absurd workload of 17-22 year old players as 70 minute club matches will expose older and supporter alike as it saves you having to get treated for hypothermia after a game.

There has been almost no calls for that change apart from a small pocket of people wanting to 'standardise' the game but it really smacks of trying to fix something that isn't broken while the big issues like the tackle remain completely un-addressed.

Really the list feels like any other year, a series of proposals thrown at the wall hoping some will stick. The hype about the FRC seems patently unwarranted.