|
Replying To tirawleybaron: "Why was the 2 point rule needed? Because all players were being discouraged from attempting (and learning) a fundamental skill of the game.
Does anyone remember Derry being afraid to shoot at all, when one point behind in one match a few years ago.
Donegals "low block" defence (and their copy cats) have been sitting inside 40m from goal, forcing long range kicks (at 50% accuracy) or waiting to smother a forward trying to get inside, for 14 years.
We all have had enough of watching that tripe.
Donegal sat in again in the final and were punished by a team who had more skills than they did (long range shooting).
They sat in for so long, they let Kerry kick a two pointer after the buzzer in the first half and let Paudie Clifford have 76 possessions (mostly unopposed). They were 7 points down and let Kerrys half forwards have the freedom of Croke Park. If your U8's refused to go out and tackle like that, you'd go off the head.
At times, the Kerry lads were dropping balls and messing up solo's and no one came out of the low block to pressure them.
What are people doing complaining about Kerry taking their time to execute a score while Donegal sat in afraid to come out and tackle them.
The slow build up play in yesterdays game is on McGuiness tactics, not the two point rule. Why should Kerry be forced into the low block, they should be rewarded for being skillfull enough to shoot over it. No one else was able to do it all year.
Saying that, I was all for the 4 point rule for a goal. Pity it never got tried out - would love to see it in the provincial club championship.
I don't think we should be wedded to the 40m arc though. It could be more of an half oval shape. 35m at the endline and 45m infront of the posts.
I think the bringing a technical infringement back out should be to the 45m as a minimum and there needs to be a 60s time limit so we dont have to wait all day for a goal keeper to step up.
In the NBA, the moved the 3 pint arc back, but the players just got better. the new obsession with 3 pointers means you can win without long range shooters.
In the GAA we didn't need long range shooters for the past 10 years. Now we do. Get busy practicing on the training field. The two Clifford are probably out there this evening." I'm not suggesting getting rid of it entirely.
Its just not worth DOUBLE a normal point.
Basketball is 50% more for three pointer.
100% is too much. Also 66% of a goal.
Goal to 4 is not the answer either.
shaggykev (Donegal) - Posts: 422 - 28/07/2025 19:04:13
2628805
Link
0
|
|
I don't like the 2 pointer. I think our game is becoming centred around that. But I think it will be kept, so yeh, bring on the 4 point goal!
realdub (Dublin) - Posts: 8816 - 28/07/2025 19:33:37
2628814
Link
1
|
|
Replying To Green_Gold: "I think we need a few years with the new rules and then make a decision. Overall the new rules have improved the game. Would it be sensible to get rid of 2 points for a free outside the arc?
The only downside of the new rules that I can see is that you might get a lot more one sided games." Be sensible just to get rid of all two pointers. Without them yesterday it was a one score game before Joe O'Connor hits the net, not a one sided game then with the match in the balance keeping all watching interested until the final few moments. The amount of people looking down at their phones yesterday in Croke Park was not a good sign for the so called improved game under these new rules.
Drax_the_destroyer (UK) - Posts: 552 - 28/07/2025 19:36:57
2628816
Link
2
|
|
Replying To yew_tree: "Well it's clear now that if you don't have players that can kick 2 pointers your not going to win an all Ireland." And if you don't have players who can defend against 2 pointers, you are not going to win an All Ireland.
endgame (Roscommon) - Posts: 2566 - 28/07/2025 19:41:12
2628818
Link
2
|
|
Replying To Drax_the_destroyer: "Be sensible just to get rid of all two pointers. Without them yesterday it was a one score game before Joe O'Connor hits the net, not a one sided game then with the match in the balance keeping all watching interested until the final few moments. The amount of people looking down at their phones yesterday in Croke Park was not a good sign for the so called improved game under these new rules." It wouldn't have been a one score game yesterday if there were no two pointers. Both teams would have adapted their tactics for one pointers if there were no two pointers. It was a one sided game because Kerry were the better hungrier team. If they played under 2024 rules on yesterday's form they would still have won.
GreenandRed (Mayo) - Posts: 8192 - 28/07/2025 23:08:21
2628859
Link
0
|
|
Why is it when a team is successful in GAA, fans try to come up with new "rules" to try and remove that team's supposed "advantage"?!
Kerry have the best long range point kicker in the game, therefore we must remove 2 point rule!
ballydalane (Kilkenny) - Posts: 1258 - 29/07/2025 12:39:51
2628981
Link
1
|
|
I've been on record from the start about the 2 pointer, sort of similar to what Conor McManus has been saying all year about it, it feels like a very big reward for what is a pretty easy kick for the top players. But at the same time, Clifford's 2 pointers in the final were sensational and felt like they deserved the two in a way.
When the ground is solid and the ball travels further in the summer, it feels like it's a bit much especially when a goal is only worth 3. It's an easy strike for the likes of Rian O'Neill, Michael Murphy, and of course Clifford and Sean O'Shea. I would like the 2 points for a free looked at, it's tough because you don't want fouling to be happening out the field but sometimes a soft enough free is given and next thing there is 2 points on the board.
I'd say I'm in the minority with it as overall people are very positive about the new rules and the 2 pointer. maybe they will look at the 4 point goal again now
CCFabu (Donegal) - Posts: 269 - 29/07/2025 13:40:03
2628999
Link
0
|
|
I said I would wait until the championship was over to give my own opinion on the two pointers.The obvious reason is I did nt want posters thinking it was sour grapes if we lost.
However as we won its now easier to give my view.I do not like tbe two pointers tbh.
Altho I know Kerry benefitted hugely from them Its not for me.
The better team might lose alot of the time but i suppose its the same for the team scoring more goals.
Maybe outside the 45 could be a two pointer but not tbe arc.
Obviously delighted to watch Clifford score them but think they have too much influence on a game especially with a strong wind.
CiarraiMick (Dublin) - Posts: 4059 - 29/07/2025 19:53:12
2629108
Link
0
|
|
Replying To CCFabu: "I've been on record from the start about the 2 pointer, sort of similar to what Conor McManus has been saying all year about it, it feels like a very big reward for what is a pretty easy kick for the top players. But at the same time, Clifford's 2 pointers in the final were sensational and felt like they deserved the two in a way.
When the ground is solid and the ball travels further in the summer, it feels like it's a bit much especially when a goal is only worth 3. It's an easy strike for the likes of Rian O'Neill, Michael Murphy, and of course Clifford and Sean O'Shea. I would like the 2 points for a free looked at, it's tough because you don't want fouling to be happening out the field but sometimes a soft enough free is given and next thing there is 2 points on the board.
I'd say I'm in the minority with it as overall people are very positive about the new rules and the 2 pointer. maybe they will look at the 4 point goal again now" Folks face facts.
Its totally too generous for some of the scores that are being scored compared to goals and tight angle shots and will be even worse next year. Rory Beggan scored how many this year just tapping it over the bar.
It cannot be 100% more than normal score.
It should be 50% more and half of a goal. Therefore its either 1.5 points or we change scoring to 2-3-6
shaggykev (Donegal) - Posts: 422 - 29/07/2025 20:25:27
2629115
Link
0
|
|
Replying To brianb: "Yeah the ratio 1:2:3 is wrong. I'd think it would be 1:1.5:3.5 (2:3:7). That would probably be a bit convoluted though?
My biggest issue with the new rules was that technical fouls 40 - 55 meters out being rewarded by a 2 point free. No way should the penalty for an over carry or pick up be worth 2 points." Technical Fouls:
two suggested solutions (with 2-pts arc retained) -
A) make frees indirect; OR
B) take frees from the sideline.
1-2-3 Scoring Scale:
two alternatives -
A) First two goals per team are worth 5 pts each, before reverting to 3 pts for each subsequent goal.
B) '3s' unlimited, BUT 'combined 1s & 2s' capped at say, a 24 pts total. So, beyond 24, ALL additional points are worthless, regardless of distance.
Given the 5-pt goals, or 1-2 pts cap, teams should allocate more time to goal attempts during the game.
omahant (USA) - Posts: 3325 - 29/07/2025 22:21:13
2629152
Link
0
|
|
I don't like the 2 pointer and before I'm accused of sour grapes, I've been saying this for months. I wrote the below at the start of May - they won't let me link to it so pasting it here:
The 2 pointer is far too influential in Gaelic Football. The scoring is imbalanced and it is taking away from the game. Here are three suggestions for improvements:
1. Make it worth 1.5 points. The ratio of scoring is better as 1/1.5/3 (or 2/3/6). Like basketball it still rewards a longer range score but means a goal is worth 2x (rather than current 1.5x) and still 3x of a normal score.
2. Move the arc to 45m so it touches the 45m line in the centre. Increasing the difficulty retains most of the current dynamic but improves the risk/reward compared to other scores.
3. Change the goal back to being worth 4 points. This is the least favourable of the options as it only fixes the goal vs 2 point ratio to 2x but leaves the 2x difference between other scores which is still too much.
There's even an argument to implement both 1. and 2. ie. Make it harder and make it worth less.
benjyyy (Donegal) - Posts: 1443 - 29/07/2025 22:32:07
2629155
Link
0
|
|
Replying To GreenandRed: "It wouldn't have been a one score game yesterday if there were no two pointers. Both teams would have adapted their tactics for one pointers if there were no two pointers. It was a one sided game because Kerry were the better hungrier team. If they played under 2024 rules on yesterday's form they would still have won." Kerry clearly the better team but one can't ignore the 5 two pointers for Kerry to zero for Donegal made a huge difference in what finish up in a 10 point margin. under the 2024 rules or rules simply with no two pointers would still be in balance and keeping those in attendance and watching on TV interested until near the end of the contest in a game whereby Kerry had just 5 more shots on goal than Donegal did.
Drax_the_destroyer (UK) - Posts: 552 - 30/07/2025 02:00:30
2629172
Link
1
|
|
Replying To shaggykev: " Replying To Pikeman96: "How about just extending the arc all the way into the end line, instead of stopping it at the 20m line? Have a look at the image here to see what I mean - linkImagine you're on the 13m line, just inside the sideline. You'd clearly still be more than 40m from goal, but a score from there would only be worth one point. Bringing the arc all the way back would mean you'd be rewarded with two points instead." Interesting. For attack I'd agree but wouldn't want kick out rule to get that advantage too with markings. Still think the general concept is wrong though. In basketball the three pointer is a 50% bonus. Gaelic football it's a 100% bonus. I'd go 50% bonus in Gaelic too. The options would be either half points or make a point worth two, outside the 40 worth three and a goal worth six. Neither would be ideal from a psychological perspective but from a logical perspective it would be the right option. If a goal is worth four, it's too big a gap from a normal point imo."
countyman2022 (Wexford) - Posts: 872 - 30/07/2025 08:48:19
2629187
Link
1
|
|
Replying To Drax_the_destroyer: "Kerry clearly the better team but one can't ignore the 5 two pointers for Kerry to zero for Donegal made a huge difference in what finish up in a 10 point margin. under the 2024 rules or rules simply with no two pointers would still be in balance and keeping those in attendance and watching on TV interested until near the end of the contest in a game whereby Kerry had just 5 more shots on goal than Donegal did." Kerry wouldn't have played with the same tactics if there was no two point rule. I think the ruthless form that they were in on Sunday they would have won handily even without two pointers because the Kerry backroom had them so well prepared.
GreenandRed (Mayo) - Posts: 8192 - 30/07/2025 08:51:28
2629188
Link
1
|
|
Replying To GreenandRed: "Kerry wouldn't have played with the same tactics if there was no two point rule. I think the ruthless form that they were in on Sunday they would have won handily even without two pointers because the Kerry backroom had them so well prepared." I heard that when Donegal pulled it back to 4 points gap in the 2nd half, under 2024 rules, Donegal would have been leading by 1 point at that stage, which would have been a massive momentum swing.
However regardless, its 2025 and Kerry were deserved winners, no arguments.
Commodore (Donegal) - Posts: 1448 - 30/07/2025 10:28:00
2629211
Link
3
|
|
Replying To countyman2022: " Replying To shaggykev: "[quote=Pikeman96: "How about just extending the arc all the way into the end line, instead of stopping it at the 20m line? Have a look at the image here to see what I mean - linkImagine you're on the 13m line, just inside the sideline. You'd clearly still be more than 40m from goal, but a score from there would only be worth one point. Bringing the arc all the way back would mean you'd be rewarded with two points instead." Interesting. For attack I'd agree but wouldn't want kick out rule to get that advantage too with markings. Still think the general concept is wrong though. In basketball the three pointer is a 50% bonus. Gaelic football it's a 100% bonus. I'd go 50% bonus in Gaelic too. The options would be either half points or make a point worth two, outside the 40 worth three and a goal worth six. Neither would be ideal from a psychological perspective but from a logical perspective it would be the right option. If a goal is worth four, it's too big a gap from a normal point imo."
I just know we will definitely be coming back over the next few seasons with 2 pointers having a disproportionally bigger impact on not just the scoreboard but the way teams attack and make the game less varied and more focused on getting your 2 point shooters into the zone and have lots of crossing across the zone until gap emerges.
Watch the standard of shot taking improve massively over the seasons.
shaggykev (Donegal) - Posts: 422 - 30/07/2025 11:52:16
2629237
Link
0
|
|
Replying To GreenandRed: "Kerry wouldn't have played with the same tactics if there was no two point rule. I think the ruthless form that they were in on Sunday they would have won handily even without two pointers because the Kerry backroom had them so well prepared." Regardless of tactics Kerry weren't going to get much more than 35 shots on goal which is a high number for All-Ireland final against a set Donegal defence.
Hopefully the stand box they trial a few games without two pointers to see how it's goes.
The_analyser (Roscommon) - Posts: 4133 - 30/07/2025 18:13:22
2629339
Link
0
|
|
Replying To The_analyser: "Regardless of tactics Kerry weren't going to get much more than 35 shots on goal which is a high number for All-Ireland final against a set Donegal defence.
Hopefully the stand box they trial a few games without two pointers to see how it's goes." Do you want them to revert to just 1 pointers and old rules with set defences?
GreenandRed (Mayo) - Posts: 8192 - 31/07/2025 02:12:28
2629392
Link
0
|
