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

135

Comments

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


    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.

    The changes need the public attention. We've already seen with the proposals that the officials haven't a clue, so why do we want them trialled with no reaction and have the same officials deciding if they work or not?


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


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

    That's fair enough and your opinion.

    It's based around a style of play that you think is terrible to watch and you've described their defensive mindedness at horrible.

    You've agreed that the blanket defence is an issue, but won't engage on how or why these rules will help to change that

    They are not addressing the blanket defence in a direct way, I'm struggling to see a significant indirect impact too.

    Can you offer some insight into how the new rules will address the blanket defence, or offer that they won't?


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,116 ✭✭✭PressRun


    Any rule changes should be looked at from the perspective of underage games and club games, and how these games will be reffed by officials who are maybe a bit older and less fit. It's not only the senior intercounty game that is impacted by this, and it is far more likely that lower grades will be more negatively impacted.
    For example, how is the kickout rule going to work on a random evening in the dead of winter with a gale force wind blowing? Or what about the young goalie who's still learning his trade - is he actually going to be able to kick long enough to make this work?
    Or what about the handpasses rule - in a game where the refs can barely keep up with the amount of steps taken, how are they supposed to keep up with the handpasses as well? And what about the fact that sometimes when trying to build up a move, the kickpass just isn't on? If anything, this can potentially disrupt play. And anyway, is handpassing even as much as a problem as is claimed? Some great moves are built around the handpass.
    Not sure about the sin bin thing either - was this not tried before?

    Anyway, to my mind, the whole thing is just an overreaction an underwhelming season. They saw that people were bored and critical of the season just passed and decided to try and fix things that weren't and aren't even a problem.


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


    PressRun wrote: »
    Any rule changes should be looked at from the perspective of underage games and club games, and how these games will be reffed by officials who are maybe a bit older and less fit. It's not only the senior intercounty game that is impacted by this, and it is far more likely that lower grades will be more negatively impacted.
    For example, how is the kickout rule going to work on a random evening in the dead of winter with a gale force wind blowing? Or what about the young goalie who's still learning his trade - is he actually going to be able to kick long enough to make this work?
    Or what about the handpasses rule - in a game where the refs can barely keep up with the amount of steps taken, how are they supposed to keep up with the handpasses as well? And what about the fact that sometimes when trying to build up a move, the kickpass just isn't on? If anything, this can potentially disrupt play. And anyway, is handpassing even as much as a problem as is claimed? Some great moves are built around the handpass.
    Not sure about the sin bin thing either - was this not tried before?

    Anyway, to my mind, the whole thing is just an overreaction an underwhelming season. They saw that people were bored and critical of the season just passed and decided to try and fix things that weren't and aren't even a problem.
    So do you not think that changes are needed for the game?
    i dont see this as an overreaction to this season/year alone its a build up of the past few years and the way the game has evolved.
    Changes cant simply be looked at from perspective of club/underage games. Thats a bit like Sepp Blatter/FIFA saying they cant introduce goalline technology in pro game - world cup etc as the kids on the street dont have access to it.
    A referee has to have some common sense and rules that allow them freedom to do it. If its a very windy day then you make allowances for that in terms of kicks travelling certain distance.
    The sin bin was tried before but some prominent inter county coaches didnt like it and were very loud in expressing that through the media and it wasnt kept.
    The black card is good but is possibly very harsh on the individual player and replacing player doesnt make it a real punishment. A sin bin works far better and doesnt get mixed up with number of subs made etc like the black card does.


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


    So do you not think that changes are needed for the game?
    i dont see this as an overreaction to this season/year alone its a build up of the past few years and the way the game has evolved.
    Changes cant simply be looked at from perspective of club/underage games. Thats a bit like Sepp Blatter/FIFA saying they cant introduce goalline technology in pro game - world cup etc as the kids on the street dont have access to it.
    A referee has to have some common sense and rules that allow them freedom to do it. If its a very windy day then you make allowances for that in terms of kicks travelling certain distance.
    The sin bin was tried before but some prominent inter county coaches didnt like it and were very loud in expressing that through the media and it wasnt kept.
    The black card is good but is possibly very harsh on the individual player and replacing player doesnt make it a real punishment. A sin bin works far better and doesnt get mixed up with number of subs made etc like the black card does.


    There won't be any discretion to allow for a windy day. That is just ridiculous.

    This isn't just about whether changes are necessary, it is about whether changes will improve the game. These proposed changes will make the game worse.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 693 ✭✭✭grbear


    Thought Sweeney's piece in todays Independent was absolute garbage. Completely misrepresented the positions of Colm Collins and Liam Kearns in a way that presented them as dinosaurs. When there are managers like Turlogh O'Brien out there very forcefully against the rules changes it seems bizarre that anyone would see the need to make villains(which is what Kearns and Collins are portrayed as) out of managers who are willing to give the rules a fair shake.


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


    Patww79 wrote: »
    The changes need the public attention. We've already seen with the proposals that the officials haven't a clue, so why do we want them trialled with no reaction and have the same officials deciding if they work or not?

    The changes which actually work can be trialed at senior level eventually. There is a major difference between trailing on paper and trailing out of the field.

    These changes will die in a hail of headlines the first week of February


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


    https://www.independent.ie/sport/gaelic-games/gaelic-football/pat-spillane-gives-his-verdict-on-gaa-spoofers-the-proposed-new-rule-changes-and-three-ideas-of-his-own-37395366.html

    Interesting article on the new rules from Spillane, if a bit confusing.

    First he argues for change, before criticising many of the proposed rule-changes using much the same arguments that have been posted on here.

    For example, on the mark:

    "Extending the mark beyond its current limit of being direct from a kick-out?

    I don’t know about that. It would lead to stop-start football and would cost the game its fluidity."


    On the kickout:

    "The midfield contest, where only four players can be in the landing area, I’m not so sure. In fact, I suspect it might make a cod of our game."

    Of course, Spillane has his own rule changes, including the 13-a-side proposal.

    https://www.independent.ie/sport/gaelic-games/gaelic-football/colm-orourke-the-only-way-to-judge-new-rules-is-to-see-them-in-action-and-fast-37391871.html


    O'Rourke has less doubts but also is cautious.

    "Perhaps teams will pick a couple of giraffes around the middle of the field whose job will be to just get a mark from kick-outs and launch a ball into another elephant in the square"

    He also accepts that it may slow the game down:

    "The critics will say it is going to slow down the game and my view is that a faster game is not necessarily better."


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,462 ✭✭✭Bob Harris


    Those new rule proposals would make the game overly convoluted.

    Once inside the 45 you have a shot clock of 30 seconds. Shoot it or lose it. Problem solved.


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


    Bob Harris wrote: »
    Those new rule proposals would make the game overly convoluted.

    Once inside the 45 you have a shot clock of 30 seconds. Shoot it or lose it. Problem solved.

    I'm looking forward to all the thrilling 0-2 to 0-1 games. That completely favors the defense


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


    Bob Harris wrote: »
    Those new rule proposals would make the game overly convoluted.

    Once inside the 45 you have a shot clock of 30 seconds. Shoot it or lose it. Problem solved.
    That isnt problem solved at all. It just plays into hands of teams playing blanket defence.


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


    The only thing I will say in favour of the new rules is just like it is easy to coach a mass defence as the likes of McGuinness have shown, it is easy to predict ways in which the new rules will help a mass defence. Hence the significant criticism that these new rules have attracted.

    What isn't as clear is how the new rules might favour creative attacking, and that needs more thought.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,097 ✭✭✭Boom__Boom


    blanch152 wrote: »
    The only thing I will say in favour of the new rules is just like it is easy to coach a mass defence as the likes of McGuinness have shown, it is easy to predict ways in which the new rules will help a mass defence. Hence the significant criticism that these new rules have attracted.

    What isn't as clear is how the new rules might favour creative attacking, and that needs more thought.

    Handpass rule - I'm baffled as to how this helps/could help an attacking team in any manner.

    Sideline rule - Again struggling to see how this helps a team in possession in any manner whatsoever.

    Mark rule - If an attacker catches a ball inside the 20 metre line that was kicked from outside the 45 metre line, they can either play on or take the option of a free. I can't see this doing anything but reducing the number of goal chances. Unless a side is trailing and time is running out, I think forwards are going to opt to take the tap-over free the vast vast majority of the time, especially considering the play-on protection that players get when they win a mark under the current rules won't apply.
    (b) Play on immediately
    (i) In this circumstance the player may not be challenged for the ball until he
    carries the ball up to a maximum of four consecutive steps or holds the ball for no longer than the time needed to take four steps and/or makes one act of kicking, hand-passing, bouncing or toe-tapping the ball.

    As a bonus for the defensive sides, if a defender catches it, they now get a free kick to clear possession, making life a good bit easier. Under the current rules if a defender caught a ball kicked in like this they would be good odds to be tackled by at least one opposition player.

    Sin Bin - No way no how does this do anything to favour attacking teams. All it does is reduce the penalties on individuals who foul. Attacking teams will get an extra man for ten minutes, but what is inevitably going to happen is the team with 14 players is going to go even more defensive in this 10 minutes and do everything it can to slow down play.

    Also with the way refs in the GAA work, the ref is going to be even more lenient on black/yellow/red card offences during this time period because sending a 2nd player to the sin bin during this period will be seen as unfair. Expect to see even more inconsistency as refs will adjust whether or not they give a card based on whether a team has 15 or 14 on the pitch.

    Kick-Out - There might be something in this which will favour attacking sides, maybe related to the fact that there will only be 4 players between the 2 45 initially. This rule will surely favour the side who have just conceded the score as opposed to the side who have scored, as the 2 midfielders the keeper is keeping out to will have the advantage over the 2 midfielder the keeper is avoiding. This increases the logic for a side to recycle the ball/retain possession as opposed to taking on a poor percentage shot, especially at the end of a game where things are tight.

    Maybe the side which wins possession will try and instantly play the ball inside but I think it will be limited enough. However I think it is likely to be minor enough and we will more than likely see players from whichever side loses the kickout racing back inside their own 45 to defend. The 2 midfielders on the side who lose possession will be doing everything they can to slow up play.

    Overall I think there is very little in these rules that favour attacking sides.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,462 ✭✭✭Bob Harris


    I'm looking forward to all the thrilling 0-2 to 0-1 games. That completely favors the defense

    It speeds up the game, the attacking team have to use the ball and the defence have a great counter attacking opportunity if they win back possession before a shot is taken. Keeps the game moving unlike calling for marks.


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


    Why do we hate tactics so much when other sports embrace it anyway? I don't know if I want to see constant lump ball.


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


    Bob Harris wrote: »
    It speeds up the game, the attacking team have to use the ball and the defence have a great counter attacking opportunity if they win back possession before a shot is taken. Keeps the game moving unlike calling for marks.

    Perhaps your a fan of wides but I'm not . In general and I know some teams are guilty of running down the clock. But in general the rest for slow build up play is the shot isn't on. In fact with this proposal the teams will just run down the clock outside the 40


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


    Patww79 wrote: »
    Why do we hate tactics so much when other sports embrace it anyway? I don't know if I want to see constant lump ball.




    Exactly. Force New Zealand to kick a Garryowen after every two phases; Tom Brady to throw a hail mary on second receipt of ball; Golden State Warriors to have to shoot for three pointers after ten seconds.


    Sure it's only fair!


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,362 ✭✭✭Crash Bang Wall


    New rules have to benefit a team attacking.....sideline ball going forward benefits the defensive team

    Keep 4 up at all times should work. I honestly think this is the only rule that needs to be introduced.

    2 yellows then a sin bin......more fouling, pretty much guaranteed

    13 a side that the likes of Spillane want, will just put more emphasis on fitness and speed rather that the actual skills of the game being developed


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,097 ✭✭✭Boom__Boom


    I decided to have a look at how the new rules are affecting scorelines so far.

    There was 48 games played in last year's pre-season competitions [O'Byrne Cup, McKenna Cup, FBD League and McGrath Cup]

    A total of 117 goals and 1156 points were scored in these 48 games - this works out as an average of 31.4 points per game.

    So far 18 games have been played this year in the 2019 pre-season competitions under the proposed new rules and a total of 25 goals and 373 points were scored in these games for an average of 24.9 points per game.

    That's a decrease of 6.5 points per game under the new rules or more than 20%.

    In terms of goals the average in 2018 was 2.44 compared to 1.39 under the new proposed 2019 rules.

    Even though it's only data from 18 games under the new rules so far, its looking very much like a serious failure from the standing rules committee, given a more than 20% decrease in the overall scores. Unless the scoring rate change drastically in the rest of the pre-season games, I think the notion of continuing the trial during the league will definitely have to be abandoned.

    In terms of the committee that came up with the rules, I think they will have to be thanked for their service and a new committee put in place one made up 100% of top football people - I think that a new committee should make it a priority to talk to the coaches/managers of the teams that play attractive attacking football and ask them what rules they would like to see considered.


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


    Excellent post Boom Boom.

    Haven't seen any games under the new dispensation but the scores did jump out and that includes a few anomalies such as the hammering Armagh gave to St. Mary's.

    A pity this committee did not do same research as yourself before launching this dogs dinner.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,098 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatInABox


    I said it in the Dublin thread, and I'll say it here, I can't believe that they've decide to run the League as a guinea pig for these rules, it's insane. The league has become more and more important over the last few years, with so many teams taking it seriously now. For some, it's about integrating new players into the existing setup, for others it's about improving on what they achieved last year, but some of the games that are played in the league now wouldn't be out of place in the championship. There's still some teams that don't care at all, but they seem to be fewer every year.

    If these new rules are played in the league, it could be a massive set back for it, which will be such a shame in my opinion.


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


    CatInABox wrote: »
    I said it in the Dublin thread, and I'll say it here, I can't believe that they've decide to run the League as a guinea pig for these rules, it's insane. The league has become more and more important over the last few years, with so many teams taking it seriously now. For some, it's about integrating new players into the existing setup, for others it's about improving on what they achieved last year, but some of the games that are played in the league now wouldn't be out of place in the championship. There's still some teams that don't care at all, but they seem to be fewer every year.

    If these new rules are played in the league, it could be a massive set back for it, which will be such a shame in my opinion.
    where else do you trial rule changes then?
    Yes the league is important but where else can you trial new regulations/rules?
    It should be trials at senior inter county level as well as other levels possibly third level or a clubs championship.


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


    They should never have gotten to the stage of being trialled. Even on paper it was obvious they were going to make the game more not less defensive and therefore attractive to watch - the opposite of the mandate the committee was given!



    Anyway, 18 games is a good scientific sample. Good enough to bin the dog's dinner.


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


    Bonniedog wrote: »
    They should never have gotten to the stage of being trialled. Even on paper it was obvious they were going to make the game more not less defensive and therefore attractive to watch - the opposite of the mandate the committee was given!

    Anyway, 18 games is a good scientific sample. Good enough to bin the dog's dinner.
    18 games in December with few players who necessarily will be playing championship isnt a big enough sample. See how the games go in league and then maybe you can suggest the changes are not good enough But not before then


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


    Lots of people said what would happen, and have been proved right. They really don't need to destroy the league let alone the championship to prove that.

    Anyway, some teams are not even bothering training with the new rules as they know they will be abandoned.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 76 ✭✭quidel


    Saw the new rules in Breffni today. Don’t think they have added anything positive. Not sure there was and advanced mark in the game. Still plenty of kicking the ball across and backwards unfortunately. Down broke through the middle and created a great goal opportunity for themselves but alas got called back due to one handpass too many. Limiting the options for a player in such a decisive attacking move is counter productive. Hopefully sense prevails and the new rules are abandoned very quickly!


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,097 ✭✭✭Boom__Boom


    18 games in December with few players who necessarily will be playing championship isnt a big enough sample. See how the games go in league and then maybe you can suggest the changes are not good enough But not before then

    In terms of the 18 games that have been played so far, they are pretty much identical to last year's pre-season competitions - same "winter" conditions, same sort of mix in terms of teams trying out fringe players, players in the same pre-season condition.

    There is little to nothing in the proposed rules that improves things for an attacking team and there is quite a few things that help out defensive teams.

    Can you explain to me what you think is going to change between the pre-season games and league games that will cause these rules to make games more attacking/attractive/higher scoring?


  • Registered Users Posts: 29 dollar bill


    Keep 4 up at all times should work. I honestly think this is the only rule that needs to be introduced.

    This is exactly the only rule that needs to be introduced - The penalty could be an advantage if the ref deems that the defending team has purposely infringed on the rule


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,896 ✭✭✭Cavan_King


    quidel wrote: »
    Saw the new rules in Breffni today. Don’t think they have added anything positive. Not sure there was and advanced mark in the game. Still plenty of kicking the ball across and backwards unfortunately. Down broke through the middle and created a great goal opportunity for themselves but alas got called back due to one handpass too many. Limiting the options for a player in such a decisive attacking move is counter productive. Hopefully sense prevails and the new rules are abandoned very quickly!

    I’d agree with this. What was seen today in Breffni was a lot of short kick passing rather than hand passing.

    The hand passing rule was meant to benefit a more attacking game but a good hand passing move can unlock a defence.

    There was no advanced mark. Cavan tried it a couple of times but very hard for a full forward to win clean ball.


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


    Cavan_King wrote: »
    very hard for a full forward to win clean ball.


    Will be impossible if rules stay and team start to use them to their benefit.

    Problem with the game is the negative attitudes instilled by coaches and managers, not the rules. And I am not making a point in favour of "Dublin football." There were plenty of examples of negativity in our SFC.

    Fact is that best teams of past few years; Dublin obviously!, Kerry minors, Corofin, Killarney Crokes and others who play creatively are the sort of teams that will be penalised if this goes ahead.


Advertisement