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

Changes in the GAA - super thread

Options
13567106

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 27,267 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Prop Joe wrote: »
    OK lets see how we could trouble shoot these four simple rule changes

    1) Implement a "halfway" line

    2)" A player receiving a backwards pass may not be in his own half when collecting the ball "

    3) " A maximum of three passes either by foot or hand allowed in your own half of the field"

    4) " For the ball to travel over the "halfway" line it must be kicked

    These simple changes would result in a more expansive games,Would speed the game up,Would increase kick passing ten fold and would be easily implemented at all levels


    If these rules were implemented, I would have all my 15 retreat into their own half once they lost the ball.

    The other team that is attacking would have limited room to maneouvre. In particular, the ability to move the ball from one side of the pitch to the other to stretch the defence would be limited because of the inability to pass the ball backwards over the halfway line. By positioning my defensive lines cleverly (and McGuinness and Gallagher were expert at this), the opposition would be more likely to lose the ball without scoring than currently.

    They would then retreat en masse to do the same to my team. I would be reluctant to commit men forward, because with the greater risk of losing the ball, I wouldn't want to be outnumbered by the attacking team. In terms of attacking, rather than trying to stretch the defence, I would play two fielders in the full-forward line and aim long ball into them. I would expect them to only win a handful during the game because they would be doubly-marked, and with the lack of support from other forwards, their primary aim would be to win frees.

    Scores would drop in this attritional game of both sides losing the ball after going nowhere and most scores would be courtesy of a friendly referee. Current football would be hugely entertaining by contrast.


  • Registered Users Posts: 67,141 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    blanch152 wrote: »
    If you were ever at one of the Beann Eadair pitches on the top of Howth Head on a wet and windy November, you would definitely have doubts about kicking a ball forward that would end up flying behind you.

    And the current ball is immune to extremes in the weather? Who knew.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,665 ✭✭✭Bonniedog


    Most proposed changes, as above, are to introduce a random element into the game. Basically boiling down to "get the Dubs to boot the ball up the pitch." Kickout change was solely aimed at Cluxton who now kicks a considerable amount into midfield where Dublin win a vast majority of them.

    So now there has to be more changes! Those referred to above would change football into an abomination.

    Only proposed change that merits consideration is a basketball style shot clock - set at say 90 seconds. Even 60 seconds. That would have one of two consequences: either the negative teams would turn games into stifling 0-5 to 0-4 results, or the better teams would just have more possession and be even more dominant.


    As matter of interest, 2 - 10 of Dublin's total against Donegal came from possessions of less than 60 seconds. I think it would benefit Dublin more than anyone so that's probably a non runner. What about making Cluxton wear a blindfold? In the interests of fairness obviously ….


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,267 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    And the current ball is immune to extremes in the weather? Who knew.

    The point is that the proposal for a lighter ball would make the problem worse, do you agree?


  • Registered Users Posts: 67,141 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    blanch152 wrote: »
    The point is that the proposal for a lighter ball would make the problem worse, do you agree?

    No, it could still be handpassed if it was lighter or indeed heavier. It would not have any affect on that problem.

    It would tend to speed up the game if the ball could be kicked further though.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,368 ✭✭✭Prop Joe


    blanch152 wrote: »
    If these rules were implemented, I would have all my 15 retreat into their own half once they lost the ball.

    The other team that is attacking would have limited room to maneouvre. In particular, the ability to move the ball from one side of the pitch to the other to stretch the defence would be limited because of the inability to pass the ball backwards over the halfway line. By positioning my defensive lines cleverly (and McGuinness and Gallagher were expert at this), the opposition would be more likely to lose the ball without scoring than currently.

    They would then retreat en masse to do the same to my team. I would be reluctant to commit men forward, because with the greater risk of losing the ball, I wouldn't want to be outnumbered by the attacking team. In terms of attacking, rather than trying to stretch the defence, I would play two fielders in the full-forward line and aim long ball into them. I would expect them to only win a handful during the game because they would be doubly-marked, and with the lack of support from other forwards, their primary aim would be to win frees.

    Not attacking you or anything just generally curious,How could you score of you played like that?

    With everyone behind the ball you wouldnt be able to counter attack without a kick? and if everyone is behind the ball ?


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,267 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Prop Joe wrote: »
    Not attacking you or anything just generally curious,How could you score of you played like that?

    With everyone behind the ball you wouldnt be able to counter attack without a kick? and if everyone is behind the ball ?


    Scoring would be difficult for both teams. With only three passes allowed in their own half, the opposing team would have to kick the ball away. With 15 back, I would be guaranteed to win the ball. If they scored two or three points at most, they would be doing well.

    All I would need is the occasional lucky breakaway or the occasional free from a long ball won by one of my two forwards who would spend their time running from the opposition 21 back and forth to the halfway line to take their place as the first line of defence.

    Not pretty, but even more difficult to beat than McGuinness' Donegal, thanks to your rule changes.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,368 ✭✭✭Prop Joe


    blanch152 wrote: »
    Scoring would be difficult for both teams. With only three passes allowed in their own half, the opposing team would have to kick the ball away. With 15 back, I would be guaranteed to win the ball. If they scored two or three points at most, they would be doing well.

    All I would need is the occasional lucky breakaway or the occasional free from a long ball won by one of my two forwards who would spend their time running from the opposition 21 back and forth to the halfway line to take their place as the first line of defence.

    Not pretty, but even more difficult to beat than McGuinness' Donegal, thanks to your rule changes.

    I'd love to manage against that team because if you had 2 upfront permanently that would mean you would have 12 outfield players in defense.

    That would leave me man mark your two forwards plus a sweeper and leave the forward battle 11 v 12..Plus i could high press you in your own half as you would only have 3 passes before kicking.

    I think it would be impossible to play without 3 if not 4 full time forwards with them rules


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,267 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Prop Joe wrote: »
    I'd love to manage against that team because if you had 2 upfront permanently that would mean you would have 12 outfield players in defense.

    That would leave me man mark your two forwards plus a sweeper and leave the forward battle 11 v 12..Plus i could high press you in your own half as you would only have 3 passes before kicking.

    I think it would be impossible to play without 3 if not 4 full time forwards with them rules


    No, I wouldn't have two up front permanently. They would be on the halfway line chasing and ensuring you couldn't pass back. Your rules would limit your ability to hold possession. You would continually have to kick it away.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,665 ✭✭✭Bonniedog


    Prop Joe wrote: »
    I'd love to manage against that team because if you had 2 upfront permanently that would mean you would have 12 outfield players in defense.

    That would leave me man mark your two forwards plus a sweeper and leave the forward battle 11 v 12..Plus i could high press you in your own half as you would only have 3 passes before kicking.

    I think it would be impossible to play without 3 if not 4 full time forwards with them rules


    And this is supposed to lead to a more attractive game! Why not just change names of teams to Sligo Spartans and Wexford Warriors and change the shape of the ball to an oval :)

    And get Eddie Waring to do the commentary.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,368 ✭✭✭Prop Joe


    blanch152 wrote: »
    No, I wouldn't have two up front permanently. They would be on the halfway line chasing and ensuring you couldn't pass back. Your rules would limit your ability to hold possession. You would continually have to kick it away.

    I just don't know how you would score then? How could you work the ball out of your own defense with that many bodies and get a direct kick to your forwards...Interesting how an offensive coach views the game verses a defensive all the same.


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxVkVzXci6M


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,267 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Prop Joe wrote: »
    I just don't know how you would score then? How could you work the ball out of your own defense with that many bodies and get a direct kick to your forwards...Interesting how an offensive coach views the game verses a defensive all the same.


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxVkVzXci6M


    I would be extremely successful at keeping the score down. Winning by 3 points to 2 wouldn't be a problem as the other team would have to keep giving me back the ball.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,368 ✭✭✭Prop Joe


    blanch152 wrote: »
    I would be extremely successful at keeping the score down. Winning by 3 points to 2 wouldn't be a problem as the other team would have to keep giving me back the ball.

    Very interesting theory because i think the exact same...I couldnt see how you could get up the field in 3 passes with that many bodies in the defense plus teams can now easily kick atleast ten points against 15 man blankets so in my eyes your set up would ultimately fail

    I would have unlimited passes in your half so i could dictate the pace plus put huge stress on your kickout. and turnover ball coming out


    Fair play good debate tho


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 537 ✭✭✭Niles Crane


    Another example of tonight of why changes need to be made.

    Both Dublin and Tyrone play 13-15 behind the ball endless handpassing and constant retreating of defenses.

    The blanket defence is a scourge that needs to be legislated out of the game.

    Also it's disappointing that team are so scared of kicking points from the 45, most players are well able to but I suspect are being told not to in order to hold onto the ball.


  • Registered Users Posts: 67,141 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady



    Also it's disappointing that team are so scared of kicking points from the 45, most players are well able to but I suspect are being told not to in order to hold onto the ball.
    Totally agree, sick of screaming at them to kick. Couple of times today a player would have been better off kicking and missing than trying to play on in. Got turned over anyway.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,997 ✭✭✭gally74


    Totally agree, sick of screaming at them to kick. Couple of times today a player would have been better off kicking and missing than trying to play on in. Got turned over anyway.

    Switched it off, it's too hard to watch


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,967 ✭✭✭✭The Lost Sheep


    Bonniedog wrote: »
    Most proposed changes, as above, are to introduce a random element into the game. Basically boiling down to "get the Dubs to boot the ball up the pitch." Kickout change was solely aimed at Cluxton who now kicks a considerable amount into midfield where Dublin win a vast majority of them.

    So now there has to be more changes! Those referred to above would change football into an abomination.

    Only proposed change that merits consideration is a basketball style shot clock - set at say 90 seconds. Even 60 seconds. That would have one of two consequences: either the negative teams would turn games into stifling 0-5 to 0-4 results, or the better teams would just have more possession and be even more dominant.

    As matter of interest, 2 - 10 of Dublin's total against Donegal came from possessions of less than 60 seconds. I think it would benefit Dublin more than anyone so that's probably a non runner. What about making Cluxton wear a blindfold? In the interests of fairness obviously ….
    Bit ridiculous and more than slightly paranoid to think any changes are to stop Dublin. Its to improve the game and the game as a spectacle.
    If you have a shot clock from where does it count?


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,665 ✭✭✭Bonniedog


    Bit ridiculous and more than slightly paranoid to think any changes are to stop Dublin. Its to improve the game and the game as a spectacle.
    If you have a shot clock from where does it count?


    Does it matter? You should look at the stats. Most Dublin scores come from short periods of possession. Get a lead and keep the ball from a corral of sheep. Not rocket science, but it is science :)

    The kickout change was to frustrate Cluxton. That's not paranoia. There is some myth still that Dublin will be beaten at midfield. Well...…. Get Fenton to wear diver's boots? In the interest of fairness.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 537 ✭✭✭Niles Crane


    Bonniedog wrote: »
    Does it matter? You should look at the stats. Most Dublin scores come from short periods of possession. Get a lead and keep the ball from a corral of sheep. Not rocket science, but it is science :)

    The kickout change was to frustrate Cluxton. That's not paranoia. There is some myth still that Dublin will be beaten at midfield. Well...…. Get Fenton to wear diver's boots? In the interest of fairness.

    No it wasn't it was to stop these stupid 5 yard sideways/backwards kickouts which lead to an attempt to handpass the ball the whole length of the field.Lots of other keepers apart from Cluxton used to have those very short kickouts. The rule didn't go far enough it should have insisted on all kickouts going past the 45.

    You've showed exactly the problem with the GAA in regard to changes.

    Everytime a rule change is proposed people circle the wagons and claim it's to stop them , Mickey Harte always used to whine whenever talk of the sin bin being introduced or when the mark as brought in purely because it didn't suit the way his own team played.


  • Registered Users Posts: 67,141 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    More reason why we need GAA referees locked in a room for a few weeks. :(

    https://www.sportsjoe.ie/gaa/monaghan-kerry-rule-gaa-169562


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 26,658 ✭✭✭✭OldMrBrennan83


    This post has been deleted.


  • Registered Users Posts: 67,141 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Patww79 wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    The goal came off it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 26,658 ✭✭✭✭OldMrBrennan83


    This post has been deleted.


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,225 ✭✭✭✭Bass Reeves


    It is hard to know what changes to make. Any change regarding limiting number of hand passes will continuue to encourage blanket defences. Introducing players zones ( where defenders and attackers have to stay in certain area's) will limit attacking play and you would never see attacking wing backs.

    Only allowing a forward leave his attcking zone if a defender goes beyond midfield and only one/one. However I do not think it would work. As well any solution has to be transferable to the club game and single ref with no umpires and sideline officials.

    The kick out change was not radical enough , maybe it should have been kicked out beyond the '45 and limit the number of players within that zone to 4 from each side and defenders and attackers have to be in there play zones ( no loading the defence for kickout). But it would be relatively hard to ref at club level.

    But it really comes back to limiting the hand pass but how you do it without giving total advantage to defenders. Do you limit the number of players in any half of the pitch at any time to a maximum 9 outfield players at any stage. Introduce a mark like in Australian rules but thsi would turn the game into a free taking competition.

    Slava Ukrainii



  • Registered Users Posts: 24,295 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    More reason why we need GAA referees locked in a room for a few weeks. :(

    https://www.sportsjoe.ie/gaa/monaghan-kerry-rule-gaa-169562

    That video of Canavan is a dubious example surely.. Canavan never truly had controlled possession of the ball.

    I would have thought for a rule like that to apply - possession must mean two hands on the ball at some time before falling over?

    Maybe not.


  • Registered Users Posts: 24,295 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    It is hard to know what changes to make. Any change regarding limiting number of hand passes will continuue to encourage blanket defences. Introducing players zones ( where defenders and attackers have to stay in certain area's) will limit attacking play and you would never see attacking wing backs.

    Only allowing a forward leave his attcking zone if a defender goes beyond midfield and only one/one. However I do not think it would work. As well any solution has to be transferable to the club game and single ref with no umpires and sideline officials.

    The kick out change was not radical enough , maybe it should have been kicked out beyond the '45 and limit the number of players within that zone to 4 from each side and defenders and attackers have to be in there play zones ( no loading the defence for kickout). But it would be relatively hard to ref at club level.

    But it really comes back to limiting the hand pass but how you do it without giving total advantage to defenders. Do you limit the number of players in any half of the pitch at any time to a maximum 9 outfield players at any stage. Introduce a mark like in Australian rules but thsi would turn the game into a free taking competition.

    The mark has been introduced on kick outs


  • Registered Users Posts: 67,141 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    lawred2 wrote: »
    That video of Canavan is a dubious example surely.. Canavan never truly had controlled possession of the ball.

    I would have thought for a rule like that to apply - possession must mean two hands on the ball at some time before falling over?

    Maybe not.

    Walsh had full control of the ball (he was carrying along the line) though and dropped it as he fell.

    Just another rule were some consistency/knowledge would be good. In truth it was the difference between a 4 point lead and a draw.


  • Registered Users Posts: 24,295 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    Walsh had full control of the ball (he was carrying along the line) though and dropped it as he fell.

    Just another rule were some consistency/knowledge would be good. In truth it was the difference between a 4 point lead and a draw.

    bad call then


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,225 ✭✭✭✭Bass Reeves


    lawred2 wrote: »
    The mark has been introduced on kick outs

    Yes but only for kickouts should we have it similar to Aussie rules where it is also in use through out the pitch

    Slava Ukrainii



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 67,141 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Yes but only for kickouts should we have it similar to Aussie rules where it is also in use through out the pitch

    Effectively you would be giving a free kick on goal for catching the ball once they come in range of the goal.
    I don't think that would aid the game at all to be honest.


Advertisement