|
Replying To Tirchonailabu56: "Agree, said the same in older post, 13 aside will create more space and the main thing is any change cannot add extra workloads for the Referees.
I would also add go 13 aside and maximum of only 3 subs allowed in normal time which would be more advantageous to weaker counties who don't have the same strength and depth as your Dublins and Kerry's.
Also limit panels sizes to 19 (6 subs) to reduce costs.
Award 5 points for a goal
Award 2 points for point from play kicked outside the 45" I agree with 3 subs. I would trial 13 aside with the 3 subs and see how that goes.
Personally, I wouldn't touch the scoring system for the time being.
tribesmen (Galway) - Posts: 150 - 01/05/2024 06:38:33
2542133
Link
0
|
|
Replying To omahant: "Suppose we came up with 10 brainstorming ideas but only one was the "magic bullet" - wouldn't that be all we need.
I had two main ideas that didn't get much support here - but that's OK - let's keep thinking and not be afraid to put something else out there.
Again, my two main ideas:
1) Offside Rule - No more than 4-on-4 plus the defending goalkeeper inside the 45, when the ball ENTERS in an attacking direction. After the ball enters, there is no player limit until the defence moves the ball out again to between the 45s, which reinstates the "no more than 4-on-4" again. Violation is a free kick, in or out, at the 20.
2) Two-Zone Forward Kick Pass Requirement - The defence is required to always make a "two-zone forward kick pass" EITHER from Zone 1 (behind defensive 45) to Zone 3 (between the 65s); OR from Zone 2 (behind defensive 65) to Zone 4 (beyond attacking 65). Violation is a free kick at midfield." Please stop….!!!
ForeverBlue2 (Cavan) - Posts: 3031 - 01/05/2024 07:19:39
2542134
Link
0
|
|
Replying To omahant: "In an unbroken sequence of possessions, what is a reasonable "keep ball" limit?
How about - the defence has 20 seconds to move the ball beyond the defensive 45; 20 seconds more to beyond the attacking 45; and a final 20 seconds to register a score, wide or turnover.
The "20 Seconds Rule" could be "unscientific", not to overburden the ref, who could just make a "best judgement call" in determining if the team in possession is 'generally' moving the ball forward and attempting a score within each time limit." I think 20 seconds would be way too short.
What I'm suggesting we avoid is the effective truce you see when the defence is well set and the attacking team play the ball around in their backs to keep possession and probe until one of the defenders fall asleep. The crowd generally fall asleep before a defenders concentration drops leading to many of the "intriguing" games we see at the moment..
brianb (Kildare) - Posts: 356 - 01/05/2024 09:01:45
2542144
Link
0
|
|
Any idea and suggestions, no matter how mad anyone might think they are is better than no suggestion. And constructive criticism is good and not meant to offend anyone. I'm a bit fascinated to see what they come up with:
link
GreenandRed (Mayo) - Posts: 7654 - 01/05/2024 09:58:18
2542165
Link
2
|
|
Replying To tribesmen: "What problems do you think 13 aside would bring at club level? If anything I think it would help clubs with a smaller pick" I have no issue with them trialling it. And i think we should definitely have a rolling subs system. Most clubs at senior and intermediate are fielding 2 adult teams. In my experience in the past 6 or 7 years that is definitely the case. 13 a side means 2 are dropped and then number 18, 19 on matchday panel have less chance of getting any game time. More a management and player problem than anything else.
TheFlaker (Mayo) - Posts: 8162 - 01/05/2024 13:44:02
2542252
Link
1
|
|
Games for the most part are difficult to watch because of tactical set-ups. Predominantly a defensive approach. There isn't much point in tinkering with rules that don't have potential to make this defensive ploy less effective. As a spectacle we want to see a more flowing game and one that presents more one-on-one contests; I think most people would agree. The solution lies is creating more space; 13-a-side is a step in that direction; certainly much easier than increasing the playing area. Another tweak is to bring the kickout back to the edge of the small rectangle; there is a huge amount of unplayable space behind the 'keeper when they are kicking at the moment. This may encourage more pressure up high as the reward for an interception closer in would be higher - that's not to say teams won't simply concede the kickout as they do now but there could be more incentive not to. The reality is that astute coaches will navigate any new rule pretty quickly; likewise lazy coaches will simply revert to type and 'Park the bus'. At the end of the day it's the poorer teams who can only play the slow lateral game. Often times this is because of the poor coaches. Dublin, Kerry, Donegal, Galway, Derry and perhaps one or two more are comfortable playing against these tactics and are happy they'll come out on top regardless. I'm expecting (hoping maybe) the Review Committee to come back with a plan which includes coach development, calendar restructure and games promotion much more than a focus on trying to 'fix' things with additional rules.
fizzygravy (USA) - Posts: 163 - 01/05/2024 23:42:22
2542366
Link
0
|
|
Replying To ForeverBlue2: "Please stop….!!!" The man is throwing out ideas.
Read a different thread if you want want to read about new rule changes in a thread about saving football
tirawleybaron (Mayo) - Posts: 1197 - 02/05/2024 06:06:01
2542384
Link
2
|
|
Replying To tirawleybaron: "The man is throwing out ideas.
Read a different thread if you want want to read about new rule changes in a thread about saving football" Cheers, man.
Generally, I feel brainstorming is better than those other alternatives, which are laced with fear, inertia and a lack of ambition and confidence - but to each 'their' own.
omahant (USA) - Posts: 2899 - 02/05/2024 18:45:02
2542523
Link
3
|
|
Replying To tirawleybaron: "The man is throwing out ideas.
Read a different thread if you want want to read about new rule changes in a thread about saving football" He is talking absolute nonsense…. Offside rules and zonal kick passes…. get a grip
ForeverBlue2 (Cavan) - Posts: 3031 - 03/05/2024 16:14:28
2542690
Link
0
|
|
Replying To fizzygravy: "Games for the most part are difficult to watch because of tactical set-ups. Predominantly a defensive approach. There isn't much point in tinkering with rules that don't have potential to make this defensive ploy less effective. As a spectacle we want to see a more flowing game and one that presents more one-on-one contests; I think most people would agree. The solution lies is creating more space; 13-a-side is a step in that direction; certainly much easier than increasing the playing area. Another tweak is to bring the kickout back to the edge of the small rectangle; there is a huge amount of unplayable space behind the 'keeper when they are kicking at the moment. This may encourage more pressure up high as the reward for an interception closer in would be higher - that's not to say teams won't simply concede the kickout as they do now but there could be more incentive not to. The reality is that astute coaches will navigate any new rule pretty quickly; likewise lazy coaches will simply revert to type and 'Park the bus'. At the end of the day it's the poorer teams who can only play the slow lateral game. Often times this is because of the poor coaches. Dublin, Kerry, Donegal, Galway, Derry and perhaps one or two more are comfortable playing against these tactics and are happy they'll come out on top regardless. I'm expecting (hoping maybe) the Review Committee to come back with a plan which includes coach development, calendar restructure and games promotion much more than a focus on trying to 'fix' things with additional rules." On your kick out from the small rectangle I would tend to agree. The kick would have to go beyond the twenty and not into the semi circle. I'd probably still allow the kick out after a score from the twenty to give the team that's conceded a little benefit.
A kick out from the small rectangle is immediately longer than it currently is so you'd think it would have to encourage teams to press more and force the keeper to kick it to a contest out the field. As you say teams could still concede the kick out it but less likely that they will.
Downs tactics last week would a great game to analyse and maybe create to see can they do a few things be to counter how they went about the game. They wanted to play it slow all the time and take the sting out of armagh. They used their keeper an awful lot and if armagh pushed up they'd just use him to take the sting out of the press. If the keeper couldn't be passed to from open play armagh would have been more likely to push up.
As much as I'd like to see the spectacle of gealic football improve overall I don't want them to be too radical with changes (at least initially) as you'll lose sight of what actually is working or not working.
Ulsterchamps_32 (Donegal) - Posts: 780 - 03/05/2024 18:56:14
2542708
Link
0
|
|
Replying To ForeverBlue2: "He is talking absolute nonsense…. Offside rules and zonal kick passes…. get a grip" I bet your full of good ideas.
tirawleybaron (Mayo) - Posts: 1197 - 04/05/2024 15:21:23
2542831
Link
3
|
|
Replying To Ulsterchamps_32: " Replying To fizzygravy: "Games for the most part are difficult to watch because of tactical set-ups. Predominantly a defensive approach. There isn't much point in tinkering with rules that don't have potential to make this defensive ploy less effective. As a spectacle we want to see a more flowing game and one that presents more one-on-one contests; I think most people would agree. The solution lies is creating more space; 13-a-side is a step in that direction; certainly much easier than increasing the playing area. Another tweak is to bring the kickout back to the edge of the small rectangle; there is a huge amount of unplayable space behind the 'keeper when they are kicking at the moment. This may encourage more pressure up high as the reward for an interception closer in would be higher - that's not to say teams won't simply concede the kickout as they do now but there could be more incentive not to. The reality is that astute coaches will navigate any new rule pretty quickly; likewise lazy coaches will simply revert to type and 'Park the bus'. At the end of the day it's the poorer teams who can only play the slow lateral game. Often times this is because of the poor coaches. Dublin, Kerry, Donegal, Galway, Derry and perhaps one or two more are comfortable playing against these tactics and are happy they'll come out on top regardless. I'm expecting (hoping maybe) the Review Committee to come back with a plan which includes coach development, calendar restructure and games promotion much more than a focus on trying to 'fix' things with additional rules." On your kick out from the small rectangle I would tend to agree. The kick would have to go beyond the twenty and not into the semi circle. I'd probably still allow the kick out after a score from the twenty to give the team that's conceded a little benefit. A kick out from the small rectangle is immediately longer than it currently is so you'd think it would have to encourage teams to press more and force the keeper to kick it to a contest out the field. As you say teams could still concede the kick out it but less likely that they will. Downs tactics last week would a great game to analyse and maybe create to see can they do a few things be to counter how they went about the game. They wanted to play it slow all the time and take the sting out of armagh. They used their keeper an awful lot and if armagh pushed up they'd just use him to take the sting out of the press. If the keeper couldn't be passed to from open play armagh would have been more likely to push up. As much as I'd like to see the spectacle of gealic football improve overall I don't want them to be too radical with changes (at least initially) as you'll lose sight of what actually is working or not working."
But minor tinkering I think won't work I think.
I agree with the general sentiment in this article on the Cork GAA CEO's report last year.
Simple dramatic rule changes is what we need.
https://m.independent.ie/sport/gaelic-games/cork-chief-executive-kevin-odonovan-calls-for-dramatic-gaelic-football-rules-intervention/a1214546567.html
bdbuddah (Meath) - Posts: 1401 - 04/05/2024 17:23:14
2542850
Link
0
|
|
Replying To tirawleybaron: "I bet your full of good ideas." He's wondering what that might look like.
omahant (USA) - Posts: 2899 - 04/05/2024 20:03:35
2542933
Link
1
|
|
Replying To bdbuddah: " Replying To Ulsterchamps_32: "[quote=fizzygravy: "Games for the most part are difficult to watch because of tactical set-ups. Predominantly a defensive approach. There isn't much point in tinkering with rules that don't have potential to make this defensive ploy less effective. As a spectacle we want to see a more flowing game and one that presents more one-on-one contests; I think most people would agree. The solution lies is creating more space; 13-a-side is a step in that direction; certainly much easier than increasing the playing area. Another tweak is to bring the kickout back to the edge of the small rectangle; there is a huge amount of unplayable space behind the 'keeper when they are kicking at the moment. This may encourage more pressure up high as the reward for an interception closer in would be higher - that's not to say teams won't simply concede the kickout as they do now but there could be more incentive not to. The reality is that astute coaches will navigate any new rule pretty quickly; likewise lazy coaches will simply revert to type and 'Park the bus'. At the end of the day it's the poorer teams who can only play the slow lateral game. Often times this is because of the poor coaches. Dublin, Kerry, Donegal, Galway, Derry and perhaps one or two more are comfortable playing against these tactics and are happy they'll come out on top regardless. I'm expecting (hoping maybe) the Review Committee to come back with a plan which includes coach development, calendar restructure and games promotion much more than a focus on trying to 'fix' things with additional rules." On your kick out from the small rectangle I would tend to agree. The kick would have to go beyond the twenty and not into the semi circle. I'd probably still allow the kick out after a score from the twenty to give the team that's conceded a little benefit. A kick out from the small rectangle is immediately longer than it currently is so you'd think it would have to encourage teams to press more and force the keeper to kick it to a contest out the field. As you say teams could still concede the kick out it but less likely that they will. Downs tactics last week would a great game to analyse and maybe create to see can they do a few things be to counter how they went about the game. They wanted to play it slow all the time and take the sting out of armagh. They used their keeper an awful lot and if armagh pushed up they'd just use him to take the sting out of the press. If the keeper couldn't be passed to from open play armagh would have been more likely to push up. As much as I'd like to see the spectacle of gealic football improve overall I don't want them to be too radical with changes (at least initially) as you'll lose sight of what actually is working or not working."
But minor tinkering I think won't work I think.
I agree with the general sentiment in this article on the Cork GAA CEO's report last year.
Simple dramatic rule changes is what we need.
https://m.independent.ie/sport/gaelic-games/cork-chief-executive-kevin-odonovan-calls-for-dramatic-gaelic-football-rules-intervention/a1214546567.html"]Yes, I agree - Kevin makes a lot of good points. I think what might appear to be radical in the way of rule changes initially, might look "normal" after a while and could transform the game into the spectacle we want.
For example, my "kick pass" rule automatically creates contested balls at distance - although we an unintended consequences yet unforseen without game testing.
omahant (USA) - Posts: 2899 - 04/05/2024 20:25:35
2542948
Link
0
|
|
Replying To bdbuddah: " Replying To Ulsterchamps_32: "[quote=fizzygravy: "Games for the most part are difficult to watch because of tactical set-ups. Predominantly a defensive approach. There isn't much point in tinkering with rules that don't have potential to make this defensive ploy less effective. As a spectacle we want to see a more flowing game and one that presents more one-on-one contests; I think most people would agree. The solution lies is creating more space; 13-a-side is a step in that direction; certainly much easier than increasing the playing area. Another tweak is to bring the kickout back to the edge of the small rectangle; there is a huge amount of unplayable space behind the 'keeper when they are kicking at the moment. This may encourage more pressure up high as the reward for an interception closer in would be higher - that's not to say teams won't simply concede the kickout as they do now but there could be more incentive not to. The reality is that astute coaches will navigate any new rule pretty quickly; likewise lazy coaches will simply revert to type and 'Park the bus'. At the end of the day it's the poorer teams who can only play the slow lateral game. Often times this is because of the poor coaches. Dublin, Kerry, Donegal, Galway, Derry and perhaps one or two more are comfortable playing against these tactics and are happy they'll come out on top regardless. I'm expecting (hoping maybe) the Review Committee to come back with a plan which includes coach development, calendar restructure and games promotion much more than a focus on trying to 'fix' things with additional rules." On your kick out from the small rectangle I would tend to agree. The kick would have to go beyond the twenty and not into the semi circle. I'd probably still allow the kick out after a score from the twenty to give the team that's conceded a little benefit. A kick out from the small rectangle is immediately longer than it currently is so you'd think it would have to encourage teams to press more and force the keeper to kick it to a contest out the field. As you say teams could still concede the kick out it but less likely that they will. Downs tactics last week would a great game to analyse and maybe create to see can they do a few things be to counter how they went about the game. They wanted to play it slow all the time and take the sting out of armagh. They used their keeper an awful lot and if armagh pushed up they'd just use him to take the sting out of the press. If the keeper couldn't be passed to from open play armagh would have been more likely to push up. As much as I'd like to see the spectacle of gealic football improve overall I don't want them to be too radical with changes (at least initially) as you'll lose sight of what actually is working or not working."
But minor tinkering I think won't work I think.
I agree with the general sentiment in this article on the Cork GAA CEO's report last year.
Simple dramatic rule changes is what we need.
https://m.independent.ie/sport/gaelic-games/cork-chief-executive-kevin-odonovan-calls-for-dramatic-gaelic-football-rules-intervention/a1214546567.html"]I also agree with him on the need for a Gaelic Games specific - offside rule.
Some along the lines of no extra players permitted inside the defensive 45 unless
(a) they do so with 3m of their marker or
(B) the ball has been kicked into the area ahead of them (like ice hockey offside) by an attacking player who is outside the 45m line
I wouldn't be in favour of having a set position to return to before a kick out can be taken (likely to create a unintended opportunity for time wasting)
I really hate the last 10 min of a lot of games due to the amount of play acting, melees etc. Really puts a stop to comebacks.
For that reason I would think that the offside rule above combined with with a 45 yard free to be awarded after the 10 team frees conceded per half.- a bit like basketball
40 frees in 70min is enough to be looking at.
Then have a shot clock (so teams can't run down the clock) and your in business.
You now have stopped the running game (as players have to kick it forwards inside the 45).
There can be no sweeper (concedes a free if he enters the 45 before the ball).
There can be no passing around the middle (due to shot clock)
There can be no persistent fouling to slow an attack.
Also like to see any player going down injured in the last 10 mins having to go off on a stretcher and can only return to match at halfway line once referee allows at the next break in play
And lastly - max of 3 subs per match (excluding 10 min blood sub or HIA).
tirawleybaron (Mayo) - Posts: 1197 - 04/05/2024 22:03:27
2542975
Link
0
|
|
Tirawley "....Then have a shot clock (so teams can't run down the clock) and your in business...."
How would you have this monitored?
I was thinking it could be "unscientific" - judgment by ref to award a free only if there is a clear "keep ball" or "no forward progress" say within any 20 seconds. Teams could play backwards so long as net territorial gain has been made within each 20 seconds (one step back/two steps, forward kicks more than offsetting any backward hand or kick passes are OK).
omahant (USA) - Posts: 2899 - 05/05/2024 02:10:35
2543018
Link
0
|
|
Replying To omahant: "He's wondering what that might look like." The one thing I don't have to wonder about is that you're full of nonsense… Get rid of some of the silly rules we have ( forward mark and black card to start with ) and stop tinkering with the game… there was nothing wrong with the game it's the coaches who have ruined it and that won't change regardless of what silly changes are made… Here's a good idea for you… Stop coming up with silly rule changes .. Good lad..
ForeverBlue2 (Cavan) - Posts: 3031 - 05/05/2024 07:23:04
2543030
Link
0
|
|
Replying To tirawleybaron: " Replying To bdbuddah: "[quote=Ulsterchamps_32: "[quote=fizzygravy: "Games for the most part are difficult to watch because of tactical set-ups. Predominantly a defensive approach. There isn't much point in tinkering with rules that don't have potential to make this defensive ploy less effective. As a spectacle we want to see a more flowing game and one that presents more one-on-one contests; I think most people would agree. The solution lies is creating more space; 13-a-side is a step in that direction; certainly much easier than increasing the playing area. Another tweak is to bring the kickout back to the edge of the small rectangle; there is a huge amount of unplayable space behind the 'keeper when they are kicking at the moment. This may encourage more pressure up high as the reward for an interception closer in would be higher - that's not to say teams won't simply concede the kickout as they do now but there could be more incentive not to. The reality is that astute coaches will navigate any new rule pretty quickly; likewise lazy coaches will simply revert to type and 'Park the bus'. At the end of the day it's the poorer teams who can only play the slow lateral game. Often times this is because of the poor coaches. Dublin, Kerry, Donegal, Galway, Derry and perhaps one or two more are comfortable playing against these tactics and are happy they'll come out on top regardless. I'm expecting (hoping maybe) the Review Committee to come back with a plan which includes coach development, calendar restructure and games promotion much more than a focus on trying to 'fix' things with additional rules." On your kick out from the small rectangle I would tend to agree. The kick would have to go beyond the twenty and not into the semi circle. I'd probably still allow the kick out after a score from the twenty to give the team that's conceded a little benefit. A kick out from the small rectangle is immediately longer than it currently is so you'd think it would have to encourage teams to press more and force the keeper to kick it to a contest out the field. As you say teams could still concede the kick out it but less likely that they will. Downs tactics last week would a great game to analyse and maybe create to see can they do a few things be to counter how they went about the game. They wanted to play it slow all the time and take the sting out of armagh. They used their keeper an awful lot and if armagh pushed up they'd just use him to take the sting out of the press. If the keeper couldn't be passed to from open play armagh would have been more likely to push up. As much as I'd like to see the spectacle of gealic football improve overall I don't want them to be too radical with changes (at least initially) as you'll lose sight of what actually is working or not working."
But minor tinkering I think won't work I think.
I agree with the general sentiment in this article on the Cork GAA CEO's report last year.
Simple dramatic rule changes is what we need.
https://m.independent.ie/sport/gaelic-games/cork-chief-executive-kevin-odonovan-calls-for-dramatic-gaelic-football-rules-intervention/a1214546567.html"]I also agree with him on the need for a Gaelic Games specific - offside rule.
Some along the lines of no extra players permitted inside the defensive 45 unless
(a) they do so with 3m of their marker or
(B) the ball has been kicked into the area ahead of them (like ice hockey offside) by an attacking player who is outside the 45m line
I wouldn't be in favour of having a set position to return to before a kick out can be taken (likely to create a unintended opportunity for time wasting)
I really hate the last 10 min of a lot of games due to the amount of play acting, melees etc. Really puts a stop to comebacks.
For that reason I would think that the offside rule above combined with with a 45 yard free to be awarded after the 10 team frees conceded per half.- a bit like basketball
40 frees in 70min is enough to be looking at.
Then have a shot clock (so teams can't run down the clock) and your in business.
You now have stopped the running game (as players have to kick it forwards inside the 45).
There can be no sweeper (concedes a free if he enters the 45 before the ball).
There can be no passing around the middle (due to shot clock)
There can be no persistent fouling to slow an attack.
Also like to see any player going down injured in the last 10 mins having to go off on a stretcher and can only return to match at halfway line once referee allows at the next break in play
And lastly - max of 3 subs per match (excluding 10 min blood sub or HIA)."]I think getting players to line up in positions for kick outs is actually easier than implementing players staying inside a certain area tof the pitch while the game is flowing.
Your not talking about getting players to stand on a spot, you could use the existing lines of the pitch to define different positions for kickouts (eg. You could use the 13m line to define the full forward line- 3 players inside this line)
I said I generally agreed with Cork CEO in that the rule changes need to be simple but dramatic.
I'm not sure it would be easy to workable to insist a team keeps 4 players forward at all times, hard to imagine it when the game is flowing.
The more you tink about it maybe it would be best instead of asking for all the team to line in position have a rule that a team must leave a minimum number of players advanced beyond a certain line of the pitch for kickouts, maybe at least 3 inside the 13m line and at least 6 inside the 45m (this 6 would include the 3 already mentioned above).
At the end of the day the idea behind a rule like this is to stop forward players coming back to be part of a blanket defense. Exceptions to a rule like this could be when a team has players sent off.
bdbuddah (Meath) - Posts: 1401 - 05/05/2024 10:09:02
2543048
Link
0
|
|
To bdbuddah:
"....to insist a team keeps 4 players forward at all times, hard to imagine it when the game is flowing...."
My idea is to only test when the ball crosses the 45 in an attacking direction to ensure there are 4-on-4 (or less). Then the zone can flood before the defence moves the ball out again to reset the restriction (I had 'out again' when the ball crosses the defensive 45, but maybe until the ball enters the 'other half' is better for the ref to allow enough time for excess players to re-zone?)
The 2023 AI SHC Final often had no more than '4-on-4', so it seems hurling is naturally played this way as teams compete outfield for the slioatar.
omahant (USA) - Posts: 2899 - 06/05/2024 14:16:13
2543327
Link
0
|
|
Replying To omahant: "To bdbuddah:
"....to insist a team keeps 4 players forward at all times, hard to imagine it when the game is flowing...."
My idea is to only test when the ball crosses the 45 in an attacking direction to ensure there are 4-on-4 (or less). Then the zone can flood before the defence moves the ball out again to reset the restriction (I had 'out again' when the ball crosses the defensive 45, but maybe until the ball enters the 'other half' is better for the ref to allow enough time for excess players to re-zone?)
The 2023 AI SHC Final often had no more than '4-on-4', so it seems hurling is naturally played this way as teams compete outfield for the slioatar." I said I generally agreed with Cork GAA CEO re. overwhelm desire for change and wanting simple but dramatic rule changes.
I was then saying I wasn't sure how well his specific suggestion that we should insist on particular numbers always kept forward during the game.
That's what I was responding to I'm my post.
bdbuddah (Meath) - Posts: 1401 - 06/05/2024 20:30:26
2543391
Link
0
|