|
Post by Sons of Pitches on Oct 2, 2018 15:02:55 GMT
The GAA’S Standing Committee on the Playing Rules has issued a list of proposed experimental rule changes for Gaelic Football. gaa.ie/football/news/experimental-rule-changes-proposed-for-gaelic-football/The SCPR now plans to engage in a consultation process in relation to these rules during the month of October and will hold detailed discussions with players, coaches, referees and officials. If approved by Coiste Bainistíochta, the proposed rule changes would be implemented as a trial during the 2019 Allianz Football Leagues. Any trial rules would not feature in the 2019 Championship but, based on their success in the trial phase, could be approved by Congress 2020 for implementation in the 2020 Championship. There are five rule changes proposed. They are: Proposal (1)Handpass - To introduce a restriction of three consecutive passes of the ball with the fist or open hand by players of the team in possession. Proposal (2)Sideline Kick That the ball shall be played in a forward direction from the kick. Exception: In the case of a side-line kick being taken by an attacking player on or inside the opponents’ 13m line, the ball may be kicked in any direction. Proposal (3)The Mark – To extend the application of the Mark to the clean catching of the ball on or inside the 20m line from a kick delivered on or beyond the 45m line without it touching the ground. In the case of a Mark being awarded to an attacking player on or inside the 20m line, the free, if availed of, shall be taken from the point on the 20m line directly in line where the Mark is awarded. In the case of a Mark being awarded to a defending player on or inside the 20m line, the free kick, if availed of, shall be taken from the point where the Mark is awarded. The application of the Mark in the two areas of it arising (i.e. as in current Rule and in new Proposal) shall be standardised as follows: - Up to 15 seconds shall be allowed for a free to be taken from a Mark. - If the Referee determines that the player who makes the Mark has been injured in the process and unable to take the kick, the Referee shall direct the player’s nearest team mate to take the kick. - A score may be made from a free awarded for a Mark. - The normal Rules governing free-kicks shall apply (e.g. players being 13m from the ball before it is kicked). Exception: A free-kick from a Mark shall be taken from the hand(s) only. If a player opts to ‘play on’ when awarded a Mark, he may be challenged i.e. provisions (b) (i) and (ii) of the current Mark Rule shall not apply during the experimentation. Proposal (4)Sin-Bin – The Penalty on the day for a Black Card Infraction or two Yellow Card Infractions - an ordering off for ten minutes in a Sin Bin. A subsequent Black Card Infraction shall be penalised by the showing of a Black Card followed by a Red Card. A subsequent Yellow Card Infraction shall be penalised by the showing of a Yellow Card followed by a Red Card. In either case there shall be no substitution allowed. The maximum number of substitutions in normal time to return to five. The Duties of a Referee and Sideline Official to be amended in accordance with this Proposal. Proposal (5)Kick-Out/Zoning For a kick-out, two players only from each team shall be positioned between the two 45m lines. The goalkeeper and a maximum of six players from each team shall be behind the respective 45m lines, until the ball is kicked. The ball from the kick-out shall travel beyond the 45m line before being played by a player of the defending team. Other Rules relating to the kick-out to remain unchanged. Penalties: (1) For another player on the team taking a kick-out to play the ball before it has travelled outside the 45m line or has been played by an opposing player. Penalty: (i) Cancel kick-out (ii) Throw in the ball on defenders’ 20m line in front of the scoring space. (2) For a player to cross a 45m line before the ball is kicked for the kick-out. (3) For a player(s) to, in the opinion of the referee, deliberately seek to delay the kick-out by not retreating behind the 45m lines in a timely manner. Penalty for the above Fouls: A 45m free off the ground and in front of the scoring space shall be awarded to the opposing team. (4) For a player(s) of each team to simultaneously cross the 45m line(s) before the ball is kicked from the kick-out: Penalty: A throw-in ball shall be awarded on the centre of the 45m line involved or at the centre of the field (if infringements are made on both 45m lines). The SCPR is chaired by David Hassan. He said: “In advance of this document there was extensive research carried out including detailed consideration of video footage, data provided on inter-county games from 2011 to the current season, and discussion on the part of the Committee’s members during the course of the year. “Proposed changes are designed to enhance the core skills of Gaelic Football. The Committee will now embark on a period of consultation with all of the key stakeholders involved in the playing of our games. This feedback is important, and we also know that the ultimate test of any proposals is when we see them implemented on the field of play.” Communication was also sought from all 32 GAA county boards as well as overseas units seeking feedback on the existing playing rules of Gaelic Football, as well as holding a meeting between the SCPR and the Chair of the Referees’ Development Committee. It should be stressed that these proposals are on an experimental basis only and will be subject to a review. During 2018 much of the Committee’s focus has been on Gaelic football. It has also reviewed the playing rules of Hurling as well as a number of other areas that span both codes and will consider these in much more detail during the second and third years of its three-year term. Under GAA rule, changes to the playing rules of Gaelic Games are only possible in years divisible by 5, making 2020 a year that permits changes to the playing rules. The Standing Committee on Playing Rules is comprised of: David Hassan (Chair), Tracy Bunyan (Sec), Pat Daly, Seamus Kenny, Brian Cuthbert, Michael Delaney, David Collins, Alex McQuillen, Frank Murphy.
|
|
|
Post by buck02 on Oct 2, 2018 15:19:44 GMT
This is one of the problems I would have with the proposals:
The Standing Committee on Playing Rules is comprised of:
David Hassan (Chair), Tracy Bunyan (Sec), Pat Daly, Seamus Kenny, Brian Cuthbert, Michael Delaney, David Collins, Alex McQuillen, Frank Murphy.
Other than Brian Cuthbert and Pat Daly, I wouldnt be familiar that any of the others have any experience other than from an administrative role in the GAA.
Surely the GAA should be getting recently retired players, managers and coaches involved in the thought process.
|
|
|
Post by clarinman on Oct 2, 2018 15:38:12 GMT
This is one of the problems I would have with the proposals: The Standing Committee on Playing Rules is comprised of: David Hassan (Chair), Tracy Bunyan (Sec), Pat Daly, Seamus Kenny, Brian Cuthbert, Michael Delaney, David Collins, Alex McQuillen, Frank Murphy. Other than Brian Cuthbert and Pat Daly, I wouldnt be familiar that any of the others have any experience other than from an administrative role in the GAA. Surely the GAA should be getting recently retired players, managers and coaches involved in the thought process. David Collins is president of the GPA and is an ex Galway hurler.
|
|
|
Post by Sons of Pitches on Oct 2, 2018 15:51:30 GMT
Under GAA rule, changes to the playing rules of Gaelic Games are only possible in years divisible by 5, making 2020 a year that permits changes to the playing rules.
This line sums up how out of date the current GAA organisation is.
I get the way you wouldn't want changes every year but come on.
|
|
|
Post by sullyschoice on Oct 2, 2018 16:05:17 GMT
There is far too much in that proposal. Reffing will be an even more challenging endeavour.
|
|
|
Post by buck02 on Oct 2, 2018 16:24:30 GMT
This is one of the problems I would have with the proposals: The Standing Committee on Playing Rules is comprised of: David Hassan (Chair), Tracy Bunyan (Sec), Pat Daly, Seamus Kenny, Brian Cuthbert, Michael Delaney, David Collins, Alex McQuillen, Frank Murphy. Other than Brian Cuthbert and Pat Daly, I wouldnt be familiar that any of the others have any experience other than from an administrative role in the GAA. Surely the GAA should be getting recently retired players, managers and coaches involved in the thought process. David Collins is president of the GPA and is an ex Galway hurler. I wonder if an ex Kerry footballer was on a panel that proposed changes to hurling, how would it go down with the "hurling people". If he just there as a way of pacifying the GPA? (As if they need any more pacifying).
|
|
peanuts
Fanatical Member
Posts: 1,850
|
Post by peanuts on Oct 2, 2018 16:56:46 GMT
In fairness the proposals cover most of the changes that people have been asking for on here and elsewhere. Who was involved in coming up with the rules shouldn't really matter. Whether there's too much included to be undertaken in one go is a question alright but the changes should be given a decent chance.
|
|
|
Post by givehimaball on Oct 2, 2018 17:54:42 GMT
The proposed Sin Bin rule is a complete nonsense - all it does it make life easier for the players who don't follow the rules.
Ten minutes into a game and a full-back who is in a one-on-one situation with a forward bearing down on goal has even less incentive to follow the rules. If they grab the player and haul them to the ground and get a black card they will only miss 10 minutes as opposed to the rest of the match. The team will go down to 14 players, which will mean adjustment where a forward will be pulled back into defence and the the team with 14 will do everything they can to slow down the pace of the game until their full-back comes back on the pitch. The main effect this rule will have is to have coaches/managers looking for ways to concede as few scores as possible during the 10 minutes where they are a man down. This rule has the dual effect of reducing the punishment on individuals who engage in foul play and encouraging teams to be more defensive.
|
|
|
Post by southward on Oct 2, 2018 18:59:40 GMT
The mark inside the 20m line could generate a fair bit of excitement in the dying seconds of a big match. Imagine the tension as the ball is travelling in.
Donaghy's retirement will have to be cancelled.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2018 19:47:40 GMT
1. Definitely no, could make the game a farce if a team gets a lead and tries to hold on. Penalizes the attacking team. 2. Seems pointless - don’t care 3, worth trying as it benefits the attacking team 4,. I think this is worth a go. The black card is of no consequence to the stronger teams and irrelevant at the end of games. The sin bin is not perfect but a sin bin in the last 10 minutes would have a major impact on a tight game. The black card has no real impact in a similar situation 5. I like the intention but it could slow the game down significantly as players take position afte every kickout
|
|
keane
Fanatical Member
Posts: 1,267
|
Post by keane on Oct 2, 2018 20:25:34 GMT
Most seem to encourage deep sitting defence. The fifth one is the most likely to work but needs putting with some sanction against delaying the game.
|
|
|
Post by buck02 on Oct 2, 2018 20:44:56 GMT
I saw a video of one of Corofins goals in the club final against Nemo. 9 hand passes in a row I believe and it was a brilliant goal.
I'm not convinced this will work but I suppose it probably needs another trial.
|
|
|
Post by Ballyfireside on Oct 2, 2018 23:11:30 GMT
In a word, 'insane' from start to finish. E.g. Talk of building on Black Card when refs refused to administer what was a good thing.
Limiting passes is desirable impossible for refs, even if they wanted to. Rules have very limited scope to enhance the game and in this case they have infinitely more scope to do harm. The reality is that they will fail from the word go so they won;t be administered anyway. What is a concern though is that as an organisation/community of such colossus, this is the best we can come up with. I think the issue is that we don't have a system of bringing ideas to the fore and nobody can deny but that there are some very astute and canny observers among us.
|
|
|
Post by NotOurYear on Oct 3, 2018 5:24:38 GMT
I like the proposed rule changes and believe they should be given a chance to operate on a trial basis. The first question i ask is if the game is in a good place currently and the answer for me is a resounding no. To do nothing would be to accept the way the game is being played now. I don’t ever want to a repeat of some of the games we saw in the summer; Kerry / Galway anyone? Combating defensive systems and limiting ball retention lie at the heart of the rule changes and this is to be welcomed. Rule 1: The limit on the hand-pass i can only presume is to promote kick passing. For me kick-passing is the primary skill in the game. Anything that positivity promotes it is to be encouraged. I am in favour of making it harder to engage in that horrible practice of ‘keep ball’ and would favour more contested possessions so this one gets the thumps up from me. A long accurate kick-pass to an inside forward followed by three hand-passes is enough to open a defense when done at pace. I also don’t buy the argument that it will be difficult to referee, it happens in the international rules with no issue and Pat McEneany (former referee chief) believes it would not be difficult to enforce. Rule 2: Forward Sideline kick. I don’t believe this goes far enough. I would bring this in for all dead ball kicks, they all should have to go forward. I don’t see ball retention as a skill, rather i see it as a blight on the game. I want to see more contests for possession and ensuring a forward kick from restarts will encourage that. I would also limit teams from going back over the attacking 65 if they bring the ball into the attacking zone. Having teams move the ball backwards from the opposition 13m line back to the goalkeeper is depressing-to watch. Rule 3: The Offensive Mark. What I believe this is trying to combat is the the dreaded blanket defense. Where team place up-to 10 players between the 45 & the 21 in the so called ‘scoring zone’. Attacking teams can’t get through and we have the wonderful vista of keep-ball around mid-field as witnessed in the Derry club game or Kerry / Galway league game in Tralee. With this rule teams can go over the blanket and be rewarded for accurate long kicks (as mentioned the primary skill in the game). So as a defensive team team do you still engage the blanket or do you move it back to cover the mark zone?Imagine the excitement of a long ball kicked into the square with a team down a point? This rule challenges defensive set-ups and will encourage kicking and high fielding so I am for this one as well. Rule 4: The sin bin. Today yellow cards are handed out too easily. Football is just refereed differently to hurling. Games are no being negatively influenced by referees sending players off for two small yellow card infractions. I see the sin bin as an effort to redress this. However we will have a tick, first yellow card, second yellow card, black card & red card. Too much in my opinion. Keep the tick, yellow card = sin bin, black card = sin bin but must be replaced. Yellow + black or two yellows = red. The black card had no real effect in the closing stages of a game as players were happy to take the card. Now their team is down a man for the remainder of a game. This may lead to 15 vs 13 should two blacks be shown. More difficult for a team to just hang on and when taken in conjunction with the other rules changes should lead to more football being played at the end of games rather than the mess we see now. I believe this is worth a trial. Rule 5: The kick-out. The most radical proposal and the one that appears designed to eradicate the defensive set-up of teams. So that reason I am in favour of trialing it. Take Tyrone as an example. When the ball is throw-in their two sweepers head to the D. Their forwards drop back to their 65 / 45 bar leaving 1 or 2 inside the opposition half. So in their structure you have 13 players inside their own half. They invite pressure and break at pace to exploit the space at the other side of the pitch. Except nowadays team realise this and play more defensive to mirror the Tyrone set-up leading to crap games (ala Kerry / Donegal 2014). This proposed rule change will make that structure impossible to maintain as it must be reset at every kick-out. The defending Tyrone forward players would need to sprint back to the opposition 45 prior to the kick-out and then back into position again. That is a lot of running for every kick-out. The rule wants players to adopt orthodox positions which may never fully happen again but I believe it could limit the ‘total blanket’ defensive systems that commit 13 to defense. Doing it from kickouts allows the ref to ensure all players are in the correct position. Its will be easy to see if players are in the correct positions as the ball is kicked. Additionally it will finally remove the great scourge of the modern game - the quick kick-out to the corner back....a welcome side effect. The one addendum i would make is for really bad weather, if the ref believes the goalkeeper made a genuine effort to get the ball out then i wouldn’t penalize him. Overall: I feel the game is broken as it stands, change is needed. We in the GAA are always too quick to say ‘No’ to change. Lets embrace the rules on a trial basis, learn the lessons (good or bad) and then decide if the change should be made permanent. Rugby is a good example, in the mid naughties it was not great viewing; Indeed Argentina got to a world-cup Semi final with the one tactic of Garryowens. World rugby realised that the game needed changing and the altered the laws of the game, particularly around the tackle, to encourage running rugby. Game far more entertaining now as a result. As an association we need to be confident enough to take the positive elements from other field based, invasion games, and incorporate them into our games, it what happened with defensive systems but has just gone a little too far to the dark side. These proposed rule changes redress the balance I feel.
|
|
|
Post by onlykerry on Oct 3, 2018 8:35:09 GMT
The main positive is that there is an acceptance of problems and a need to address them. The specific proposals (which are for discussion at this time) have some serious flaws, particularly when one thinks of the game in all its guises from juvenile to club to intercounty. Three hand passes requires further clarification - if an opponent touches the ball or the ball touches the ground does this effect the count? And my greatest issue is that it puts another responsibility on the referee to count to three consistently on top of watching whats going on behind his back - he now needs to focus totally on the ball. I did not percieve the sideline restart to be such a blight on the game as to require a rule change. Again it is a complication and an additional burden on a referee, particularly when officiating on his own. The changes to the mark are probably the most interesting of the proposals, however we now need a ref to be aware of the 45 mt line for the kick and the 20 mt line for the catch - the bulk of club games I go to have no pitch markings and the ref is 30 mt at best from the play. Implementation of this rule change will be a problem I fear and will only add pressure to ref's in the majority of games. I welcome the sin bin as a punishment in general. The final proposed change is bonkers and again relys on field markings where a ref needs to be able to watch the two 45's as well as everything else for the kickout. One official is not capable of consistently applying all the rules and in the majority of games played in GAA there is only one official. My golden rule is any proposed changes should simplify the game and not complicate it.
|
|
|
Post by southward on Oct 3, 2018 18:09:59 GMT
NotOurYear - excellent post, fully agree and you saved me the bother.
The proposals are generally positive and well-intended in my opinion. Certainly worth a trial at least. No doubt we'll hear plenty of opposition from the Jim McGuinness types who have done their best to ruin the game as a spectacle over the past decade or so. The army of coaches who are desperate to win at all costs and don't give a sh*te about entertainment or even if anyone turns up to watch it. Well guess what, these guys don't own the game and should be faced down if it comes to it.
I really don't see anything that would be too onerous on referees either but if any members here are refs, they might give their thoughts?
Colm Collins mentioned this morning that the mark should be restricted to overhead fielding and not given for chest catches. I think there's merit in this, though of course there could be problems with borderline calls.
|
|
|
Post by Annascaultilidie on Oct 3, 2018 20:05:58 GMT
More like Lose At All Costs.
|
|
|
Post by southward on Oct 3, 2018 20:54:27 GMT
More like Lose At All Costs. Indeed.
|
|
|
Post by sullyschoice on Oct 3, 2018 21:36:23 GMT
All the proposals indivually have merit but introducing them all at once would be chaotic.
|
|
|
Post by Annascaultilidie on Oct 4, 2018 2:36:57 GMT
All the proposals indivually have merit but introducing them all at once would be chaotic. Parkinson argues that on the contrary some of the proposals are dependent on the others. Perhaps not all five but just one of the more controversial ones (in his opinion) won't work.
|
|
|
Post by yourholiness on Oct 4, 2018 6:32:57 GMT
I wouldn’t be gone on any of them . I can’t help but think restricting things gives rise to new issues and the more restrictive the game becomes the more difficult it becomes for attacking teams to innovate. That said I’ve been sceptical about every rule change that proceeded these ones so I’m not the best judge !
|
|
|
Post by yourholiness on Oct 4, 2018 6:33:12 GMT
I wouldn’t be gone on any of them . I can’t help but think restricting things gives rise to new issues and the more restrictive the game becomes the more difficult it becomes for attacking teams to innovate. That said I’ve been sceptical about every rule change that proceeded these ones so I’m not the best judge !
|
|
|
Post by NotOurYear on Oct 4, 2018 13:26:07 GMT
I agree with Parkinson. They need to be trialed as a package. Taking them individually will lessen the overall impact.
The good news for those in favour of the rules is that it is the management committee of the GAA what has the power to implement them on the trial basis in the league not congress.
I think they will vote to trial them in the league next year (if not them why form the committee in the first place), then we will have a reliable block of evidence as to their effectiveness in meaningful matches. That will allow the officials take stock of what was learned and then decide what rules go to congress in 2020.
|
|
Premier
Fanatical Member
Posts: 1,159
|
Post by Premier on Oct 4, 2018 16:44:02 GMT
I agree with Parkinson. They need to be trialed as a package. Taking them individually will lessen the overall impact. The good news for those in favour of the rules is that it is the management committee of the GAA what has the power to implement them on the trial basis in the league not congress. I think they will vote to trial them in the league next year (if not them why form the committee in the first place), then we will have a reliable block of evidence as to their effectiveness in meaningful matches. That will allow the officials take stock of what was learned and then decide what rules go to congress in 2020. Why not do it during the McGrath Cup/McKenna Cup typed competitions. The league is nearly taken too seriously at this stage to be implementing all this change at once
|
|
|
Post by Sons of Pitches on Oct 4, 2018 17:07:51 GMT
Typically Rory Gallagher is against the rules.
“I would be very much against the restriction of the handpass,” he said. “Anybody that’s in competitive sport is in it because they want to be as competitive as they can, they shouldn’t be penalised if they want to retain possession.
"If you’re going to lead to more kicking of the ball, it will lead to more collisions and physicality and one-on-one battles."
Can you imagine the game being played with more kicking and one and one battles! The horrors!
|
|
|
Post by buck02 on Oct 4, 2018 18:33:41 GMT
I wonder was the proposed sideline rule brought in cos it would be too severe a measure to implement this rule for free kicks. Then bring it in at a later date if these rules get the green light.
I mean how many line balls would there be in a typical game. Maybe 6 or so?
|
|
|
Post by dc84 on Oct 4, 2018 21:17:49 GMT
Typically Rory Gallagher is against the rules. “I would be very much against the restriction of the handpass,” he said. “Anybody that’s in competitive sport is in it because they want to be as competitive as they can, they shouldn’t be penalised if they want to retain possession. "If you’re going to lead to more kicking of the ball, it will lead to more collisions and physicality and one-on-one battles." Can you imagine the game being played with more kicking and one and one battles! The horrors! I was against it but if rory is against it i will have to change my mind!
|
|
|
Post by Annascaultilidie on Feb 24, 2019 20:41:33 GMT
I have a rules query.
Can a player inside the small "square" pass it to another player inside the small square.
|
|
peanuts
Fanatical Member
Posts: 1,850
|
Post by peanuts on Feb 24, 2019 21:04:05 GMT
I have a rules query. Can a player inside the small "square" pass it to another player inside the small square. I would say yes. Don’t see anything wrong with that.
|
|
|
Post by Annascaultilidie on Feb 24, 2019 21:06:30 GMT
I have a rules query. Can a player inside the small "square" pass it to another player inside the small square. I would say yes. Don’t see anything wrong with that. Would it be a square ball?
|
|