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
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Improving Football

  • 13-09-2018 4:02pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 4,073 ✭✭✭


    I saw a suggestion from a former player advocating that the number of players be reduced to 13. I am in agreement with this suggestion.

    The Forum on Spirituality has been closed for years. Please bring it back, there are lots of Spiritual people in Ireland and elsewhere.



«1

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 4,073 ✭✭✭Xenophile


    I suggest that all hand passes must go forward. Unless the ball is clearly seen to go forward a free kick is to be awarded to the opposing team.

    The Forum on Spirituality has been closed for years. Please bring it back, there are lots of Spiritual people in Ireland and elsewhere.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,406 ✭✭✭stooge


    make the pitch narrower. keep the length

    or ban handpassing altogether


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,642 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    stooge wrote: »
    make the pitch narrower. keep the length

    or ban handpassing altogether


    If you make the pitch narrower, you help the defensive teams.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,457 ✭✭✭tritium


    Minimum of four players in the opposition half at all times


  • Registered Users Posts: 823 ✭✭✭MattressRick


    I've seen the 13 a side thing recommended by some ex county players but Dublin will still handpass the ball to death if they need to get through 11 men back inside a 45 yard line.

    Would eliminating the bounce and making players only solo help? Players always use the bounce after they break through tackles. Only allowing solos would make it a bit easier to dispossess. Would free up the game a bit. Hurling has a good few turnovers, players have to solo on the stick and the balls there to be flicked away, this allows more end to end stuff.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    You need to to either encourage the attack or depower the defense.

    One option would be to make the goals wider so attacking teams can shoot from tighter angles
    This would in turn force defenses to attempt to win the ball rather than just sitting back.

    The option of having to have 4 players in the opposite half would only work if it's only applied to the defending side otherwise you'll just have 10 v 10 and the same problem as now.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,832 ✭✭✭Fann Linn


    You need to to either encourage the attack or depower the defense.

    One option would be to make the goals wider so attacking teams can shoot from tighter angles
    This would in turn force defenses to attempt to win the ball rather than just sitting back.

    The option of having to have 4 players in the opposite half would only work if it's only applied to the defending side otherwise you'll just have 10 v 10 and the same problem as now.

    This Dublin team have no problem scoring as the current stats attest. The average score by Dublin in 2018 was 27.5 points per game as opposed to 25.7 ppg in 2017 as opposed to 20.9 ppg in 2016.
    Widening the goals might just give Dublin a slight advantage over everyone else😊😊😊


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,725 ✭✭✭StupidLikeAFox


    The demise of football is greatly exagerrated


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    Fann Linn wrote: »
    This Dublin team have no problem scoring as the current stats attest. The average score by Dublin in 2018 was 27.5 points per game as opposed to 25.7 ppg in 2017 as opposed to 20.9 ppg in 2016.
    Widening the goals might just give Dublin a slight advantage over everyone else😊😊😊

    What does that stat look like if you exclude Leinster?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 850 ✭✭✭Agus


    You need to to either encourage the attack or depower the defense.

    One option would be to make the goals wider so attacking teams can shoot from tighter angles
    This would in turn force defenses to attempt to win the ball rather than just sitting back.

    The option of having to have 4 players in the opposite half would only work if it's only applied to the defending side otherwise you'll just have 10 v 10 and the same problem as now.


    Your description of "10 v 10" would still make it a lot easier for the attacking team because it leaves much more space than if 14 or 15 of the defending team are in their own half covvering the space. Field lacrosse has an "offside" rule llimiting the number of players that can be in each half and it seems to work. If a similar proposal is ever tried in football to see if it's actually workable and possible to officiate, you'd probably need to have both the attacking and the defending teams having designated backs and forwards (clearly marked with different jerseys like the goalkeeper) who must stay within their area of the field.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,979 ✭✭✭Paulzx


    Reducing to 13 a side is not the answer. A full GAA pitch is easily big enough to accommadate 30 players.

    The problem arises when a team wishes to place all of their players in a third of the pitch and their only priority is to stop the other team playing while having minimal ambition to actually play themsleves.

    This needs to be the starting point for any rule tweaks.

    What can be done to make crowding all your players in your own half of no tactical benefit?

    I don't have a defintive answer to this but if a solution is found it will open the game up again irrespective of whether you hand pass or not


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,967 ✭✭✭✭The Lost Sheep


    Xenophile wrote: »
    I saw a suggestion from a former player advocating that the number of players be reduced to 13. I am in agreement with this suggestion.
    I think you need to do more than just reduce playing numbers. Their may be more space but teams will play same way. To improve things you need to tweak the rules of the game
    stooge wrote: »
    make the pitch narrower. keep the length

    or ban handpassing altogether
    As already said making the pitch narrower makes defences stronger and the defensive focused teams far stronger.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,399 ✭✭✭✭ThunbergsAreGo


    The demise of football is greatly exagerrated

    Exactly, teams becoming smarter and more tactically aware should not necessitate a rule change especially those which only seem to aid a defensive mindset


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,909 ✭✭✭Coillte_Bhoy


    I think it would be next to impossible to officiate the 4 players in the half suggestion


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,399 ✭✭✭✭ThunbergsAreGo


    I think it would be next to impossible to officiate the 4 players in the half suggestion

    Is there any other sport that does it?


  • Registered Users Posts: 37 fieldofsheep


    My own suggestion would be to really tighten up the rules around the mechanics of the handpass - I'd ban open hand passes (fist pass only), and police the motion of the hand holding the ball to prevent the 'throw' style pass.
    Going further, I'd even stipulate that the ball has to be in the air to hand pass, similar to hurling - you can't hand pass the ball with it resting in the palm of your non-striking hand!


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,074 ✭✭✭LoughNeagh2017


    Minors used to play 13 a side in some club leagues


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,441 ✭✭✭Felexicon


    My own suggestion would be to really tighten up the rules around the mechanics of the handpass - I'd ban open hand passes (fist pass only), and police the motion of the hand holding the ball to prevent the 'throw' style pass.
    Going further, I'd even stipulate that the ball has to be in the air to hand pass, similar to hurling - you can't hand pass the ball with it resting in the palm of your non-striking hand!

    I curious as to how this would improve the game?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,832 ✭✭✭Fann Linn


    Felexicon wrote: »
    I curious as to how this would improve the game?


    It wouldn't. People are just pulling crazy ideas outta the air now. And trying to turn football into hurling at the same time.
    Mad Ted.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,832 ✭✭✭Fann Linn


    I think you need to do more than just reduce playing numbers. Their may be more space but teams will play same way. To improve things you need to tweak the rules of the game

    As already said making the pitch narrower makes defences stronger and the defensive focused teams far stronger.

    When Tyrone narrowed the pitch in Omagh, Jim Gavin stated that it just brought his forwards nearer to the goal.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,457 ✭✭✭FastFullBack


    Been watching AFL the last few weeks and really like the mark. It really promotes 2 of the best facets of the game;kicking and high fielding.

    It could be something the GAA look at for football. After the mark you have 5 seconds to kick so it really shouldn’t slow the game down. It would really promote kicking which would reduce hand passing. It would also bring lots more high fielding into the game. Could it work?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,952 ✭✭✭✭Stoner


    It could be something the GAA look at for football. After the mark you have 5 seconds to kick so it really shouldn’t slow the game down. It would really promote kicking which would reduce hand passing. It would also bring lots more high fielding into the game. Could it work?

    There is already a mark from kickouts. It's been good, brought fielding back.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,457 ✭✭✭FastFullBack


    Stoner wrote: »
    There is already a mark from kickouts. It's been good, brought fielding back.

    Was that there in championship this year?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,967 ✭✭✭✭The Lost Sheep


    Was that there in championship this year?
    Yes and has been for few years


  • Registered Users Posts: 823 ✭✭✭MattressRick


    Stoner wrote: »
    There is already a mark from kickouts. It's been good, brought fielding back.

    What about all over the field?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,967 ✭✭✭✭The Lost Sheep


    Stoner wrote: »
    There is already a mark from kickouts. It's been good, brought fielding back.
    Its been good but should be able to call a mark all over the pitch not just from kick offs.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,457 ✭✭✭FastFullBack


    Its been good but should be able to call a mark all over the pitch not just from kick offs.

    Ya I think all over the field should be looked at. It would be a radical change so will take time. But you can really see in AFL it promotes good accurate 20-30 foot passes. And obviously lots of great high fielding. Who wouldn't want this in football.

    I've heard there is talk of potentially trialling a mark inside the 21 if it's kicked from outside the 45, this is a start but really only promotes the Kieran donaghy style of football


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,909 ✭✭✭Coillte_Bhoy


    naughtb4 wrote: »
    Is there any other sport that does it?

    Don't know tbh, but gaelic football is so difficult to referee anyway that adding this to the refs responsibilities would be crazy imo


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,496 ✭✭✭✭bucketybuck


    To the best of my knowledge the tackle in GAA football is defined by the fact that you are supposed to tackle the ball, not the man. Block the ball, knock the ball out of the attackers hands, intercept the ball etc etc. Instead, we get multiple men surrounding a player and effectively punching his arms and body until he gets done for overcarrying, or boxing the player in on all sides without once even trying to touch the ball.

    You would immediately improve the game a thousand fold simply by enforcing that law. The whistle should go every single time a defender grabs an arm, grabs a shirt, kneels down on or wraps his arms around a player who is prone.

    As it stands it is far too easy for a defender to drag the attackers down to their level, and as such it makes no sense for weaker teams with weaker players to try and play through it. If the tackle was properly enforced it would immediately encourage faster and more mobile attackers, and weaker counties would try to develop those types of players instead of turning to the grinding defensive tactics that are the only leveller they have.

    The GAA don't need to invent any new rules or change numbers or anything like that, they just need to enforce the rule they have.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,920 ✭✭✭freedominacup


    Change the football. Make it lighter. Make it easier for a defender to relieve pressure on his defence with a long clearance. Also increases the distance from which forwards can potentially score. Harder to mass defences over a bigger area.

    Rugby and soccer balls have changed utterly in the past 30 years but we sre still playing with the same ball that was used in the eighties.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,725 ✭✭✭StupidLikeAFox


    Change the football. Make it lighter.


    cup_champion_orange_1_.jpg


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,019 ✭✭✭TCDStudent1


    Its been good but should be able to call a mark all over the pitch not just from kick offs.

    I wouldn't be in favour of all over the field. You could see in international tukes that teams tend to hold onto the ball by giving easy passes to Mark when seeing out a match. The mark should be in the midfield zone from a kickout and full forward zone throughout the match. That gives a real incentive to deliver a long high ball into full forward.

    Parkinson had a very good podcast a couple of weeks ago where he discussed some options to improve football.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,967 ✭✭✭✭The Lost Sheep


    I wouldn't be in favour of all over the field. You could see in international tukes that teams tend to hold onto the ball by giving easy passes to Mark when seeing out a match. The mark should be in the midfield zone from a kickout and full forward zone throughout the match. That gives a real incentive to deliver a long high ball into full forward.

    Parkinson had a very good podcast a couple of weeks ago where he discussed some options to improve football.
    You dont have to stop play from a mark and if managed correctly you can get teams to simply play through it if they want. and why only 2 zones on the pitch when it should be the whole pitch as it rewards high fielding throughout the pitch as well as long accurate kick passing.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,019 ✭✭✭TCDStudent1


    You dont have to stop play from a mark and if managed correctly you can get teams to simply play through it if they want. and why only 2 zones on the pitch when it should be the whole pitch as it rewards high fielding throughout the pitch as well as long accurate kick passing.

    If you apply it across the whole pitch, you will get lads kicking a ball sideways 20 yards for an easy mark. This is common practice in International Rules (and AFL as well I guess) as a method to run down the clock.


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


    Disagree completely on the 13.

    Telling two kids at every age group in every club to sit down shouldn't be an option.



    _


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,073 ✭✭✭Xenophile


    Change the football. Make it lighter.

    About time we saw a few scores from volleys and headers.

    The Forum on Spirituality has been closed for years. Please bring it back, there are lots of Spiritual people in Ireland and elsewhere.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,212 ✭✭✭The_Honeybadger


    Would a mark inside the 21 not be a disadvantage to the attacking team if there is a clear goal chance on.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,967 ✭✭✭✭The Lost Sheep


    To the best of my knowledge the tackle in GAA football is defined by the fact that you are supposed to tackle the ball, not the man. Block the ball, knock the ball out of the attackers hands, intercept the ball etc etc. Instead, we get multiple men surrounding a player and effectively punching his arms and body until he gets done for overcarrying, or boxing the player in on all sides without once even trying to touch the ball.

    You would immediately improve the game a thousand fold simply by enforcing that law. The whistle should go every single time a defender grabs an arm, grabs a shirt, kneels down on or wraps his arms around a player who is prone.

    As it stands it is far too easy for a defender to drag the attackers down to their level, and as such it makes no sense for weaker teams with weaker players to try and play through it. If the tackle was properly enforced it would immediately encourage faster and more mobile attackers, and weaker counties would try to develop those types of players instead of turning to the grinding defensive tactics that are the only leveller they have.

    The GAA don't need to invent any new rules or change numbers or anything like that, they just need to enforce the rule they have.
    The tackle rule is a joke and a proper tackle needs to be put in place. You are supposed to play the ball/tackle the ball but that needs to change for things to really improve.
    Change the football. Make it lighter. Make it easier for a defender to relieve pressure on his defence with a long clearance. Also increases the distance from which forwards can potentially score. Harder to mass defences over a bigger area.

    Rugby and soccer balls have changed utterly in the past 30 years but we sre still playing with the same ball that was used in the eighties.
    Making the ball lighter isnt a good step forward.
    If you apply it across the whole pitch, you will get lads kicking a ball sideways 20 yards for an easy mark. This is common practice in International Rules (and AFL as well I guess) as a method to run down the clock.
    You might but you will also see plenty try longer kicks with the chance to have a free kick further up field. And having teams use it to run clock down is far better than all the pulling dragging etc we see and negative play already in the game
    Patww79 wrote: »
    Disagree completely on the 13.

    Telling two kids at every age group in every club to sit down shouldn't be an option.
    How many teams do you see with 20+ players and you can always provide enough games for all kids with correct competition structures
    mickeyk wrote: »
    Would a mark inside the 21 not be a disadvantage to the attacking team if there is a clear goal chance on.
    A player doesnt have to stop and take the mark they can simply play on so it doesnt have to be a disadvantage to attacking team


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



    How many teams do you see with 20+ players and you can always provide enough games for all kids with correct competition structures

    It's still two less. No matter what way it's spun, 15 to 13 is always going to be two less.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,967 ✭✭✭✭The Lost Sheep


    Patww79 wrote: »
    It's still two less. No matter what way it's spun, 15 to 13 is always going to be two less.
    It isnt and shouldnt be put in as simple terms of that. There will always be game time found for kids with proper structures in place and 15 a side isnt always better. You put in rotating subs(up to 10/12 per game) and all kids can get plenty of game time


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


    It isnt and shouldnt be put in as simple terms of that. There will always be game time found for kids with proper structures in place and 15 a side isnt always better. You put in rotating subs(up to 10/12 per game) and all kids can get plenty of game time

    It'll still be less time if only 13 are allowed on the pitch at the same time.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,642 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    You dont have to stop play from a mark and if managed correctly you can get teams to simply play through it if they want. and why only 2 zones on the pitch when it should be the whole pitch as it rewards high fielding throughout the pitch as well as long accurate kick passing.


    Why don't we add two extra posts like in International Rules as well?

    If people want to turn football into International Rules, go ahead, but I won't be watching it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,967 ✭✭✭✭The Lost Sheep


    blanch152 wrote: »
    Why don't we add two extra posts like in International Rules as well?

    If people want to turn football into International Rules, go ahead, but I won't be watching it.
    Not looking to turn gaelic into anything bar a much better sport to watch as well as easier to ref/manage. Current rule book and way game is played is terrible and needs to change


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 537 ✭✭✭Niles Crane


    Colm O'Rourke suggested in his Sindo piece this week that the first thing that should be done is to draw up a set of guiding principles for the sport so we get an idea first of exactly what we want the sport to be.

    Happen to think that's quite a good starting point.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,642 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Not looking to turn gaelic into anything bar a much better sport to watch as well as easier to ref/manage. Current rule book and way game is played is terrible and needs to change


    Game is much better now than in say 1980, when the football was awful.

    We had one of the highest scoring finals ever this year, what more do people want?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,832 ✭✭✭Fann Linn


    blanch152 wrote: »
    Game is much better now than in say 1980, when the football was awful.

    We had one of the highest scoring finals ever this year, what more do people want?

    Anyone bar Dublin winning I suppose.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,496 ✭✭✭✭bucketybuck


    blanch152 wrote: »
    Game is much better now than in say 1980, when the football was awful.

    We had one of the highest scoring finals ever this year, what more do people want?

    A game that a responsible parent would let their kids play, for a start.

    I'd take a modicum of respect given to club players ahead of any high scoring final.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,832 ✭✭✭Fann Linn


    A game that a responsible parent would let their kids play, for a start.

    I'd take a modicum of respect given to club players ahead of any high scoring final.

    Club games in Tyrone included?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,064 ✭✭✭sicknotexi


    If you're hand passed to then you can't hand pass.

    Can't punch the ball from your hand for a point.

    Can't score a goal with your hand.

    Black card system abolished


    Basically encourage a kicking game and not one so reliant on running.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,798 ✭✭✭Mr. Incognito


    A referee in each half for all games and instant replay decisions in the quarter finals onwards.

    Publishing and enforcing the rules and applying them consistently.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement