Prop Joe wrote: » OK lets see how we could trouble shoot these four simple rule changes 1) Implement a "halfway" line 2)" A player receiving a backwards pass may not be in his own half when collecting the ball " 3) " A maximum of three passes either by foot or hand allowed in your own half of the field" 4) " For the ball to travel over the "halfway" line it must be kicked These simple changes would result in a more expansive games,Would speed the game up,Would increase kick passing ten fold and would be easily implemented at all levels
blanch152 wrote: » If you were ever at one of the Beann Eadair pitches on the top of Howth Head on a wet and windy November, you would definitely have doubts about kicking a ball forward that would end up flying behind you.
FrancieBrady wrote: » And the current ball is immune to extremes in the weather? Who knew.
blanch152 wrote: » The point is that the proposal for a lighter ball would make the problem worse, do you agree?
blanch152 wrote: » If these rules were implemented, I would have all my 15 retreat into their own half once they lost the ball. The other team that is attacking would have limited room to maneouvre. In particular, the ability to move the ball from one side of the pitch to the other to stretch the defence would be limited because of the inability to pass the ball backwards over the halfway line. By positioning my defensive lines cleverly (and McGuinness and Gallagher were expert at this), the opposition would be more likely to lose the ball without scoring than currently. They would then retreat en masse to do the same to my team. I would be reluctant to commit men forward, because with the greater risk of losing the ball, I wouldn't want to be outnumbered by the attacking team. In terms of attacking, rather than trying to stretch the defence, I would play two fielders in the full-forward line and aim long ball into them. I would expect them to only win a handful during the game because they would be doubly-marked, and with the lack of support from other forwards, their primary aim would be to win frees.
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 ?
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: » 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: » 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 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: » 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.
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.
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.
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 ….
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: » 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.
Patww79 wrote: » This post has been deleted.
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
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.
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.
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: » The mark has been introduced on kick outs
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
