National Forum

"It's Worrying For Football That More Rule Changes Are Being Considered!!"

(Oldest Posts First) - Go To The Latest Post


Replying To Pikeman96:  "Just on your point 3 - minimum width of a GAA pitch is 80 metres. Means the 40m arc could indeed be extended to the end lines on even the narrowest club pitch, unless of course that pitch was illegal in the first place.

I happen to think this is one of the few good proposals. Currently, if you're out by the sideline but inside the 20m line, you're still more than 40 metres from goal, but you'd get only one point if you happen to swing the ball over from there - despite how it'd be a more difficult kick that from 40 metres straight in front of the posts."
I agree with the difficulty from the "corner" - but is it even kickable? If not, extending arc marking to endline is meaningless. I'm ok too with the 'aesthetic' of ending at the 20 (looks nice, if we get rid of the smaller D).

Quite a while ago, another poster in this fprum mentioned that some club pitches were narrower than 80m - I am/ was unaware of the GAA minimum width, but logically it makes sense to have one.

omahant (USA) - Posts: 3539 - 30/08/2026 17:55:17    2691991

Link

Replying To Pikeman96:  "Just on your point 3 - minimum width of a GAA pitch is 80 metres. Means the 40m arc could indeed be extended to the end lines on even the narrowest club pitch, unless of course that pitch was illegal in the first place.

I happen to think this is one of the few good proposals. Currently, if you're out by the sideline but inside the 20m line, you're still more than 40 metres from goal, but you'd get only one point if you happen to swing the ball over from there - despite how it'd be a more difficult kick that from 40 metres straight in front of the posts."
The issue with the width of a pitch isn't that the arc won't fit, it's that the playable area within that new 2 point zone will vary significantly between an 80m pitch & a 90m one. (https://x.com/TsuDhoNim/status/2093390272805679479 an illustration of it helps clear up the meaning)

It means if we're playing on a 90m pitch like Tuam I've lots of space to ping passes into you in that new area to take an advanced mark and have a 2 point shot to nothing while retaining possession with the mark, or 2 shots at the 2 if you take the second one on, but if we're playing in a narrow pitch like say MacHale Park that tactic wouldn't be viable with the minimal space to look for the mark.

It's not a deal breaker by any means, but in a game where there's already a significant difference between how a larger or narrower pitch plays (or a harder surface versus a softer one) we're now introducing even more tactical nuances around it.

Nice to clear up all sidelines being worth 2 (they're foot on or outside of that zone anyway so all should have been 2 already), but not sure the variance within that 'extra' zone has more pros than cons.

@omahant: "Not sure I understand - "illegal" ok +50m, but "legal" tackle should be allowed".

Any tackle within 4m of the person taking the mark is illegal in the context there.

At the moment the 50m penalty only applies if the person raises a hand, claims the free kick reward for the mark and then the free kick is delayed. This would return the rule to the original setup where any foul (or tackle within 4m) on the person choosing to play on after a mark is back to 50m rather than a free from the spot.

There's already a 50m penalty for any foul designed to delay, which nearly all fouls on someone playing on from a mark will potentially fall under, so this could easily have been handled with a small tweak to the interpretation around that.

TsuDhoNimh (Mayo) - Posts: 21 - 30/08/2026 18:10:46    2691994

Link

I think most people would have to agree that the quality of football this year was quiet good a big improvement in my opinion,, I can not understand why they even consider bringing in more changes it's become a joke now leave game as is ,, at this stage it's just messing with rules for sake of it ,, think players will just have to say enough is enough at some point at end of day they amateur players

Kickitout (Galway) - Posts: 1172 - 30/08/2026 18:12:12    2691996

Link

Replying To Kickitout:  "I think most people would have to agree that the quality of football this year was quiet good a big improvement in my opinion,, I can not understand why they even consider bringing in more changes it's become a joke now leave game as is ,, at this stage it's just messing with rules for sake of it ,, think players will just have to say enough is enough at some point at end of day they amateur players"
Players will play under the rules that are passed by Congress.
As it was in the beginning, is now ....

Seanfan (Roscommon) - Posts: 899 - 30/08/2026 18:52:57    2692003

Link

Replying To omahant:  "I agree with the difficulty from the "corner" - but is it even kickable? If not, extending arc marking to endline is meaningless. I'm ok too with the 'aesthetic' of ending at the 20 (looks nice, if we get rid of the smaller D).

Quite a while ago, another poster in this fprum mentioned that some club pitches were narrower than 80m - I am/ was unaware of the GAA minimum width, but logically it makes sense to have one."
It's the very first rule in Part 2 of the Rule Book, which is the one that deals with the playing of the games themselves (Part 1 is about structures and administration).

1.1 The field of play shall be rectangular, and its dimensions shall be as follows:
Length - 130m minimum and 145m maximum.
Width - 80m minimum and 90m maximum.
Exception: The dimensions may be reduced by local Bye-Laws for Under 15 or younger grades.

If it really is the case that some club pitches are narrower than 80m, as that other poster believes, then those pitches don't comply with rule and really shouldn't be used at all.

Pikeman96 (Wexford) - Posts: 3943 - 30/08/2026 20:01:07    2692010

Link

Replying To TsuDhoNimh:  "The issue with the width of a pitch isn't that the arc won't fit, it's that the playable area within that new 2 point zone will vary significantly between an 80m pitch & a 90m one. (https://x.com/TsuDhoNim/status/2093390272805679479 an illustration of it helps clear up the meaning)

It means if we're playing on a 90m pitch like Tuam I've lots of space to ping passes into you in that new area to take an advanced mark and have a 2 point shot to nothing while retaining possession with the mark, or 2 shots at the 2 if you take the second one on, but if we're playing in a narrow pitch like say MacHale Park that tactic wouldn't be viable with the minimal space to look for the mark.

It's not a deal breaker by any means, but in a game where there's already a significant difference between how a larger or narrower pitch plays (or a harder surface versus a softer one) we're now introducing even more tactical nuances around it.

Nice to clear up all sidelines being worth 2 (they're foot on or outside of that zone anyway so all should have been 2 already), but not sure the variance within that 'extra' zone has more pros than cons.

@omahant: "Not sure I understand - "illegal" ok +50m, but "legal" tackle should be allowed".

Any tackle within 4m of the person taking the mark is illegal in the context there.

At the moment the 50m penalty only applies if the person raises a hand, claims the free kick reward for the mark and then the free kick is delayed. This would return the rule to the original setup where any foul (or tackle within 4m) on the person choosing to play on after a mark is back to 50m rather than a free from the spot.

There's already a 50m penalty for any foul designed to delay, which nearly all fouls on someone playing on from a mark will potentially fall under, so this could easily have been handled with a small tweak to the interpretation around that."
I take your point re. width of pitches but I'd assert that the graphic on the post you link to actually reinforces my point.

Even on a minimum width pitch, kicking a score from one of those light orange areas inside the 20m line would be more difficult than kicking one from the regular green area outside the 20m line and outside the arc. Why then should it be worth only one point when the "easier" kick would be worth two?

Pikeman96 (Wexford) - Posts: 3943 - 30/08/2026 20:06:44    2692012

Link

Still no attempt to define the tackle. Many of the suggestions around shot clocks, handpass restrictions, back court etc, are just dealing with the symptoms of not having a tackle properly defined in the game.

The obvious improvements are:
1) No handpassed points out of the hand. An absolute no brainer

2) In addition, there should no goals from a ball put in flight off the hand- that will get rid of the 'walking it into the net' and 'tap-in' type goal. Goals and point s scored with the hand should only be from a ball put in flight from the boot.

3) Change the sanction for technical fouls by players possession, Overcarrying/ steps, throwing the ball, lying on the ball should result in a turnover of possession/indirect free kick not a direct scoring chance. The penalty for a technical foul in your own defensive area is too punitive and as a result many technical fouls are not penalised. Teams will push up much more if there is a realistic chance of a turnover.

5) Address handpassing in deep areas and leave it be up front. Restricting handpassing could work if applied in your own half. For example, if a team brings a ball back inside its own '45 it must be kicked or carried out not handpassed.

4) 100% no to a shot clock

Eddie the Exile (Monaghan) - Posts: 1389 - 30/08/2026 22:15:51    2692029

Link