New Football Rules

kilns

Honestly who sits on these committees and comes up with these rules, nothing to counteract blanket defenses and stupid rules about having to play the ball forward from a side line among others

https://www.independent.ie/sport/gaelic-games/gaelic-football/restrictions-on-handpasses-sinbin-gaa-standing-committee-on-playing-rules-proposes-five-changes-for-gaelic-football-37377081.html

sheroman01

Does any other sport change their rules as frequently as the GAA? Every year or other there's changes. Why? It's a total dictatorship, "We don't like the way football is being played. Let's change the rules". It's taking so much innovation out of the game I think. Teams will find a way to outplay defensive football.

The new kick out rule is beyond ridiculous.

Trampas

Seems like we are anti possession.

What next a team has only 10 passes before shooting or kick it 30 yards

So running off someone’s shoulder could cause a free cause of a few hand passes.

Sin bin fine for black but two yellows should be red. If I read it properly.

Don’t mind the mark.

Define an attacking player? Just cause he wears 10-15?

Boom__Boom

Proposal (1)
Handpass

To introduce a restriction of three consecutive passes of the ball with the fist or open hand by players of the team in possession.

Proposal (2)
Sideline Kick

That the ball shall be played in a forward direction from the kick.

Exception:

In the case of a side-line kick being taken by an attacking player on or inside the opponents’ 13m line, the ball may be kicked in any direction.

Proposal (3)
The Mark

To extend the application of the Mark to the clean catching of the ball on or inside the 20m line from a kick delivered on or beyond the 45m line without it touching the ground.

In the case of a Mark being awarded to an attacking player on or inside the 20m line, the free, if availed of, shall be taken from the point on the 20m line directly in line where the Mark is awarded.

In the case of a Mark being awarded to a defending player on or inside the 20m line, the free kick, if availed of, shall be taken from the point where the Mark is awarded.

The application of the Mark in the two areas of it arising (i.e. as in current Rule and in new Proposal) shall be standardised as follows:

Up to 15 seconds shall be allowed for a free to be taken from a Mark.
If the Referee determines that the player who makes the Mark has been injured in the process and unable to take the kick, the Referee shall direct the player’s nearest team mate to take the kick.
A score may be made from a free awarded for a Mark.
The normal Rules governing free-kicks shall apply (e.g. players being 13m from the ball before it is kicked).
Exception:

A free-kick from a Mark shall be taken from the hand(s) only.

If a player opts to ‘play on’ when awarded a Mark, he may be challenged i.e. provisions (b) (i) and (ii) of the current Mark Rule shall not apply during the experimentation.

Proposal (4)
Sin-Bin

The Penalty on the day for a Black Card Infraction or two Yellow Card Infractions - an ordering off for ten minutes in a Sin Bin.

A subsequent Black Card Infraction shall be penalised by the showing of a Black Card followed by a Red Card.

A subsequent Yellow Card Infraction shall be penalised by the showing of a Yellow Card followed by a Red Card.

In either case there shall be no substitution allowed.

The maximum number of substitutions in normal time to return to five.

The Duties of a Referee and Sideline Official to be amended in accordance with this Proposal.

Proposal (5)
Kick-Out/Zoning

For a kick-out, two players only from each team shall be positioned between the two 45m lines.

The goalkeeper and a maximum of six players from each team shall be behind the respective 45m lines, until the ball is kicked.

The ball from the kick-out shall travel beyond the 45m line before being played by a player of the defending team.

Other Rules relating to the kick-out to remain unchanged.

Penalties:

(1) For another player on the team taking a kick-out to play the ball before it has travelled outside the 45m line or has been played by an opposing player.

Penalty:

(i) Cancel kick-out

(ii) Throw in the ball on defenders’ 20m line in front of the scoring space.

(2) For a player to cross a 45m line before the ball is kicked for the kick-out.

(3) For a player(s) to, in the opinion of the referee, deliberately seek to delay the kick-out by not retreating behind the 45m lines in a timely manner.

Penalty for the above Fouls:

A 45m free off the ground and in front of the scoring space shall be awarded to the opposing team.

(4) For a player(s) of each team to simultaneously cross the 45m line(s) before the ball is kicked from the kick-out:

Penalty:

A throw-in ball shall be awarded on the centre of the 45m line involved or at the centre of the field (if infringements are made on both 45m lines).

The proposed Sideline kick rule makes it much easier for the defending team and harder for the team in possession. Are sideline balls passed backwards really such a huge blight on the game?

Whenever a team gets penalised under this Sin Bin rule, they will do everything possible to slow down the pace of the game until they go back to their full complement of 15. The GAA seems to have a massive issue with punishing folk who act the maggot. This rule will make life even easier for persistent foulers/dirty/cynical players and mean they they spend more time on the pitch. If a player can't or won't follow the rules, then cheerio go away and take up another hobby.

That proposed new kickout rule seems to be a big change for an area that doesn't seem to especially need it - also refs will have great fun trying to enforce that. This would kill the quick kickout stone dead and would make the game slower and more stop-start, which is not what people want.

The new offensive mark is a bit of a head-scratcher - I think it might inhibit attacking play especially goals. If a long-ball is kicked up to a forward and he wins it cleanly in the air I think he's going to have far more incentive to take a tap over free as opposed to playing on and maybe getting a goal.

I very sceptical about the three handpass rule doing much to improve things, defending teams will have even more incentive to swarm players and bottle them up, attacking teams with a lead will have even less incentive to move the ball into areas where the blanket is set up.

No reason was given for the change back to 5 subs - you would think they would at least provide the reasoning behind this.

The fact that they are considering using the league to trial these is a worry - surely should have been the pre-league competitions first.
Also if they bring all these rules together it would be a fairly radical over all change to the game.
It should be the case that only one major rule change is trialled at a time in order to see exactly what affect it has.

I strongly suspect that some of these rules (the kick-out, the sin-bin, back to 5 subs) were proposed with the expectation that the GAA Management Committee would reject them as rubbish, thus making the rules that end up being trialled look less extreme.

Also the make-up of the committee looks fairly short on football folk, never mind any top football folk.

http://www.gaa.ie/football/news/experimental-rule-changes-proposed-for-gaelic-football/

The Standing Committee on Playing Rules is comprised of:

David Hassan (Chair),
Tracy Bunyan (Sec),
Pat Daly,
Seamus Kenny,
Brian Cuthbert,
Michael Delaney,
David Collins,
Alex McQuillen,
Frank Murphy.

theoneeyedman

Every game tweeks its rules. Look at soccer and rugby, they have both fundamentally changed over the years, eg soccer, back pass, offside, tackling vastly altered since I was younger.

Change is not to be feared in itself, and that's why I wouldn't mind seeing trials of many of these rules. Possession football is OK, but coaching etc, along with ignoring the 4step rule, means there are very few contests for possession left in the game, so I don't mind restricted handpasses. I read it 3 yellows =1 red? I'd prefer 2 as it is but maybe 3 if it's implemented correctly is OK (how often do you see a ref chicken out of sending a lad off for a second soft yellow?). The attacking mark is a pretty fundamental change, I'm OK with it, but I wouldn't allow 15 seconds to take the free.

OldMrBrennan83

Most of these are horrendous. There's not near as much wrong with football as people think anyway, they just listen to the heads on the Sunday Game too much.

Bonniedog

Kick out proposal is absurd. Four players between the 45s! The negative teams already pull everyone back inside their own 45 so it is awarding them. Most of other proposed changes also place a premium on getting men behind the ball and penalising adventurous teams. They won't be happy until some sh1te team beats Dublin or Mayo or Kerry 0 - 3 to 0 - 2.

corny

The 3 hand pass proposal hasn't been thought through at all. It indirectly incentivises mass defence.

Quick handpassing in the attacking quarter is the only way to score against very defensive teams (that i've seen anyway). Take that away and and how do you score? I'd question the sanity of any individual who thinks kicking the ball in works against the blanket defence. Carrying the ball into traffic doesn't work either. Even the strongest carriers get isolated and turned over.

Every team will get 15 behind the ball with no exceptions because they know it will work.

Trampas

Is the quick kick out gone while the keeper waits till the correct number of players are within the area?

The high horse brigade

I'm happy with the sin bin proposal over the black card. Two yellows should be red though

LeinsterDub

Why does the GAA trial at intercounty level first. Rugby for example will start with some unimportant underage competition and work up

blanch152

The most ridiculous set of rule changes I have ever seen.

Every kick-out will be delayed by minutes until the players have resumed position. Referee will have to check all players in position before kick-out can be taken. If you have just scored a point to take the lead after 68 minutes, you will take at least another minute, if not two, to funnel back and take your place so that the other team doesn't get a chance to attack. Stupid.

The attacking mark means that there will be very few scores from play. Attacking teams will look to find a man in space or with a chance of catching so that he can have a free kick at goal rather than a kick under pressure which requires more skill.

Donegal and Tyrone will pack 15 men into their own 45 and swarm the man who gets the third handpass. Victory for packed defences.

Expect to see a game won by 0-6 to 0-4, with 7 of the 10 points from marks, two from frees and one from play. Imagine that, a whole game with one point from play. You think football is bad now, these rules would have to be abandoned after one round of the league.

Seriously, what sort of eejit dreamed them up.

Only two rule changes necessary - 13-a-side and two men inside the opposition 45 at all times. That will give plenty of space on the pitch for attacking play.

The Lost Sheep

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Why does the GAA trial at intercounty level first. Rugby for example will start with some unimportant underage competition and work up

Possibly easier and rugby doesnt always start with underage or unimportant competitions to trial laws.

The Lost Sheep

blanch152 wrote: »

The most ridiculous set of rule changes I have ever seen.

Every kick-out will be delayed by minutes until the players have resumed position. Referee will have to check all players in position before kick-out can be taken. If you have just scored a point to take the lead after 68 minutes, you will take at least another minute, if not two, to funnel back and take your place so that the other team doesn't get a chance to attack. Stupid.

The attacking mark means that there will be very few scores from play. Attacking teams will look to find a man in space or with a chance of catching so that he can have a free kick at goal rather than a kick under pressure which requires more skill.

Donegal and Tyrone will pack 15 men into their own 45 and swarm the man who gets the third handpass. Victory for packed defences.

Expect to see a game won by 0-6 to 0-4, with 7 of the 10 points from marks, two from frees and one from play. Imagine that, a whole game with one point from play. You think football is bad now, these rules would have to be abandoned after one round of the league.

Seriously, what sort of eejit dreamed them up.

Only two rule changes necessary - 13-a-side and two men inside the opposition 45 at all times. That will give plenty of space on the pitch for attacking play.

You dont have to take a mark and many will play through it in time.
And 13 a side isnt necessary with other changes like these.
2 men inside opposition 45 isnt needed but a better defined tackle/deposing players of possession is.

blanch152

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

You dont have to take a mark and many will play through it in time.
And 13 a side isnt necessary with other changes like these.
2 men inside opposition 45 isnt needed but a better defined tackle/deposing players of possession is.

These changes will slow the game down and ruin the spectacle. Set piece kick-outs like in rugby and kicking for territory like in rugby will slow everything down.

More scores from marks and frees than from play. They will completely ruin the game.

Boom__Boom

Gaelic Football experimental rule change proposals to be trialled in coming weeks
Wednesday 3 October 2018

By John Harrington

The GAA’S Standing Committee on the Playing Rules (SCPR) yesterday issued a list of proposed experimental rule changes for Gaelic Football.

A detailed explanation of the five proposed rule changes can be read here.

GAA.ie today spoke to the SCPR’s Chairman, David Hassan, about the thinking behind the proposed rule changes and the consultation and trialling process that will now take place over the coming weeks.

Q: What was the over-arching philosophy behind these proposed rule changes from the GAA’S Standing Committee on the Playing Rules?

A: The committee has an obligation to bring forward for the attention of the Association the rule amendments and adaptations that it feels would be beneficial for the games, both football and hurling.

It has that obligation so that's why on this occasion we've issued these proposals for consultation and we've set aside the month of October for that.

There are five proposals there, one relating to the sin-bin. The other four do have common principals.

That is to try to incentivise the kicking of the ball and the catching of the ball and generally movement of the ball from a player's possession. That's where the hand-pass is coming from, that is where the mark is coming from.

And also even something like the kick-out. I think what the kick-out will do, identifying that middle section of the pitch, is to create room for the players who want to catch the ball above the head in the traditional format and also for goalkeepers, as they have been doing for the past couple of seasons, to use the wings in a way that is more creative for the team to launch attacks.

There are common principals and we're trying to promote the core skills of the game and incentivise teams to use them.

Q: What sort of consultation and trialling process will take place in the coming weeks with these proposed rule changes?

A: Over the course of the whole month of October we're going to be carrying out probably the most comprehensive survey in living memory of people's attitudes towards the rules, and, by extension, the game of Gaelic Football.

What we're doing is we're surveying every senior inter-county manager and where there isn't an appointment we're sending the survey to the county secretary.

Through the offices of the GPA we're surveying a very large number of senior inter-county footballers to ascertain their views.

And we're also speaking to referees. I should also say, because the focus might be seen to be on the inter-county scene, we'll also be establishing focus groups in all four provinces to relay the views of club members even though those rules are only going to be trialled at inter-county level.


Q: What teams will road-test the proposed rule changes in the coming weeks?

A: Univeristies, mostly in Dublin, but we're also looking at opportunities outside Dublin, have been very good at facilitating matches throughout the month of October.

We'll be establishing tournament style football that will see a number of games being played under this format.

We're anticipating somewhere between 10 and 15 games being played. That will allow us to actually see these rules in action and see what patterns of play develop both consciously and non-consciously.

We think that that sort of number will allow us to get a good sense of how they're being implemented by, not just players, but also referees.

Q: There was quite a lot of doubt about the introduction of the mark rule in 2017 but most would now agree it has been a positive addition. Would you be encouraging people to suspend judgement on these proposals until they see how well or otherwise they work in a live game environment?

A: Absolutely. Inevitably some people don't want to see any change in the game. Some people don't want to see this type of change.

But then there's a considerable body of opinion that says, almost without exception, that these are the proposals that people have been speaking about for some considerable time.

So what we're saying now is that we've refined the proposals and worded them in a way that we think can be implemented both at inter-county and club level and now we want to hear what people have got to say about them.

At this point of the process in October we're really just exercising a wide-spread survey, we're gathering in people's views. We'll consider those views and we'll look at the proposals on an individual one by one basis, and its at that point that the final refinement will take place and we'll put them through to Coiste Bainistí.

It is really about the committee exercising a conduit role between a popular view and the decision making body.

Q: Will all these proposals be trialled in the Allianz Football League next year in their current form or will the trial matches this month have a bearing on that?

A: Certainly from the committee's point of view that's the basis on which we put the proposals forward. But if in this consulation period during October there was absolute widespread opposition to any one of these and that became clear by the final meeting of the committee in November then clearly we have a duty to advise Coiste Bainistí of that opposition.

But it would be our view that we've considered a large body of research underpinning these proposals and we wouldn't really be putting them in the public domain if we didn't think they were worthy of experimentation in the League.

Q: What's your reponse to people who will say these proposals are a reaction to Dublin's current dominance of the senior inter-county game and are designed to dilute some specific strengths of this Dublin team?

A: The reality is that Dublin's or any other county's style of play was not considered by the committee. Now, we watched a lot of footage, obviously, in trying to establish patterns of play and so on and so forth.

There was certainly never an intention to consider any particular individual style of play demonstrated by any team.

The consideration was always the aggregate, or helicopter type view of where the game was at in general terms. So there was never an intention to consider any individual team, and certainly not Dublin.

Q: What was the thinking behind the Sin Bin proposal?

A: There certainly has been a view held at large that the principal underpinning the black-card or indeed the two yellow-cards was sound. It was just what the outcome of that process was.

So there was two sides to that coin. Firstly, that if a player recieved a black-card then quite a number of teams had an equally good player to come back onto the field of play so there was no obvious, immediate on the day type penalty.

So we wanted to look at that and what it meant in reality. We know on average that the figures would indicate about one black card is issued per game. I think suggestion the sin-bin might lead to a whole series of players being on sideline is exaggerated as well.

I think the reality is, based on the use of the black card at least, that we might see on average about one sin-binning a match. I think people would agree that's no major imposition on how the game is played.

Q: Are you looking forward to seeing how these rule proposals work in a live game scenario?

A: Oh, yeah. The consultation will be really valuable and our deliberations and proposals are valuable as well, but the ultimate test will be what it will look like when 15 players play 15 players.

How does that impact on the pattern of the game? Etcetera, etcetera. So, yeah, we're looking forward to the experimentation, and when we have the results of that experimenation alongside the consultation we'll have the final body of evidence that will allow us to make the recommendation to Coiste Bainistí with confidence.

http://www.gaa.ie/football/news/gaelic-football-experimental-rule-change-proposals-to-be-trialled-in-coming-week/

Not exactly the most convincing stuff put forward here.

Euphoriasean

Can't really see anything but the sin bin being approved which I think will be good for the game. Should mean no more mass pull downs in the last 10 minutes.

The rest are absurd. They will only slow down the game down and assist the defending team.

Bonniedog

The reality is that Dublin's or any other county's style of play was not considered by the committee.

We believe you. Thousands would not …….

LeinsterDub

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Possibly easier and rugby doesnt always start with underage or unimportant competitions to trial laws.

What recent law changes where trialed at underage level? The only ones I can think of are were there is a clear safety issue.

Water John

The reps from Cork on the committee, might focus their energies on the present state of football in their own county.

The Lost Sheep

LeinsterDub wrote: »

What recent law changes where trialed at underage level? The only ones I can think of are were there is a clear safety issue.

There were closed trials at Oceania u20 championship at different times.

corny

Ciaran Kilkenny is ****ed anyway. He'll actually have to kick the ball now.:D

Amprodude

seeing Brian Cuthbert and Frank Murphy involved with the rule changes. no wonder they are silly rule changes.

LeinsterDub

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

There were closed trials at Oceania u20 championship at different times.

Which is an underage championship

The Lost Sheep

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Which is an underage championship

There were others as well. Go back to 2007 and all the ELV's and there were loads of levels in which rules were trialled and theres been others trialled in Stellenbosch since.

Niles Crane

Bonniedog wrote: »

The reality is that Dublin's or any other county's style of play was not considered by the committee.

We believe you. Thousands would not …….

The paranoia from supposed Dublins fans like yourself is pathetic.

The game needs to change whether people like it or not, we have much more of the turgid football we've witnessed ths decade and you'll turn more than one generation off the game for life.

Thinsg need to change whether you want to accept it or not.

Bonniedog

(a) I have been following and playing hurling and football in Dublin for well over 40 years. So less of the "supposed."


(b) I do not fathom how you blame Dublin on the turgidity of the game as played by lesser counties. Who in the most part have always been lesser and negatively inclined counties. From that I would currently exclude Mayo, Kerry and to a lesser extent Galway and Kildare.


(c) the proposed changes, as with previous ones, have been clearly directed at Dublin and other teams who play positively, and ALL of which including latest proposals are aimed at slowing the game down and placing the premium on ultra defensive tactics.

kilns

These rules will play more into the hand of the defensive teams rather than the more offensive minded teams.  I think everyone would agree the reason why football sometimes is not a great spectator sport anymore is because of the blanket defence.  Yet they have done nothing to address this.  Instead some of the rules are specifically aimed at some of Dublins strengths.  You are not going to make the game better by handicapping Dublin, it will only get better when the bigger issue is addressed.  I cannot understand why they have not even proposed a rule to counteract the blanket defence

Pete_Cavan

Why do people think the proposed rule changes will suit blanket defences? For every kick out, both teams have to return to a more orthodox six backs, two midfielders, six forwards formation. The ball will be sailing over the heads of the six backs and forwards at the kick out end.

Assuming players run to between the 45s looking for breaks after the ball is kicked, any clean possession will mean something like a 4 v 4 at each end of the pitch. There wont be time for a blanket to form initially (unless your defenders sacrifice looking for breaks to stay within the 45 or your forwards sprint back to your 45 and hope to be there before the ball is delivered, both of which seem very risky as you are at a disadvantage in winning possession).

Constantly having to get six players inside each 45 would mean players having to expend a lot more energy when the ball is out of play then has been the case which doesn't suit a blanket defence.

kilns

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Why do people think the proposed rule changes will suit blanket defences? For every kick out, both teams have to return to a more orthodox six backs, two midfielders, six forwards formation. The ball will be sailing over the heads of the six backs and forwards at the kick out end.

Assuming players run to between the 45s looking for breaks after the ball is kicked, any clean possession will mean something like a 4 v 4 at each end of the pitch. There wont be time for a blanket to form initially (unless your defenders sacrifice looking for breaks to stay within the 45 or your forwards sprint back to your 45 and hope to be there before the ball is delivered, both of which seem very risky as you are at a disadvantage in winning possession).

Constantly having to get six players inside each 45 would mean players having to expend a lot more energy when the ball is out of play then has been the case which doesn't suit a blanket defence.

Do you honestly think blanket defensive teams will not sprint back behind the ball as soon as a kick out is kicked.  The absolutely stupid rule of a side line kick must go forward totally plays into a blanket defense as they know the ball must come forward to that area, they did not address the bigger issue which is stopping teams getting 13/14 /15 men behind the ball

Pete_Cavan

kilns wrote: »

Do you honestly think blanket defensive teams will not sprint back behind the ball as soon as a kick out is kicked.  The absolutely stupid rule of a side line kick must go forward totally plays into a blanket defense as they know the ball must come forward to that area, they did not address the bigger issue which is stopping teams getting 13/14 /15 men behind the ball

I think being forced to get 8 of your players out of your own 45 will disrupt blanket defenses. What would you do to address it?

I am not saying that the proposed changes are perfect but I don't see any logic in the claims that they do nothing to address blanket defenses. What are these claims based on?

kilns

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

kilns wrote: »

Do you honestly think blanket defensive teams will not sprint back behind the ball as soon as a kick out is kicked.  The absolutely stupid rule of a side line kick must go forward totally plays into a blanket defense as they know the ball must come forward to that area, they did not address the bigger issue which is stopping teams getting 13/14 /15 men behind the ball

I think being forced to get 8 of your players out of your own 45 will disrupt blanket defenses. What would you do to address it?

I am not saying that the proposed changes are perfect but I don't see any logic in the claims that they do nothing to address blanket defenses. What are these claims based on?

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

kilns wrote: »

Do you honestly think blanket defensive teams will not sprint back behind the ball as soon as a kick out is kicked.  The absolutely stupid rule of a side line kick must go forward totally plays into a blanket defense as they know the ball must come forward to that area, they did not address the bigger issue which is stopping teams getting 13/14 /15 men behind the ball

I think being forced to get 8 of your players out of your own 45 will disrupt blanket defenses. What would you do to address it?

I am not saying that the proposed changes are perfect but I don't see any logic in the claims that they do nothing to address blanket defenses. What are these claims based on?

As I said, as soon as a kickout has been taken, blanket defence minded teams will sprint back behind the ball, you will have the farce of the players retreating back to the 45 line to cover the middle 3rd and they will concede the short kicks anyway and then retreat to their own half. Nothing will change
Where is the rule to maintain certain numbers in the opposition half at all times etc? the rules are very short sighted and will not have a positive effect on the game whatsoever but what else do you expect with people like Frank Murphy on the committee, why not have people who are currently involved in the game instead of a committee made up of mostly administrators

blanch152

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Why do people think the proposed rule changes will suit blanket defences? For every kick out, both teams have to return to a more orthodox six backs, two midfielders, six forwards formation. The ball will be sailing over the heads of the six backs and forwards at the kick out end.

Assuming players run to between the 45s looking for breaks after the ball is kicked, any clean possession will mean something like a 4 v 4 at each end of the pitch. There wont be time for a blanket to form initially (unless your defenders sacrifice looking for breaks to stay within the 45 or your forwards sprint back to your 45 and hope to be there before the ball is delivered, both of which seem very risky as you are at a disadvantage in winning possession).

Constantly having to get six players inside each 45 would mean players having to expend a lot more energy when the ball is out of play then has been the case which doesn't suit a blanket defence.

Firstly, there is no restriction in the proposed rules on the time it would take for each time to resume their position for a kick-out. At the moment, Cluxton and other specialist keepers can take their kick-outs within eleven seconds of the ball going out of play. The advantage of this is that they can get a quick attack going and create a score. The point by Kilkenny just before the first goal in the All-Ireland final is a clear example of this. A pin-point kick-out by Cluxton to McCaffrey who carried the ball into the opposition 45 before two offloads later it is over the bar. Pure quality football that would just not be possible in future because the defences would be set and creating an overlap with a free man not possible.

Secondly, this restriction on kick-outs will slow the game down. Instead of a kick-out taking 11 seconds, it could be up to a minute and a half before a kick-out is taking. Far from constantly meaning getting six players back into the 45 expending energy, the longer breaks in play and the slow trudge back into position will conserve energy and suit the defensive teams.

Thirdly, defensive teams will position 4 or 5 forwards on the opposition 45-metre line ready to run back into defensive mode and/or disrupt ball-winning at midfield.

Fourthly, defensive teams on attack will hold the ball around midfield waiting for an opportunity for a mark inside. they will have plenty of men back so that they can kick and handpass the ball back to. The end result will be less scores, but more scores from free kicks/marks. Hardly a spectacle. It will also be more slowing down of the play. A team winning a game won't be in any hurry to take a mark.

Fifthly, the handpass restrictions will make it impossible to get around a defensive team. As the set-piece kick-outs will facilitate teams getting back into defensive formations and getting a breather, the handpass restrictions will make beating that defence even more difficult, other than playing for the mark, which as pointed out above makes for a boring stop-start game.

Sixthly, the rules will turn the game into a slowed down version of International Rules with all of the flaws of international rules, but none of the benefits or excitement. If these rules get past the Management Committee, I can't see them lasting longer than three or four rounds of the league as people won't watch it.

Niles Crane

Bonniedog wrote: »

(a) I have been following and playing hurling and football in Dublin for well over 40 years. So less of the "supposed."


(b) I do not fathom how you blame Dublin on the turgidity of the game as played by lesser counties. Who in the most part have always been lesser and negatively inclined counties. From that I would currently exclude Mayo, Kerry and to a lesser extent Galway and Kildare.


(c) the proposed changes, as with previous ones, have been clearly directed at Dublin and other teams who play positively, and ALL of which including latest proposals are aimed at slowing the game down and placing the premium on ultra defensive tactics.

The rule changes are not being brought in to stop Dublin.It's as simple as that.

They may not be good suggestions and I don't think they've been thought through properly yet and haven't a hope of getting past congress but they are not being brought in to stop Dublin.

corny

Niles Crane wrote: »

The rule changes are not being brought in to stop Dublin.It's as simple as that.

They may not be good suggestions and I don't think they've been thought through properly yet and haven't a hope of getting past congress but they are not being brought in to stop Dublin.

Its easy to just swat away anti Dublin claims as paranoia but when you really think about its possible these rules are designed to level the field.

Right back to Pat Spillanes Puke football rant people have been complaining about defensive football and whats its doing to the spectacle. The GAA never intervened. Then McGuinness came along and really upped the anti. I sat through an 8-6 All Ireland semi final in 2011 but again the GAA never acted. 15 men behind the ball was tolerated.

Now Dublin score 20+ points in almost every game and are leading the way in showing the country how to overcome the blanket defence. So much so even Mickey Harte abandoned it against them. Yet curiously its only NOW that we need to act to save the game and the spectacle! And how do we save the game? Stop the the ultra defensive teams and making attacking easier? No. Make sure no one scores by moving the ball through the hands (the only way to score against the massed defence) and slow down the kickout. Genius stuff like.

Its not fuelled by bigotry though. The biggest threat to the GAA margins is not the spectacle. Its Dublin making a mockery of the competition and winning every year. We'll all get tired of that eventually. Given that, i'm prepared to believe these rules changes are an attempt to chip away at Dublins strengths and level it up. Its either that or the people who dreamt them up have gone mad because there's no way any sane person thinks these changes as a whole will improve the game.

Niles Crane

corny wrote: »

Its easy to just swat away anti Dublin claims as paranoia but when you really think about its possible these rules are designed to level the field.

Right back to Pat Spillanes Puke football rant people have been complaining about defensive football and whats its doing to the spectacle. The GAA never intervened. Then McGuinness came along and really upped the anti. I sat through an 8-6 All Ireland semi final in 2011 but again the GAA never acted. 15 men behind the ball was tolerated.

Now Dublin score 20+ points in almost every game and are leading the way in showing the country how to overcome the blanket defence. So much so even Mickey Harte abandoned it against them. Yet curiously its only NOW that we need to act to save the game and the spectacle! And how do we save the game? Stop the the ultra defensive teams and making attacking easier? No. Make sure no one scores by moving the ball through the hands (the only way to score against the massed defence) and slow down the kickout. Genius stuff like.

Its not fuelled by bigotry though. The biggest threat to the GAA margins is not the spectacle. Its Dublin making a mockery of the competition and winning every year. We'll all get tired of that eventually. Given that, i'm prepared to believe these rules changes are an attempt to chip away at Dublins strengths and level it up. Its either that or the people who dreamt them up have gone mad because there's no way any sane person thinks these changes as a whole will improve the game.

People have been complaining about football and the blanket defence for over a decade.

All the issues with the rules pre date Dublins arrival as All Ireland champions, sure the GAA did the very best it could to try and help Dublin rise up to where they are as it's good for the GAA for Dublin to be strong.

If you did a poll of football fans and asked them the following 3 questions
Do you want more kickpassing and less handpassing
Do you want more of a contest for the ball
Do you want more high fielding from kickouts.

The answers to them by 90% or more of fans would be yes

These rule change suggestions seem to be trying to increase the kickpassing,high fielding and contests for the ball.

Dublin have nothing to be paranoid about, no county has been helped out by the GAA as much have Dublin have and yet suddenly the GAA have it in for them.

Almost none of them will get through congress because they haven't been thought through properly.

Stoner

Niles Crane wrote:

People have been complaining about football and the blanket defence for over a decade.

That's the man's point.
But in 2017 and 2018 Dublin have smashed the blanked defence system

Can you not see that?

The mechanism for doing so will be removed resulting in a promotion of blanked defense systems.

Blanked defenses work because the attacking zone is swamped with players marking men and space. They are not necessarily based on handpassing.

I agree with the attacking Mark.

I would like to see less handpassing, you need space to kick the ball into.

How is that space created? currently it's created by passing the ball around the D while players make runs and dummy runs until space opens up.

Rules aimed at slowing down kickouts.
There is nothing wrong with fast kickouts, the complete opposite in fact.

Rules aimed as creating mistakes that will create scores, I'm not sure that is good or workable TBH. It sounds wrong to me.

Stoner

Niles Crane wrote:

If you did a poll of football fans and asked them the following 3 questions Do you want more kickpassing and less handpassing Do you want more of a contest for the ball Do you want more high fielding from kickouts.

Why do we need to do a poll if you know all the answers?

Why just ask three questions and why those ones?

First of all there is now a decent level of high fielding from kickouts, the mark rule is a success.

However that does not mean we want to prevent fast kickouts. I'd imagine we want both, variety.

I agree most would want less handpassing.

Your question around wanting more contest for the ball would not be a top three question imo. You've already asked it about kickouts being contested at midfield.

I think a question around favouring rules that support attacking teams rather than defensive teams is a top three question and not having it as one would misrepresent the publics opinion on football, again just my opinion.

The fact that Dublin don't fear blanket defense teams is significant, that's only in play for 2 years. They used handpassing to do it

That is a valid point imo.

Yes teams will copy some of Dublin's tactics, but don't panic because teams won't copy or deploy blanked defenses because they don't work anymore.

I'm all for increasing the use of the Mark.

I'm all for increasing the amount if kick passes
but most importantly
they would need to be kick passes into players or into space and not just forcing kick passes to generate errors and scoring opportunities. This imo will be very sloppy.

Mehapoy

I really think the easiest way to make football watchable is to redefine the tackle so holding onto possession becomes a higher risk, teams will then be forced to move posession faster or the ball will be turned over. No need for all these new rules, fix the issue that allows teams to hold onto possession.

Roger_007

Surely the easiest rule change to make to counteract the 'blanket defence' is to require each team to have a minimum of 4 players in the opposition half at all times.
We used to have a similar rule in indoor soccer to prevent teams from scoring a goal and then 'parking the bus' in front of their own goal. The penalty for infringing the rule was a free kick on the halfway line.

Niles Crane

Stoner wrote: »

That's the man's point.
But in 2017 and 2018 Dublin have smashed the blanked defence system

Can you not see that?

The mechanism for doing so will be removed resulting in a promotion of blanked defense systems.

Blanked defenses work because the attacking zone is swamped with players marking men and space. They are not necessarily based on handpassing.

I agree with the attacking Mark.

I would like to see less handpassing, you need space to kick the ball into.

How is that space created? currently it's created by passing the ball around the D while players make runs and dummy runs until space opens up.

Rules aimed at slowing down kickouts.
There is nothing wrong with fast kickouts, the complete opposite in fact.

Rules aimed as creating mistakes that will create scores, I'm not sure that is good or workable TBH. It sounds wrong to me.

They have and yet teams still play the blanket defence and will almost certainly continue to do so.

The blanket defence is more prevalent than ever despite the top 2 or 3 teams proving it doesn't really work anymore against quality opposition but it's still the default option for most teams because you dont get to play Dublin every week.

The rule changes suggested haven't been thought through properly and won't be approved but the idea of trying to create more contests for the ball is a good idea which is what some of these rules are attempting.The idea of reducing handpassing is a good idea aswell as people don't really enjoy watching endless hadpassing.

Niles Crane

Stoner wrote: »

Why do we need to do a poll if you know all the answers?

Why just ask three questions and why those ones?

First of all there is now a decent level of high fielding from kickouts, the mark rule is a success.

However that does not mean we want to prevent fast kickouts. I'd imagine we want both, variety.

I agree most would want less handpassing.

Your question around wanting more contest for the ball would not be a top three question imo. You've already asked it about kickouts being contested at midfield.

I think a question around favouring rules that support attacking teams rather than defensive teams is a top three question and not having it as one would misrepresent the publics opinion on football, again just my opinion.

The fact that Dublin don't fear blanket defense teams is significant, that's only in play for 2 years. They used handpassing to do it

That is a valid point imo.

Yes teams will copy some of Dublin's tactics, but don't panic because teams won't copy or deploy blanked defenses because they don't work anymore.

I'm all for increasing the use of the Mark.

I'm all for increasing the amount if kick passes
but most importantly
they would need to be kick passes into players or into space and not just forcing kick passes to generate errors and scoring opportunities. This imo will be very sloppy.

Most issues would probably be fixed by directly outlawing the blanket defence tactic and saying 4 men from each team having to be inside a certain portion of the field at all times.However people will almost certainly find issues with that idea aswell.

The truth is the game is not going to be fixed unless managers and players decide to change their attitiudes and play the sport more positively. It's really difficult to get even minor changes passed through congress so I suspect getting a revolutionary rule change through would be virtually impossible.We're almost certainly facing another really turgid ten years or more of football if managers and players don't cop on and atempt to play better football.

I'm pretty pessimistic about the future of the game at intercounty level and I think it's haded for terminal decline if things aren't fixed fairly soon.

Bonniedog

Niles, you refer to changes being aimed at encouraging teams to play "positively."

In what way does a team which scored record average of 27 points per game to win AI this year - including 17 goals, average of more than two per game, not play positively?


Am genuinely intrigued.


Good job this committee had nothing to do with horse racing or Frankel would have had to wear diving boots.

Niles Crane

Bonniedog wrote: »

Niles, you refer to changes being aimed at encouraging teams to play "positively."

In what way does a team which scored record average of 27 points per game to win AI this year - including 17 goals, average of more than two per game, not play positively?


Am genuinely intrigued.


Good job this committee had nothing to do with horse racing or Frankel would have had to wear diving boots.

The rule changes are not being aimed at stopping Dublin, you need to stop being so paranoid.You're attiutude is exactly the reason changes never get made in GAA becuase too many people take any suggestion of improving the sport as whole as a dig at whatever county is dominanat at the time.

If you had a more old fashioned style of football being played in general and all teams played psoitively like Dublin do, Dublin would be just as effective as they are at the moment.

blanch152

Niles Crane wrote: »

People have been complaining about football and the blanket defence for over a decade.

All the issues with the rules pre date Dublins arrival as All Ireland champions, sure the GAA did the very best it could to try and help Dublin rise up to where they are as it's good for the GAA for Dublin to be strong.

If you did a poll of football fans and asked them the following 3 questions
Do you want more kickpassing and less handpassing
Do you want more of a contest for the ball
Do you want more high fielding from kickouts.

The answers to them by 90% or more of fans would be yes

These rule change suggestions seem to be trying to increase the kickpassing,high fielding and contests for the ball.

Dublin have nothing to be paranoid about, no county has been helped out by the GAA as much have Dublin have and yet suddenly the GAA have it in for them.

Almost none of them will get through congress because they haven't been thought through properly.

Yes, you could ask those questions, but you could also ask the following three ones:

Do you want high-scoring games?
Do you want a fast-moving game?
Do you want a set-piece game like rugby?

I would bet that you would get 90% yes to the first two questions and a 100% no to the third, yet the rule changes are pushing us in the direction of slow-moving, low-scoring games with extra set-piece delays.

It will even up the contest between teams as everyone gets dragged down to a new low level, but the spectacle will make this year's All-Ireland series look like a classic.

blanch152

At the moment when a player wins a mark at midfield, he moves the ball quickly on as he has time and space and players are fluid around the pitch allowing him to easily find a free player.

Following these rule changes, the option to delay taking the mark will be favoured as you have a chance to win a mark inside. So you will see a long delay for a kick-out, a delay when a mark is won at midfield, a delay when a kick from that mark is won as a mark in the full-forward line, followed by a point kicked from a free mark. So, a passage of play that might take 3-4 minutes will see three kicks. A staged kick-out and the winning of a mark in midfield, a kick from that mark for another mark in the forward line, a kick from that free mark which the kicker will take time over to ensure a score.

Spontaneity gone, speed gone, a set-piece game with little to interest spectators.

Niles Crane

blanch152 wrote: »

Yes, you could ask those questions, but you could also ask the following three ones:

Do you want high-scoring games?
Do you want a fast-moving game?
Do you want a set-piece game like rugby?

I would bet that you would get 90% yes to the first two questions and a 100% no to the third, yet the rule changes are pushing us in the direction of slow-moving, low-scoring games with extra set-piece delays.

It will even up the contest between teams as everyone gets dragged down to a new low level, but the spectacle will make this year's All-Ireland series look like a classic.

You get rid of the blanket defence and you can improve the game and work from there.

None of these changes will be implemented and there probably won't be any rule changes brought in within the next 10 years as it's impossible to make even minor changes in the GAA.

Again none of the changes are being suggested to stop Dublin.

Niles Crane

blanch152 wrote: »

At the moment when a player wins a mark at midfield, he moves the ball quickly on as he has time and space and players are fluid around the pitch allowing him to easily find a free player.

Following these rule changes, the option to delay taking the mark will be favoured as you have a chance to win a mark inside. So you will see a long delay for a kick-out, a delay when a mark is won at midfield, a delay when a kick from that mark is won as a mark in the full-forward line, followed by a point kicked from a free mark. So, a passage of play that might take 3-4 minutes will see three kicks. A staged kick-out and the winning of a mark in midfield, a kick from that mark for another mark in the forward line, a kick from that free mark which the kicker will take time over to ensure a score.

Spontaneity gone, speed gone, a set-piece game with little to interest spectators.

Spontaneity and speed have left the game already for most counties and the game is losing interest with spectators aswell.

Bonniedog

Spontaneity and speed are the hallmarks of those teams which attempt to play the game in the proper manner: Dublin, Mayo, Kerry, Galway, Kildare, Corofin, Kilarney Crokes, and a few other leading teams.


New rules propose that those teams who deliberately choose not to play in such a manner - the opposite in fact - ought to be rewarded for same.

As for the myth that in yesteryear the mediocre teams went head to head with the better teams in a sporting game of catch and kick, you obviously never saw some of the cr@p that likes of Dublin, Kerry, Meath had to contend with in the 1970s and 80s!

grbear

Bringing in a sin bin for black card offences seems like an obvious improvement over the current situation which heavily favours teams with strong benches.

I'm not 100% convinced by the rest of the changes. The fact Rory Gallagher and Conan Doherty are dead against a lot of them has me convinced they are worth giving a go though.

Stoner

grbear wrote:

Bringing in a sin bin for black card offences seems like an obvious improvement over the current situation which heavily favours teams with strong benches.

The sin bin is a good idea, but not to punish a strong bench.
I think it would be great to use it in the final 15 minutes and extra time.