Making hurling better

Pixel Eater

galwaylad14 wrote: »

If we make the sliothar heavier then it'll make packed defences even more common place as teams won't be able to score from further than maybe 60m out. This is in no ones best interests.

The game has unquestionably gone more physical and more defensive. Crowding out forward lines by flooding back midfielders and half forwards is now the order of the day. I'm not quiet sure what can really be done in terms of stopping this trend, I think it's just the way is evolving to be honest but I don't think it's as attractive to watch as it was in the late 00's when teams played a more open style.

The rules are a bit too open to interpretation aswell. What one ref gives as charging another will say the attacking player was being illegally held up. Over carrying is technically 4 steps but it's never really pulled if you take any less than 6 or 7 and if you're being tackled then you can probably take over 8. All of this is purely at the individual ref's discretion though. Generally the refs do an ok job of applying common sense I think but they could still do with trying to make the rules more "cut and dried".

I definitely agree about either making 65's either indirect or as a sideline cut from the corner or something. It's far too much of a punishment for what can often be great defending or a great save to award a free to the opposition from 65m out, which at the higher levels is pretty much a guaranteed point.

I see the argument about the 2 point sideline mentioned again. This can't be brought in. It would suit my own county given that Canning seems to score one in most games but I still think it would be an unfair rule. The reason being similar to the rationale behind 65s being unfair. It would unduly punish a good block or tackle a defender makes if someone like Joe Canning or Austin Gleeson just trots over and puts 2 points on the board for their team.

Imagine a team is 1 point up against Galway with a minute to go and we're attacking down near the sideline. The defender has a choice to make now, does he try defend properly and try to disposses the attacking player legally which could result in a sideline cut that would give Canning a chance to win the game? Or does he pull down the attacker leaving a free but means his team are guaranteed at least a draw?
It would be a big decision to make for the defender and you can't bring in a rule that could potentially reward foul play.

Disagree with you on the first point. A marginally increase in weight, say from the current 115g to 125g, wouldn't have that dramatic an effect on the game. Being able to score from your own half isn't necessarily a good thing and 60m out is still a fair distance...

All sports develop different tactics. Just look at soccer and the massed defence and break away goals some teams deploy. In the end though the best players should win out.

Pixel Eater

thefloss wrote: »

Not sure you can get rid of handpassing altogether, but maybe ban it completely inside the 21.

My pet peeve from playing and watching the game is the holding of the hurley. Again, another 'dark art' very difficult to spot, but if yellows were dished out for things like this, along with pulling and dragging of the man in possession, then maybe lads would get the message and stop playing what at times looks like a variant of rugby.

CrabRevolution wrote: »

A sideline is no more skillful than a point from your own half or from a tight angle. Why should it be worth 2 points?

Usually the value of something is increased when the authorities reckon it's not happening often enough, in order to make people try for it more often. As it stands, every team from senior inter county sides down to junior Z club teams always, always have a crack at the posts from a sideline, even if the taker can't hit the ball 5 yards. Why would you encourage something that has a 100% attempt rate as it is?

I think it's definitely a common consensus here as regards to better enforcement of existing rules. Maybe two refs would help.

Definitely don't agree on the 2 points for a sideline cut; really don't see the logic in that one.

adrian522

The game is fine as it is, it has always evolved and will continue to do so.

There were plenty of naysayers in the 1950's when Wexford started catching the ball, through to the 80's, when Cyrill Farell played 3 mid-fielders, Cork in the 00's and their running/possesion game.

This is merely the next phase of an ever evolving game.

Increasing the weight of the sliotar makes absolutely no sense, just would have the effect of encouraging teams to pack the defense and prevent scores from out the field.

I don't see what the problem is with long range points, if players are good enough to do it I'm all for it.

2 points for a sideline is also a bit silly in my mind, no need for it, not any more skillful than other points, not exactly dying out as a skill either so no logic to that change.

One thing I would like to see (it's already in the rules) is that when the ref throws the ball in after a rook develops only 2 players should be within 13 meters. As it stands more often than not another rook develops straight away as there are so many players in the vicinity.

PN14

Fitness levels of teams has improved massively while player numbers and pitch sizes have stayed the same more or less in the last 100 years. This is why games are now more congested. Games in TG4 gold of games in the 70's you see players on their own standing up hitting the ball. That never happens now due to fitness levels. You actually see some of the older games where the ball is stopped dead on the field waiting for players to get to it.

The handpass is an issue currently but it has evolved from the now accepted tackle method. It is now impossible to get the time & space to let the ball leave your palm before you strike, it will be whipped away.

I refer back to the two pictures posted earlier in the tread from the sports file of players being tackled. Note where the tackling players are placing their hands on the bicep of the player with the ball. If the player with the ball releases it to attempt a striking action to handpass he is restrained at the bicep and can't actually swing his hand to strike the ball.

This is the way all serious teams are now teaching tackling. It is hard for ref to spot as there is no jersey being pulled and it looks inoccous enough. The current handpass situation is a result of this. So the deal with the handpass issue you have to deal with the tackle zone which is very difficult to police when you take into account the speed of the game.

In general the game isn't massively broke some minor tweaks might sort if out maybe looking at reducing player numbers to 13 to increase space.

FatherTed

I think one of the problems in the modern game is the over crowding of a dozen players in a small patch fighting for the ball e.g. from last Sunday:



This especially happens in the half-forward lines. Maybe there needs to be some sort of zone lines where only X amount of players can be in to reduce this crowding.

blackcard

The big problem with hurling seems to be that Kk have won 8 of the last 10 AI and 11 of the last 16 AI. I don't think the standard of hurling was great in the mid nineties but you had a large number of teams at the same level and you also had Clare and Wexford winning for the first time in ages. Kilkenny have come back to the pack now and Clare, Tipp, Waterford and Galway should have realistic aspirations to winning this year's AI.Limerick have good underage players coming through and with good management and perseverance should be challenging. Cork has to get its own house in order particularly its underage structures, there are signs this may be happening but patience will be needed. Dublin needs to somehow make hurling more attractive to its dual players. After that Wexford, and to a greater extent, Offaly, Westmeath, Laois and Antrim require financial aid and assistance from personnel outside the county. I don't think changing the rules is going to help any of these counties.

zetecescort

a clamp down on steps and charging would be nice too.

Pixel Eater

adrian522 wrote: »

The game is fine as it is, it has always evolved and will continue to do so.

There were plenty of naysayers in the 1950's when Wexford started catching the ball, through to the 80's, when Cyrill Farell played 3 mid-fielders, Cork in the 00's and their running/possesion game.

This is merely the next phase of an ever evolving game.

Increasing the weight of the sliotar makes absolutely no sense, just would have the effect of encouraging teams to pack the defense and prevent scores from out the field.

I don't see what the problem is with long range points, if players are good enough to do it I'm all for it.

2 points for a sideline is also a bit silly in my mind, no need for it, not any more skillful than other points, not exactly dying out as a skill either so no logic to that change.

One thing I would like to see (it's already in the rules) is that when the ref throws the ball in after a rook develops only 2 players should be within 13 meters. As it stands more often than not another rook develops straight away as there are so many players in the vicinity.

With players stronger and more conditioned these days, wielding oversized hurls (as stipulated in the rules), the sliotar can be propelled from their own half back line into the opposition's defence. So you could be argued that a light ball contributes to a massed backline.

Those factors also mean that scoring from your half is no great feat anymore and encourages players to take potshots from absurd distances which hang in their and often go wide. A slightly heavier sliotar might mean more on field and build-up play. Besides I don't envisage the game going back to something akin to Shinty; it would only be a slight increase in weight.

All sports evolve but when the changes are coming from teams pushing some rules to the limits while downright breaking others while unforeseen factors make some rules questionable; then the governing bodies should take note and adapt accordingly.

nice_guy80

Never mind evolving, just implement the current rules properly!

Pixel Eater

blackcard wrote: »

The big problem with hurling seems to be that Kk have won 8 of the last 10 AI and 11 of the last 16 AI. I don't think the standard of hurling was great in the mid nineties but you had a large number of teams at the same level and you also had Clare and Wexford winning for the first time in ages. Kilkenny have come back to the pack now and Clare, Tipp, Waterford and Galway should have realistic aspirations to winning this year's AI.Limerick have good underage players coming through and with good management and perseverance should be challenging. Cork has to get its own house in order particularly its underage structures, there are signs this may be happening but patience will be needed. Dublin needs to somehow make hurling more attractive to its dual players. After that Wexford, and to a greater extent, Offaly, Westmeath, Laois and Antrim require financial aid and assistance from personnel outside the county. I don't think changing the rules is going to help any of these counties.

Kilkenny are the best team and have the best players but at the end of the day they only have to win four matches, with 5 or 6 weeks between them, to claim the All-Ireland. The whole thing is set up for them really.

FrKurtFahrt

A puck out to start each half might be a help - ferocious and wild swinging often at the initial throw-ins.

Also, that point that was made about a possible heavier sliothar might be worth considering - but remember that the balls used in baseball, cricket and other similar games are usually solid, so the comparison with a softer sliothar is invalid. At least the sliothar has some 'give' in it, and rarely does serious damage (I know there have been serious injuries, but these, thankfully, are rare).

blackcard

Pixel Eater wrote: »

Kilkenny are the best team and have the best players but at the end of the day they only have to win four matches, with 5 or 6 weeks between them, to claim the All-Ireland. The whole thing is set up for them really.

An open draw would even things up but would do nothing to make Cork, Limerick, Wexford, Offaly or Laois better teams. The only difference between Kilkenny Tipp, Galway over the last few years has been luck and Cody. But even Cody can do so much with inferior resources coming through

CrabRevolution

Pixel Eater wrote: »

Kilkenny are the best team and have the best players but at the end of the day they only have to win four matches, with 5 or 6 weeks between them, to claim the All-Ireland. The whole thing is set up for them really.

Unless you're Westmeath or Offaly, the most any county would have to win is 5 games to win the AI through the front door. Every year 3 out of 5 Munster counties only have to win 4 games to win the All Ireland (this year it Clare, Limerick and Waterford).

How is that any advantage to Kilkenny?

adrian522

Pixel Eater wrote: »

Kilkenny are the best team and have the best players but at the end of the day they only have to win four matches, with 5 or 6 weeks between them, to claim the All-Ireland. The whole thing is set up for them really.

How many games would Waterford or Clare or Limerick have to win to win the All Ireland assuming they were good enough?

adrian522

Pixel Eater wrote: »

With players stronger and more conditioned these days, wielding oversized hurls (as stipulated in the rules), the sliotar can be propelled from their own half back line into the opposition's defence. So you could be argued that a light ball contributes to a massed backline.

Those factors also mean that scoring from your half is no great feat anymore and encourages players to take potshots from absurd distances which hang in their and often go wide. A slightly heavier sliotar might mean more on field and build-up play. Besides I don't envisage the game going back to something akin to Shinty; it would only be a slight increase in weight.

All sports evolve but when the changes are coming from teams pushing some rules to the limits while downright breaking others while unforeseen factors make some rules questionable; then the governing bodies should take note and adapt accordingly.

Half back line to the opposition defense is no great feat, players have always been able to do that.

What is your issue with long range scores? What is the problem with them? They are rare enough from beyond halfway, certainly not the case that "scoring from your half is no great feat anymore".

You'd swear every game had 10 or 15 points from beyond halfway and that no ball was going into the forwards. That's simply not the case. How many points have you seen this year from beyond halfway?

Pixel Eater

FrKurtFahrt wrote: »

A puck out to start each half might be a help - ferocious and wild swinging often at the initial throw-ins.

Also, that point that was made about a possible heavier sliothar might be worth considering - but remember that the balls used in baseball, cricket and other similar games are usually solid, so the comparison with a softer sliothar is invalid. At least the sliothar has some 'give' in it, and rarely does serious damage (I know there have been serious injuries, but these, thankfully, are rare).

I was comparing their weight only and not their hardness. I stated previously that it's the hardness of the cricket ball which makes it so lethal and wouldn't want that. Make it [the sliotar] slightly heavier but with same amount of 'give', or even more to compensate.

Pixel Eater

blackcard wrote: »

An open draw would even things up but would do nothing to make Cork, Limerick, Wexford, Offaly or Laois better teams. The only difference between Kilkenny Tipp, Galway over the last few years has been luck and Cody. But even Cody can do so much with inferior resources coming through

CrabRevolution wrote: »

Unless you're Westmeath or Offaly, the most any county would have to win is 5 games to win the AI through the front door. Every year 3 out of 5 Munster counties only have to win 4 games to win the All Ireland (this year it Clare, Limerick and Waterford).

How is that any advantage to Kilkenny?

adrian522 wrote: »

How many games would Waterford or Clare or Limerick have to win to win the All Ireland assuming they were good enough?

Well true, any team would only have to play 4 or 5 teams to win but that's a paltry amount to win a championship. Kilkenny have the advantage of one of their games (a full quarter of the games they play) is against a sub-standard Leinster opponent.

If teams had to play other teams of similar quality teams over consecutive weekends then that would be a truer test of a champion. Basically it's the awful provincial championship set-up.

Pixel Eater

adrian522 wrote: »

Half back line to the opposition defense is no great feat, players have always been able to do that.

What is your issue with long range scores? What is the problem with them? They are rare enough from beyond halfway, certainly not the case that "scoring from your half is no great feat anymore".

You'd swear every game had 10 or 15 points from beyond halfway and that no ball was going into the forwards. That's simply not the case. How many points have you seen this year from beyond halfway?

Here is an interesting graph. It's shows the massive increase in points in recent years, which is mainly from long range scores. I don't that it's rare to score from the halfway now; the last All-Ireland final had 3 or 4 at least and a slew of efforts pucked from a similar distance (like most games now).



I've not issue with long range scoring per se but the ease of doing it and the proliferation of point tallies is effecting the quality of matches. If you can still score from the halfway with a slightly heavier ball and smaller bas then good luck to ya; but it'll require more skill.

galwaylad14

Pixel Eater wrote: »

Well true, any team would only have to play 4 or 5 teams to win but that's a paltry amount to win a championship. Kilkenny have the advantage of one of their games (a full quarter of the games they play) is against a sub-standard Leinster opponent.

If teams had to play other teams of similar quality teams over consecutive weekends then that would be a truer test of a champion. Basically it's the awful provincial championship set-up.

Ah come off it, people will use literally anything to say Kilkenny have an unfair advantage. They don't. They're just consistently very good throughout the championship year which allows them to win it in 4 games most years. As was pointed out above, 3 of the 5 Munster teams each year could also win it in four games but this never happens.

This year they played their semi final against Dublin. A Division One team. How are Dublin a sub standard Leinster opponent? They're at least at the level of Limerick and Cork down in Munster anyways.

To win the All Ireland this year they'll still have had to beat Dublin, Galway and 2 out of Waterford/Tipp/Clare/Galway (4 teams that results tell us there is pretty much nothing between). That's hardly a soft All Ireland. For Waterford to win it in the same number of games they'll have had to beat Clare, Tipp and 2 out of Tipp/Clare/Galway/Kilkenny. Pretty much the exact same run.

You're argument is absolutely ridiculous. Kilkenny win it so often because they are consistently the best team in the country. End of.

adrian522

Pixel Eater wrote: »

Here is an interesting graph. It's shows the massive increase in points in recent years, which is mainly from long range scores. I don't that it's rare to score from the halfway now; the last All-Ireland final had 3 or 4 at least and a slew of efforts pucked from a similar distance (like most games now).



I've not issue with long range scoring per se but the ease of doing it and the proliferation of point tallies is effecting the quality of matches. If you can still score from the halfway with a slightly heavier ball and smaller bas then good luck to ya; but it'll require more skill.

I can't see that graph, but what is your source for "Mainly long range" being for the increase?

You seem to be trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. There is no problem with too many scores, no problem with long range scores, making the ball heavier has no advantage and will only encourage more defensive play and more players dropping back.

For example the best games in recent years (for me anyway) were the All Ireland final and replay in 2014. Very high scoring, no sweepers and great scores from all over the field. This is to be encouraged as far as I am concerned not bring in measures to limit them or to try to stamp them out.

If you make the ball heavier and as a result more players are dropping back not only will there be much less scores but goals would also be a lot harder to come by.

Your suggestion makes little or no sense to me.

Dyr

adrian522 wrote: »

If you make the ball heavier and as a result more players are dropping back not only will there be much less scores .

Much less keepers and all

Realt Dearg Sec

Pixel Eater wrote: »

Well true, any team would only have to play 4 or 5 teams to win but that's a paltry amount to win a championship. Kilkenny have the advantage of one of their games (a full quarter of the games they play) is against a sub-standard Leinster opponent.

So which was the substandard one this year? Dublin? Or Galway? And what does that say about Limerick, or cork? This is just complete nonsense.

Pixel Eater

galwaylad14 wrote: »

Ah come off it, people will use literally anything to say Kilkenny have an unfair advantage. They don't. They're just consistently very good throughout the championship year which allows them to win it in 4 games most years. As was pointed out above, 3 of the 5 Munster teams each year could also win it in four games but this never happens.

This year they played their semi final against Dublin. A Division One team. How are Dublin a sub standard Leinster opponent? They're at least at the level of Limerick and Cork down in Munster anyways.

To win the All Ireland this year they'll still have had to beat Dublin, Galway and 2 out of Waterford/Tipp/Clare/Galway (4 teams that results tell us there is pretty much nothing between). That's hardly a soft All Ireland. For Waterford to win it in the same number of games they'll have had to beat Clare, Tipp and 2 out of Tipp/Clare/Galway/Kilkenny. Pretty much the exact same run.

You're argument is absolutely ridiculous. Kilkenny win it so often because they are consistently the best team in the country. End of.

I categorically stated that Kilkenny are the best team, and wasn't making excuses for their success. Last year they played Wexford in late June and hammered them (largest winning score of the whole Championship in fact).
Leinster final a fortnight later, won it and are provincial champs (after only two games). Followed by the semis five weeks later and the final a month after that.

They only (or whichever team) play four matches with massive gaps inbetween. It's a terrible system that's my point, and that's certainly not an absolutely ridiculous argument.

adrian522

Exactly the same for Munster teams other than the 2 in the preliminary round.

danganabu

Hulk Hands wrote: »

Make 65's indirect. Or make it a sideline cut from the 21 or corner. A near guaranteed point (at anything above u-16 these days) is a ridiculous result for a deflected wise ball. Some reward for the bravery of goalkeepers making saves, and defenders making block downs. Their "reward" for stopping an opposition score is an opposition score.

Hulk I agree with your sentiment but it would be farcical if implemented, you have given one extreme example of the blockbuster save, but imagine if the only consequence of putting the ball out over your own end line was a place ball that cant be scored, I would as a defender coming out and been surrounded and pressured by the opposition and take the easy option of deliberately putting it out over the end line as the consequences would be far safer than risking getting dispossessed in front of my own goal.

Similarly with someone else's proposal re. the sideline cut been worth 2 points, it would be/was a disaster, merely slows the game down to a crawl as we watch endless wides.

There is nothing wrong with the rules of the game whatsoever the issues are the application of the rules, in particular steps and the handpass, and the dated structure of the championship, its completely the wrong way around, the provincial championships should be in spring and the AI on a league basis played in the Summer/Autumn.

Realt Dearg Sec

Pixel Eater wrote: »

I categorically stated that Kilkenny are the best team, and wasn't making excuses for their success. Last year they played Wexford in late June and hammered them (largest winning score of the whole Championship in fact).
Leinster final a fortnight later, won it and are provincial champs (after only two games). Followed by the semis five weeks later and the final a month after that.

They only (or whichever team) play four matches with massive gaps inbetween. It's a terrible system that's my point, and that's certainly not an absolutely ridiculous argument.

But what you said was that the current system is "set up for" Kilkenny. Anyway, don't want to turn it into an argument really because the thread is more about the actual rules of the game itself rather than how to improve the structure of intercounty in particular. I think at this point most people agree with your main point that the current structure isn't sustainable for virtually any reason you care to mention. As an aside, Kilkenny, and Brian Cody, have actually called for an open draw championship in the past.

Anyway, back on topic, in-game, I would reduce the number of players on the field. Without having to concoct absurd rules about how many players can be in a certain section of the field at any time, you can open up plenty of space and that will get rid of the problems created by extra defenders. In fact, while it wouldn't necessarily lead back to man-to-man marking (whose demise has been foretold many a time over the years) it would make tactical decisions much more difficult, because simply trying to crowd the backs wouldn't work, or at least not as easily. The objective of basically killing momentum would have to be replaced with more imaginative approaches to deploying your resources. I think 12 or 13 players on the field is plenty these days, would give a bit more time on the ball, allow lads to open their shoulders, encourage a move back towards more pace rather than size and brute strength. It would probably also increase the amount of goals. Which right now is really, really important.

paul0103

Pixel Eater wrote: »

Here is an interesting graph. It's shows the massive increase in points in recent years, which is mainly from long range scores. I don't that it's rare to score from the halfway now; the last All-Ireland final had 3 or 4 at least and a slew of efforts pucked from a similar distance (like most games now).



I've not issue with long range scoring per se but the ease of doing it and the proliferation of point tallies is effecting the quality of matches. If you can still score from the halfway with a slightly heavier ball and smaller bas then good luck to ya; but it'll require more skill.

The graph says nothing about long range scores?

Charlie69

Pixel Eater wrote: »

Well true, any team would only have to play 4 or 5 teams to win but that's a paltry amount to win a championship. Kilkenny have the advantage of one of their games (a full quarter of the games they play) is against a sub-standard Leinster opponent.

If teams had to play other teams of similar quality teams over consecutive weekends then that would be a truer test of a champion. Basically it's the awful provincial championship set-up.

If this were true, why didn't Galway win the All-Ireland every year they started the championship with an All-Ireland semi final???...Absolute nonsense!

Pixel Eater

adrian522 wrote: »

I can't see that graph, but what is your source for "Mainly long range" being for the increase?

You seem to be trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. There is no problem with too many scores, no problem with long range scores, making the ball heavier has no advantage and will only encourage more defensive play and more players dropping back.

For example the best games in recent years (for me anyway) were the All Ireland final and replay in 2014. Very high scoring, no sweepers and great scores from all over the field. This is to be encouraged as far as I am concerned not bring in measures to limit them or to try to stamp them out.

If you make the ball heavier and as a result more players are dropping back not only will there be much less scores but goals would also be a lot harder to come by.

Your suggestion makes little or no sense to me.

Stop thinking in extremes: I'm only suggesting a slightly heavier ball that will go only slightly less distance. More build up play, more ground based play, less pot shots that go wide and generally more time the sliotar is in play.

That was indeed a brilliant match but was exceptional really: only one wide in the whole second half. I don't think that this slight modification would have the detrimental effects that you believe it would.

Pixel Eater

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

But what you said was that the current system is "set up for" Kilkenny. Anyway, don't want to turn it into an argument really because the thread is more about the actual rules of the game itself rather than how to improve the structure of intercounty in particular. I think at this point most people agree with your main point that the current structure isn't sustainable for virtually any reason you care to mention. As an aside, Kilkenny, and Brian Cody, have actually called for an open draw championship in the past.

Anyway, back on topic, in-game, I would reduce the number of players on the field. Without having to concoct absurd rules about how many players can be in a certain section of the field at any time, you can open up plenty of space and that will get rid of the problems created by extra defenders. In fact, while it wouldn't necessarily lead back to man-to-man marking (whose demise has been foretold many a time over the years) it would make tactical decisions much more difficult, because simply trying to crowd the backs wouldn't work, or at least not as easily. The objective of basically killing momentum would have to be replaced with more imaginative approaches to deploying your resources. I think 12 or 13 players on the field is plenty these days, would give a bit more time on the ball, allow lads to open their shoulders, encourage a move back towards more pace rather than size and brute strength. It would probably also increase the amount of goals. Which right now is really, really important.

Fair enough. I was just saying that for a exceptional team like Kilkenny the system doesn't offer them a true challenge. But agreed we're getting off topic.