|
Just read Paddy Russell's article there and it sums up all that is wrong with the rules and attitudes when applying them. When on about the sin bin rule he says "Fellas might have pulled on a fella's jersey for a millisecond but only that because they knew if they held it any longer they would be in trouble". Basically a foul is ok as long as you don't foul for too long.
This is the exact problem we have with tackling and steps. It's ok to break the rules as long as it's only for a bit. The rules on steps and tackling are clear. Constant over carrying, grappling and tugging back of players should be blown up - doesn't matter if it's for a millisecond or not.
This Comical Ali approach to the rules is nonsense. The Black Card rule is nonsense. There are enough rules in place if they are applied properly to give a more open game. It depresses me every time I read a Eugene McGee article. This guy championed the introduction of the black card and cannot admit it was a disaster. His mantra is basically that it's the greatest piece of legislation ever brought into the GAA and it's a personal insult to him that cynical fouling still exists. If this is the attitude of the powers that be then we're flogging a dead horse I'm afraid.
Hardtimes (Cavan) - Posts: 1056 - 20/07/2016 13:46:15
1886981
Link
1
|
|
Replying To bdbuddah: "In the 1970's a try in rugby was worth 3 points, this was changed to 4 points and later to 5 points to discourage teams from trying to win by drawing penalties and to encourage teams to attempt to attack and score trys which was felt was what the game was suspoased to be about. Rugby league in the early days moved from 15 to 13 a side as they felt more space was needed as there was little space when professionalism improved the fitness of players. When soccer got overly negative the back pass rule to goalies was changed and the off side rule was tweeked. The fitness of players has went through the roof and the approach to the games is much more thorough in the last 15 years, maybe the rules need to keep up." At present, the rules don't need to keep up, rather we are playing catch up with the rules, look at the state of the game with the black card since its introduction. Players are still taking one for the team and it hasn't solved a thing, it just further confuses refs. You mentioned a couple of rule changes in soccer and rugby, but lets be honest, 1 or 2 every 50 years is not the same as an entire list of proposals every year like we do in the GAA. What other sport do you know were their pundits see a bad game and are almost demanding rule changes.
Look at the 'Nash rule' in hurling, quickly introduced without much trial and it probably cost Tipp an All Ireland when they missed two penalties where at least one would have been buried under the old rule and only then do they figure out that there is no clear advantage from that type of penalty so they change it again.
Rules like the one's I mentioned should be a red flag to people's casual demands for change. There is clearly very little foresight going into these changes and it is hurting the game more than helping it.
SaffronDon (Antrim) - Posts: 2386 - 20/07/2016 14:08:19
1887000
Link
0
|
|
Replying To bdbuddah: "And I remember being at Meath Kildare games before Tyrone 2003, when Kildare were managed by Mick O' Dwyer in the 1990's and at the time people thought Kildare handpassed a lot. But if you compare it to now it would seem very few handpasses, at that time the conditioning and fitness would have meant players could not physically have been capable of continuous handpassing between each 45m line for 70 minutes. That's what I mean the rule changes have not kept up with how the modern game is played.
You say people accused Tyrone of defensive tactics in 2003, well Tyrone 2003 would look like an attack minded force compared to Donegal since 2011 and most teams today.
This shows up the trends in how football is played. People gave out in the past about too much handpassing and the defensive nature in the game, the GAA have not really tackled it with meaningful rule changes and the over the years it has got more severe and most teams are playing more defensively each year. Most people find the game hard to watch now. This trend will probably continue if nothing is done (although I don't know can we get much more than the 450 odd handpasses in the original Galway Roscommon game).
I am not having a go at Ulster specifically here, defensive football is played everywhere as it is the most effective way to win matches under the current rules.
The worst part of the defensive tactics ?, it is bad to watch when 2 of the top teams play it, but to watch it when the teams below the top level play it and it is absolutely horrendous." Tyrone in 2003 were defensive even by todays standards. They didn't break at the same speed they do now. They still brought numerous players back. Did you ever watch them play? 2005 team was a different type of team and a lot closer to the current one.
Are you annoyed that players are fitter now?
gotmilk (Fermanagh) - Posts: 4971 - 20/07/2016 14:23:15
1887017
Link
0
|
|
Replying To SaffronDon: "At present, the rules don't need to keep up, rather we are playing catch up with the rules, look at the state of the game with the black card since its introduction. Players are still taking one for the team and it hasn't solved a thing, it just further confuses refs. You mentioned a couple of rule changes in soccer and rugby, but lets be honest, 1 or 2 every 50 years is not the same as an entire list of proposals every year like we do in the GAA. What other sport do you know were their pundits see a bad game and are almost demanding rule changes.
Look at the 'Nash rule' in hurling, quickly introduced without much trial and it probably cost Tipp an All Ireland when they missed two penalties where at least one would have been buried under the old rule and only then do they figure out that there is no clear advantage from that type of penalty so they change it again.
Rules like the one's I mentioned should be a red flag to people's casual demands for change. There is clearly very little foresight going into these changes and it is hurting the game more than helping it."
ormondbannerman (Clare) - Posts: 13473 - 20/07/2016 14:28:50
1887024
Link
0
|
|
Replying To SaffronDon: "At present, the rules don't need to keep up, rather we are playing catch up with the rules, look at the state of the game with the black card since its introduction. Players are still taking one for the team and it hasn't solved a thing, it just further confuses refs. You mentioned a couple of rule changes in soccer and rugby, but lets be honest, 1 or 2 every 50 years is not the same as an entire list of proposals every year like we do in the GAA. What other sport do you know were their pundits see a bad game and are almost demanding rule changes.
Look at the 'Nash rule' in hurling, quickly introduced without much trial and it probably cost Tipp an All Ireland when they missed two penalties where at least one would have been buried under the old rule and only then do they figure out that there is no clear advantage from that type of penalty so they change it again.
Rules like the one's I mentioned should be a red flag to people's casual demands for change. There is clearly very little foresight going into these changes and it is hurting the game more than helping it." SaffronDon have you ever looked at rugby in terms of changes to its laws. There is laws changes every single season and quite regularly changes and clarifications mid season regularly as well.
I don't know for certain as I haven't checked but for next season in rugby there is seven law changes/clarifications and that is quite regular
ormondbannerman (Clare) - Posts: 13473 - 20/07/2016 14:31:30
1887031
Link
0
|
|
Replying To SaffronDon: "At present, the rules don't need to keep up, rather we are playing catch up with the rules, look at the state of the game with the black card since its introduction. Players are still taking one for the team and it hasn't solved a thing, it just further confuses refs. You mentioned a couple of rule changes in soccer and rugby, but lets be honest, 1 or 2 every 50 years is not the same as an entire list of proposals every year like we do in the GAA. What other sport do you know were their pundits see a bad game and are almost demanding rule changes.
Look at the 'Nash rule' in hurling, quickly introduced without much trial and it probably cost Tipp an All Ireland when they missed two penalties where at least one would have been buried under the old rule and only then do they figure out that there is no clear advantage from that type of penalty so they change it again.
Rules like the one's I mentioned should be a red flag to people's casual demands for change. There is clearly very little foresight going into these changes and it is hurting the game more than helping it." Very good example of a bad rule change.
A lot of the potential rule changes being bandied about I feel are potentially damaging and don't get at the heart of the problem. Particularly the obsession with hand passing.
I don't think it's a case of let's give something a go and we can get rid of it if it doesn't work.
There are consequences to this as you pointed out with regards Tipp.
The black card also shows that the GAA is happy to continue to persevere with a rule change even when it's clear it's not working.
Whammo86 (Antrim) - Posts: 4241 - 20/07/2016 14:36:22
1887036
Link
0
|
|
Would 13 a side be the answer?
Gaelic is sort of going the same way international rugby has gone, in both the players that play are getting taller, bigger, fitter, and with that they are able to cover more space on the pitch, rugby has got boring in recent yrs I feel because of the same issues, with less eye catching tries being scored,( only time anyone breaks the line is because of a missed tackle as the teams are so well drilled in tackling and defending that way and Gaelic is now the same), and they have talked about 13 a side being an option, as it takes 4 players off the pitch, therefore more space available.
Or am I talking pure shite
1till15 (Donegal) - Posts: 2 - 20/07/2016 14:37:41
1887039
Link
0
|
|
Replying To neverright: "Perhaps a good place to start would be stop the 'swarm' tackle. No need to change the rules, just apply the rules that are there. In a one on one situation the ref will penalise a player if the put a hand on the player in possession, to ether pull him, push him, to try to knock the ball away. Yet, in the swarm tackle, they stand back and allow the tacklers to pull, push, etc the man with the ball and then penalise him for over carrying. If this was referreed properly it would open up the game considerably and maybe cut down on the system of having so many players back to do this type of tackling" Jasus neverright I seem to remember someone else saying this and i believe it was you that had some smart comments Glad you have come round to my way of thinking
cluichethar (Mayo) - Posts: 454 - 20/07/2016 14:38:03
1887040
Link
0
|
|
Replying To cluichethar: "Jasus neverright I seem to remember someone else saying this and i believe it was you that had some smart comments Glad you have come round to my way of thinking" But is someone tackling when they are just standing there without touching the player? If so how far way do they have to be before they aren't tackling? Is it only when contact is made does it become a tackle? If so what's to stop a player from charging at a player who isn't touching him while another player legally tackles him? Under those rule changes it would be two players tackling him and therefore a free against a player who just happened to be standing there.
You have to think of these rule changes in game time scenarios the whole way through.
For me if you really want to award attacking football you need to increase the value of a point outside the 45. If that becomes two points sides will have to push out from their defensive structures inside the 45 to stop a greater reward. When they push out it leaves space inside.
Although for me there is nothing wrong with football.
gotmilk (Fermanagh) - Posts: 4971 - 20/07/2016 14:50:24
1887055
Link
0
|
|
One very simple change that might help speed up the game is to allow quicker kick outs. The amount of times a referee holds up play to wait for a player to step outside the 21 is ridiculous. Frequently the hold up is an added advantage to the team that has just scored yet it is often a forward delaying the restart.
I know this was viewed as a problem a couple of years ago, especially in the case of Cluxton taking them, but it's simply a method of attacking before a team gets their defensive wall or blanket or whatever you call it in place, and wouldn't require any major rule changes or extra work on referees.
AHP (Dublin) - Posts: 323 - 20/07/2016 15:53:59
1887109
Link
0
|
|
Replying To gotmilk: "But is someone tackling when they are just standing there without touching the player? If so how far way do they have to be before they aren't tackling? Is it only when contact is made does it become a tackle? If so what's to stop a player from charging at a player who isn't touching him while another player legally tackles him? Under those rule changes it would be two players tackling him and therefore a free against a player who just happened to be standing there.
You have to think of these rule changes in game time scenarios the whole way through.
For me if you really want to award attacking football you need to increase the value of a point outside the 45. If that becomes two points sides will have to push out from their defensive structures inside the 45 to stop a greater reward. When they push out it leaves space inside.
Although for me there is nothing wrong with football." You first point is advocating the third man tackle which was outlawed many years ago.
neverright (Roscommon) - Posts: 1648 - 20/07/2016 16:01:53
1887117
Link
0
|
|
Replying To ormondbannerman: "SaffronDon have you ever looked at rugby in terms of changes to its laws. There is laws changes every single season and quite regularly changes and clarifications mid season regularly as well.
I don't know for certain as I haven't checked but for next season in rugby there is seven law changes/clarifications and that is quite regular" are laws the same as rules? because I don't notice much difference from year to year in rugby, not that I'm claiming to be much of a fan in all honesty
SaffronDon (Antrim) - Posts: 2386 - 20/07/2016 16:02:47
1887120
Link
0
|
|
Replying To SaffronDon: "At present, the rules don't need to keep up, rather we are playing catch up with the rules, look at the state of the game with the black card since its introduction. Players are still taking one for the team and it hasn't solved a thing, it just further confuses refs. You mentioned a couple of rule changes in soccer and rugby, but lets be honest, 1 or 2 every 50 years is not the same as an entire list of proposals every year like we do in the GAA. What other sport do you know were their pundits see a bad game and are almost demanding rule changes.
Look at the 'Nash rule' in hurling, quickly introduced without much trial and it probably cost Tipp an All Ireland when they missed two penalties where at least one would have been buried under the old rule and only then do they figure out that there is no clear advantage from that type of penalty so they change it again.
Rules like the one's I mentioned should be a red flag to people's casual demands for change. There is clearly very little foresight going into these changes and it is hurting the game more than helping it." But the thing is the pundits have been calling for rule changes for years regarding defensive play/ overuse of the handpass, the GAA has done little or nothing on this, every year the game gets more defensive and so naturally the pundits are still saying something has to be done on this. Regarding the 'Nash rule', the GAA felt they had to do something quickly once someone mentioned it was a 'health and safety risk' as they felt they would be liable if anything happened and they had done nothing.
bdbuddah (Meath) - Posts: 1360 - 20/07/2016 16:59:08
1887149
Link
0
|
|
Replying To gotmilk: "Tyrone in 2003 were defensive even by todays standards. They didn't break at the same speed they do now. They still brought numerous players back. Did you ever watch them play? 2005 team was a different type of team and a lot closer to the current one.
Are you annoyed that players are fitter now?" I don't agree that Tyrone 2003 were defensive by today's standards. Teams now have more players back. Am I annoyed players are fitter?, No. It is inevitable and should make the game a much better spectacle. The problem is the GAA rules have not kept up with these developments.
bdbuddah (Meath) - Posts: 1360 - 20/07/2016 17:07:09
1887156
Link
0
|
|
Replying To gotmilk: "But is someone tackling when they are just standing there without touching the player? If so how far way do they have to be before they aren't tackling? Is it only when contact is made does it become a tackle? If so what's to stop a player from charging at a player who isn't touching him while another player legally tackles him? Under those rule changes it would be two players tackling him and therefore a free against a player who just happened to be standing there.
You have to think of these rule changes in game time scenarios the whole way through.
For me if you really want to award attacking football you need to increase the value of a point outside the 45. If that becomes two points sides will have to push out from their defensive structures inside the 45 to stop a greater reward. When they push out it leaves space inside.
Although for me there is nothing wrong with football." We don't need new rules just enforce the rules that are there
cluichethar (Mayo) - Posts: 454 - 20/07/2016 17:20:03
1887163
Link
1
|
|
Replying To neverright: "You first point is advocating the third man tackle which was outlawed many years ago." I'm asking when does it become a tackle? If you look at teams defending a lot of them don't actually touch the attacker. I'm asking when does it become a tackle? Other posters are saying you shouldn't allow more than one player tackling, I want to know is when does it become a tackle.
gotmilk (Fermanagh) - Posts: 4971 - 20/07/2016 17:40:08
1887174
Link
0
|
|
Replying To cluichethar: "We don't need new rules just enforce the rules that are there" I agree 100%. The rules are fine, the game is fine, the referees aren't.
gotmilk (Fermanagh) - Posts: 4971 - 20/07/2016 17:40:52
1887175
Link
0
|
|
Replying To 1till15: "Would 13 a side be the answer?
Gaelic is sort of going the same way international rugby has gone, in both the players that play are getting taller, bigger, fitter, and with that they are able to cover more space on the pitch, rugby has got boring in recent yrs I feel because of the same issues, with less eye catching tries being scored,( only time anyone breaks the line is because of a missed tackle as the teams are so well drilled in tackling and defending that way and Gaelic is now the same), and they have talked about 13 a side being an option, as it takes 4 players off the pitch, therefore more space available.
Or am I talking pure shite" I don't think space is a big issue.
It's just that a large swath of the pitch isn't really worth winning possession in.
Between the 45s possession is less valuable than having a good defense set up.
I think going 13 a side will still see clogged defenses.
Whammo86 (Antrim) - Posts: 4241 - 20/07/2016 17:58:11
1887185
Link
0
|
|
Replying To cluichethar: "Jasus neverright I seem to remember someone else saying this and i believe it was you that had some smart comments Glad you have come round to my way of thinking" This is my fourth attempt to point out that you are mistaken. I put up the post early on in the three so why would I make 'smart' comments about it. I don't like to be misquoted. No one could accuse me of ever supporting swarm tackles or massed defence. I find it very difficult to watch. I don't know what your opinions are so can't say if you agree with me or not.
neverright (Roscommon) - Posts: 1648 - 20/07/2016 20:41:21
1887251
Link
0
|
|
13 a side will not work .
Why is everyone suggesting this ?
Teams will still park 11-12 bodies behind the ball.
To begin with - the keepers could kick it out past the 45.
TheRightStuff (Donegal) - Posts: 1688 - 20/07/2016 21:27:29
1887281
Link
0
|