5 Vital Rule Changes for Football

HighKing33

Here are five rule changes that can that can have a dramatic impact on the game, providing incentives for the good stuff as opposed to placing heavy handed restrictions on players:


1) 13-a-side: an obvious one, more space to kick the ball into.


2) Pick up off the ground: why not? Less fouls, more football.


3) The Mark: Apply it as per the advantage rule. Onus is on ball-winner to play on, however if no advantage accrues, the referee has the option of calling play back to the spot where the ball was initially won and awarding 'the mark'. Very different from the AFL. From kickouts it would apply only to the midfield area between the two 45s.


4) A 2-pointer zone. Draw an arc similar to basketball extending over 40 metres from goal. Any scores kicked over the bar from outside this area will be rewarded with 2 points. This rewards long range kickers, or forwards who kick difficult points out in the corners and crucially punishes teams that 'park the bus'.


5) Limit players to 3 steps but allow them to bounce the ball indefinitely: A deterrant for the running game but more importantly an incentive for clean tackling. Defenders will get more opportunities to disposess the ball carrier, (also important because in 13-a-side games there are more one-on-ones). With an unlimited number of bounces we compensate the forwards a little but more importantly provide a game that is understood immediately and more accessible, becoming easier to coach to the growing numbers of non-Irish playing the game internationally.

Pete_Cavan

The only one of those which may in any way improve the game is the 2-pointer zone. It might also just lead to more poor shooting from too far out.

The rest are just change for the sake of change (13-a-side & the mark), dumbing down the game (pick up off the ground & bounce the ball indefinitely) or tinkering with the rulebook but wont be implemented in practice (limit players to 3 steps)

Stinicker

What needs to happen is have better referees who implement the rules and get rid of useless myopic referees like Joe McQuillan.

I disagree with the pickup and 13 a side and the mark. I believe all frees should be taken off the ground with 2 points awarded for the kicking of long range frees. Goalkeepers should be prevented from taking frees.

nice_guy80

Two referees who know the rules would help

Rightwing

The game is devoid of skill. Hard fix that I'm afraid.

Davys Fits

nice_guy80 wrote: »

WUM

Watched Dub V Mon today and although it was an entertaining contest with some great kicked scores, the amount of hand passing was unreal. 300 + passes I reckon. One can hardly call that skill. Its now a systems game where the most organised hand passers get the ball to a kicker within striking range. Skilled systems are not as entertaining as skilled players to watch. A system with more kick passing would certainly be more entertaining.

Grudaire

Stinicker wrote:

Goalkeepers should be prevented from taking frees.

Perhaps limit any time to take a free to 1 minute, but any genuine reason to limit teams from using the goalkeeper from set play?

Mehapoy

Grudaire wrote: »

Perhaps limit any time to take a free to 1 minute, but any genuine reason to limit teams from using the goalkeeper from set play?

I don't know what improvement would come out of stopping keepers from taking frees? Pointless rule change...also giving 2 points for kicking outside a designated zone would result in no goals being attempted at all, all the play would be concentrated between the 45s, would be an awful spectacle...I think all these suggestions of artificially banning this and that and making a certain amount of players stay in their half etc. could make the game even worse with unintended consequences if not thought through properly...I reckon the most important change would be to devise a way of defining a simple tackle that discourages players from taking the ball into contact and these awful 4 or 5 man rucks from developing where the rules are unclear, obstruction, charging, third man tackles all happening at the same time and the rules applied differently depending on the ref in charge...

downthemiddle

nice_guy80 wrote: »

Two referees who know the rules would help

One referee that applies the rules in a consistent manner would help.

Flukey

1) 13-a-side: an obvious one, more space to kick the ball into.
A GAA pitch is more than big enough for 15 players, so no need to reduce it. With the tendency for blanket defences, half the pitch is empty at times.


2) Pick up off the ground: why not? Less fouls, more football.
It is a very simple skill, easily taught, so it can be carried out properly and never fouled. All you need to do is teach it properly. It should be in Ladies Football too.


3) The Mark: Apply it as per the advantage rule. Onus is on ball-winner to play on, however if no advantage accrues, the referee has the option of calling play back to the spot where the ball was initially won and awarding 'the mark'. Very different from the AFL. From kickouts it would apply only to the midfield area between the two 45s.

Probably the most stupid rule of all. My views on its stupidity are well versed in this forum. It should never be introduced into Gaelic Football and it should be removed from Australian Rules and Rugby too. It adds nothing to any of those sports, but takes away a huge amount that our game has by not having it.

4) A 2-pointer zone. Draw an arc similar to basketball extending over 40 metres from goal. Any scores kicked over the bar from outside this area will be rewarded with 2 points. This rewards long range kickers, or forwards who kick difficult points out in the corners and crucially punishes teams that 'park the bus'.

A score is a score whatever the distance. Sometimes a close in score can be harder to get, like if it is from a sharp angle or a player is well marked or unsighted, so you could end up with a myriad of reasons for different values for kicking the ball over the bar. Also, if based on a distance, if we were going to do it you could argue for penalising a team a point for a really bad wide and/or allowing the defending team to take the kick out much further out, depending on how wide the ball was.

5) Limit players to 3 steps but allow them to bounce the ball indefinitely: A deterrant for the running game but more importantly an incentive for clean tackling. Defenders will get more opportunities to disposess the ball carrier, (also important because in 13-a-side games there are more one-on-ones). With an unlimited number of bounces we compensate the forwards a little but more importantly provide a game that is understood immediately and more accessible, becoming easier to coach to the growing numbers of non-Irish playing the game internationally.

Like the tip up off the ground, the solo run is a very simple skill and you can go further quicker than if there was unlimited bouncing. Then you'd have bobbles on the pitch or wet days, when the solo run is better. So again, no sense in changing it. The steps rule will always be a problem, no matter what you set it at, so changing it is going to have no advantage. As for the last part of your point, it doesn't matter where you are from when you try to learn any game. Native born Irish people do not have any advantage when it comes to Gaelic Football. Plenty of Irish people are useless at our national games, so the same set of rules should be taught in Ireland and worldwide. Tailoring the game because people are not Irish is a ridiculous concept. If different countries were playing by different rules, then they wouldn't be able to play against any "Irish" teams, which would deny them one of the things they would really want to do. A trip to Ireland to play matches here is a huge incentive for other countries, but if they are playing by different rules, then that ends that possibility. One set of rules for all.

HighKing33

Mehapoy wrote: »

I reckon the most important change would be to devise a way of defining a simple tackle that discourages players from taking the ball into contact and these awful 4 or 5 man rucks from developing where the rules are unclear

The rules are not unclear regarding the tackle, it's very clear what you can and can't do. You're not allowed clench the fist, shoulders must be side to side charges, etc.

Restrict players to 3 steps would make a big difference, you now have a deterrant against the running game so players are less likely to take the ball into crowded defences and these rucks won't happen.

As for people saying that 13-a-side is simply change for the sake of change, honestly how can you say that when there is clearly a distinct difference between the two formats? It's basic maths.

Prop Joe

Rule 1 - 3 designated players from each team not allowed touch the ball in opposition half

Rule 2 - Team foul count - 20 fouls per game - Every foul after should result in a black card

Flukey

Prop Joe wrote: »

Rule 1 - 3 designated players from each team not allowed touch the ball in opposition half

Rule 2 - Team foul count - 20 fouls per game - Every foul after should result in a black card

Designated players not touching the ball could not work. I suppose you are thinking of something like a full back could not touch the ball in the opposition half. What if the fullback was moved out to change position by the management and was put into the half forward line for example? How could you police that? If a full back wants to go forward, even without being switched by the management, then let him. He should not be restricted to an area of the pitch.

Foul counts would not work either. Some referees implement the rules harder than others, so in theory the same game could have different amounts of fouls. Then you could get into a situation where minor fouls are given black cards just because they are foul twenty something, which would be ridiculous. Proper implementation of the rules and breaches being punished by frees and cards, no matter how many there are, is all that is needed.

davegrohl48

There are three rules that need to really need to be tightened up on.
1. Steps. Chronic offenders particularly in attack and midfield.
2. Barging. If you run at a defender who is standing his ground that is barging immediately. The defender has used his positional sense to carry out something skillful. They should be getting their reward for covering the attacker.
3. Tackling. They should be stricter about the following existing elements:
- Aimed at the ball
- Open palm
We could maybe move towards closed fist tackling being a red card? It does constitute a strike. It would almost dissapear over night then.

Ceist_Beag

I may be a lone voice on this but I see absolutely no good argument yet for any rule change to be implemented. As far as I'm concerned, the game today as a spectacle is in many ways better than the game of 20 or 30 years ago. It has evolved as players have become fitter, stronger, faster, so the game as a result is faster and space is more at a premium, which means possession is much more important now. We often hear calls for rule changes after a match like the Dublin Derry recent game, but for every one of these there are plenty of good entertaining matches. I think the likes of Spillane get far too much air time on this idea you need to kick the ball long in order to play the game "properly" but tbh I see nothing wrong with teams setting out defensively if that's how they feel they can best compete.

Edit: I can see from the Football Crisis thread that I'm far from a lone voice on this! My post probably belongs more to that thread.

Dyr

Tbh its sounds like you'd wind up with a system like rugby where they have all these arcane rules and restrictions to try make up for the fact there is very little skill required for the fundamentals of the game (run with eggy ball, throw eggy ball)

The hand passing restriction would be interesting but it would only encourage more mobbed defenses. Perhaps only allow players to hand pass if they are being tackled/falling/incapable of a kick pass

Prop Joe

Flukey wrote: »

Designated players not touching the ball could not work. I suppose you are thinking of something like a full back could not touch the ball in the opposition half. What if the fullback was moved out to change position by the management and was put into the half forward line for example? How could you police that?

Each team lines out

1
2A
3A
4A
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13A
14A
15A

If you want to move your full back to midfield etc.. Fullback changes his jersey from 3A to 3 & the midfielder drops back and puts on 9A instead of 9.

Very simple system in fairness

Flukey wrote: »

Foul counts would not work either. Some referees implement the rules harder than others, so in theory the same game could have different amounts of fouls. Then you could get into a situation where minor fouls are given black cards just because they are foul twenty something, which would be ridiculous. Proper implementation of the rules and breaches being punished by frees and cards, no matter how many there are, is all that is needed.

20 Fouls is quite a generous allowance,Would cut out silly fouls like pulling jersey and more cynical fouls as each player would be wary of the total count.Think it could be very easily implemented at all levels.(Fouling the ball would not count)..Tyrone played Kerry last week & had 14 fouls in total.

HighKing33

Davys Fits wrote: »

Its now a systems game where the most organised hand passers get the ball to a kicker within striking range. Skilled systems are not as entertaining as skilled players to watch. A system with more kick passing would certainly be more entertaining.

Yeah that's why my suggestions focus on deterring the running game as much as they do promoting the passing game. 13-a-side along with the version of the mark described above will give us more space between the lines and a greater incentive to coach the kick-pass.

Watching the u21s yesterday and Tipp were rightly lauded for reaching a final but a lot of that Tipp team were big midfielders who persisted with running the ball into rucks. Conor McHugh regularly took eight or more steps when shooting. Surely we need to look at the number of steps in the game. Reducing the number to three and policing it properly would see very different patterns playing out in game.

HighKing33

Just funny, watching the games over the weekend and even the removal of one player from the pitch (through dismissal obviously), led to the game opening up and producing more kick-passing.

To me that just strenghtens the case for 13-a-side football.

slingerz

the pickup is one of the most pointless and controversial elements in gaa at all levels. how many club games have you seen ruined by a pedantic ref blowing for an off the ground pickup when its blatantly not. getting rid of it speeds up the game and removes the variance of referees from it.

13 a side sounds like a plausible solution but teams will still play a blanket.

Something needs to be done about the number of handpasses though. Football is basically athletics with a ball at this point

HighKing33

slingerz wrote: »

the pickup is one of the most pointless and controversial elements in gaa at all levels. how many club games have you seen ruined by a pedantic ref blowing for an off the ground pickup when its blatantly not. getting rid of it speeds up the game and removes the variance of referees from it.

13 a side sounds like a plausible solution but teams will still play a blanket.

Something needs to be done about the number of handpasses though. Football is basically athletics with a ball at this point

See my opening post. The running game will never go away unless there's a stronger incentive for the kick-pass, 13-a-side provides some of that but it won't sort everything out.

slingerz

HighKing33 wrote: »

See my opening post. The running game will never go away unless there's a stronger incentive for the kick-pass, 13-a-side provides some of that but it won't sort everything out.

i agree with you.

i just see the handpass as the cancer that is killing the game

Dyr

slingerz wrote: »

i agree with you.

i just see the handpass as the cancer that is killing the game

Can't see how you change that, players can only hand pass into the ground, thus forcing them to bounce the ball to their team mate perhaps

Dirty Dingus McGee

HighKing33 wrote: »

Just funny, watching the games over the weekend and even the removal of one player from the pitch (through dismissal obviously), led to the game opening up and producing more kick-passing.

To me that just strenghtens the case for 13-a-side football.

Spot on.

Almost every match where there is a sending off the game tends to improve as a spectacle and it doubt this is a coincidence.

13 a side is the easiest change to implement and the most logical thing to do considering the way the game has gone.It would make kick passing more wortwhile aswell and the more skilful players would benefit as good players always benefit from space.

13 a side combined with a restriction on the number of players who could go behind a certain point on the field.I heard Colm Parkinson proposed that the full back and full forward lines could not go outside the 45 which is a good suggestion, would lead to a real improvement in the game.

slingerz

Bambi wrote: »

Can't see how you change that, players can only hand pass into the ground, thus forcing them to bounce the ball to their team mate perhaps

it is the most difficult thing to resolve alright

HighKing33

13-a-side - yes and the 5 changes I proposed in the o.p. but if there is a rule telling me where I can or can't stand on a playing pitch I will abandon the game altogether. Let's just say I'm anti-partition on that count.

The Lost Sheep

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

The only one of those which may in any way improve the game is the 2-pointer zone. It might also just lead to more poor shooting from too far out.

The rest are just change for the sake of change (13-a-side & the mark), dumbing down the game (pick up off the ground & bounce the ball indefinitely) or tinkering with the rulebook but wont be implemented in practice (limit players to 3 steps)

13 a side and mark wouldn't be change for the sake of change. They would make more space in the game which is not helped by so many teams being defence orientated. Picking ball off ground wouldn't be dumbing down the game but would help mess around tackle imo. Would agree that bounce the ball indefinitely isn't needed.

Stinicker wrote: »

I disagree with the pickup and 13 a side and the mark. I believe all frees should be taken off the ground with 2 points awarded for the kicking of long range frees. Goalkeepers should be prevented from taking frees.

Don't see any problem with goalkeepers taking frees. Perhaps for all frees there should be a time limit after the free is awarded that the free must be taken in. Dont see why all frees should have to be taken off the ground. Why?

Mehapoy wrote: »

I don't know what improvement would come out of stopping keepers from taking frees? Pointless rule change...also giving 2 points for kicking outside a designated zone would result in no goals being attempted at all, all the play would be concentrated between the 45s, would be an awful spectacle...I think all these suggestions of artificially banning this and that and making a certain amount of players stay in their half etc. could make the game even worse with unintended consequences if not thought through properly...I reckon the most important change would be to devise a way of defining a simple tackle that discourages players from taking the ball into contact and these awful 4 or 5 man rucks from developing where the rules are unclear, obstruction, charging, third man tackles all happening at the same time and the rules applied differently depending on the ref in charge...

Of course goals would still be attempted but this type of rule change could actually see more goals being scored. Certainly wouldn't lead to concentration in midfield. Definition of a tackle is the biggest thing that's needed but what would you define as a tackle?

HighKing33 wrote: »

The rules are not unclear regarding the tackle, it's very clear what you can and can't do. You're not allowed clench the fist, shoulders must be side to side charges, etc.

Restrict players to 3 steps would make a big difference, you now have a deterrant against the running game so players are less likely to take the ball into crowded defences and these rucks won't happen.

As for people saying that 13-a-side is simply change for the sake of change, honestly how can you say that when there is clearly a distinct difference between the two formats? It's basic maths.

The tackle rule is not any good then considering how its managed and played out during games. Restricting players to 3 steps only helps defences and doesn't aid the game especially as a spectacle.

Prop Joe wrote: »

Rule 1 - 3 designated players from each team not allowed touch the ball in opposition half

Rule 2 - Team foul count - 20 fouls per game - Every foul after should result in a black card

How would you decide which players cant touch the ball in opposition half and who would monitor that?
A team foul count would be good addition but is 20 not too high?

Bambi wrote: »

Tbh its sounds like you'd wind up with a system like rugby where they have all these arcane rules and restrictions to try make up for the fact there is very little skill required for the fundamentals of the game (run with eggy ball, throw eggy ball)

The hand passing restriction would be interesting but it would only encourage more mobbed defenses. Perhaps only allow players to hand pass if they are being tackled/falling/incapable of a kick pass

Very ignorant and uninformed post. Will try not go off topic but which laws of rugby are arcane and you are very ignorant of the sport if you think there is very little skill involved.

HighKing33

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

The tackle rule is not any good then considering how its managed and played out during games. Restricting players to 3 steps only helps defences and doesn't aid the game especially as a spectacle.

3 steps would make a significant difference. Players wil be less likely to run the ball into the tackle, meaning less rucks and less running of the ball and less stoppage time.

As things stand players are stretching the 4 step rule, often looking to carry the ball into the tackle, typically looking to draw the foul.

Reduce that count to 3 and police it consistently then you have a situation where it becomes almost impossible to bypass a defender without playing the ball. This gives more opportunities to the defender to turn over the ball, a reward for clean defending. Remember in 13-a-side games you will have more one-on-ones.

The Lost Sheep

HighKing33 wrote: »

3 steps would make a significant difference. Players wil be less likely to run the ball into the tackle, meaning less rucks and less running of the ball and less stoppage time.

As things stand players are stretching the 4 step rule, often looking to carry the ball into the tackle, typically looking to draw the foul.

Reduce that count to 3 and police it consistently then you have a situation where it becomes almost impossible to bypass a defender without playing the ball. This gives more opportunities to the defender to turn over the ball, a reward for clean defending. Remember in 13-a-side games you will have more one-on-ones.

Why not simply get referees to police the 4 step rule consistently than reducing the number of steps and saying referees should police that consistently

HighKing33

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Why not simply get referees to police the 4 step rule consistently than reducing the number of steps and saying referees should police that consistently

3 steps at full pace is nothing, it's more obvious when a player overcarries here so it's easier to enforce and as I pointed out above players will be less likely to take the ball into the tackle where the play gets choked.

The running game will be punished, where it's all about being a battering ram and driving through the centre. It also rewards defenders who tackle cleanly giving them more opportunities.

To balance the game I'm suggesting removing the double-hop rule. It's archaic. Without it we get more pick-up-play, easier for kids to take up.

padd b1975

1. Only frees kicked from the ground can count as a score.
This would bring back a skill that has all but disappeared from the game.

2. Goalkeeper to have optional use of the tee when taking a kick out.

3. No square ball rule whatsoever.

4. No hand passed points to be allowed.

5. A Mark to be awarded only from kickouts which pass the 45m line.

davegrohl48

HighKing33 wrote: »

3 steps would make a significant difference. Players wil be less likely to run the ball into the tackle, meaning less rucks and less running of the ball and less stoppage time.

As things stand players are stretching the 4 step rule, often looking to carry the ball into the tackle, typically looking to draw the foul.

Reduce that count to 3 and police it consistently then you have a situation where it becomes almost impossible to bypass a defender without playing the ball. This gives more opportunities to the defender to turn over the ball, a reward for clean defending. Remember in 13-a-side games you will have more one-on-ones.

If you take a ball into a tackle then while in the tackle your focus has to be on getting the ball away or soloing immediately. This business of guys pumping the legs and wrastling away from the defender. It is 100% of the time barging and 100% of the time steps.
You are not allowed drive forward against a defender who is set in a defensive position. This is in my view one of the prime problems in Gaelic Football. It is meant to be levels of physical contact closer to Basketball (aimed at the ball) but is reffed to a level of "don't take the piss now."
Fine when most players were weedy 11 and 12 stoners. How do you tackle a guy who is 14 stone and fast? How do you tackle a guy who has the ball on opposite side of his body and is using near hand to fend you off?

HighKing33

davegrohl48 wrote: »

How do you tackle a guy who is 14 stone and fast? How do you tackle a guy who has the ball on opposite side of his body and is using near hand to fend you off?

If he only has three steps to play with that's an earlier opportunity for you the defender to reposition and knock the ball away. Three steps means more solos, i.e. more clear cut opportunities to strip the ball.

The Lost Sheep

HighKing33 wrote: »

3 steps at full pace is nothing, it's more obvious when a player overcarries here so it's easier to enforce and as I pointed out above players will be less likely to take the ball into the tackle where the play gets choked.

The running game will be punished, where it's all about being a battering ram and driving through the centre. It also rewards defenders who tackle cleanly giving them more opportunities.

To balance the game I'm suggesting removing the double-hop rule. It's archaic. Without it we get more pick-up-play, easier for kids to take up.

3 steps isn't enough and helps defences and doesn't help play. The "tackle" needs to be defined better or changed to a better method as it certainly isn't good now.

padd b1975 wrote: »

1. Only frees kicked from the ground can count as a score.
This would bring back a skill that has all but disappeared from the game.

2. Goalkeeper to have optional use of the tee when taking a kick out.

3. No square ball rule whatsoever.

4. No hand passed points to be allowed.

5. A Mark to be awarded only from kickouts which pass the 45m line.

Disagree about only counting frees from the ground. It should be players choice
Agree about optional use of tee for a kick out as having to use it slows game down. There should be a square ball as its easier to control and what would be point of removing it.

HighKing33

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

3 steps isn't enough and helps defences and doesn't help play.

3 steps is enough if we abolish the double-hop rule. Players with quick hands who can pick a pass will thrive, so we're rewarding skill over size. That's a good thing.

We're also rewarding defenders who tackle cleanly, again promoting a skill.

If it's trialled, particulalry in 13-a-side games it would I believe it would be a success for all the reasons given above.

davegrohl48

HighKing33 wrote: »

3 steps is enough if we abolish the double-hop rule. Players with quick hands who can pick a pass will thrive, so we're rewarding skill over size. That's a good thing.

We're also rewarding defenders who tackle cleanly, again promoting a skill.

If it's trialled, particulalry in 13-a-side games it would I believe it would be a success for all the reasons given above.

I'v had to teach complete adult beginners Gaelic football and was trying to get them away from counting steps. Looking at it slowly (which we were forced to do) you need 4 steps for the ball to be settled back in your hands and your preferred foot to be back in stride to solo again.
Point I'm getting across is that 4 steps is what is needed to solo at running pace and bring your preferred foot back into stride.
Remember that experienced players don't kick the solo it's simply an adjustment to your natural running stride.
For a right footed player
Step 1, Left leg steps after kicking leg touches ground.
Step 2. Kicking leg takes a step forward.
Step 3. Left leg forward.
Step 4. Kicking leg must solo ball and upon touching ground is now your 4th step.
You do not have time to be doing all the sizing up of passing options while running or as MDMA did versus Monaghan to show the ball to the left two handed and bring it back to the right.
When soloing, you only have time for the ball to settle back in your hands and prepare for your next solo.
The exception is where players stop up and are not taking steps.
But when you see a player on the run making all these extra adjustments, delaying his pass, going into tackle etc. you cannot accomplish that in 4 steps. Basically there is a hell of a lot of steps let go as we all know.

HighKing33

You can solo the ball after 3 steps, it doesn't become more difficult, you're just forced to play the ball more often.

You're right over-carrying is a major inconsistency. Stephen McDonnell, a great player, would regularly take an extra 4 steps to turn his man and take a point. Reduce the number to 3 and it becomes very obvious, basically the ball is being played almost constantly and the rugby elements are exorcised from the game.

The Lost Sheep

HighKing33 wrote: »

3 steps is enough if we abolish the double-hop rule. Players with quick hands who can pick a pass will thrive, so we're rewarding skill over size. That's a good thing.

We're also rewarding defenders who tackle cleanly, again promoting a skill.

If it's trialled, particulalry in 13-a-side games it would I believe it would be a success for all the reasons given above.

If officials don't/cant regulate and penalise over carrying with 4 steps why do you think they will when its more difficult to penalise players with 3 steps?

HighKing33 wrote: »

You can solo the ball after 3 steps, it doesn't become more difficult, you're just forced to play the ball more often.

You're right over-carrying is a major inconsistency. Stephen McDonnell, a great player, would regularly take an extra 4 steps to turn his man and take a point. Reduce the number to 3 and it becomes very obvious, basically the ball is being played almost constantly and the rugby elements are exorcised from the game.

Over carrying is an issue in the game and reducing the number of steps a player can take will only increase the amount of over carrying in the game

HighKing33

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

If officials don't/cant regulate and penalise over carrying with 4 steps why do you think they will when its more difficult to penalise players with 3 steps?

Because it's more obvious.

We're looking at patterns of play and how to affect them. Sometimes a small thing can make a big difference. With 3 steps you change the mentality of players - not to go into the tackle so eagerly as they're more likely to get penalised. The dynamic of the game changes. Passing versus running.

Trial them!

The Lost Sheep

HighKing33 wrote: »

Because it's more obvious.

We're looking at patterns of play and how to affect them. Sometimes a small thing can make a big difference. With 3 steps you change the mentality of players - not to go into the tackle so eagerly as they're more likely to get penalised. The dynamic of the game changes. Passing versus running.

Trial them!

I would rather look at changing mindset of officials around the current rules around over carrying than change the rules and then the officials do nothing
Work on what officials could do about over carrying with 4 steps than reduce number of steps to 3 and see the same issues crop up

padd b1975

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

There should be a square ball as its easier to control and what would be point of removing it.

Easier to control what exactly? I'm struggling to see your angle on this one.

As for removing it altogether, I don't really see an argument for making one tiny part of the playing area subject to different criteria from the rest of it, and obviously it's one less thing for the officials to worry about.

The Lost Sheep

padd b1975 wrote: »

Easier to control what exactly? I'm struggling to see your angle on this one.

As for removing it altogether, I don't really see an argument for making one tiny part of the playing area subject to different criteria from the rest of it, and obviously it's one less thing for the officials to worry about.

Square ball rule allows goalmouth not to be a mess and that is better for the game. Why remove it? For what purpose? Would removing the rule see a dramatically
larger goal count in games as I cant see how it would.
The square ball rule is better for the game. Means players wont be as concentrated around the goal as they would be without a square ball rule

Zardoz

Bambi wrote: »

Can't see how you change that, players can only hand pass into the ground, thus forcing them to bounce the ball to their team mate perhaps

Just ban the hand pass fullstop .
No real need for it ,its called football not handball.

The Lost Sheep

Zardoz wrote: »

Just ban the hand pass fullstop.
No real need for it, its called football not handball.

Handpass is required as helps game structurally and how isn't there a need for it other than simply saying the game is football..

Zardoz

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Handpass is required as helps game structurally and how isn't there a need for it other than simply saying the game is football..

Its doing alot more harm that good nowadays ,the game would be a better spectacle if it were removed completely.
It sounds a bit drastic but it would make the game more skillful.

The Lost Sheep

Zardoz wrote: »

Its doing alot more harm that good nowadays ,the game would be a better spectacle if it were removed completely.
It sounds a bit drastic but it would make the game more skillful.

Removing the hand pass wouldn't make the game more skilful. How would it? I wouldn't say its doing more harm than good and removing it wouldn't see a much better game/spectacle.

Ceist_Beag

Zardoz wrote: »

Its doing alot more harm that good nowadays ,the game would be a better spectacle if it were removed completely.
It sounds a bit drastic but it would make the game more skillful.

No it wouldn't. It would make the game much easier to shut down as it's much easier to stop a pass if the only option is a kick pass.

rebel girl 15

What about limiting the number of handpasses, like they do in the compromise rules. Would be fine at inter county, but hard to implement in club games

Ceist_Beag

rebel girl 15 wrote: »

What about limiting the number of handpasses, like they do in the compromise rules. Would be fine at inter county, but hard to implement in club games

I think the trialled that in the league a couple of years back? Or maybe I imagined it! It works well in compromise rules alright as the ref can clearly be heard counting out the passes to let the player know if he needs to kick or not.

HighKing33

Just one thing that occurred to me watching yesterdays Ulster championship - holding up the ball at midfield: It was the default tactic for both teams, Donegal recycled the ball better and won because of it but boy, was it boring to watch.

Now, conditions played a part but still when folk complain about lateral passing and 'too much hand-passing' and the general state of the game this is what they're talking about:

Introduce a rule that demands that as soon as the ball is carried outside of a team's 45m line they have 5 seconds to move that ball past the opposition 45. It would kill the blanket defence, rewarding teams that press high and eradicate time-wasting at midfield

keane2097

HighKing33 wrote: »

Just one thing that occurred to me watching yesterdays Ulster championship - holding up the ball at midfield: It was the default tactic for both teams, Donegal recycled the ball better and won because of it but boy, was it boring to watch.

Now, conditions played a part but still when folk complain about lateral passing and 'too much hand-passing' and the general state of the game this is what they're talking about:

Introduce a rule that demands that as soon as the ball is carried outside of a team's 45m line they have 5 seconds to move that ball past the opposition 45. It would kill the blanket defence, rewarding teams that press high and eradicate time-wasting at midfield

If you thought the game yesterday was boring you might want to consider other sports.