Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

5 Vital Rule Changes for Football

2

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,530 ✭✭✭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?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 155 ✭✭HighKing33


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,967 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 155 ✭✭HighKing33


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,530 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 155 ✭✭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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,967 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 155 ✭✭HighKing33


    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!


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,967 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,687 ✭✭✭✭padd b1975


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 14,967 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,519 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,967 ✭✭✭✭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..


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,519 ✭✭✭Zardoz


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,967 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,757 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Moderators, Education Moderators, Sports Moderators, Regional South Moderators Posts: 15,247 Mod ✭✭✭✭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


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,757 ✭✭✭Ceist_Beag


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 155 ✭✭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


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,764 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 155 ✭✭HighKing33


    keane2097 wrote: »
    If you thought the game yesterday was boring you might want to consider other sports.

    The build-up play was extremely laborious. Boring stuff for the most part.

    There were some excellent scores in the game but the ball has to get to one end of the pitch in order for that to happen and it did so in a very boring fashion.

    I watch all kinds of sports which is why I'm not shy to make suggestions when there are very obvious areas that need improving.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,631 ✭✭✭Dirty Dingus McGee


    The Tyrone Donegal game is a prime example of what the issue is.

    The skill level was good the attacking moves and build up play inside the 45 were excellent but between the 2 45 metre lines what happened was just endless handpassing which was tedious to watch.The reason the excessive hadpasing was happening was because both teams played 13 or 14 mend behind the ball and so a kicked pass was never going to get much success so the ball had to be endlessly recycled until they teams could handpass their way into the scoring zone.

    In order for kickpassing to be worthwhile there needs to be space to kick into, in the game currently there is barely any space available so teams sensibly decide not to kick long balls into the forwards (as this will invariably favour the defenders) and have a little patience.

    I would suggest 13 a side with the 2 fullforward and full back lines having to stay inside the 45 at all times would be a good rule as it would mean no more than 10 defenders could be defending at any one time (which is the way the game was like in the 1990's).This would create a greater incentive to kick pass the ball as it would be a more worthwhile doing so and I'm pretty sur ethe majority of football fans want to see more kickpassing in the game.

    In addition to the rule you could probably introduce a handpass restriction as it would be more worthwile kickpassing with the suggestion I have abaove and therefore be less likely that with the handpass restriction you would get aimless hoofing of the ball like you would if nothing else in the game was changed.

    The big problem is the blanket defence not handpassing though and anything other than tackling the blanket defence will not improve things in my opinion.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 156 ✭✭Meath Centre Forward


    I am one of those people who think the game is in a healthy state.

    In response to the opening post, I have seen the changes in the game over the last 10 to 20 years - and I acknowledge you're points are motivated by a desire to have a game more like the nineties era. I acknowledge that there are many differences in how the game is approached between and now.

    However .... I think you're suggestions are too radical. Is the game so bad now that such dramatic change are needed? I'd also debate whether or not some of the things you suggest would have the effect you seek? For example would the mark not just slow the game down? Would 13-a-side not lead to 13 men behind the ball and no-one up the pitch as opposed to now where we have 13 men behind the ball and 2 up the pitch?

    Some of the other ideas scattered throughout the thread I would question to. For example a certain number of players inside the '45 - this is way too hard to police. It's fine in theory. The practicality of implementing this would be a nightmare. One of the things I do have a problem with is the number of rules. I want the referee's job made easier not harder.

    I do agree tweaks are needed so here are some improvements I think are also worth discussing:

    1. Make inter-county games 80 minutes
    Would I have liked another 10 minutes of Donegal-Tyrone? Absolutely. I know others might disagree but why not get more of a good thing? This is also a more realistic alternative to 13-a-side suggestions. Of course the problems would be increasing the risk of player burnout and one-sided matches would end up with a scoreline that is much worse. Fair enough. But I think intercounty players are fit enough for 80 minutes - an 80 minute game is certainly better value for the supporter.

    2. Get rid of the fisted points
    I don't see the good in fisting a point at all. A lot of good defensive play (shadowing) has often been undone by a lad swinging a paw at the ball in a part-fist, part-throw like fashion. I don't see it as a skill. No problems with this suggestion as far as I can see.

    3. Player who wins a free takes it
    Teams are playing for frees. A good free-taker is so important now that the lack of one is costly and a good one is a match-winner. The result of this is goalies taking frees, teams trying to engineer frees, games becoming a battle of free-taking. My suggestion that the player who wins the free takes it addresses this. For technical fouls, which are infrequent anyway, anyone can take them. The fouled becoming the free-taker would place an extra emphasis on having good kickers distributed throughout the team but negatively it might lead to the free-kick off the ground becoming extinct (something I would not like to see happen). Also might encouraging more fouling in the short-term with teams knowing there's a reduced risk of being punished.

    These are a few suggestions I had. Definitely worthy of a discussion.

    For what's it' worth the steps that have been taken in recent years to address the evolving game have been for the most part quite successful, e.g. introduction of a dedicated referee's championship panel, introduction of hawk-eye to Croke-Park, introduction of the black card, clarification of square ball ruling. I'm skeptical of the advantage rule though - I would say this needs to be looked at again.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]



    1. Make inter-county games 80 minutes

    2. Get rid of the fisted points

    3. Player who wins a free takes it

    These are the only logical steps that can be taken to improve the game.

    Talks of kicking it a certain distance or a certain amount of players stuck to an area are just terrible technical changes which are always going to be hard to enforce but also ruin other aspects.

    The only steps that can be taken are stuff like above and others that are black and white "kick passes only" types.

    I definitely agree on the free taker as its similar in AFL and teams cant just hunt for frees to allow the best kicker to take.

    All these changes are sought because teams are defending rigorously.
    Can you imagine FIFA implementing man to man marking because games can be tight.
    If the team has two attackers you're only allowed two defenders... Or in rugby you aren't allowed to use full backs to cover behind.

    Teams shouldn't be penalised for defending to a system that is needed. Teams who go man to man in defence will be torn to shreds as its hard to stop players in GAA with the current tackle.

    Why aren't teams being encouraged to try new attacking means.
    Like crossing is something we've never seen in GAA, if you whipped balls in from the sides with players trying to fist goals even if its not to your advantage there's second balls to be won in there as attackers will lose markers when the ball is in the air.

    Also long balls from outside the 45 to players flooding inside can create the same effect.
    How much use are 8 just inside the 45 if we send 4/5 rushing in as a high ball is launched up and in.

    But teams want to keep attacking a way that's difficult against a packed defence.
    I think teams attacking systems need to be examined more than radical rules changes.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,631 ✭✭✭Dirty Dingus McGee


    These are the only logical steps that can be taken to improve the game.

    Talks of kicking it a certain distance or a certain amount of players stuck to an area are just terrible technical changes which are always going to be hard to enforce but also ruin other aspects.

    The only steps that can be taken are stuff like above and others that are black and white "kick passes only" types.

    I definitely agree on the free taker as its similar in AFL and teams cant just hunt for frees to allow the best kicker to take.

    All these changes are sought because teams are defending rigorously.
    Can you imagine FIFA implementing man to man marking because games can be tight.
    If the team has two attackers you're only allowed two defenders... Or in rugby you aren't allowed to use full backs to cover behind.

    Teams shouldn't be penalised for defending to a system that is needed. Teams who go man to man in defence will be torn to shreds as its hard to stop players in GAA with the current tackle.

    Why aren't teams being encouraged to try new attacking means.
    Like crossing is something we've never seen in GAA, if you whipped balls in from the sides with players trying to fist goals even if its not to your advantage there's second balls to be won in there as attackers will lose markers when the ball is in the air.

    Also long balls from outside the 45 to players flooding inside can create the same effect.
    How much use are 8 just inside the 45 if we send 4/5 rushing in as a high ball is launched up and in.

    But teams want to keep attacking a way that's difficult against a packed defence.
    I think teams attacking systems need to be examined more than radical rules changes.

    You need fisted points as quite often players get bottle up close to goal and a fisted point is the only option.80 minute games won't improve anything and frankly if it was up to me I'd rather go back to 60 minutes than to increase the length of the game.

    Player winning the free taking it could be good idea and would help get rid of players trying to win free however to counter act that anyone who wasn't a good free taker would get fouled endlessly which is what happens in basketball.And free taking can be a strange thing as really gifted footballers can be very mediocre free takers. Niall McNamee is a brilliant footballer but I wouldn't trust him taking free.

    The reason teams aren't attacking is that it doesn't work unless you have a brilliant team.It's much easier to defend keep the score low and give yourself a chance of snatching the game in the last 10 minutes.If teams are more attack minded (without the rules insisting they must be) a lot of teams would get completely destroyed, so they choose the more sensible option.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 156 ✭✭Meath Centre Forward


    You need fisted points as quite often players get bottle up close to goal and a fisted point is the only option.80 minute games won't improve anything and frankly if it was up to me I'd rather go back to 60 minutes than to increase the length of the game.

    Player winning the free taking it could be good idea and would help get rid of players trying to win free however to counter act that anyone who wasn't a good free taker would get fouled endlessly which is what happens in basketball.And free taking can be a strange thing as really gifted footballers can be very mediocre free takers. Niall McNamee is a brilliant footballer but I wouldn't trust him taking free.

    The reason teams aren't attacking is that it doesn't work unless you have a brilliant team.It's much easier to defend keep the score low and give yourself a chance of snatching the game in the last 10 minutes.If teams are more attack minded (without the rules insisting they must be) a lot of teams would get completely destroyed, so they choose the more sensible option.

    I know you said you'd prefer a 60 minute game but you haven't outlined why? Seems an unusual one. An 80 minute game would guarantee better value for the supporter. I can't see any advantage at all in going back to a 60 minute game.

    I agree with you the only option sometimes is for a player to take a fisted point but to me it requires so little skill ... most of the time it's not even a properly executed fist pass. I think if a player gets bottled then the advantage should be with the defending team for good defending and the onus should be on the attacker to make space for a kicked effort. I can't understand how the game can allow fisted points but not fisted goals ... again it seems an unusual one.

    I agree with a lot of points in gilberto_eire's post particularly the part about attacking tactics being underdeveloped compared to defensive tactics.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I agree with a lot of points in gilberto_eire's post particularly the part about attacking tactics being underdeveloped compared to defensive tactics.

    Regardless if its 60 or 80 I think it needs to be proper time and not 50% due to the clock running for injuries/frees/kick outs etc.
    The time wasted is a bigger issue.

    The attacking strategies certainly deserve consideration.
    More or less every GAA team wants to attack the same way.
    Runners scoring breaking into the 45, kicks in front/to forwards laying it off/turning and shooting and the odd long ball into a single FF.

    Playing a packed defence they continue to attack the same way which is counter intuitive to beating the press so the ball is just hand passed around 5/6 yards away and even when it goes wide they come back in.

    It would be interesting to see some wing play as the press is never enough out wide.
    Id wager most teams playing a blanket could be got at with a single run down the line and square a ball. When they go wide now they either try to run in or come back down the line, I've never seen a player cross a ball.
    I don't think teams realise this could be a good tactic especially if ppl flood in similar to soccer.
    Or hoisting a garryowen in from outside the press as a number are advancing. The defending team would be completely out numbered.

    It would certainly make blankets think more and spread more giving more room in the middle.

    I'm not against any rule changes either but just feel they need to be easily implemented. If players could only kick it would be harder to get out from a packed defence or less players on the pitch heroes with spacing.

    I just don't think teams are doing enough to combat it, they want to score easy and are complaining since it won't work.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,265 ✭✭✭ciarriaithuaidh


    I know you said you'd prefer a 60 minute game but you haven't outlined why? Seems an unusual one. An 80 minute game would guarantee better value for the supporter. I can't see any advantage at all in going back to a 60 minute game.

    I agree with you the only option sometimes is for a player to take a fisted point but to me it requires so little skill ... most of the time it's not even a properly executed fist pass. I think if a player gets bottled then the advantage should be with the defending team for good defending and the onus should be on the attacker to make space for a kicked effort. I can't understand how the game can allow fisted points but not fisted goals ... again it seems an unusual one.

    I agree with a lot of points in gilberto_eire's post particularly the part about attacking tactics being underdeveloped compared to defensive tactics.

    Handpassing a score on the run is no easy thing to do, especially as it is often from a tight angle and even harder if with the weaker side. Takes a lot of skill and practice actually.
    Players getting bottled up is down to sheer weight of defensive numbers (blanket defence in a lot of cases) 90% of the time, rather than decent one on one defending.
    Fisted goals aren't allowed because, as anyone who knows the recent history of the game would know, when they were it let to better teams walking the ball through defences and racking up loads of goals.

    I'm loath to post in the thread as most of the suggestions are not practical or necessary in my view. The game is largely fine and as I've said before all this furore started (unbelievably) over a sh*t league game played in a downpour in April!

    Also, anyone who though the Donegal v Tyrone game was boring needs to "catch themselves on" as the lads up North would say. Some people criticising slow build up play...watch the score McBrearty got just after half time. Donegal broke forward, ball went down right flank. Tyrone flooded the defence of course, so Donegal had to recycle possession, slowly (patiently I would say), but it was far from boring or mundane. They then cleverly switched the point of attack, Frank McGlynn made a nice burst, popped the ball at pace to Mark McHugh and Paddy Brearty (who had made a nice diagonal run) received possession and swung over a nice point on the run from 35m out.
    If you see that as "boring" then we're watching a different game as to me, that's smart modern football.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,631 ✭✭✭Dirty Dingus McGee


    I know you said you'd prefer a 60 minute game but you haven't outlined why? Seems an unusual one. An 80 minute game would guarantee better value for the supporter. I can't see any advantage at all in going back to a 60 minute game.

    I agree with you the only option sometimes is for a player to take a fisted point but to me it requires so little skill ... most of the time it's not even a properly executed fist pass. I think if a player gets bottled then the advantage should be with the defending team for good defending and the onus should be on the attacker to make space for a kicked effort. I can't understand how the game can allow fisted points but not fisted goals ... again it seems an unusual one.

    I agree with a lot of points in gilberto_eire's post particularly the part about attacking tactics being underdeveloped compared to defensive tactics.

    Kicking the ball over the bar from very close to goal sometimes doesn't require a huge amount of skill either but nobody has a problem with it.

    The reason I wouldn't mind the game going to 60 minutes is that if 13 a side were ever to be introduced (and it would be by far the easiest rule change to introduce) in order to balance up the need to be a little bit fitter and coaches using it as an excuse to run players into the ground I would make the game shorter.An 80 minute game wouldn't guarantee better value if anything it would make things worse whatever chance there is of an upset in an 70 minute game there would be a much smaller chance in a game that's ten minutes longer as the stronger teams would have much more time to react and deal with being behind.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,631 ✭✭✭Dirty Dingus McGee


    Regardless if its 60 or 80 I think it needs to be proper time and not 50% due to the clock running for injuries/frees/kick outs etc.
    The time wasted is a bigger issue.

    The attacking strategies certainly deserve consideration.
    More or less every GAA team wants to attack the same way.
    Runners scoring breaking into the 45, kicks in front/to forwards laying it off/turning and shooting and the odd long ball into a single FF.

    Playing a packed defence they continue to attack the same way which is counter intuitive to beating the press so the ball is just hand passed around 5/6 yards away and even when it goes wide they come back in.

    It would be interesting to see some wing play as the press is never enough out wide.
    Id wager most teams playing a blanket could be got at with a single run down the line and square a ball. When they go wide now they either try to run in or come back down the line, I've never seen a player cross a ball.
    I don't think teams realise this could be a good tactic especially if ppl flood in similar to soccer.
    Or hoisting a garryowen in from outside the press as a number are advancing. The defending team would be completely out numbered.

    It would certainly make blankets think more and spread more giving more room in the middle.

    I'm not against any rule changes either but just feel they need to be easily implemented. If players could only kick it would be harder to get out from a packed defence or less players on the pitch heroes with spacing.

    I just don't think teams are doing enough to combat it, they want to score easy and are complaining since it won't work.

    Defending is much easier than attacking.Defenders don't need to get clean possession of the ball to do their job properly attackers do.

    If you hoisted crosses inside the 21 even with the defence outnumbered when the cross is hit what would probably happen is that the ball would be broken by the defence and in the 5 or 10 seconds it takes for the ball to be sent in broken and hit the ground the defence will have got appropriate numbers back and be able to mop up the breaking ball. Teams are so fit these days that any numerical advantage can be eliminated quite quickly unless the delivery to the forward is pin point accurate which is not an easy thing to do.

    Offaly at the weekend would have benefited from some quick thinking from their players and sending a few balls out wide as there was no-one covering that space however the problem with putting ball out wide is you move away from the goal and a well organised blanket defence can simply get players back in covering the middle of the pitch and force teams to take pot shots at goal.Spreading the ball wide would probably work well against a medicore teams but the teams who are really good at the blanket defence seem to have all bases covered and I'd imagine they would deal with it well.

    The one thing I always thought teams should do against the blanket is bombard them with long range point attempts.A shot from outside the 45 is probably at best will be scored 1 in 3 times but if you kept doing it and took close to 50 shots it might be a worthwhile tactic and if successful it would force the defence to push up a bit which would leave space inside to play the ball into.Dublin did this against Donegal last year and if they had taken one of their goals chances it would have worked.Although this may not work either as teams are so good defensively these days there may not even be much space out that far to take shots at goal also relying on long range point shooting is never a good thing as some days you can be brilliant at them and others you can be awful.

    I always thought that Kildare tried this under McGeeney a lot of people thought they were taking the wrong option and shooting aimlessly without thinking but I thought McGeeney worked out that the forwards weren't very good and they should simply attempt as many shots as possible throughout the game and enough of them would be successful to win.Although I may be completely wrong on that.

    The one thing that should be pointed out is that none of us think anywhere near as much about the game as the managers and coaches do and if they can't find a better way of dealing with the blanket defence or think that a more attacking approach is worthwhile than they are probably right.


Advertisement