(Oldest Posts First) - Go To The Latest Post
|
The rule favoured the defence over the attack yet was brought in to make football better to watch. The mind boggles. MesAmis (Dublin) - Posts: 13718 - 19/01/2019 20:18:45 2158282 Link 4 |
|
It was an attempt to solve problems in the game . As you say they did not attempt to deal with the problem . They tried to deal with a symptom of the problem . The problem is the number of players teams bring back to defend . That is what needs to be tackled .
Greengrass (Louth) - Posts: 6031 - 19/01/2019 20:31:56 2158286 Link 1 |
|
I agree with what you are saying . Martin Breheny has his own agenda . He advocated the hand pass rule in a big way . He also attempted to portray managers and players as being the bad boys . It's good to see high profile journalists being repudiated .
Greengrass (Louth) - Posts: 6031 - 19/01/2019 20:35:43 2158289 Link 1 |
|
Amen to that A good day for our sport Now to enjoy the leagues where so many competitive games are just waiting to throw in. jimbodub (Dublin) - Posts: 20600 - 19/01/2019 20:50:10 2158296 Link 3 |
|
After (enduring) Armagh v Tyrone I welcome the return of the handpass (deathpass) in all its infamy. Watching these two teams struggling to kick a decent ball, a handpass is a godsend for teams and spectators alike. arock (Dublin) - Posts: 4897 - 19/01/2019 21:29:11 2158303 Link 0 |
|
I am all for any changes once it is for the better of the game and this rule was not. If anything from the one game I did see it only invited more defensive play. Not only that but brought alot of confusion and killed attacking fluidity. However I do think given more time and thought the rule can be a catalyst for change in terms of minimizing dull lateral hand passing in ur own half. Maybe limiting the hand passing there or once u pass a certain line u cannot pass back. Posters are right to highlight the worrying closeness in terms of the overall vote. Something is definitely not right there and brings back memories of how easily and worryingly the rule changes in terms of moving U-21 football championship to U-20 got through. panamasam (Australia) - Posts: 2782 - 19/01/2019 21:42:26 2158312 Link 1 |
|
Goodbye football, hello handball again. Not enough time given to new rules, especially the handpass. GPA and county managers run the show now it appears, GAA brass has no backbone. Convert2 (Westmeath) - Posts: 25 - 19/01/2019 21:55:50 2158315 Link 5 |
|
I don't think the handpass rule was in force for that game?
GeniusGerry (Kerry) - Posts: 2105 - 19/01/2019 22:10:23 2158317 Link 3 |
|
So are these rules coming in for club competition now??? GerryD (Monaghan) - Posts: 336 - 20/01/2019 07:46:40 2158340 Link 0 |
|
I can't listen to Tomas O Se any more. He's halfway between Brolly and Spillane. A disaster. icehonesty (Wexford) - Posts: 2553 - 20/01/2019 14:43:44 2158393 Link 0 |
|
Did you attend any matches with the hand pass rule ?? It was a disaster farneygael (Monaghan) - Posts: 277 - 20/01/2019 15:30:05 2158403 Link 0 |
|
Agreed, can't understand how one of the best players to ever kick a ball can be so bad when analysing the game. I do think that RTE editors pick out the parts of the game to analyse tho and this curtails pundits in what they can talk about. There are very very few really good pundits out there. Jim McGuinness is/was head and shoulders above the rest IMO, but that's probably to be expected given how he's analysed the modern game in such detail himself. cavanman47 (Cavan) - Posts: 5016 - 21/01/2019 14:34:12 2158651 Link 0 |
|
The problem of blanket defense is easily solved. 1. Ban zonal defense (as per NBA) 2. Ban 2 man tackles 3. Make it 13 a side No need to limit handpasses if you make them totally unpractical 1. No backpasses to goalkeeper 2. No backpassing once you cross your own 45 3. Limit substitutions to 3 max so all that running and handpassing is impractical A lot of the problem is that you can make 7 subs - through in a few blood subs and you could rest 8 or 9 players over the course of a match tirawleybaron (Mayo) - Posts: 1125 - 03/02/2019 21:33:11 2162272 Link 0 |
|
Wexford made a total of 35 handpasses in succession in a 3 minute period of holding possession against Antrim last Sunday in Wexford Park. If the handpass rule had stood they would have had to kick the ball 11 times in that period. hurlorhurley (Wexford) - Posts: 1660 - 05/02/2019 12:16:05 2162724 Link 1 |
|
Limiting substitutions to 3 is a total non runner. It doesnt allow tactical personel changes and stifles managers. It just suits teams with poor squads. Why reward mediocre squads.
bloodyban (Limerick) - Posts: 1710 - 05/02/2019 14:34:00 2162760 Link 0 |
|
Then Antrim should have pushed up no? The onus is on them to come out of their defensive shell
Kingofthehill100 (Mayo) - Posts: 68 - 05/02/2019 14:55:15 2162766 Link 1 |
|
Managers are ruining the game most of them afraid to lose rather than trying to win hurlorhurley (Wexford) - Posts: 1660 - 05/02/2019 16:01:16 2162788 Link 0 |
|
A way has to be found to force teams to push out and contest the ball outside their own 45. Should we limit how far you can work the ball back to encourage this? Solutions have to be practical and workable at club level lillyboy (Kildare) - Posts: 429 - 05/02/2019 17:25:21 2162803 Link 0 |
|
The team with the ball isn't the problem. So limiting them going back isn't really addressing the correct team. The team who are defending with 15 men in their own 45 are the issue. Either way we have new rules to taste and we should discuss these rather than proposed rules. The attacking mark will hopefully be a turning point for attractive football
Kingofthehill100 (Mayo) - Posts: 68 - 05/02/2019 17:54:38 2162810 Link 0 |
|
I mean the scoreboard should be forcing these teams to push out. If a team is being coached to sit back when 3 points down in the second half then they are being coached badly. 13 a side is so far from being the answer by the way. It'd just make it easier for a team to keep possession. Whammo86 (Antrim) - Posts: 4236 - 05/02/2019 19:17:10 2162829 Link 2 |