(Oldest Posts First) - Go To The Latest Post
Obvious from today's game that rule shouldn't have been changed. It's so difficult to score a goal now. I made the point at the time that the safety concerns didn't make sense, because a player could go as close to goal as they like in open play. Richie power took no prisoners today when he blasted the third goal from very close range. Why should a penalty have different rules Malonemagic (Laois) - Posts: 766 - 07/09/2014 21:52:14 1649311 Link 0 |
Penalty is not a penalty anymore its a free in. If safety is the concern, leave the distance the same and take one or both of the defenders out to make it easier to score. If your a defender your going to give away a penalty every time because its so hard to score them. tirawleybaron (Mayo) - Posts: 1109 - 08/09/2014 08:19:02 1649322 Link 0 |
The lads on The Sunday Game last night were saying it should be only 1 in the goal now to give the advantage back to the attacker. I wouldnt agree with that. It would shift the advantage too much in favour of the penalty taker. Perhaps a fairer solution would be to have 2 in goals instead of 3 PoolSturgeon (Galway) - Posts: 1903 - 08/09/2014 08:22:15 1649323 Link 0 |
And an idea mooted on a sports programme yesterday evening could be considered, that a point scored from the existing penalty should be worth 2 points and a goal worth four points. Oldtourman (Limerick) - Posts: 4321 - 08/09/2014 08:48:18 1649326 Link 0 |
PoolSturgeon tipp11 (Tipperary) - Posts: 353 - 08/09/2014 08:59:09 1649330 Link 0 |
There are two simple solutions, forst option is as already stated reduce the number on the line. Or move it in closer and ensure the player takes it from the required distance. arock (Dublin) - Posts: 4896 - 08/09/2014 09:11:18 1649333 Link 0 |
Yeah its a bit of a sham of a rule to be honest. It just encourages players to pull down the opposition if they are through for probably a certain goal and punishes the attacking team. Sambo had an article on here a month or so ago after the Limerick/KK match where he said: Offside_Rule (Antrim) - Posts: 4058 - 08/09/2014 09:20:39 1649341 Link 0 |
Heavily weighted -- I agree Tipp 11 , but making it absolutely certain that every penalty will be scored by only having the keeper on the line, I do not agree with that.2 on the goal line gets the balance better and would bring it back to the way things were before the Nash style of penalty-taking became the norm PoolSturgeon (Galway) - Posts: 1903 - 08/09/2014 09:51:52 1649369 Link 0 |
This rule is a joke and has to be changed immediately. onlyhurling (Galway) - Posts: 800 - 08/09/2014 11:03:35 1649433 Link 0 |
The penalties taken in yesterdays game were poor, especially the first one, hardly made it to the goal! Ban (Westmeath) - Posts: 1415 - 08/09/2014 11:28:25 1649457 Link 0 |
Yeah what we really need is proper stats from before and after the rule change to measure the difference. Taking 2 single incidents from a high pressure game is never a good way to make an argument one way or another. benjyyy (Donegal) - Posts: 1422 - 08/09/2014 11:42:19 1649469 Link 0 |
The penalty situation definitely needs revisiting. The distance you can strike from has been put back due to health and safety concerns. So that change can't be rolled back. Agree with the posters calling for the removal of one defender. This should swing the advantage back to the penalty taker. Ideally 70% + of penaltys should result in a goal. Not sure what the average is now, less than 40% I'd guess. enver (Limerick) - Posts: 128 - 08/09/2014 11:43:12 1649470 Link 0 |
I think one on one for the penalty. As u can see from yesterday both penalties were saved by the keeper so both we're hit central enough. First things first the team taking the penalty where fouled and usually stopping a goal chance so for the penalty they shud have the advantage. And if the taker has to hit on or outside the 20 m line then I think it's a fair one on one opportunity. Like in soccer there is already the case for a badly taken penalty and a miss but as the penalty punishment shud be it shud be an advantage to the attacking team and yes there will be a higher success rate but that just what penalties are in any sport....they penalise foul play. I for one still wouldn't like to be the taker of one even one on one as the pressure is always on the taker especially if there's a serious game on the line for that penalty. urhavinalaugh (Carlow) - Posts: 73 - 08/09/2014 11:44:55 1649473 Link 0 |
If the forward turns inside a defender and is through on goal now at club level (even up to Senior club) then he must be hauled down. MesAmis (Dublin) - Posts: 13707 - 08/09/2014 11:50:06 1649477 Link 0 |
PoolSturgeon is talking sense. waynoI (Dublin) - Posts: 13650 - 08/09/2014 11:55:34 1649478 Link 0 |
This might sound a bit American football-ish but for a penalty maybe the defending team could have the option to bring on their sub keeper & both keepers face the penalty. The manager would have to withdraw one player to allow the second keeper on and the keeper could go off again as soon as the ball goes out of play. slayer (Limerick) - Posts: 6480 - 08/09/2014 13:02:52 1649526 Link 0 |
I agree with Ban. They were poor penalties in yesterday's match. bennybunny (Cork) - Posts: 3917 - 08/09/2014 13:14:03 1649535 Link 0 |
The solution is simple, only the keeper allowed in goal for penalties which must be struck from no nearer than the 21. Barnowl94 (Galway) - Posts: 3150 - 08/09/2014 13:50:49 1649574 Link 0 |
Another fall out from the 'Nash rule' is the death of going for goal from a 21m free in. MesAmis (Dublin) - Posts: 13707 - 09/09/2014 11:52:10 1649998 Link 0 |
Moving the ball closer makes it more dangerous. Ever been hit in the balls from a hurling ball struck with force from 10 or 12 yards away? icehonesty (Wexford) - Posts: 2550 - 09/09/2014 13:11:39 1650054 Link 0 |