5 Vital Rule Changes for Football

HighKing33 · 12-04-2015 12:56pm #1

Here are five rule changes that can that can have a dramatic impact on the game, providing incentives for the good stuff as opposed to placing heavy handed restrictions on players:

1) 13-a-side: an obvious one, more space to kick the ball into.

2) Pick up off the ground: why not? Less fouls, more football.

3) The Mark: Apply it as per the advantage rule. Onus is on ball-winner to play on, however if no advantage accrues, the referee has the option of calling play back to the spot where the ball was initially won and awarding 'the mark'. Very different from the AFL. From kickouts it would apply only to the midfield area between the two 45s.

4) A 2-pointer zone. Draw an arc similar to basketball extending over 40 metres from goal. Any scores kicked over the bar from outside this area will be rewarded with 2 points. This rewards long range kickers, or forwards who kick difficult points out in the corners and crucially punishes teams that 'park the bus'.

5) Limit players to 3 steps but allow them to bounce the ball indefinitely: A deterrant for the running game but more importantly an incentive for clean tackling. Defenders will get more opportunities to disposess the ball carrier, (also important because in 13-a-side games there are more one-on-ones). With an unlimited number of bounces we compensate the forwards a little but more importantly provide a game that is understood immediately and more accessible, becoming easier to coach to the growing numbers of non-Irish playing the game internationally.

Pete_Cavan · 12-04-2015 1:46pm

The only one of those which may in any way improve the game is the 2-pointer zone. It might also just lead to more poor shooting from too far out.

The rest are just change for the sake of change (13-a-side & the mark), dumbing down the game (pick up off the ground & bounce the ball indefinitely) or tinkering with the rulebook but wont be implemented in practice (limit players to 3 steps)

Stinicker · 12-04-2015 3:59pm

What needs to happen is have better referees who implement the rules and get rid of useless myopic referees like Joe McQuillan.

I disagree with the pickup and 13 a side and the mark. I believe all frees should be taken off the ground with 2 points awarded for the kicking of long range frees. Goalkeepers should be prevented from taking frees.

nice_guy80 · 12-04-2015 6:20pm

Two referees who know the rules would help

Rightwing · 12-04-2015 7:25pm

The game is devoid of skill. Hard fix that I'm afraid.

Davys Fits · 12-04-2015 9:46pm

nice_guy80 wrote: »

WUM

Watched Dub V Mon today and although it was an entertaining contest with some great kicked scores, the amount of hand passing was unreal. 300 + passes I reckon. One can hardly call that skill. Its now a systems game where the most organised hand passers get the ball to a kicker within striking range. Skilled systems are not as entertaining as skilled players to watch. A system with more kick passing would certainly be more entertaining.

Grudaire · 12-04-2015 11:00pm

Stinicker wrote:

Goalkeepers should be prevented from taking frees.

Perhaps limit any time to take a free to 1 minute, but any genuine reason to limit teams from using the goalkeeper from set play?

Mehapoy · 13-04-2015 12:21pm

Grudaire wrote: »

Perhaps limit any time to take a free to 1 minute, but any genuine reason to limit teams from using the goalkeeper from set play?

I don't know what improvement would come out of stopping keepers from taking frees? Pointless rule change...also giving 2 points for kicking outside a designated zone would result in no goals being attempted at all, all the play would be concentrated between the 45s, would be an awful spectacle...I think all these suggestions of artificially banning this and that and making a certain amount of players stay in their half etc. could make the game even worse with unintended consequences if not thought through properly...I reckon the most important change would be to devise a way of defining a simple tackle that discourages players from taking the ball into contact and these awful 4 or 5 man rucks from developing where the rules are unclear, obstruction, charging, third man tackles all happening at the same time and the rules applied differently depending on the ref in charge...

downthemiddle · 13-04-2015 12:25pm

nice_guy80 wrote: »

Two referees who know the rules would help

One referee that applies the rules in a consistent manner would help.

Flukey · 13-04-2015 12:31pm

1) 13-a-side: an obvious one, more space to kick the ball into.
A GAA pitch is more than big enough for 15 players, so no need to reduce it. With the tendency for blanket defences, half the pitch is empty at times.

2) Pick up off the ground: why not? Less fouls, more football.
It is a very simple skill, easily taught, so it can be carried out properly and never fouled. All you need to do is teach it properly. It should be in Ladies Football too.

3) The Mark: Apply it as per the advantage rule. Onus is on ball-winner to play on, however if no advantage accrues, the referee has the option of calling play back to the spot where the ball was initially won and awarding 'the mark'. Very different from the AFL. From kickouts it would apply only to the midfield area between the two 45s.

Probably the most stupid rule of all. My views on its stupidity are well versed in this forum. It should never be introduced into Gaelic Football and it should be removed from Australian Rules and Rugby too. It adds nothing to any of those sports, but takes away a huge amount that our game has by not having it.

4) A 2-pointer zone. Draw an arc similar to basketball extending over 40 metres from goal. Any scores kicked over the bar from outside this area will be rewarded with 2 points. This rewards long range kickers, or forwards who kick difficult points out in the corners and crucially punishes teams that 'park the bus'.

A score is a score whatever the distance. Sometimes a close in score can be harder to get, like if it is from a sharp angle or a player is well marked or unsighted, so you could end up with a myriad of reasons for different values for kicking the ball over the bar. Also, if based on a distance, if we were going to do it you could argue for penalising a team a point for a really bad wide and/or allowing the defending team to take the kick out much further out, depending on how wide the ball was.

5) Limit players to 3 steps but allow them to bounce the ball indefinitely: A deterrant for the running game but more importantly an incentive for clean tackling. Defenders will get more opportunities to disposess the ball carrier, (also important because in 13-a-side games there are more one-on-ones). With an unlimited number of bounces we compensate the forwards a little but more importantly provide a game that is understood immediately and more accessible, becoming easier to coach to the growing numbers of non-Irish playing the game internationally.

Like the tip up off the ground, the solo run is a very simple skill and you can go further quicker than if there was unlimited bouncing. Then you'd have bobbles on the pitch or wet days, when the solo run is better. So again, no sense in changing it. The steps rule will always be a problem, no matter what you set it at, so changing it is going to have no advantage. As for the last part of your point, it doesn't matter where you are from when you try to learn any game. Native born Irish people do not have any advantage when it comes to Gaelic Football. Plenty of Irish people are useless at our national games, so the same set of rules should be taught in Ireland and worldwide. Tailoring the game because people are not Irish is a ridiculous concept. If different countries were playing by different rules, then they wouldn't be able to play against any "Irish" teams, which would deny them one of the things they would really want to do. A trip to Ireland to play matches here is a huge incentive for other countries, but if they are playing by different rules, then that ends that possibility. One set of rules for all.

HighKing33 · 13-04-2015 12:35pm

Mehapoy wrote: »

I reckon the most important change would be to devise a way of defining a simple tackle that discourages players from taking the ball into contact and these awful 4 or 5 man rucks from developing where the rules are unclear

The rules are not unclear regarding the tackle, it's very clear what you can and can't do. You're not allowed clench the fist, shoulders must be side to side charges, etc.

Restrict players to 3 steps would make a big difference, you now have a deterrant against the running game so players are less likely to take the ball into crowded defences and these rucks won't happen.

As for people saying that 13-a-side is simply change for the sake of change, honestly how can you say that when there is clearly a distinct difference between the two formats? It's basic maths.

Prop Joe · 13-04-2015 12:46pm

Rule 1 - 3 designated players from each team not allowed touch the ball in opposition half

Rule 2 - Team foul count - 20 fouls per game - Every foul after should result in a black card

Flukey · 13-04-2015 1:33pm

Prop Joe wrote: »

Rule 1 - 3 designated players from each team not allowed touch the ball in opposition half

Rule 2 - Team foul count - 20 fouls per game - Every foul after should result in a black card

Designated players not touching the ball could not work. I suppose you are thinking of something like a full back could not touch the ball in the opposition half. What if the fullback was moved out to change position by the management and was put into the half forward line for example? How could you police that? If a full back wants to go forward, even without being switched by the management, then let him. He should not be restricted to an area of the pitch.

Foul counts would not work either. Some referees implement the rules harder than others, so in theory the same game could have different amounts of fouls. Then you could get into a situation where minor fouls are given black cards just because they are foul twenty something, which would be ridiculous. Proper implementation of the rules and breaches being punished by frees and cards, no matter how many there are, is all that is needed.

davegrohl48 · 13-04-2015 1:58pm

There are three rules that need to really need to be tightened up on.
1. Steps. Chronic offenders particularly in attack and midfield.
2. Barging. If you run at a defender who is standing his ground that is barging immediately. The defender has used his positional sense to carry out something skillful. They should be getting their reward for covering the attacker.
3. Tackling. They should be stricter about the following existing elements:
- Aimed at the ball
- Open palm
We could maybe move towards closed fist tackling being a red card? It does constitute a strike. It would almost dissapear over night then.

Ceist_Beag · 13-04-2015 1:59pm

I may be a lone voice on this but I see absolutely no good argument yet for any rule change to be implemented. As far as I'm concerned, the game today as a spectacle is in many ways better than the game of 20 or 30 years ago. It has evolved as players have become fitter, stronger, faster, so the game as a result is faster and space is more at a premium, which means possession is much more important now. We often hear calls for rule changes after a match like the Dublin Derry recent game, but for every one of these there are plenty of good entertaining matches. I think the likes of Spillane get far too much air time on this idea you need to kick the ball long in order to play the game "properly" but tbh I see nothing wrong with teams setting out defensively if that's how they feel they can best compete.

Edit: I can see from the Football Crisis thread that I'm far from a lone voice on this! My post probably belongs more to that thread.

Dyr · 13-04-2015 2:01pm

Tbh its sounds like you'd wind up with a system like rugby where they have all these arcane rules and restrictions to try make up for the fact there is very little skill required for the fundamentals of the game (run with eggy ball, throw eggy ball)

The hand passing restriction would be interesting but it would only encourage more mobbed defenses. Perhaps only allow players to hand pass if they are being tackled/falling/incapable of a kick pass

Prop Joe · 13-04-2015 3:22pm

Flukey wrote: »

Designated players not touching the ball could not work. I suppose you are thinking of something like a full back could not touch the ball in the opposition half. What if the fullback was moved out to change position by the management and was put into the half forward line for example? How could you police that?

Each team lines out

1
2A
3A
4A
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13A
14A
15A

If you want to move your full back to midfield etc.. Fullback changes his jersey from 3A to 3 & the midfielder drops back and puts on 9A instead of 9.

Very simple system in fairness

Flukey wrote: »

Foul counts would not work either. Some referees implement the rules harder than others, so in theory the same game could have different amounts of fouls. Then you could get into a situation where minor fouls are given black cards just because they are foul twenty something, which would be ridiculous. Proper implementation of the rules and breaches being punished by frees and cards, no matter how many there are, is all that is needed.

20 Fouls is quite a generous allowance,Would cut out silly fouls like pulling jersey and more cynical fouls as each player would be wary of the total count.Think it could be very easily implemented at all levels.(Fouling the ball would not count)..Tyrone played Kerry last week & had 14 fouls in total.

HighKing33 · 19-04-2015 11:04am

Davys Fits wrote: »

Its now a systems game where the most organised hand passers get the ball to a kicker within striking range. Skilled systems are not as entertaining as skilled players to watch. A system with more kick passing would certainly be more entertaining.

Yeah that's why my suggestions focus on deterring the running game as much as they do promoting the passing game. 13-a-side along with the version of the mark described above will give us more space between the lines and a greater incentive to coach the kick-pass.

Watching the u21s yesterday and Tipp were rightly lauded for reaching a final but a lot of that Tipp team were big midfielders who persisted with running the ball into rucks. Conor McHugh regularly took eight or more steps when shooting. Surely we need to look at the number of steps in the game. Reducing the number to three and policing it properly would see very different patterns playing out in game.

HighKing33 · 29-04-2015 11:48am

Just funny, watching the games over the weekend and even the removal of one player from the pitch (through dismissal obviously), led to the game opening up and producing more kick-passing.

To me that just strenghtens the case for 13-a-side football.

slingerz · 29-04-2015 11:53am

the pickup is one of the most pointless and controversial elements in gaa at all levels. how many club games have you seen ruined by a pedantic ref blowing for an off the ground pickup when its blatantly not. getting rid of it speeds up the game and removes the variance of referees from it.

13 a side sounds like a plausible solution but teams will still play a blanket.

Something needs to be done about the number of handpasses though. Football is basically athletics with a ball at this point

HighKing33 · 29-04-2015 12:11pm

slingerz wrote: »

the pickup is one of the most pointless and controversial elements in gaa at all levels. how many club games have you seen ruined by a pedantic ref blowing for an off the ground pickup when its blatantly not. getting rid of it speeds up the game and removes the variance of referees from it.

13 a side sounds like a plausible solution but teams will still play a blanket.

Something needs to be done about the number of handpasses though. Football is basically athletics with a ball at this point

See my opening post. The running game will never go away unless there's a stronger incentive for the kick-pass, 13-a-side provides some of that but it won't sort everything out.

slingerz · 29-04-2015 12:14pm

HighKing33 wrote: »

See my opening post. The running game will never go away unless there's a stronger incentive for the kick-pass, 13-a-side provides some of that but it won't sort everything out.

i agree with you.

i just see the handpass as the cancer that is killing the game

Dyr · 29-04-2015 12:17pm

slingerz wrote: »

i agree with you.

i just see the handpass as the cancer that is killing the game

Can't see how you change that, players can only hand pass into the ground, thus forcing them to bounce the ball to their team mate perhaps

Dirty Dingus McGee · 29-04-2015 12:28pm

HighKing33 wrote: »

Just funny, watching the games over the weekend and even the removal of one player from the pitch (through dismissal obviously), led to the game opening up and producing more kick-passing.

To me that just strenghtens the case for 13-a-side football.

Spot on.

Almost every match where there is a sending off the game tends to improve as a spectacle and it doubt this is a coincidence.

13 a side is the easiest change to implement and the most logical thing to do considering the way the game has gone.It would make kick passing more wortwhile aswell and the more skilful players would benefit as good players always benefit from space.

13 a side combined with a restriction on the number of players who could go behind a certain point on the field.I heard Colm Parkinson proposed that the full back and full forward lines could not go outside the 45 which is a good suggestion, would lead to a real improvement in the game.

slingerz · 29-04-2015 12:46pm

Bambi wrote: »

Can't see how you change that, players can only hand pass into the ground, thus forcing them to bounce the ball to their team mate perhaps

it is the most difficult thing to resolve alright

HighKing33 · 29-04-2015 1:36pm

13-a-side - yes and the 5 changes I proposed in the o.p. but if there is a rule telling me where I can or can't stand on a playing pitch I will abandon the game altogether. Let's just say I'm anti-partition on that count.

The Lost Sheep · 29-04-2015 2:50pm

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

The only one of those which may in any way improve the game is the 2-pointer zone. It might also just lead to more poor shooting from too far out.

The rest are just change for the sake of change (13-a-side & the mark), dumbing down the game (pick up off the ground & bounce the ball indefinitely) or tinkering with the rulebook but wont be implemented in practice (limit players to 3 steps)

13 a side and mark wouldn't be change for the sake of change. They would make more space in the game which is not helped by so many teams being defence orientated. Picking ball off ground wouldn't be dumbing down the game but would help mess around tackle imo. Would agree that bounce the ball indefinitely isn't needed.

Stinicker wrote: »

I disagree with the pickup and 13 a side and the mark. I believe all frees should be taken off the ground with 2 points awarded for the kicking of long range frees. Goalkeepers should be prevented from taking frees.

Don't see any problem with goalkeepers taking frees. Perhaps for all frees there should be a time limit after the free is awarded that the free must be taken in. Dont see why all frees should have to be taken off the ground. Why?

Mehapoy wrote: »

I don't know what improvement would come out of stopping keepers from taking frees? Pointless rule change...also giving 2 points for kicking outside a designated zone would result in no goals being attempted at all, all the play would be concentrated between the 45s, would be an awful spectacle...I think all these suggestions of artificially banning this and that and making a certain amount of players stay in their half etc. could make the game even worse with unintended consequences if not thought through properly...I reckon the most important change would be to devise a way of defining a simple tackle that discourages players from taking the ball into contact and these awful 4 or 5 man rucks from developing where the rules are unclear, obstruction, charging, third man tackles all happening at the same time and the rules applied differently depending on the ref in charge...

Of course goals would still be attempted but this type of rule change could actually see more goals being scored. Certainly wouldn't lead to concentration in midfield. Definition of a tackle is the biggest thing that's needed but what would you define as a tackle?

HighKing33 wrote: »

The rules are not unclear regarding the tackle, it's very clear what you can and can't do. You're not allowed clench the fist, shoulders must be side to side charges, etc.

Restrict players to 3 steps would make a big difference, you now have a deterrant against the running game so players are less likely to take the ball into crowded defences and these rucks won't happen.

As for people saying that 13-a-side is simply change for the sake of change, honestly how can you say that when there is clearly a distinct difference between the two formats? It's basic maths.

The tackle rule is not any good then considering how its managed and played out during games. Restricting players to 3 steps only helps defences and doesn't aid the game especially as a spectacle.

Prop Joe wrote: »

Rule 1 - 3 designated players from each team not allowed touch the ball in opposition half

Rule 2 - Team foul count - 20 fouls per game - Every foul after should result in a black card

How would you decide which players cant touch the ball in opposition half and who would monitor that?
A team foul count would be good addition but is 20 not too high?

Bambi wrote: »

Tbh its sounds like you'd wind up with a system like rugby where they have all these arcane rules and restrictions to try make up for the fact there is very little skill required for the fundamentals of the game (run with eggy ball, throw eggy ball)

The hand passing restriction would be interesting but it would only encourage more mobbed defenses. Perhaps only allow players to hand pass if they are being tackled/falling/incapable of a kick pass

Very ignorant and uninformed post. Will try not go off topic but which laws of rugby are arcane and you are very ignorant of the sport if you think there is very little skill involved.

HighKing33 · 30-04-2015 9:49am

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

The tackle rule is not any good then considering how its managed and played out during games. Restricting players to 3 steps only helps defences and doesn't aid the game especially as a spectacle.

3 steps would make a significant difference. Players wil be less likely to run the ball into the tackle, meaning less rucks and less running of the ball and less stoppage time.

As things stand players are stretching the 4 step rule, often looking to carry the ball into the tackle, typically looking to draw the foul.

Reduce that count to 3 and police it consistently then you have a situation where it becomes almost impossible to bypass a defender without playing the ball. This gives more opportunities to the defender to turn over the ball, a reward for clean defending. Remember in 13-a-side games you will have more one-on-ones.

The Lost Sheep · 30-04-2015 10:57am

HighKing33 wrote: »

3 steps would make a significant difference. Players wil be less likely to run the ball into the tackle, meaning less rucks and less running of the ball and less stoppage time.

As things stand players are stretching the 4 step rule, often looking to carry the ball into the tackle, typically looking to draw the foul.

Reduce that count to 3 and police it consistently then you have a situation where it becomes almost impossible to bypass a defender without playing the ball. This gives more opportunities to the defender to turn over the ball, a reward for clean defending. Remember in 13-a-side games you will have more one-on-ones.

Why not simply get referees to police the 4 step rule consistently than reducing the number of steps and saying referees should police that consistently

HighKing33 · 30-04-2015 12:22pm

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Why not simply get referees to police the 4 step rule consistently than reducing the number of steps and saying referees should police that consistently

3 steps at full pace is nothing, it's more obvious when a player overcarries here so it's easier to enforce and as I pointed out above players will be less likely to take the ball into the tackle where the play gets choked.

The running game will be punished, where it's all about being a battering ram and driving through the centre. It also rewards defenders who tackle cleanly giving them more opportunities.

To balance the game I'm suggesting removing the double-hop rule. It's archaic. Without it we get more pick-up-play, easier for kids to take up.

padd b1975 · 30-04-2015 1:01pm

1. Only frees kicked from the ground can count as a score.
This would bring back a skill that has all but disappeared from the game.

2. Goalkeeper to have optional use of the tee when taking a kick out.

3. No square ball rule whatsoever.

4. No hand passed points to be allowed.

5. A Mark to be awarded only from kickouts which pass the 45m line.

5 Vital Rule Changes for Football

Comments