Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] 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 [email protected]

New Football Rules

245

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,525 ✭✭✭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


  • Registered Users Posts: 26,809 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 537 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,748 ✭✭✭corny


    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.:confused: 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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 537 ✭✭✭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.:confused: 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.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 10,952 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stoner


    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.


  • Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 10,952 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stoner


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 629 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 21,886 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 537 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 537 ✭✭✭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.


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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 537 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 26,809 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 26,809 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 537 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 537 ✭✭✭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.


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


  • Registered Users Posts: 693 ✭✭✭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.


  • Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 10,952 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 26,809 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


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

    Then why are rule changes being proposed that decrease the spontaneity and speed of the game?


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,748 ✭✭✭corny


    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.

    You saying that doesn't make it true.

    The changes are poorly thought out, don't address the real cancer in the game (blanket defence) and directly attack Dublins strength and major point of difference with every other side....their quick intricate hand passing close to goal. Think Dean Rock on the loop after 10 quick passes in a tight area. They have it down to a fine art but it all stops here. Anyway, if you accept the three points above, i don't see why you wouldn't because its not controversial, I really don't see how you can dismiss suggestions the rule changes are trying to even the score.

    There's a chorus of pissed off people in the media (and wider GAA) complaining about resources and an uncompetitive championship. These rule changes are for them not for the people who want a better watch. If they were for the people who want a better watch there'd be something in there about the blanket defence. Surely you'd concede that?


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


    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.

    All of these where trailed at underage level first.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 537 ✭✭✭Niles Crane


    corny wrote: »
    You saying that doesn't make it true.

    The changes are poorly thought out, don't address the real cancer in the game (blanket defence) and directly attack Dublins strength and major point of difference with every other side....their quick intricate hand passing close to goal. Think Dean Rock on the loop after 10 quick passes in a tight area. They have it down to a fine art but it all stops here. Anyway, if you accept the three points above, i don't see why you wouldn't because its not controversial, I really don't see how you can dismiss suggestions the rule changes are trying to even the score.

    There's a chorus of pissed off people in the media (and wider GAA) complaining about resources and an uncompetitive championship. These rule changes are for them not for the people who want a better watch. If they were for the people who want a better watch there'd be something in there about the blanket defence. Surely you'd concede that?

    People saying the rule changes are there to stop Dublin doesn't amke it tru either.


    People have been complaining about too much handpassing and not enough kicking of the ball long before Dublin came along.

    If the GAA wanted to implement rule changes to stop Dublin they would just pull all their funding and force them to play more games outside of Croke Park.

    The proposed changes are poor (although some principles behind them are good).

    The truth is some posters on this forum have show exactly why very little is achieved in the GAA as too many people just get paranoid when some change is suggested and think it's all about them rather than looking at the bigger picture.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 537 ✭✭✭Niles Crane


    Bonniedog wrote: »
    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!


    Galway are absolutely poison to watch, they're horribly defensive minded.


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


    All of these where trailed at underage level first.
    Were they not trialled in Stellenbosch at club games there. So not underage


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


    Were they not trialled in Stellenbosch at club games there. So not underage

    I believe the ELV's started at under age and the Stellenbosch was college level I could be wrong. Either way it's not senor level.


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


    I believe the ELV's started at under age and the Stellenbosch was college level I could be wrong. Either way it's not senor level.
    Those ELVs were the Stellenbosch laws iirc and college level is still adult level rugby in every form. It wasnt age grade rugby


  • Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 10,952 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stoner


    People have been complaining about too much handpassing and not enough kicking of the ball long before Dublin came along.


    Again I think that we won't see much long kicking if there's no space to kick it into.
    We will just see short kicks


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


    Those ELVs were the Stellenbosch laws iirc and college level is still adult level rugby in every form. It wasnt age grade rugby

    We many being splitting hair here. I'll rephrase my initial post to why are the GAA trailing this in their second most important competition when they could trail it first in underage or junior club out of the glare of the public's attention.


Advertisement