(Oldest Posts First) - Go To The Latest Post
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 |
Please stop….!!!
ForeverBlue2 (Cavan) - Posts: 1944 - 01/05/2024 07:19:39 2542134 Link 0 |
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: 292 - 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: GreenandRed (Mayo) - Posts: 7360 - 01/05/2024 09:58:18 2542165 Link 1 |
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: 7907 - 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: 145 - 01/05/2024 23:42:22 2542366 Link 0 |
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: 1126 - 02/05/2024 06:06:01 2542384 Link 2 |
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: 2614 - 02/05/2024 18:45:02 2542523 Link 3 |