Hurling- what’s gone wrong and where do we go from here.

Rosita

threeball wrote: »

Playing those tactics against a team like Limerick now would play into their hands. No doubt KK had the superior hurlers but a system like that will negate how good the opposition are. Plus they're bigger and physically fitter. That should never be underestimated.

How had Kilkenny superior hurlers? You already said the skill levels of today would blow away teams of 15 years ago.

leath_dub

threeball wrote: »

Hang on, there's been numerous references to sliothars being much heavier in the past and ground hurling which hasn't been a factor in the game since the mid eighties so no its not me bringing it up. The game is evolving, its in a good place apart from the rules that aren't enforced. That's where the conversation should start, not bringing in new rules.

https://www.gaa.ie/api/pdfs/image/upload/i4xicuecdjcyj3bgb52f.pdf


"The bas of a hurley at its widest point shall not be more than 13cm"


Here's the Tipp team of 2001 - no frying pan sized hurleys there:




There isn't a single hurley in the country that meets that definition. That's one of the biggest issues. The big bas is much more forgiving for a first touch. It has a much bigger sweet spot which combined with the lighter sliotar with the shaved down rim makes points from 90 metres commonplace. It facilitates a game where the ball is carried rather than propelled. Hurling now is essentially a different sport than the game of the 90s. Senior players, men of 6 foot 2 are now using 32" or 34" hurleys - this would have been the size associated with 15 year olds in the past. This has had a significant impact on the amount of ground hurling - that and the obsession with tactics, retaining possession and elimination of risk.New rules aren't needed here - just apply the current rules! Hurling at it's essence was a chaotic sport, littered with man on man clashes, excitement the norm, rather than the exception. Watching a top level game was exhausting, never mind play it. Hurling, unlike Gaelic football, was also a game where you didn't have to be 6 foot plus to make the grade



While hurling is still a game laced with high skill levels - hooks, blocks fantastic scores, etc.The players' fitness levels and physical conditioning have never been greater and the dedication of the players is exemplary. The constant scrums and rucks are a blight on the game as is the spare hand tackle. I don't believe teams should be regularly scoring 30 points in a game. Even the much celebrated points from line balls are becoming so commonplace and they'll be the expectation going forward.


Hurling is still an amazing game but the GAA need to decide what they want it to be - a high scoring shootout where teams play the ball up the field o
in a series of short passes (almost rugby league like) until the player reaches the "scoring zone" (which these days is probably his own half back line) and takes their shot? Do they which the determining factor in which team wins is the relative accuracy of the freetakers and the overall level of wides? Do they want to continually sanitise and productise the sport or can they see any way where they can marry the high skill and fitness levels of today's elite players and return to the traditional elements of hurling which involved uncertainty, "mano a mano" clashes, controversy and still had great skill.


Hurling is still a great sport to watch but I think that there is an increasing belief that the direction which is going is taking the sport away from some of the traditional (and tradition shouldn't be a dirty word) aspects and we may be approaching a crossroads where the GAA will need to decide what they want from our national game

Jizique

Jizique wrote: »

As mentioned earlier, I definitely enjoyed it; if refs blow for all fouls, players will be less prone to foul and give away a 100% score from almost anywhere

58 scores in a 70 minute match suggests scoring is too easy, irrespective of the numbers of frees. Ball was probably in play no more than 45 minutes. With nearly 60 scores that tell you there was little on no contest for possession.

One i the most memorable games I can think off was the 97 quarter final between Kilkenny and Galway - 4-15 to 3 -16. Widely regarded as a very high scoring game at the time. With 20 more scores each score is devalued and the game becomes basketball, essentially an accuracy competition.

Rosita

leath_dub wrote: »

https://www.gaa.ie/api/pdfs/image/upload/i4xicuecdjcyj3bgb52f.pdf


"The bas of a hurley at its widest point shall not be more than 13cm"


Here's the Tipp team of 2001 - no frying pan sized hurleys there:




There isn't a single hurley in the country that meets that definition. That's one of the biggest issues. The big bas is much more forgiving for a first touch. It has a much bigger sweet spot which combined with the lighter sliotar with the shaved down rim makes points from 90 metres commonplace. It facilitates a game where the ball is carried rather than propelled. Hurling now is essentially a different sport than the game of the 90s. Senior players, men of 6 foot 2 are now using 32" or 34" hurleys - this would have been the size associated with 15 year olds in the past. This has had a significant impact on the amount of ground hurling - that and the obsession with tactics, retaining possession and elimination of risk.New rules aren't needed here - just apply the current rules! Hurling at it's essence was a chaotic sport, littered with man on man clashes, excitement the norm, rather than the exception. Watching a top level game was exhausting, never mind play it. Hurling, unlike Gaelic football, was also a game where you didn't have to be 6 foot plus to make the grade



While hurling is still a game laced with high skill levels - hooks, blocks fantastic scores, etc.The players' fitness levels and physical conditioning have never been greater and the dedication of the players is exemplary. The constant scrums and rucks are a blight on the game as is the spare hand tackle. I don't believe teams should be regularly scoring 30 points in a game. Even the much celebrated points from line balls are becoming so commonplace and they'll be the expectation going forward.


Hurling is still an amazing game but the GAA need to decide what they want it to be - a high scoring shootout where teams play the ball up the field o
in a series of short passes (almost rugby league like) until the player reaches the "scoring zone" (which these days is probably his own half back line) and takes their shot? Do they which the determining factor in which team wins is the relative accuracy of the freetakers and the overall level of wides? Do they want to continually sanitise and productise the sport or can they see any way where they can marry the high skill and fitness levels of today's elite players and return to the traditional elements of hurling which involved uncertainty, "mano a mano" clashes, controversy and still had great skill.


Hurling is still a great sport to watch but I think that there is an increasing belief that the direction which is going is taking the sport away from some of the traditional (and tradition shouldn't be a dirty word) aspects and we may be approaching a crossroads where the GAA will need to decide what they want from our national game

A lot of this is fair enough but your point that there's no need for new rules just application of the existing ones doesn't really show how many of the issues you mention will be addressed. It does seem like a lot of it needs some rules involvement.

Rosita

[Deleted User] wrote: »

58 scores in a 70 minute match suggests scoring is too easy, irrespective of the numbers of frees. Ball was probably in play no more than 45 minutes. With nearly 60 scores that tell you there was little on no contest for possession.

That's the fundamental problem or at least the fundamental symptom (too easy to score) . Listened to Galway-Waterford yesterday and (this could be any match) and it sounded like the puckouts were assists. Every puckout it seemed brought a score. The broader problem is that it creates big gaps between teams which by all normal observation are fairly evenly matched when even a small advantage in possession is reflected in an avalanche of scores.

Unfortunately when you point out this you'll be told irrelevant stuff about fitness and the strength of players' wrists etc.

The point is the game as a spectacle is suffering as there is less and less action in between scores. It is just too easy to score or at least attempt a score if you are in space, and despite all the rucks and crowding of players trying to rise the ball at times, a player shooting for goal is very often in acres of space.

It's a difficult conversation as some people talk about fitness of players as if that's an end or spectacle in itself. If that were the case marathon running would be the biggest spectator sport in the world. The GAA world needs to deal with this obsessional stuff and move on to a mature conversation.

You won't turn on the French Open Tennis and be bombarded by people telling you how amazingly fit the players are. It's a given in most sports. It's not the aspect that makes it entertaining. Proper contests for possession, doubts about the eventual outcome of the game, and the sense that scores are earned rather than just simply being a nearly inevitable follow-on from having the puckout are all part of that I would think. Not the knowledge of how much some guy's bench press improved in UL.

It's slightly ironic that it's often the people who get on their high horse about the evils of "tradition" are often the same people who abhor the idea of changing anything about the game.

threeball

leath_dub wrote: »

https://www.gaa.ie/api/pdfs/image/upload/i4xicuecdjcyj3bgb52f.pdf


"The bas of a hurley at its widest point shall not be more than 13cm"


Here's the Tipp team of 2001 - no frying pan sized hurleys there:




There isn't a single hurley in the country that meets that definition. That's one of the biggest issues. The big bas is much more forgiving for a first touch. It has a much bigger sweet spot which combined with the lighter sliotar with the shaved down rim makes points from 90 metres commonplace. It facilitates a game where the ball is carried rather than propelled. Hurling now is essentially a different sport than the game of the 90s. Senior players, men of 6 foot 2 are now using 32" or 34" hurleys - this would have been the size associated with 15 year olds in the past. This has had a significant impact on the amount of ground hurling - that and the obsession with tactics, retaining possession and elimination of risk.New rules aren't needed here - just apply the current rules! Hurling at it's essence was a chaotic sport, littered with man on man clashes, excitement the norm, rather than the exception. Watching a top level game was exhausting, never mind play it. Hurling, unlike Gaelic football, was also a game where you didn't have to be 6 foot plus to make the grade



While hurling is still a game laced with high skill levels - hooks, blocks fantastic scores, etc.The players' fitness levels and physical conditioning have never been greater and the dedication of the players is exemplary. The constant scrums and rucks are a blight on the game as is the spare hand tackle. I don't believe teams should be regularly scoring 30 points in a game. Even the much celebrated points from line balls are becoming so commonplace and they'll be the expectation going forward.


Hurling is still an amazing game but the GAA need to decide what they want it to be - a high scoring shootout where teams play the ball up the field o
in a series of short passes (almost rugby league like) until the player reaches the "scoring zone" (which these days is probably his own half back line) and takes their shot? Do they which the determining factor in which team wins is the relative accuracy of the freetakers and the overall level of wides? Do they want to continually sanitise and productise the sport or can they see any way where they can marry the high skill and fitness levels of today's elite players and return to the traditional elements of hurling which involved uncertainty, "mano a mano" clashes, controversy and still had great skill.


Hurling is still a great sport to watch but I think that there is an increasing belief that the direction which is going is taking the sport away from some of the traditional (and tradition shouldn't be a dirty word) aspects and we may be approaching a crossroads where the GAA will need to decide what they want from our national game

For the record I have no issue with changing the core of the ball or with regulating bas size, I've had numerous posts on boards about that subject. I do however object to rule changes trying to curb the evolution of the game.

A heavier sliothar is dangerous and shouldn't be considered but a less "bouncy" core is acceptable and the bás is just another rule thats ignored which is the issue in the first place.

threeball

Rosita wrote: »

How had Kilkenny superior hurlers? You already said the skill levels of today would blow away teams of 15 years ago.

Kilkenny had the players more than capable of playing the game like its played now given the chance but playing the long ball into a back 7 now is counter productive. Anyone that goes long consistently now is generally conceding at least 50% of those puckouts. Its not a platform from which to generate a win.

Tombo2001

Just one query on this - whats the implications of increasing the weight of the sliotar. I coach at underage - am no expert on the game, but I do have to implement any new rules as they come in - and I'd just wonder about the transition for kids when they move to the heavier ball, as they currently do at around age 14 I think.

How would that be for catching for example in terms of impact.

As an aside - a lot of people talk about GAA as if it only exists in the little prism of the top 6 championship teams. In fact thats just a tiny part of it, and I'd question whether any rules should be changed because of tactics issues that have emerged with just that tiny slice of the playing population.

Is it too much to ask that managers find a way to counter it?

Rosita

threeball wrote: »

Kilkenny had the players more than capable of playing the game like its played now given the chance

This sounds suspiciously like 'old guys would adapt and survive in the game today'. You could get your head taken off for thinking like that in some quarters!

Rosita

Tombo2001 wrote: »

As an aside - a lot of people talk about GAA as if it only exists in the little prism of the top 6 championship teams. In fact thats just a tiny part of it, and I'd question whether any rules should be changed because of tactics issues that have emerged with just that tiny slice of the playing population.

Is it too much to ask that managers find a way to counter it?

Sometimes, yes, it is not possible to deal with issues which emerge through managers finding a way to counter it. Hence, the sin bin and black card solutions in the GAA, one player in goal for penalties etc. It's okay to change.

And realistically it's always the best teams and players which drive rule changes and trends. With due respect to the Naomh Mearnóg or Dicksboro under 12s, they are not really in a position to be influencers, and given that many will drop out of the game early anyway it's maybe just as well.

What you say is superficially attractive as it makes an argument for the 'small guy' but doesn't stack up unfortunately.

Sunny Disposition

Rosita wrote: »

That's the fundamental problem or at least the fundamental symptom (too easy to score) . Listened to Galway-Waterford yesterday and (this could be any match) and it sounded like the puckouts were assists. Every puckout it seemed brought a score. The broader problem is that it creates big gaps between teams which by all normal observation are fairly evenly matched when even a small advantage in possession is reflected in an avalanche of scores.

Unfortunately when you point out this you'll be told irrelevant stuff about fitness and the strength of players' wrists etc.

The point is the game as a spectacle is suffering as there is less and less action in between scores. It is just too easy to score or at least attempt a score if you are in space, and despite all the rucks and crowding of players trying to rise the ball at times, a player shooting for goal is very often in acres of space.

It's a difficult conversation as some people talk about fitness of players as if that's an end or spectacle in itself. If that were the case marathon running would be the biggest spectator sport in the world. The GAA world needs to deal with this obsessional stuff and move on to a mature conversation.

You won't turn on the French Open Tennis and be bombarded by people telling you how amazingly fit the players are. It's a given in most sports. It's not the aspect that makes it entertaining. Proper contests for possession, doubts about the eventual outcome of the game, and the sense that scores are earned rather than just simply being a nearly inevitable follow-on from having the puckout are all part of that I would think. Not the knowledge of how much some guy's bench press improved in UL.

It's slightly ironic that it's often the people who get on their high horse about the evils of "tradition" are often the same people who abhor the idea of changing anything about the game.

One of the big problems is the immaturity of the commentary.
Very few analysts will come straight out and say a match was brutal to watch. But a few of them will try and match Seamus Heaney when waxing about how wonderful a match was.
People who do point out that hurling is becoming very hard to watch are sometimes accused of being narrow minded traditionalists, who don’t understand the ‘evolution’ of the game. Just complete dismissal rather than counter arguments. Memorably one analyst said criticism of sweepers was the last remnants of British colonial influence in Ireland.
It’s stupid and facile, and it helps prevent any proper analysis of the decline in spectacle.
On topic, the rule on the bad could be implemented if there was a willingness. When I played very low level soccer the red would check your studs pre match. Something similar could be done pre match in hurling, wouldn’t take very long or be very difficult. Would be great.

breezy1985

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

I think there is a rule, but it’s never enforced. Very interesting when you see old games, the bas was way smaller even in the noughties. Having a fella who could point most 65s used to be a big asset to teams, even at inter county.

Theory used to be that the smaller bas would cut the air better and you would get a better swing as its lighter. Even keepers had the smaller puckout hurley for a while there. I dont think the hurleys are the big game changer but if there is a rule it should be enforced.


The sliotar changed to a synthetic material a few years back and I reckon its there that the GAA will look next. Not so much the weight of the ball but the bounce of it

Sunny Disposition

breezy1985 wrote: »

Theory used to be that the smaller bas would cut the air better and you would get a better swing as its lighter. Even keepers had the smaller puckout hurley for a while there. I dont think the hurleys are the big game changer but if there is a rule it should be enforced.


The sliotar changed to a synthetic material a few years back and I reckon its there that the GAA will look next. Not so much the weight of the ball but the bounce of it

The weight isn’t lighter than it used to be, but the composition of it still means it goes a good bit further.
I do think enforcing the rule on the bas would make a big difference too, but I doubt it’ll be done.

Clare in Exile

Some good points raised (no pun intended). There is definitely an issue with the game currently. Evolution is a natural part of any game, what has happened here is that fitness and skill levels, allied with increased core body strength, has led to a game which has almost morphed into basketball.

I keep thinking back to 1995 and the day that Clare finally brought Liam back to the Banner. The final scoreline that day? 1-13 to 2-08. In today's game that wouldn't even be the half-time total. Granted, the standard of skill and ball striking that day was nowhere near today's level, but what it did have was an intensity surrounding the contest. Every single score was hard won, every point greeted with a gutteral roar from the crowd as they knew it was crucial to the final outcome. We have definitely lost something along the way.

Today we have a game where scoring chances are almost arriving at every play - the crowd will be almost too lazy to greet a score with anything more than polite applause.

There is a problem and it can't be ignored...

jackboy

The main issue is that it is getting worse. Massive gym work means that the average player is built like a tank and can hit the ball huge distances. Even teenagers training has gym work at its core.

Donal Og is often a pain to listen to but I agreed with him the other night, the tackle needs to be looked at. Stopping a runner with arms or hurleys should be banned. Return the advantage to the small skilful guy. Let the tanks go play rugby.

Sunny Disposition

Clare in Exile wrote: »

Some good points raised (no pun intended). There is definitely an issue with the game currently. Evolution is a natural part of any game, what has happened here is that fitness and skill levels, allied with increased core body strength, has led to a game which has almost morphed into basketball.

I keep thinking back to 1995 and the day that Clare finally brought Liam back to the Banner. The final scoreline that day? 1-13 to 2-08. In today's game that wouldn't even be the half-time total. Granted, the standard of skill and ball striking that day was nowhere near today's level, but what it did have was an intensity surrounding the contest. Every single score was hard won, every point greeted with a gutteral roar from the crowd as they knew it was crucial to the final outcome. We have definitely lost something along the way.

Today we have a game where scoring chances are almost arriving at every play - the crowd will be almost too lazy to greet a score with anything more than polite applause.

There is a problem and it can't be ignored...

I wonder are skill levels higher or does the change in the hirley and ball make it seem like that? Definitely points are scored from more difficult angles now and way further out, but is that a reflection of greater skill? Mentioning that Clare team, is there a more skillful player now than Liam Doyle? Or Jamesie O’Connor?
I don’t think skill levels could rise that much since 2000, given there was already so much time going into preparation. Some skills are almost absent now, hooking being one, ground striking also.
But it does look like it’s a more skilful game, because of the amount of scores and the distances they come from.

Pogue eile

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

There were some very good, close games in 2018 and that’s still papering over the cracks. There were a couple in 2016 too.
The adjustments in football have worked rather well, much better game now, but the dominance of Dublin has overshadowed that.
The 02 and 2011 All Ireland’s were in Eir sport, hurling was a far better watch in those years than now unfortunately.
To compare it to other sports, watching it used to be a bit like watching a big heavyweight fight, you couldn’t take your eyes off it or there was a good chance of missing something significant. Now I think that tension has gone from most games, you could have a chat with someone, look at stuff on your phone, and not really worry that much about it.

Sounds to me like that you are the one that has changed not the game.

There was plenty of terrible games back then too, in fact far more that we see now, but no one remembers them, just the odd classic that we got. I dont remember the 2002 AI off the top of my head but the 2011 AI was a terrible game.

No game is perfect of course and there is always a need for monitoring and tweeking but this hyperbole about hurling being ruined is OTT.

tomtucker81

https://www.rte.ie/sport/gaa/2019/0815/1069043-hurling-bas/

There's an article about bas size and how there is a rule (13cm) but it's not done by manufacturers, one lad stating their template is 16-17 cm.
Found it last year when i bought a hurley for the first time since 2001 and i made the exact remark as in the article - is that not a keepers hurl?
Makes it easier to hit, distance is increased.
Maybe if this rule was enforced there'd be more skill involved and less frees being converted from your own half, meaning the free will be taken as a pass to a team mate instead of a shot, ball is in open play more then. Just an idea

riffmongous

Deleted User wrote: »

58 scores in a 70 minute match suggests scoring is too easy, irrespective of the numbers of frees. Ball was probably in play no more than 45 minutes. With nearly 60 scores that tell you there was little on no contest for possession.

One i the most memorable games I can think off was the 97 quarter final between Kilkenny and Galway - 4-15 to 3 -16. Widely regarded as a very high scoring game at the time. With 20 more scores each score is devalued and the game becomes basketball, essentially an accuracy competition.

Not to mention about 10 wides each

crossman47

Wrinkly runner wrote: »

It's clear as day limerick are streets ahead when it comes to the hand passing side of the game.
It's like telling Barcelona,after 5 short passes you foul.
To be honest I was shocked the newstalk lads even read out the text.

A start would be to penalise the thrown ball which accounts for most so called hand passes (by all teams, not just Limerick).

Adelman of Beamfleot

threeball wrote: »

For the record I have no issue with changing the core of the ball or with regulating bas size, I've had numerous posts on boards about that subject. I do however object to rule changes trying to curb the evolution of the game.

A heavier sliothar is dangerous and shouldn't be considered but a less "bouncy" core is acceptable and the bás is just another rule thats ignored which is the issue in the first place.

I keep coming across this blanket statement being made that a heavier ball is dangerous.
What is the thinking here?
Has anyone who ever played the game being overly concerned about the potential of being injured by the ball (Not withstanding goalkeepers who should have the critical parts of their anatomy protected anyway and Nash era penalty defenders)?
Do many players get injured by the ball these days and would there be many more injured as a result of a 10% increase in weight in the ball?

Surely if the mass of the ball is increased, in order to achieve the same acceleration previously achieved with a lighter ball, the force required increases proportionally?

I'm not saying that I agree with a heavier ball, especially since as it has been repeatedly pointed out over the last few years that it is changes in composition of the ball that have lead to where we are rather than weight, but I just want to understand why people keep declaring a heavier ball to be dangerous

crossman47

Edz87 wrote: »

What did OP think of the Galway-Waterford game? 7-51 scored and only 8 points from frees

Well I thought scoring was too easy. Its impossible to be a back these days. Scores should be hard earned.

LMK

Hurling has been moving in the direction of "boring" for the last 15 years, ironically it has coincided with an era of unprecedented skilful hurlers on show.
The most enjoyable hurling match I watched last year was the Joe McDonagh Final Antrim v Kerry.
I have little interest now in watching games other than when my own county Limerick are playing, if Joe Canning is playing for Galway I'll definitely make an exception!!
I think that the straight knockout no second chance championship up to the 00's was a big contributor to the excitement.

threeball

Adelman of Beamfleot wrote: »

I keep coming across this blanket statement being made that a heavier ball is dangerous.
What is the thinking here?
Has anyone who ever played the game being overly concerned about the potential of being injured by the ball (Not withstanding goalkeepers who should have the critical parts of their anatomy protected anyway and Nash era penalty defenders)?
Do many players get injured by the ball these days and would there be many more injured as a result of a 10% increase in weight in the ball?

Surely if the mass of the ball is increased, in order to achieve the same acceleration previously achieved with a lighter ball, the force required increases proportionally?

I'm not saying that I agree with a heavier ball, especially since as it has been repeatedly pointed out over the last few years that it is changes in composition of the ball that have lead to where we are rather than weight, but I just want to understand why people keep declaring a heavier ball to be dangerous

There's quite a bit of weight to a size 5 sliothar at the moment. You'll often see goalkeepers down for a few mins after getting a belt of one especially when one on one. I've see plenty of lads creased with one to the faceguard, chest and groin at club. Its a risk you take but adding weight and therefore mass adds more danger. Nashes penalties were banned not because they had done damage but because of the potential they had to do damage. This is a similar situation and as I said before, a well struck heavier ball will carry further and truer. If anything a lighter less controllable ball is going to have more of an effect as even a slight breeze makes anything past 60m a hit and hope.

shockframe

It's a bit like the criticism of Snooker in the modern era. Players are so good now that they rarely miss!

The high scoring is a bad thing in my view. The last decade has moved it closer to a 50 scores a game contest. When Sully scored that long range point in 2001 it was almost unheard of, now its a bit more common.

I'm not too bothered about the yellow ball. But the lightness is a huge issue now. I loved the late 90s era above all else even though I'll accept it's not exactly riveting now it does feel like a lot has been lost.

Even for all the rampant criticism of Football since the turn of the century it's a far better balanced game than Hurling right now. The ball is more or less the same and though scoring has improved its still much harder than it is in Hurling.

Treble double

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

The weight isn’t lighter than it used to be, but the composition of it still means it goes a good bit further.
I do think enforcing the rule on the bas would make a big difference too, but I doubt it’ll be done.

It's amazing the amount of time that is put into, training, analysing and coaching in hurling. Its a stick and ball game and the most important fundamental part of the game is the equipment used, the sliothar and the hurl, there is a rule about the standard size and weight of these implements and yet it is not enforced, that is a farcical situation that wouldn't happen in any other serious sport.
The analysis around hurling is awful as well. You have a load of former players only interested in personal promotion and gain who are not calling a spade a spade in relation to the modern game. There is an inferiority complex attached to the game and the pundits are afraid to say anything negative. The gushing and guffawing from the likes of anthony daly and brendan Cummins when there is a tight finish in what was otherwise and ordinary game is borderline embarrassing.
A good start for theses so called pundits would be to show the ordinary punter a hurl and sliothar from the mid nineties and compare it to a hurl and sliothar from today, I'd be of the opinion you would be talking almost about different sports.
They are too obsessed about sweepers, spare hands and swarm defences to make themselves sound relevant than to actually give us the nuts and bolts.

Rossvet

Stop the one handed throws for a start!

Clareman

Have bigger ridges on the ball and make a change to the handpass rule. Something like there having to be a clear striking action for the handpass or limit it to 2 handpasses on a row.

Hurling is played between the 2 45s now and when you see free takers putting the ball over with ease from inside their own 65, something has to change.

Pogue eile

Clareman wrote: »

Have bigger ridges on the ball and make a change to the handpass rule. Something like there having to be a clear striking action for the handpass or limit it to 2 handpasses on a row.

Hurling is played between the 2 45s now and when you see free takers putting the ball over with ease from inside their own 65, something has to change.

You mean implement the rule that is already there then, there is nothing wrong with the rule its the implementation of it.

something has to change alright - stop fouling!!

Adelman of Beamfleot

threeball wrote: »

There's quite a bit of weight to a size 5 sliothar at the moment. You'll often see goalkeepers down for a few mins after getting a belt of one especially when one on one. I've see plenty of lads creased with one to the faceguard, chest and groin at club. Its a risk you take but adding weight and therefore mass adds more danger. Nashes penalties were banned not because they had done damage but because of the potential they had to do damage. This is a similar situation and as I said before, a well struck heavier ball will carry further and truer. If anything a lighter less controllable ball is going to have more of an effect as even a slight breeze makes anything past 60m a hit and hope.

My own opinion would be that the potential for injuries posed by the ball as it is are way down the list of 'dangers' a player faces, and if one would like their games to free of the potential for feeling pain then to use the same logic limiting the weight of hurleys would be more efficient as you're more likely to hurt from a belt of a hurley than the ball (obviously this is a ridiculous idea)

You have stated that "a well struck heavier ball will carry further". Is this really true however?. If we take it to a bit of an extreme, if the ball stayed the same size and but was the weight of a shot putt would it still travel further than the current ball subject to the same force?

Dyr

jackboy wrote: »

Donal Og is often a pain to listen to but I agreed with him the other night, the tackle needs to be looked at. Stopping a runner with arms or hurleys should be banned. Return the advantage to the small skilful guy. Let the tanks go play rugby.

Cusack is never right about anything

look at the ball composition, enforce the rule on the diameter of the hurl.

Nobody goes to a hurling or football match to watch lads catching handpass after handpass until they thump the ball over the bar. As someone suggested: ban catching handpasses from both codes in favour of the core skill of both: controlling the ball with the foot or hurl

Rasputin11

I'd like to see an exhibition game where all the refs blows for are dangerous fouls or technical ones. Let everything else go, the let it flow brigade might not be happy with what's produced. I recall a North Tipp Final a few years back between Nenagh and Burgess, the local let it flow ref was appointed, it resulted in one of the worst games that I've ever witnessed.

Sunny Disposition

Clareman wrote: »

Have bigger ridges on the ball and make a change to the handpass rule. Something like there having to be a clear striking action for the handpass or limit it to 2 handpasses on a row.

Hurling is played between the 2 45s now and when you see free takers putting the ball over with ease from inside their own 65, something has to change.

Your own countyman pointed one from
Inside his 45 on Saturday.

Clareman

With players getting bigger & faster as well as the possession based games which are now happening I think there's going to be more and more fouling, pulling/dragging/pushing will always happen when you only have 1 hand free. Personally I'm not a fan of this possesion based game between the 45s where teams just work the ball to the free man around half way who then takes a shot. Bigger ridges on the ball will mean it's harder to catch, won't travel as far, will be more influenced by the wind and wouldn't be a huge change, maybe even bring in a new size 6 or something.

Clareman

Rasputin11 wrote: »

I'd like to see an exhibition game where all the refs blows for are dangerous fouls or technical ones. Let everything else go, the let it flow brigade might not be happy with what's produced. I recall a North Tipp Final a few years back between Nenagh and Burgess, the local let it flow ref was appointed, it resulted in one of the worst games that I've ever witnessed.

You should come to some of the training matches I've been done, sometimes throw ins aren't even blown for :pac::pac::pac:

Clareman

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

Your own countyman pointed one from
Inside his 45 on Saturday.

Yeah, as great and all it is to see 30+ scores for both sides it's a boring sight to see a corner forward jog back well into his own half to score a point .

Davys Fits

Is there anything more depressing than watching a bunch of hurlers in a big huddle before a match running around in circles handpassing the ball 2 metres to each other? It sickens me to death to see this. No manager is going to agree with me of course.
An if they increase the ball weight or reduce the hurley bos then there will be even more of this shyte hurling. There has been some very good suggestions here and elsewhere as to how to reduce the handpasses. Asking the refs to determine space between the ball and the hand is not one of them.

Sunny Disposition

I actually think the GAA have been too reactive in recent years whenever there was a controversy in hurling, yellow balls, new penalty format, dismissal for cynical fouling, all came out of this tendency. Whenever the Sunday Game guys complained they jumped. There have been some improvements to be fair, refs used to be so reluctant to give even the most deserved of reds once, but that has gone out of the game now, much less tolerance of thuggery.
But some really big issues, which definitely needed a reaction, have gone unchecked.
It’s clear that the ball is going dead way too often, but nothing at all done. The celebrities didn’t pipe up about the way the game was going for years, so there was no problem, nothing done. Hurleys increased dramatically in diameter, but no enforcement of an eminently sensible regulation.

Sunny Disposition

Clareman wrote: »

Yeah, as great and all it is to see 30+ scores for both sides it's a boring sight to see a corner forward jog back well into his own half to score a point .

But it’s not great to see 30+ scores for both sides! That’s facile thinking, that the greater the amount of scores the better the entertainment. Good defensive and midfield play used to be an enjoyable and essential of hurling, before it became all shoot outs.
No doubt you remember the Clare Cork AI semi final of 05. A great game, with 31 scores. It’s not the kind of thing you see any more though.

crossman47

Davys Fits wrote: »

Is there anything more depressing than watching a bunch of hurlers in a big huddle before a match running around in circles handpassing the ball 2 metres to each other? It sickens me to death to see this. No manager is going to agree with me of course.
An if they increase the ball weight or reduce the hurley bos then there will be even more of this shyte hurling. There has been some very good suggestions here and elsewhere as to how to reduce the handpasses. Asking the refs to determine space between the ball and the hand is not one of them.

Totally agree. Proper reffing of the handpass (rule it out if not 100% clear) would go a long way to solving the problem. I was sickened a few years ago to see a coach introducing youngsters to hurling by teaching them how to hand pass as a first lesson!

Realt Dearg Sec

crossman47 wrote: »

(rule it out if not 100% clear)

that would definitely be too far imo. All you would need to do is bottle of the man in possession, he couldn't hand pass it away so it would be easy prevent him striking the ball even a short distance, would lead to more rucks. I'm a big fan of the idea of reducing the flight of the ball and the bas of the hurl though.

Like everyone, I was aware that the bas on hurls had grown over the years (I don't have evidence for this but my memory is the O'Connor twins hurls back in the early 2000s looked massive and people gradually followed suit copying the Cork style) but when someone mentioned the 13cm rule I actually went and measured my own hurl and it was 18cm at the widest point! And it doesn't look particularly big by the standards of today at all. I'm almost certain cultecs and other composites aren't regulation either. That seems to be a fairly easy fix for the GAA, just enforce the rule and be done with it (although the smaller sweet spot will instantly make me an even worse hurler than I already am). And don't allow sliotar manufacturers to change the composition of the ball without GAA permission and testing first.

I stopped watching it lately - find it boring. Sliotar has to be changed because lads scoring from 90+metres no problem and less battles around the pitch than before. Stats show with the number of scores now increasing year on year.

fuinneamh

Spot all the lads who don't play anymore. Game has never been better to play at all levels. Every player gets touches on the ball, not just your spine down the middle.

We're going through a phase off puck outs where everyone is bringing 12 men into their half on defence. This means the attacking team has a 8 vrs 3 advantage to manufacture a shot from half way. The defence gives you options and this is the best option. Eventually hurling will follow football and soccer and realise there's an advantage to sometimes pushing up on teams on puck outs. Then you'll get your return to more 50/50 contests.

Every invasion ball sport has combinations of zonal and man to man defending and hurling will be no different in the future.

Finally, beware too heavy a sliothar as that will lead to even more carrying of the ball further up the field. A heavier sliothar means striking long is going into 12 defenders and no player never mind coach is going to do that.

breezy1985

fuinneamh wrote: »

Spot all the lads who don't play anymore. Game has never been better to play at all levels. Every player gets touches on the ball, not just your spine down the middle.

We're going through a phase off puck outs where everyone is bringing 12 men into their half on defence. This means the attacking team has a 8 vrs 3 advantage to manufacture a shot from half way. The defence gives you options and this is the best option. Eventually hurling will follow football and soccer and realise there's an advantage to sometimes pushing up on teams on puck outs. Then you'll get your return to more 50/50 contests.

Every invasion ball sport has combinations of zonal and man to man defending and hurling will be no different in the future.

Finally, beware too heavy a sliothar as that will lead to even more carrying of the ball further up the field. A heavier sliothar means striking long is going into 12 defenders and no player never mind coach is going to do that.

People also saying that upping the goal to 4 or 5 points to encourage goals. What this will actually do is encourage more sweepers and seeding of space to the attacking half backs and will lead to more long range points not more goals

Pogue eile

breezy1985 wrote: »

People also saying that upping the goal to 4 or 5 points to encourage goals. What this will actually do is encourage more sweepers and seeding of space to the attacking half backs and will lead to more long range points not more goals

100% and also lads saying make the bas smaller and the ball heavier, what will that lead to? More fecking shortpassing, its like they want to punish the team that actually play the ball long.

I think it is also very clear here that people are talking solely about intercounty senior - the club game has never been healthier or a better spectacle, I would hate to see anychanges being made simply becasue of a tin y majority of the total games played and players in the game.

breezy1985

Pogue eile wrote: »

100% and also lads saying make the bas smaller and the ball heavier, what will that lead to? More fecking shortpassing, its like they want to punish the team that actually play the ball long.

I think it is also very clear here that people are talking solely about intercounty senior - the club game has never been healthier or a better spectacle, I would hate to see anychanges being made simply becasue of a tin y majority of the total games played and players in the game.

I do think they should be strick on bas size but not because of impact on the game I just think you should have regulations on equipment in sport so that technology first become a major factor in a sport. But I am someone you doesn't see much wrong with current tactics even the hand passing. My only worry is puckout points as a puckout can't be marked or isn't reward for a foul

For instance I am one of the people who fully supports the strict and finicky UCI rules on bikes and jerseys in cycling.

Sunny Disposition

Maybe the solution is simpler than it seemed to me before starting this thread. If we went back to the ball used 10 years or so ago and enforced the rule on bad size things could be a lot better. It does seem like there is a demand for a change now, points being scored from huge distances and extremely high scores are not looked at as positively as they were 4/5 years ago.

Realt Dearg Sec

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

Maybe the solution is simpler than it seemed to me before starting this thread. If we went back to the ball used 10 years or so ago and enforced the rule on bad size things could be a lot better. It does seem like there is a demand for a change now, points being scored from huge distances and extremely high scores are not looked at as positively as they were 4/5 years ago.

True enough although I've found myself agreeing with people from all sides of the argument in this thread (actually it's been a great thread in that sense!). Even on this page, I had supported reducing the bas size (or rather enforcing it) and the sliotar returning to its older composition (by the way can anyone say for definite that the composition has been changed, by whom, and when? Or is everyone just assuming that happened?). Then others suggested this could lead to even more protective tactics where nobody will want to move the ball long at all because of how unpredictable the strike and the flight of the ball would be.

This raises two points for me. Firstly, nobody here actually knows what the effect will be of any particular changes in the rules/regulations until we see what happens. So finding the right changes to get the game where we want it will be a slow process of trial and error.

Which brings up the second point: where do we want the game to be? I think while many people here are agreed they don't like a lot of the way the game is played, I'm not sure everyone is on the same page about what they think the ideal would be. A lot of people want to have more one-to-one contests for ball, and what comes with that, visceral excitement and breaking ball that introduces a bit of randomness and favours the backs more than the current situation where backs main job is setting up plays for scoring opportunities rather than defending.

But what is the ideal to which those people are looking? A few people mentioned the eighties, but I don't know if they've watched those matches again recently but I looked at a lot of "classics" during lockdown and it was often dire stuff. I've never been a fan of the "ground hurling is gone out of the game" argument because ground hurling was often just wild flaking that was poor to watch anyway. But I think we all probably enjoy seeing lads going up together to contest high ball and the best man wins the battle. To me the high point of that was probably about 12 years or so ago. But two things about that: 1. as a KK man I remember well that people complained endlessly about our style of play in that era that is now so fondly remembered and 2. that is also the era in which we started seeing the sweeper (first time I saw it was Clare under Daly), short passing (Cork under O'Grady) and backs swarming the forward after he gains possession (KK under Cody) which between them account for most of what we're all complaining about now.

So I dunno.

Sunny Disposition

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

True enough although I've found myself agreeing with people from all sides of the argument in this thread (actually it's been a great thread in that sense!). Even on this page, I had supported reducing the bas size (or rather enforcing it) and the sliotar returning to its older composition (by the way can anyone say for definite that the composition has been changed, by whom, and when? Or is everyone just assuming that happened?). Then others suggested this could lead to even more protective tactics where nobody will want to move the ball long at all because of how unpredictable the strike and the flight of the ball would be.

This raises two points for me. Firstly, nobody here actually knows what the effect will be of any particular changes in the rules/regulations until we see what happens. So finding the right changes to get the game where we want it will be a slow process of trial and error.

Which brings up the second point: where do we want the game to be? I think while many people here are agreed they don't like a lot of the way the game is played, I'm not sure everyone is on the same page about what they think the ideal would be. A lot of people want to have more one-to-one contests for ball, and what comes with that, visceral excitement and breaking ball that introduces a bit of randomness and favours the backs more than the current situation where backs main job is setting up plays for scoring opportunities rather than defending.

But what is the ideal to which those people are looking? A few people mentioned the eighties, but I don't know if they've watched those matches again recently but I looked at a lot of "classics" during lockdown and it was often dire stuff. I've never been a fan of the "ground hurling is gone out of the game" argument because ground hurling was often just wild flaking that was poor to watch anyway. But I think we all probably enjoy seeing lads going up together to contest high ball and the best man wins the battle. To me the high point of that was probably about 12 years or so ago. But two things about that: 1. as a KK man I remember well that people complained endlessly about our style of play in that era that is now so fondly remembered and 2. that is also the era in which we started seeing the sweeper (first time I saw it was Clare under Daly), short passing (Cork under O'Grady) and backs swarming the forward after he gains possession (KK under Cody) which between them account for most of what we're all complaining about now.

So I dunno.

Wasn’t a massive fan of ground hurling either, but since it’s gone it’s all rucks. As I said earlier ground hurling can’t work at the moment, because it’s so easy to score from range that territory is unimportant, so there’s no upside to hitting it in the ground. But if the ball were adjusted and hurley rule enforced that’d change.

Was watching KK v Clare from 02 the other night, it was a poor game, quite one sided, but there was way more competitive moments than you’d see in a lot of games today. Seanie McMahon was an asset to Clare because he could point frees from the middle of the field. DJ got a goal when the ball fell short, it’s a score that wouldn’t happen nowadays, Shefflin would definitely put the ball dead under current conditions.

I certainly wouldn’t have been complain about the KK style of play, but I was fairly sick of ye winning!!!

Frozen Veg

The skill levels have evolved. That's what's brought the game to where it is today.

Go watch a junior game if you want to see the more of the old fashioned stuff.