nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Improvements that are needed in GAA

[Deleted User]

I posted this in the hurling thread about the goalpost issue i have noticed and i would like to get a broad spectrum of opinion across the board on it and other issues. I think pressure needs to be put on the association to have every match officiated to the same standard quality and its not just refeering but something like the goalposts could prove the difference between a goal or point or nothing depending on where your playing and its something needs to be looked at. There are many other issues too

An issue that needs to be discussed in GAA is the standardisation of goalposts. In both Thurles and Nowlan (amongst places) the cross bar has a flat edge whereas in Croker and Limerick (amongst other places) its cylindrical.

Big difference between hitting the cross bar when its flat edged it will more than likely come straight back out whereas if it is cylindrical, the ball will most likely go downwards if it hits the underside and into the net.

We often marvel at the wonders of hawkeye and how it has enhanced the game and hopefully it will roll out in most stadiums in the coming years but something simple like this could be and needs to be addressed. Again it probably wouldnt be a costly implementation.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Al_Coholic

what about no more than 2 or 3 men surrounding a player who has possession of the ball?

or as they do in aussie rules..the man with possession of the ball has to release it straight away if the above happens

nice_guy80

markomuscle wrote: »

have stadiums been mentioned yet? roofs should be put on the terraces

the colours of the seats in croke park are discusting

even disgusting?? the croke park vista is a bit bland alright. when the seats have to be replaced they should invest in a colour scheme

I echo the above sentiments about terraces. I like to stand at a match. If there is a roof overhead I am more likely to attend the game. If the GAA covered some of the terraces they would get much better attendances at league games imho

Flukey

Al_Coholic wrote: »

what about no more than 2 or 3 men surrounding a player who has possession of the ball?

or as they do in aussie rules..the man with possession of the ball has to release it straight away if the above happens

I'd limit it to two. As for releasing the ball, when a player is surrounded he is often unable to release it, and then gets penalised for not doing so. The rule is there so.

As for seat colours, once there are arses on them you can't see what colours they are. You won't see the one under your own arse and while there may be empty ones around you and in other areas around the ground, your main focus should be on what is happening on the pitch. Colours of seats would not worry me, but there could be a lot of improvement in the quality of seats in a lot of the grounds around the country. Major grounds still having just benches and no backs, or backless bucket seats should look at improving them no matter what colour they are.

Covering terraces? Not a major priority. Lots of stands are open too and it is no harm. Some sugar babies can't take a drop of rain but come prepared and you'll be fine, and even if you get soaked, you'll survive. In the deluge that was the summer of 2008 two days stand out. The wet day Dublin and Tyrone played when a ribbon of lightning flashed above the Cusack Stand as the ball was thrown in and water was literally cascading down the steps of Hill 16. People survived. The other instance was the Kerry v Galway match. As half time approached, so did a large very dark cloud. The heavens opened like they never had done before. Flood warning were appearing on the electronic scoreboard, something I've never seen before or since. Jones Road was flooded. The upper decks were opened so people could move from the lower decks to dryer areas. Meanwhile, on a pitch that was just like a massive puddle the two teams served up as good a quality of football as you would see in the weather we are experiencing now. It was fantastic stuff. Afterwards we headed into town, stopping for cover a few times. When we got to the pub we were going to, there was actually water coming through the ceiling. We also heard the news that the Shelbourne v Sunderland friendly set for Tolka Park that evening had been cancelled. I though it was funny that these professionals could not play while a bunch of amateurs had served up play of the highest quality that afternoon.

People say Hill 16 should be covered to "complete" Croke Park. One of the nice things about Croke Park, and indeed many stadiums, is that openess that we have. A completely enclosed stadium has a different character, not necessarily a better one. They feel a bit restricted and smaller than an open ground.

Ashdoctor

Agree totally on da posts. Also why don't all grounds take up the idea of nets all the way up above and behind the goal...sliothar would be caught in this net up to the height of the top of the posts....would solve a lot of decisions without even trying...sliothar gets caught in net and appears at the bottom of same when caught...simple technology..possibly ahead of its time!

smellmepower

Flukey wrote: »

I'd limit it to two. As for releasing the ball, when a player is surrounded he is often unable to release it, and then gets penalised for not doing so. The rule is there so.

As for seat colours, once there are arses on them you can't see what colours they are. You won't see the one under your own arse and while there may be empty ones around you and in other areas around the ground, your main focus should be on what is happening on the pitch. Colours of seats would not worry me, but there could be a lot of improvement in the quality of seats in a lot of the grounds around the country. Major grounds still having just benches and no backs, or backless bucket seats should look at improving them no matter what colour they are.

Covering terraces? Not a major priority. Lots of stands are open too and it is no harm. Some sugar babies can't take a drop of rain but come prepared and you'll be fine, and even if you get soaked, you'll survive. In the deluge that was the summer of 2008 two days stand out. The wet day Dublin and Tyrone played when a ribbon of lightning flashed above the Cusack Stand as the ball was thrown in and water was literally cascading down the steps of Hill 16. People survived. The other instance was the Kerry v Galway match. As half time approached, so did a large very dark cloud. The heavens opened like they never had done before. Flood warning were appearing on the electronic scoreboard, something I've never seen before or since. Jones Road was flooded. The upper decks were opened so people could move from the lower decks to dryer areas. Meanwhile, on a pitch that was just like a massive puddle the two teams served up as good a quality of football as you would see in the weather we are experiencing now. It was fantastic stuff. Afterwards we headed into town, stopping for cover a few times. When we got to the pub we were going to, there was actually water coming through the ceiling. We also heard the news that the Shelbourne v Sunderland friendly set for Tolka Park that evening had been cancelled. I though it was funny that these professionals could not play while a bunch of amateurs had served up play of the highest quality that afternoon.

People say Hill 16 should be covered to "complete" Croke Park. One of the nice things about Croke Park, and indeed many stadiums, is that openess that we have. A completely enclosed stadium has a different character, not necessarily a better one. They feel a bit restricted and smaller than an open ground.

Why would they run the risk of getting injured in a meaningless pre-season friendly in fairness.

oneillMan999

Couple of thoughts..

Do away with touching the ball on the ground, let them pick it up, it works in aussie rules and ladies football and allows the game to flow better.

Make the ball slightly lighter to encourage more long range attempts.

Ask Marty Duffy if he wants to keep refereeing and if he says "yes" then retire him.

On the Dublin home game argument..
Donegal or Kerry or Galway sit on a bus for 5 hours to get to croke park while Dublin take a leisurely half hour trip across the city for the game...noooo, no advantage there at all!!

And yes, Croke Park is Dublins home venue. Somethin we all knew for a long time.

Dirty Dingus McGee

oneillMan999 wrote: »

Couple of thoughts..

Do away with touching the ball on the ground, let them pick it up, it works in aussie rules and ladies football and allows the game to flow better.

Make the ball slightly lighter to encourage more long range attempts.

Ask Marty Duffy if he wants to keep refereeing and if he says "yes" then retire him.

On the Dublin home game argument..
Donegal or Kerry or Galway sit on a bus for 5 hours to get to croke park while Dublin take a leisurely half hour trip across the city for the game...noooo, no advantage there at all!!

And yes, Croke Park is Dublins home venue. Somethin we all knew for a long time.

Making the ball lighter will make long range scores more difficult and discourage long range point shooting.A lighter ball would be more difficult to control kicking from the hands and would if there was a bit of wind turn point shooting into a lottery. A lighter ball would discourage long range point shooting.

oneillMan999

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Making the ball lighter will make long range scores more difficult and discourage long range point shooting.A lighter ball would be more difficult to control kicking from the hands and would if there was a bit of wind turn point shooting into a lottery. A lighter ball would discourage long range point shooting.

Ah here i only said slightly lighter not make it a beach ball! ;-)

Martin567

I raised the issue of umpires two weeks ago in this thread and there were more examples today. I've just rewatched some of the Kilkenny/Cork match and the incompetence of some of those umpiring these big games is frightening. Henry Shefflin's "miss" was only halfway up the posts and clearly a point. There should be a "one strike and you're out" policy with blatant errors like this. Players are training too many hours for their whole year to be at the mercy of an incompetent who can't get the basics right.

I feel RTE didn't help either. Talk of needing Hawkeye in Thurles is missing the point. For incidents like the one I highlighted above, Hawkeye should not be necessary. Basic vision and proper positioning are all that's needed and if they can't manage that, then they shouldn't be there.

Mal-Adjusted

Ashdoctor wrote: »

Agree totally on da posts. Also why don't all grounds take up the idea of nets all the way up above and behind the goal...sliothar would be caught in this net up to the height of the top of the posts....would solve a lot of decisions without even trying...sliothar gets caught in net and appears at the bottom of same when caught...simple technology..possibly ahead of its time!

We have this in our local grounds. A second set of posts behind the goals (painted black) with side netting connected to the goal posts and the top of the goal net. They catch the sloitar on the really tight angles, works great.

The problem is other teams tell us that the second set of posts throws them when taking points.

blinding

That Mayo v Galway match yesterday was a dirge, just awful for most of the game .

I think that after 3 hand passes the Ball has to be kicked forward . There is too much tippy tappy in the middle third of the field and going nowhere for the sake of going nowhere .
So after 3 hand passes or three passes that have not gone forward the Ball has to be kicked forward .
Certainly just after 3 hand passes the ball having to be kicked forward would not be that hard to ref .

keane2097

The ponderous attacks are the result of massed defences. Constraining the attack will just make massed defence more profitable.

The direction of change here if one is to be made has to be around punishing over-defensiveness, not making it harder to score.

blinding

keane2097 wrote: »

The ponderous attacks are the result of massed defences. Constraining the attack will just make massed defence more profitable.

The direction of change here if one is to be made has to be around punishing over-defensiveness, not making it harder to score.

A way of spreading out the players would help . They are currently playing like children all bunched up .
The idea of having to kick forward after three hand passes should be trialed in some games .
It may spread out the players . Lets see . What we have now is a dirge .

keane2097

blinding wrote: »

A way of spreading out the players would help . They are currently playing like children all bunched up .
The idea of having to kick forward after three hand passes should be trialed in some games .
It may spread out the players . Lets see . What we have now is a dirge .

I agree that the over-defensive games are garbage, and would be in favour of doing something to change them.

I think mandated number of players in each half or something like that, targeted at blanket defences, is a better approach though. If you are without the ball and you know the attack are going to have to kick it whether they are in a good position to do so or not you are just going to hunker down more inside your own D and wait for them to **** it up.

blinding

keane2097 wrote: »

blinding wrote: »

A way of spreading out the players would help . They are currently playing like children all bunched up .
The idea of having to kick forward after three hand passes should be trialed in some games .
It may spread out the players . Lets see . What we have now is a dirge .

I agree that the over-defensive games are garbage, and would be in favour of doing something to change them.

I think mandated number of players in each half or something like that, targeted at blanket defences, is a better approach though. If you are without the ball and you know the attack are going to have to kick it whether they are in a good position to do so or not you are just going to hunker down more inside your own D and wait for them to **** it up.

I admit that keeping attacking players in the attacking half would be a good way to go but how do you police it especially at a run of the mill club game .
The ref having to count to three hand passes and then everyone knowing the ball has to be kicked forward would be at least simple . Obviously the ball can be kicked at any time . It would be nice if it was going to be forward mind .

Perhaps in the future when we have GPS systems for all games a computer could keep track of players , Obviously that is not applicable in this day and age but possibly not as far away as one might think .
The three hand pass and then kick forward is at least workable .

bruschi

blinding wrote: »

I admit that keeping attacking players in the attacking half would be a good way to go but how do you police it especially at a run of the mill club game .
The ref having to count to three hand passes and then everyone knowing the ball has to be kicked forward would be at least simple . Obviously the ball can be kicked at any time . It would be nice if it was going to be forward mind .

Perhaps in the future when we have GPS systems for all games a computer could keep track of players , Obviously that is not applicable in this day and age but possibly not as far away as one might think .
The three hand pass and then kick forward is at least workable .

I dont think you are getting Keanes point. If you have to kick it forward after 3 handpasses, then this actually helps defenders and helps a more defensive structure. forcing a team to kick it means the defenders can just sit as far back as they want and wait for it to be kicked. You'll just end up with football ping pong and lads kicking the ball away or like rugby and kick it deep into a corner and try keep them hemmed in.

As pointed out, the issue is the mass defence, not the ponderous attack. Change the rule on what is the problem as the above will only add to it

WesternZulu

Reducing the game to 13 a-side would help open up the game without any changes to the rules imo.

blinding

WesternZulu wrote: »

Reducing the game to 13 a-side would help open up the game without any changes to the rules imo.

Not bad . We could try 14 first and then 13 if thats not enough . Let be honest something has to be done . The conditions were reasonably good in Castlebar yesterday . Both sides have good players any yet we ended up with that . Thanks for all responses / I suppose the 14 or 13 player route would be an interesting experiment . It a pity to see what could be a good game being ruined with the current tactic and whether they like it or not it is not a professional game which is all the more reason to make it watchable and also probably more enjoyable for players i.e. an attacking game please .

keane2097

You could nominate five players before the match that have to stay in the opposition half and give them those electrified dog collars to make sure they don't stray. Would spice up matches anyway.

mickmackey1

keane2097 wrote: »

You could nominate five players before the match that have to stay in the opposition half and give them those electrified dog collars to make sure they don't stray. Would spice up matches anyway.

That's actually a great idea, bar the dog collars. Forwards and backs must not cross the halfway line, midfielders could roam anywhere. Back to proper, man-on-man football.

keane2097

mickmackey1 wrote: »

That's actually a great idea, bar the dog collars. Forwards and backs must not cross the halfway line, midfielders could roam anywhere. Back to proper, man-on-man football.

The dog collars are a key plank of the proposal. I'd be willing to sacrifice the positioning requirement in exchange for random application of shocks to all players.

Nothing more likely to ruin a well constructed blanket defence than a centre half back writhing due to electrocution at the top of the D.

keane2097

Honestly though it's a pretty inelegant solution as a hallmark of many if not all great attacking teams is half backs and even corner backs barrelling forward to kick scores.

It's in the right direction I think but would need a lot of refinement.

mickmackey1

keane2097 wrote: »

The dog collars are a key plank of the proposal. I'd be willing to sacrifice the positioning requirement in exchange for random application of shocks to all players.

Nothing more likely to ruin a well constructed blanket defence than a centre half back writhing due to electrocution at the top of the D.

True enough, and extra voltage for the Dubs.

bruschi

keane2097 wrote: »

The dog collars are a key plank of the proposal. I'd be willing to sacrifice the positioning requirement in exchange for random application of shocks to all players.

Nothing more likely to ruin a well constructed blanket defence than a centre half back writhing due to electrocution at the top of the D.

experiment done on it here already!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wilf0X1ejlM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wilf0X1ejlM

We could have Joe Brolly and Tomas O Se on the shocking devices! Important to have the ref involved too!

keane2097

Glorious.

ProudDUB

mickmackey1 wrote: »

True enough, and extra voltage for the Dubs.

Yes. Because that is EXACTLY what we need. Something to make us run even faster and jump even higher. Great idea. I approve !

harpsman

keane2097 wrote: »

I agree that the over-defensive games are garbage, and would be in favour of doing something to change them.

I think mandated number of players in each half or something like that, targeted at blanket defences, is a better approach though. If you are without the ball and you know the attack are going to have to kick it whether they are in a good position to do so or not you are just going to hunker down more inside your own D and wait for them to **** it up.

Heres my way of solving all your problems- unlimited handpassing inside the 21m line(maybe a couple of meteres more) and only one handpass in the rest of the field. I think teams would be forced to keep players in every zone of the field-otherwise they'd never get out of their own half. Either that or teams would become brilliant at short kick passes-not likely imo

danganabu

I think like all brilliant solutions the best one here is very simple, we leave it at 15 a side, no hand pass rules and no restrictions of field positions, but what we do is we make the ball smaller and give all the players sticks and some sort of head/face protection gear and let them at it. I think it might work

harpsman

danganabu wrote: »

I think like all brilliant solutions the best one here is very simple, we leave it at 15 a side, no hand pass rules and no restrictions of field positions, but what we do is we make the ball smaller and give all the players sticks and some sort of head/face protection gear and let them at it. I think it might work

Would end up looking like hurling-and we all know how boring that is. They cant even get half the counties in Ireland to watch it, let alone anywhere else.

keane2097

harpsman wrote: »

Heres my way of solving all your problems- unlimited handpassing inside the 21m line(maybe a couple of meteres more) and only one handpass in the rest of the field. I think teams would be forced to keep players in every zone of the field-otherwise they'd never get out of their own half. Either that or teams would become brilliant at short kick passes-not likely imo

It's an interesting idea. I'd be interested to see it trialled.

My concern would be that I don't think there's much inherently wrong with handpassing, there's been great goals over the years that had plenty of them!

The problem I'm sure we're all agreed is blanket defences, I worry that any type of restrictions on the team that has the ball will only make the blanket more successful.

In your scheme would you end up with teams of 800m athletes running up and down taking 10 yard kick passes up to and around the Dubs?