intellectual dosser wrote: » Interesting thread. No surprises that all proposed changes focus on football. With the incredible matches we've had this summer in hurling versus the very forgettable football offering, it's easy to see why people are giving the big ball a hammering, but how come so many seem to only be aware of this now? As someone not from a hurling stronghold, its a basic fact to me that hurling has always been a far superior sport for viewing quality. Just because we've had a summer of particular contrast doesnt mean we need to panic about the state of football. The GAA is allowing itself to become a victim of the modern world where everything must entertain at all costs. Everyone nowadays has short attention spans, quickly becoming bored of something if its not of world class quality. As a result changes are being made at a rapid rate. Black cards, the mark, super 8s have all been thrown at the 'problem', and a lot of posters here seem to think the rules of the game should be significantly adjusted to make the game more asthetically pleasing. It won't work, it will only compound things. I think I've previously used the analogy on Boards of Father Ted finding a dent in the car, and thinking he can buff it out he goes at it delicately with the hammer, and ends up with a write off. All sports evolve, we just need to allow them to do so. I am hopeful that the next congress will have the courage to not make further changes to rules. I would scrap the Super 8s, they don't solve any of the real problems facing the GAA, and it worsens the problems of player welfare and the gulf in quality across the inter county setup. It was a completely unnecessary change. For the sake of adding something to the thread; one change I would advocate is a restriction on throw in times depending on how far a team and their supporters have to travel. For example Kildare supporters will be lucky to be leaving Killarney by 9pm this Saturday, not easy if you're bringing a family of young kids. Games need to easier to attend.
Bass Reeves wrote: » Refree have being consistant on calling this as is across the years whether they are right or wrong.
No you have the option with a mark of playing on so if the goal chance si on you go for it. If you are sorrounded by players you get your mark.
FrancieBrady wrote: » More reason why we need GAA referees locked in a room for a few weeks. https://www.sportsjoe.ie/gaa/monaghan-kerry-rule-gaa-169562
FrancieBrady wrote: » Walsh had full control of the ball (he was carrying along the line) though and dropped it as he fell. Just another rule were some consistency/knowledge would be good. In truth it was the difference between a 4 point lead and a draw.
lawred2 wrote: » bad call then
FrancieBrady wrote: » Effectively you would be giving a free kick on goal for catching the ball once they come in range of the goal. I don't think that would aid the game at all to be honest.
Bass Reeves wrote: » Yes but only for kickouts should we have it similar to Aussie rules where it is also in use through out the pitch
lawred2 wrote: » The mark has been introduced on kick outs
lawred2 wrote: » That video of Canavan is a dubious example surely.. Canavan never truly had controlled possession of the ball. I would have thought for a rule like that to apply - possession must mean two hands on the ball at some time before falling over? Maybe not.
Bass Reeves wrote: » It is hard to know what changes to make. Any change regarding limiting number of hand passes will continuue to encourage blanket defences. Introducing players zones ( where defenders and attackers have to stay in certain area's) will limit attacking play and you would never see attacking wing backs. Only allowing a forward leave his attcking zone if a defender goes beyond midfield and only one/one. However I do not think it would work. As well any solution has to be transferable to the club game and single ref with no umpires and sideline officials. The kick out change was not radical enough , maybe it should have been kicked out beyond the '45 and limit the number of players within that zone to 4 from each side and defenders and attackers have to be in there play zones ( no loading the defence for kickout). But it would be relatively hard to ref at club level. But it really comes back to limiting the hand pass but how you do it without giving total advantage to defenders. Do you limit the number of players in any half of the pitch at any time to a maximum 9 outfield players at any stage. Introduce a mark like in Australian rules but thsi would turn the game into a free taking competition.
Patww79 wrote: » This post has been deleted.
Bonniedog wrote: » Does it matter? You should look at the stats. Most Dublin scores come from short periods of possession. Get a lead and keep the ball from a corral of sheep. Not rocket science, but it is science The kickout change was to frustrate Cluxton. That's not paranoia. There is some myth still that Dublin will be beaten at midfield. Well...…. Get Fenton to wear diver's boots? In the interest of fairness.
The Lost Sheep wrote: » Bit ridiculous and more than slightly paranoid to think any changes are to stop Dublin. Its to improve the game and the game as a spectacle. If you have a shot clock from where does it count?
Bonniedog wrote: » Most proposed changes, as above, are to introduce a random element into the game. Basically boiling down to "get the Dubs to boot the ball up the pitch." Kickout change was solely aimed at Cluxton who now kicks a considerable amount into midfield where Dublin win a vast majority of them. So now there has to be more changes! Those referred to above would change football into an abomination. Only proposed change that merits consideration is a basketball style shot clock - set at say 90 seconds. Even 60 seconds. That would have one of two consequences: either the negative teams would turn games into stifling 0-5 to 0-4 results, or the better teams would just have more possession and be even more dominant. As matter of interest, 2 - 10 of Dublin's total against Donegal came from possessions of less than 60 seconds. I think it would benefit Dublin more than anyone so that's probably a non runner. What about making Cluxton wear a blindfold? In the interests of fairness obviously ….
FrancieBrady wrote: » Totally agree, sick of screaming at them to kick. Couple of times today a player would have been better off kicking and missing than trying to play on in. Got turned over anyway.
Niles Crane wrote: » Also it's disappointing that team are so scared of kicking points from the 45, most players are well able to but I suspect are being told not to in order to hold onto the ball.
blanch152 wrote: » I would be extremely successful at keeping the score down. Winning by 3 points to 2 wouldn't be a problem as the other team would have to keep giving me back the ball.
Prop Joe wrote: » I just don't know how you would score then? How could you work the ball out of your own defense with that many bodies and get a direct kick to your forwards...Interesting how an offensive coach views the game verses a defensive all the same.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxVkVzXci6M
blanch152 wrote: » No, I wouldn't have two up front permanently. They would be on the halfway line chasing and ensuring you couldn't pass back. Your rules would limit your ability to hold possession. You would continually have to kick it away.
Prop Joe wrote: » I'd love to manage against that team because if you had 2 upfront permanently that would mean you would have 12 outfield players in defense. That would leave me man mark your two forwards plus a sweeper and leave the forward battle 11 v 12..Plus i could high press you in your own half as you would only have 3 passes before kicking. I think it would be impossible to play without 3 if not 4 full time forwards with them rules
blanch152 wrote: » Scoring would be difficult for both teams. With only three passes allowed in their own half, the opposing team would have to kick the ball away. With 15 back, I would be guaranteed to win the ball. If they scored two or three points at most, they would be doing well. All I would need is the occasional lucky breakaway or the occasional free from a long ball won by one of my two forwards who would spend their time running from the opposition 21 back and forth to the halfway line to take their place as the first line of defence. Not pretty, but even more difficult to beat than McGuinness' Donegal, thanks to your rule changes.
Prop Joe wrote: » Not attacking you or anything just generally curious,How could you score of you played like that? With everyone behind the ball you wouldnt be able to counter attack without a kick? and if everyone is behind the ball ?
