5 Vital Rule Changes for Football

Meath Centre Forward

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Kicking the ball over the bar from very close to goal sometimes doesn't require a huge amount of skill either but nobody has a problem with it.

The reason I wouldn't mind the game going to 60 minutes is that if 13 a side were ever to be introduced (and it would be by far the easiest rule change to introduce) in order to balance up the need to be a little bit fitter and coaches using it as an excuse to run players into the ground I would make the game shorter.An 80 minute game wouldn't guarantee better value if anything it would make things worse whatever chance there is of an upset in an 70 minute game there would be a much smaller chance in a game that's ten minutes longer as the stronger teams would have much more time to react and deal with being behind.

Bit of a contradiction ... You already said sometimes players get bottled up and the only option is a fist pass. Surely in that instance, making space and kicking the ball is a skill - no matter how close. This is precisely what I think getting rid of the fisted point would encourage.

Fair enough on the second point. Not convinced by the 13-a-side argument myself. I'm open to a discussion on it but I feel it's too radical and not realistic in the next 10 years. Definitely a few negatives to an 80 minute game such as the one you highlighted and which I also pointed out .... but being a lover of all things Gaelic Football at the moment, I'd love to see a longer game myself. I think it'd be a good positive change ... it's intent wouldn't be too directly influence the style of play we see now ... rather a change that says this is a great product here, let's have some more of it.

Ah I had to add this.

This is more or less a "blanket defence" thread so its as good as any.

Basically its John O'Mahony talking about Kildare before the 1998 AI final.

Invented by the northern teams in the mid 2000s they said... .

Edit:Had tried to add a video and it said I was too large. I then just closed boards so not sure why it posted anyway.

Basically he says "we need to move the ball quick to get by this "Blanket defence" they're notorious for using this year".... It was in a "Year till Sunday". So it seems the term is around longer than Spillane who seems to get credit for it and longer than the northern teams who are credited with adding it after that period.

homerjay2005

alot of the changes mentioned here are just changes for the sake of it and wont change anything in terms of improving the game.

the only change i can see needed that would make a difference is actually putting a restriction on the number of players inside a 65 at the one time but now sure how this can be applied with switches/defenders attacking etc.

football has dropped its quality due to the influx of the blanket defence and that is the root cause of all problems at the moment.

Grudaire

Quality is such a subjective term. I have to day I enjoy watching the tactical battles (eg the Ulster final)

Arguably more skill involved when you either need to have an accurate kick from outside the 45, or under a lot of pressure.

The game really rewards players who can look around, make the right choices, and take the chances when they do show up.

MattB11

Blanket defence isn't going anywhere, and it should not be up to rule changes being brought in to combat them

keeponhurling

Grudaire wrote: »

Quality is such a subjective term. I have to day I enjoy watching the tactical battles (eg the Ulster final)

Arguably more skill involved when you either need to have an accurate kick from outside the 45, or under a lot of pressure.

The game really rewards players who can look around, make the right choices, and take the chances when they do show up.

Completely agree, I enjoyed it.

Many would prefer the likes of Meath-Westmeath, which was a high scoring tight game.
However when the defending is so poor it somehow spoils it for me. I like to see teams really having to work and think for their scores.

jmayo

Bambi wrote: »

Tbh its sounds like you'd wind up with a system like rugby where they have all these arcane rules and restrictions to try make up for the fact there is very little skill required for the fundamentals of the game (run with eggy ball, throw eggy ball)

Incredibily arrogant post.
Some might say playing with eggy shaped ball much harder than playing with round shapped ball.

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Spot on.

Almost every match where there is a sending off the game tends to improve as a spectacle and it doubt this is a coincidence.

13 a side is the easiest change to implement and the most logical thing to do considering the way the game has gone.It would make kick passing more wortwhile aswell and the more skilful players would benefit as good players always benefit from space.

13 a side combined with a restriction on the number of players who could go behind a certain point on the field.I heard Colm Parkinson proposed that the full back and full forward lines could not go outside the 45 which is a good suggestion, would lead to a real improvement in the game.

The reason a game can look much better when a player is sent off is because now suddenly one team has that extra guy that can pick up the ball and then when they are closed down find the new spare man.

Go 13 a side you will still find 12 odd defenders with one lone guy up the pitch.

Also 13 a side on a GAA pitch would demand players are even fitter to cover more ground.
Likewise with 80 minute games.
At the moment a lot would see a problem being that players are now picked on fitness and not skill.
I can think of a lot of great skilful players down the years who wouldn't have been the fittest but wouldn't get near even a good club team nowadays.

The last thing we want is 13 super fit guys chasing up and down the pitch and half of them unable to actually kick a ball properly.

And it doesn't matter squat diddly what rules are brought in if refs and officals are shyte.
One team last year lost a chance of getting to All-Ireland because the ref left an opposition player on the pitch when according to the rules he should have gone off.
This year a team lost a provincial final in no small measure to a soft penalty.

The umpires are not used enough, ignored or else just agree with their mate/relative the ref who brough them along for the day out.

Lots of teams suffer through poor officiating.
An officiating screwup can change the balance of a game and thus it's outcome.

Some refs are pedantic about steps, others not.
Some refs about pickups whilst ignoring the pulling and dragging of players with the ball or the forward grabbing the defenders arm and pulling him down to buy a free.

It's a bit like John McEnroe's argument about officals at Wimbledon.
The players are at one level, now almost professional, and the officals are way behind.

And yes I do think the need to find some way to stop a team from handpassing for 5 minutes playing keep ball.
The only thing I can think is there is some type of limit on number of passes.
But that is very hard to manage.
Maybe two refs would help in this regard.

keane2097

Kerry are the main problem really, aren't they

jmayo

keane2097 wrote: »

Kerry are the main problem really, aren't they

Ok they were in those two examples, but try reminding a Louth man what are the the rules regarding scoring of goals.

Diving over the line with the ball in full view of two umpires is probably an even better example to back up my case than the two I have alluded to.

And in the case of Louth it ROBBED them of a once in a generation victory.

keane2097

jmayo wrote: »

Ok they were in those two examples, but try reminding a Louth man what are the the rules regarding scoring of goals.

Diving over the line with the ball in full view of two umpires is probably an even better example to back up my case than the two I have alluded to.

And in the case of Louth it ROBBED them of a once in a generation victory.

TBH the ref issue is pretty massively overstated.

The narrative about Cork being robbed by the penalty award just goes to show the level of critical thinking people are applying to these things, which isn't very high.

In the majority (vast majority really) of cases the results match the performances of the teams on particular days.

The Mayo tears and gnashing of teeth after last year's replay conveniently leave out the fact that they played a dirty trick to get one of their best players off a ban that he patently deserved by the letter of the law.

You had all these clowns crying for "common sense" when Keegan got his red card, who then apparently unironically cried for "consistency" the following week. It boggles the mind.

In both of the cases you mentioned it's convenient to hold two incidents up as match defining because it justifies a good cry and a cathartic bout of righteous indignation, but it's just not real.

The Munster final was no more decided by the penalty than it was by the decision not to pull Mark Collins for taking 10 steps before the first Cork goal or to deny Kerry two blatant penalties.

Shane Enright should have gotten a black card against Mayo, but he was also on a yellow card for literally nothing which nobody ever seemed to question. If you wanted to go back farther you could point to the fact that Kerry couldn't buy a free in the first game after the red card was given.

Any of those incidents playing out differently would change a whole game, but we love to just pick one and bury the ref for it.

Stoner

He is right though, they were two big calls, I dont think the penno would have made a difference tbh. Kerry were still going to go further in the competition and mostly likely imho even win/draw that game too.

Against mayo last year the decisions were tough, Mayo were in great condition well trained , fit it made a difference, if last year was their year they would have well deserved it.

The main points made though are two recent poor calls by refs. They could have been against any team.

slingerz

Get rid of the pick up is the main thing, how many contentious decisions are there at every match around the country.