ONeills ball should it change?

davegrohl48

Why are we still playing with same design from 1970s? Maybe even late 60s? As a ball its more suited to bigger stronger players and those with larger hands for things like catching 1 handed For smaller players takes big effort to kick long distances

Clareman

Because if it ain't broke don't fix it

I don't know if there's any hard and fast rule that says that O'Neill's has to be used, just you have to follow certain guidelines, it's not like soccer where they change the balll for every world cup.

padd b1975

Used to love getting my hands on a brand new O'Neills size 5 back in the day, beautiful ball to kick when caught right on the meat.

Nothing else comes close.

bruschi

davegrohl48 wrote: »

Why are we still playing with same design from 1970s? Maybe even late 60s? As a ball its more suited to bigger stronger players and those with larger hands for things like catching 1 handed For smaller players takes big effort to kick long distances

have you ever used a size 4 years after giving it up? size 5 is fine, sure if the smaller lads are struggling now, what would the bigger lads be like with a smaller ball?

davegrohl48

There's a size 3 nowadays for young kids. Which is a good idea. The Cul camps have them for instance.

elefant

davegrohl48 wrote: »

Why are we still playing with same design from 1970s? Maybe even late 60s? As a ball its more suited to bigger stronger players and those with larger hands for things like catching 1 handed For smaller players takes big effort to kick long distances

Those sounds like the gammiest reasons ever for changing a football. Takes a big effort to kick? :pac:

davegrohl48

elefant wrote: »

Those sounds like the gammiest reasons ever for changing a football. Takes a big effort to kick? :pac:

Have you done any thinking about that?
You don't see any advantage in smaller players being able to kick for more distance? It would increase the size of what is termed the scoring D by a few yards. Reducing effectiveness of the blanket defence.
Small players generally have to work their way a little closer for scoring range.
Mark McHugh wouldn't have been able to kick the point that Kevin Cassidy kicked against Kildare. Nothing to do with his skill levels really just purely down to the weight of an ONeills size 5. (Lets assume McHugh kicked it with his right as his left ain't great I'll admit)
The game every year is heading to being dominated by bigger and bigger players.
Personally I'v played recently with size 4/5 and I'd prefer something in between.

Xenophile

davegrohl48 wrote: »

I'v played recently with size 4/5 and I'd prefer something in between.

Maybe you have a point (no pun intended). Why not a size 4.5. Look at hurling for instance where small and a good centre of gravity will allow smaller men and women to enjoy playing the game.

Squidgy Black

Not a chance, sure it'd give us full backs less of a chance of being the only player apart from a keeper to belt a ball 60 yards!

Xenophile

stetyrrell wrote: »

Not a chance, sure it'd give us full backs less of a chance of being the only player apart from a keeper to belt a ball 60 yards!

At least you are honest about being a full back. However spectators would love to see a few more goals! 5-5 Last Sunday between WBA and Man U. was a great game for spectators.

Xenophile

Sincere inquiry, what is the difference between size 5 GAA ball and FA ball?

Dirty Dingus McGee

davegrohl48 wrote: »

Have you done any thinking about that?
You don't see any advantage in smaller players being able to kick for more distance? It would increase the size of what is termed the scoring D by a few yards. Reducing effectiveness of the blanket defence.
Small players generally have to work their way a little closer for scoring range.
Mark McHugh wouldn't have been able to kick the point that Kevin Cassidy kicked against Kildare. Nothing to do with his skill levels really just purely down to the weight of an ONeills size 5. (Lets assume McHugh kicked it with his right as his left ain't great I'll admit)
The game every year is heading to being dominated by bigger and bigger players.
Personally I'v played recently with size 4/5 and I'd prefer something in between.

I remember in last years match against Tyrone Mark McHugh scored a point from around the 45 metre line which is where Cassidy kicked his famous ppointfrom.

If a player is a good footballer he will be able to kick scores from long range.

The size of the ball has absoulutely nothing to do with footballers being bigger these days.Better physical preparation and the realisation that all other things being equal the bigger player will be more useful to a team is why players are bigger these days.

Squidgy Black

Xenophile wrote: »

Sincere inquiry, what is the difference between size 5 GAA ball and FA ball?

Soccer balls have that spongy layer kinda yoke, they're lighter too and only have a thin coating of leather.

Gaa balls are just leather panels and a bladder, no padding or anything. They're heavier and harder to kick. Slower bounce on them too, which suits, otherwise the ball would be hopping around the place.

Daroxtar

There's nothing like the slap off a cold ONeils against the back of your thigh on a february evening to toughen you up
Anyway here's the regs for size and weight.

A Gaelic football is round in shape with a leather panelled surface. The football must not weigh less than 450 grams and not more than 480 grams. It must have a circumference of not less than 68cm and not more than 70cm. (Note: reduced dimensions are recommended for U15 and younger grades)

The Soccer ball is:
spherical
Made of leather or other suitable material
Of a circumference of not more than 70 cm and not less than 68 cm
not more than 450 g in weight and not less than 410 g at the start of the match

Nothing to say the covering has to be the hard rubber/leather that it is but to be honest, the ball is what it is, why change it? If you want to kick further then get coaching on where to strike the ball

pipelaser

davegrohl48 wrote: »

Have you done any thinking about that?
You don't see any advantage in smaller players being able to kick for more distance? It would increase the size of what is termed the scoring D by a few yards. Reducing effectiveness of the blanket defence.
Small players generally have to work their way a little closer for scoring range.
Mark McHugh wouldn't have been able to kick the point that Kevin Cassidy kicked against Kildare. Nothing to do with his skill levels really just purely down to the weight of an ONeills size 5. (Lets assume McHugh kicked it with his right as his left ain't great I'll admit)
The game every year is heading to being dominated by bigger and bigger players.
Personally I'v played recently with size 4/5 and I'd prefer something in between.

I think you're having trouble understanding the mechanics of the whole thing. You can kick a heavier ball further, harder and with more accuracy than a lighter one. The weight of a size 5 O'Neills is ideal.

Look at this Video,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AdDIfB26WM

Martin McHugh was even smaller than his son....
Do you think he could have done this with a size 4??

Its not only about the length of your leg, its about technique.

Squidgy Black

pipelaser wrote: »

I think you're having trouble understanding the mechanics of the whole thing. You can kick a heavier ball further, harder and with more accuracy than a lighter one. The weight of a size 5 O'Neills is ideal.

Look at this Video,

Martin McHugh was even smaller than his son....
Do you think he could have done this with a size 4??

Its not only about the length of your leg, its about technique.

That's true, especially with the Irish weather the wind would be a pain in the hole for a lighter ball being blown about. Also, I found that soccer balls tend to sort of float in the air once they're booted up, whereas O'Neills don't really hang.

padd b1975

stetyrrell wrote: »

I found that soccer balls tend to sort of float in the air once they're booted up, whereas O'Neills don't really hang.

I found the complete opposite

walrusgumble

davegrohl48 wrote: »

Why are we still playing with same design from 1970s? Maybe even late 60s? As a ball its more suited to bigger stronger players and those with larger hands for things like catching 1 handed For smaller players takes big effort to kick long distances

"Small" players like Peter Cavanagh or Karl Lacy did not / don't seem to have had / have any problems. Jason Sherlock was no giant, neither is The Gooch

If it ain't broke do not fix it.

walrusgumble

Xenophile wrote: »

At least you are honest about being a full back. However spectators would love to see a few more goals! 5-5 Last Sunday between WBA and Man U. was a great game for spectators.

WBA v Man U was a soccer game. The Defending was patehtic and there was little or nothing on the line, bar 91 point record. THe last 15 minutes looked fun, but was a joke

Maybe the more stupid people don't appreciate the art of defence and goal keepers.

There were plenty of goals in the Galway v Mayo game. I doubt any fan of GAA would have been too happy to see a Goal Keeper and Defence make such childish mistakes, even if they were hilarious and you were from Mayo

Take your points first and the goals will come. Nothing better than a great fielding , quick pass and a long range point

DoctaDee

walrusgumble wrote: »

"Small" players like Peter Cavanagh or Karl Lacy did not / don't seem to have had / have any problems. Jason Sherlock was no giant, neither is The Gooch

If it ain't broke do not fix it.

I met The Gooch at a skills camp a while ago .. he's no giant as in blocky but I tell ya he's not a titch either ... deceptively tall