Changes in the GAA - super thread

StupidLikeAFox · 19-07-2018 12:57am

sheroman01 wrote: »

Y'know, that is an interesting point, whether you were being serious or not! Would be very very interesting to see the impact of a slightly lighter ball.

If you made it easier to score long range points it would also be harder to implement a blanket defence - win win really

Prop Joe · 20-07-2018 10:17am

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

Bonniedog · 20-07-2018 10:57am

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

If you made it easier to score long range points it would also be harder to implement a blanket defence - win win really

A lighter ball would also be more erratic, especially with a wind, so might make some teams even less likely to kick rather than hand pass!

blanch152 · 20-07-2018 11:42am

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

Except that they are not simple, they would be extremely complicated for a referee.

Apart from that they address the wrong problem. The problem isn't the handpassing in their own half, the problem is the blanket defence. The changes you propose will make it much easier to implement a blanket defence and much more profitable to do so. The end result will be even lower-scoring games.

blanch152 · 20-07-2018 11:43am

Bonniedog wrote: »

A lighter ball would also be more erratic, especially with a wind, so might make some teams even less likely to kick rather than hand pass!

I thought so too, ever watch one of those light plastic balls go back over your head when messing around in the wind?

FrancieBrady · 20-07-2018 11:49am

Bonniedog wrote: »

A lighter ball would also be more erratic, especially with a wind, so might make some teams even less likely to kick rather than hand pass!

I don't think the poster was talking about a cheap kiddy ball.

Fann Linn · 20-07-2018 11:52am

blanch152 wrote: »

I thought so too, ever watch one of those light plastic balls go back over your head when messing around in the wind?

Cillian would be fcuked!

Prop Joe · 20-07-2018 12:09pm

blanch152 wrote: »

Except that they are not simple, they would be extremely complicated for a referee.

Apart from that they address the wrong problem. The problem isn't the handpassing in their own half, the problem is the blanket defence. The changes you propose will make it much easier to implement a blanket defence and much more profitable to do so. The end result will be even lower-scoring games.

Sorry i'm not sure how you come to this conclusion ?

Bonniedog · 20-07-2018 3:33pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't think the poster was talking about a cheap kiddy ball.

A lighter ball is a lighter ball and thus less easy to control and more susceptible to wind and other factors. You don't need to be Issac Newton to know this.

blanch152 · 20-07-2018 4:41pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't think the poster was talking about a cheap kiddy ball.

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.

blanch152 · 20-07-2018 4:49pm

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

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.

Scores would drop in this attritional game of both sides losing the ball after going nowhere and most scores would be courtesy of a friendly referee. Current football would be hugely entertaining by contrast.

FrancieBrady · 20-07-2018 4:53pm

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.

And the current ball is immune to extremes in the weather? Who knew.

Bonniedog · 20-07-2018 5:04pm

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 ….

blanch152 · 20-07-2018 5:41pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And the current ball is immune to extremes in the weather? Who knew.

The point is that the proposal for a lighter ball would make the problem worse, do you agree?

FrancieBrady · 20-07-2018 6:21pm

blanch152 wrote: »

The point is that the proposal for a lighter ball would make the problem worse, do you agree?

No, it could still be handpassed if it was lighter or indeed heavier. It would not have any affect on that problem.

It would tend to speed up the game if the ball could be kicked further though.

Prop Joe · 20-07-2018 8:41pm

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.

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 · 20-07-2018 9:18pm

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 ?

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 · 20-07-2018 9:25pm

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.

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 · 20-07-2018 9:40pm

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

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.

Bonniedog · 20-07-2018 9:48pm

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

And this is supposed to lead to a more attractive game! Why not just change names of teams to Sligo Spartans and Wexford Warriors and change the shape of the ball to an oval

And get Eddie Waring to do the commentary.

Prop Joe · 20-07-2018 10:38pm

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.

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 · 21-07-2018 1:46pm

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

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 · 21-07-2018 2:27pm

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.

Very interesting theory because i think the exact same...I couldnt see how you could get up the field in 3 passes with that many bodies in the defense plus teams can now easily kick atleast ten points against 15 man blankets so in my eyes your set up would ultimately fail

I would have unlimited passes in your half so i could dictate the pace plus put huge stress on your kickout. and turnover ball coming out

Fair play good debate tho

Niles Crane · 21-07-2018 7:46pm

Another example of tonight of why changes need to be made.

Both Dublin and Tyrone play 13-15 behind the ball endless handpassing and constant retreating of defenses.

The blanket defence is a scourge that needs to be legislated out of the game.

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 · 21-07-2018 9:12pm

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.

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.

gally74 · 21-07-2018 9:13pm

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.

Switched it off, it's too hard to watch

The Lost Sheep · 21-07-2018 9:36pm

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 ….

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 · 22-07-2018 2:11am

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?

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.

Niles Crane · 22-07-2018 9:12am

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.

No it wasn't it was to stop these stupid 5 yard sideways/backwards kickouts which lead to an attempt to handpass the ball the whole length of the field.Lots of other keepers apart from Cluxton used to have those very short kickouts. The rule didn't go far enough it should have insisted on all kickouts going past the 45.

You've showed exactly the problem with the GAA in regard to changes.

Everytime a rule change is proposed people circle the wagons and claim it's to stop them , Mickey Harte always used to whine whenever talk of the sin bin being introduced or when the mark as brought in purely because it didn't suit the way his own team played.

FrancieBrady · 22-07-2018 8:37pm

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

OldMrBrennan83 · 22-07-2018 8:40pm

This post has been deleted.

FrancieBrady · 22-07-2018 8:43pm

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The goal came off it.

OldMrBrennan83 · 22-07-2018 8:48pm

This post has been deleted.

Bass Reeves · 23-07-2018 9:04am

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 · 23-07-2018 9:12am

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

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.

lawred2 · 23-07-2018 9:14am

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.

The mark has been introduced on kick outs

FrancieBrady · 23-07-2018 9:19am

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.

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 · 23-07-2018 9:20am

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.

bad call then

Bass Reeves · 23-07-2018 9:21am

lawred2 wrote: »

The mark has been introduced on kick outs

Yes but only for kickouts should we have it similar to Aussie rules where it is also in use through out the pitch

FrancieBrady · 23-07-2018 9:24am

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

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 · 23-07-2018 9:31am

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

Refree have being consistant on calling this as is across the years whether they are right or wrong.

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.

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 · 23-07-2018 9:37am

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Refree have being consistant on calling this as is across the years whether they are right or wrong.

It isn't consistent, Comer did it and the ref let it go.

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.

And within range of goal he has the option of a free kick without being tackled.
You are penalising the other team for not catching it.

intellectual dosser · 03-08-2018 3:37pm

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.

The Lost Sheep · 03-08-2018 3:50pm

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.

Many arent simply aware of issues in football now and have had issues for years.
I dont think a restriction on throw in times necessarily should be in place. Games shouldnt simply all be on in the early/mid afternoon.
If you scrap super 8s what do you go back to? The qualifiers as they were need to change. Gaelic needs something more than that

Niles Crane · 05-08-2018 4:54pm

It may be a small enough issue but it always looks terribly poor when you see a championship match being played with a ball that has the county's name or abbreviation on it.

Is it really that difficult to have 15-20 official match balls that the GAA themselves own that can be used for the match day in every single match like every other sport in the world has.

Niles Crane · 05-08-2018 5:04pm

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.

The GAA changes are not big enough and invariably end up like a lot of democratic changes where we end up with a camel where the original intent was to come up with a horse.

The mark for example was a good idea however it needed to go all the way and insist all kickouts must pass the 45 metre line, instead we got a half arsed measure.

The black card was another half arsed measure, cynical drag downs like Sean Cavanagh's which sparked the black card being introduced should be red card offence and more yellow cards should be handed out in general and eventually the players would learn.

If footballs problems were short term and only a phase then people wouldn't be complaining so much but the truth is we've had to put up with this overly defensive style of football being the default way of playing the game for over a decade now and things are not going to change unless teams decide to sacrifice winning in order to please the purists (which will never happen).Football in the 1990's early 2000's was when it was at it's best as you had a nice mix of styles in the game and teams played in a positive fashion.

lawred2 · 05-08-2018 5:29pm

Niles Crane wrote: »

It may be a small enough issue but it always looks terribly poor when you see a championship match being played with a ball that has the county's name or abbreviation on it.

Is it really that difficult to have 15-20 official match balls that the GAA themselves own that can be used for the match day in every single match like every other sport in the world has.

It is a small thing but I found myself remarking the same. That ball in the Donegal game look like a 4 year old was given half an hour to do what he wanted with it.

osarusan · 05-08-2018 5:40pm

Hi all, completely non GAA fan here, just wondering why the All Ireland finals were brought forward to mid/late August? They were always the first and second weekend in September...what brought about the change? And when was it changed?

The Lost Sheep · 05-08-2018 5:43pm

osarusan wrote: »

Hi all, completely non GAA fan here, just wondering why the All Ireland finals were brought forward to mid/late August? They were always the first and second weekend in September...what brought about the change? And when was it changed?

They were always the first and third weekend in September and the change was to give more time to the clubs. The counties that get to finals are finished a month earlier and everyone else finished that much earlier as well. Gives more time to clubs.
Changed for this year along with changes to provincial championships

intellectual dosser · 07-08-2018 12:24pm

Niles Crane wrote: »

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.

The GAA changes are not big enough and invariably end up like a lot of democratic changes where we end up with a camel where the original intent was to come up with a horse.

The mark for example was a good idea however it needed to go all the way and insist all kickouts must pass the 45 metre line, instead we got a half arsed measure.

The black card was another half arsed measure, cynical drag downs like Sean Cavanagh's which sparked the black card being introduced should be red card offence and more yellow cards should be handed out in general and eventually the players would learn.

If footballs problems were short term and only a phase then people wouldn't be complaining so much but the truth is we've had to put up with this overly defensive style of football being the default way of playing the game for over a decade now and things are not going to change unless teams decide to sacrifice winning in order to please the purists (which will never happen).Football in the 1990's early 2000's was when it was at it's best as you had a nice mix of styles in the game and teams played in a positive fashion.

How can you make it better by making changes to the rules?

Some of the suggestions in this thread; restricting the number of players in a zone, restricting the direction a ball can be passed - or can be passed a number of times, the number of points for a score from a particular distance. Just imagine sitting in the stand watching that? Now THAT would be unwatchable. That is assuming it works, most of this GAA forum content is posters bemoaning referees and their ability to implement rules as they are.

It should always come down to the players, I don't see anyone talking about how they find the modern gam? Making them adopt new rules so that the pundits are happier is just wrong.

Changes in the GAA - super thread

Comments