|
Article in Indo today on what's coming out and being trialed from the Jim Gavin football review
https://m.independent.ie/sport/gaelic-games/gaelic-football/four-points-for-a-goal-a-shot-clock-and-vanishing-foam-the-new-rules-jim-gavins-football-review-group-are-set-to-trial/a1736990173.html
Some very interesting stuff in there. I like the ideas of 30/50 meter adjustment on frees for dissent, 'solo and go' option on frees and shaving foam for the refs. Lots of other ideas that will be interesting to see as well
TearsIn85 (Monaghan) - Posts: 206 - 11/06/2024 12:04:30
2550778
Link
1
|
|
Replying To TearsIn85: "Article in Indo today on what's coming out and being trialed from the Jim Gavin football review
https://m.independent.ie/sport/gaelic-games/gaelic-football/four-points-for-a-goal-a-shot-clock-and-vanishing-foam-the-new-rules-jim-gavins-football-review-group-are-set-to-trial/a1736990173.html
Some very interesting stuff in there. I like the ideas of 30/50 meter adjustment on frees for dissent, 'solo and go' option on frees and shaving foam for the refs. Lots of other ideas that will be interesting to see as well" Scrap the forward mark.
Hate it tbh.
Fionn (Dublin) - Posts: 4009 - 11/06/2024 12:29:24
2550783
Link
2
|
|
You will recall that the Committee was instituted, following the John Tobin lead Standing Committee on Playing Rules Report, which concluded that the main problem was the proliferation of the handpass: 421 handpasses v 130 kickpasses per game. I think almost everyone agrees that the handpass is a problem.
Yet, the 'new proposals', inexplicably, do not address this issue. I can't understand it; can anyone.
Aibrean (Kerry) - Posts: 304 - 11/06/2024 12:29:28
2550784
Link
2
|
|
Replying To Fionn: "Scrap the forward mark.
Hate it tbh." Not worth getting too worked up about the forward mark: each team uses it only 1.3 times per game. It's a non issue.
Aibrean (Kerry) - Posts: 304 - 11/06/2024 12:49:11
2550790
Link
1
|
|
Replying To Aibrean: "You will recall that the Committee was instituted, following the John Tobin lead Standing Committee on Playing Rules Report, which concluded that the main problem was the proliferation of the handpass: 421 handpasses v 130 kickpasses per game. I think almost everyone agrees that the handpass is a problem.
Yet, the 'new proposals', inexplicably, do not address this issue. I can't understand it; can anyone." Getting rid or restricting the handpass would completely alter the game and send us back to the 1950's in terms of style. I wouldn't like to see that happen because good players and teams can manipulate space with the handpass and use it to get better shots or kick passes away.
Think of Owen Mulligan and Peter Canavan goal from that famous All Ireland, or most goals for the last 20 years have been created with a handpass in the build up.
MrPBoylan (Monaghan) - Posts: 209 - 11/06/2024 13:19:15
2550800
Link
0
|
|
In hurling you can only handle the ball twice in possession.
In football there's no limit.
Reduce the amount of times you can play it to yourself?
As for the forward mark it's irrelevant to the boredom of most football games.
Seanfanbocht (Roscommon) - Posts: 1979 - 11/06/2024 13:38:14
2550805
Link
0
|
|
Replying To TearsIn85: "Article in Indo today on what's coming out and being trialed from the Jim Gavin football review
https://m.independent.ie/sport/gaelic-games/gaelic-football/four-points-for-a-goal-a-shot-clock-and-vanishing-foam-the-new-rules-jim-gavins-football-review-group-are-set-to-trial/a1736990173.html
Some very interesting stuff in there. I like the ideas of 30/50 meter adjustment on frees for dissent, 'solo and go' option on frees and shaving foam for the refs. Lots of other ideas that will be interesting to see as well" If keeping the forward mark the defender should be allowed to stand where the mark is made like in Australian rules too many players stealing metres to make a better angle for themselves
Gillo (UK) - Posts: 9 - 11/06/2024 13:45:06
2550806
Link
1
|
|
Replying To Aibrean: "You will recall that the Committee was instituted, following the John Tobin lead Standing Committee on Playing Rules Report, which concluded that the main problem was the proliferation of the handpass: 421 handpasses v 130 kickpasses per game. I think almost everyone agrees that the handpass is a problem.
Yet, the 'new proposals', inexplicably, do not address this issue. I can't understand it; can anyone." It's not that the handpass is a problem in itself. There's not enough kicking and I would agree ratio is far to weighted to the handpass at the minute.
I suppose one point that at least the forward mark rewards a kick pass so getting rid of it would reduce kicking even further. Even if it's only the 1.3 times per game. Not sure why teams don't try to use it more tbh.
It might not be clearly called out but the idea of giving extra points for scores out the field is that teams have to push our more on the kicker and that free up space inside for a kick pass. I don't know if it work but at least be worth a try.
I just don't think they can implement too much at the one time as you don't know what's working or not. Sandbox test is good idea. It will need clever thinkers managing the teams to find holes in the rule changes being tested.
Ulsterchamps_32 (Donegal) - Posts: 780 - 11/06/2024 13:54:27
2550808
Link
0
|
|
Replying To Aibrean: "You will recall that the Committee was instituted, following the John Tobin lead Standing Committee on Playing Rules Report, which concluded that the main problem was the proliferation of the handpass: 421 handpasses v 130 kickpasses per game. I think almost everyone agrees that the handpass is a problem.
Yet, the 'new proposals', inexplicably, do not address this issue. I can't understand it; can anyone." Is their shotclock plan supposed to counteract too much handpassing I wonder? Would probably need to be more kick passing to give a bit of leeway to set up shots.
GreenandRed (Mayo) - Posts: 7672 - 11/06/2024 14:06:58
2550813
Link
0
|
|
I can see all sorts of practical problems with some of those proposals if the idea is that they'd apply at all levels of the game.
The problems with a 'shot clock' rule are surely self-evident. Outside of Croke Park and maybe a few other major venues capable of having a large countdown display on the scoreboard, how would players, managers and spectators even know if the team had already had possession for just 23 seconds and therefore had time for another pass or twp, or if they'd already had it for 28 seconds and therefore had to shoot almost immediately?
Or the idea for a 40-metre arc, that would have to be fairly well visible from a distance away.
I could see it working okay in county grounds. But what about a club ground where the lines are faded because poor oul' Paddy who marks the pitch couldn't do it that week for some reason? And there's a shot from somewhere near the arc but the referee is a bit of a distance away and the arc is too faded for him to be sure about where the shot was actually from?
The proposed changes are all well-intentioned but I just think many of them are not very practical.
Pikeman96 (Wexford) - Posts: 2630 - 11/06/2024 14:29:39
2550820
Link
0
|
|
I think a few of the suggestions have merit. A few seem slightly pointless.
The pass-back to the goal keeper is a much smaller problem than the review suggests; I don't see the need to restrict goal keeper possession to that extent.
Dissent carrying a 50 meter penalty - that to me is a really good idea. perhaps all frees from personal fouls should be made "solo and go".
The 40m arc and 2 points - I think that is over stating the value of a long distance score as against a closer in score. Put it this way - a '45 would be worth 2 points; I can't see how this would be worth half a goal or twice as much as a well taken point from 30m. Good idea - but the scoring would need more work. 4 points for a goal and 1.5 points for a 40m score would be around what feels right to me.
Defining the tackle a bit better needs to happen and the article seems light in specifics (a bit like the current tackle).
Keeping at least 3 back again makes sense - freeing up a bit of space from the blanket defence; but why 3 and not 4?
I would like to have seen a shot clock introduced; I can see that there are some practical implications but surely these could be worked through?
As for the foam - I don't really see the point; yes - at the moment everyone is making an slightly easier angle for themselves but this doesn't really detract from the game in any way.
brianb (Kildare) - Posts: 357 - 11/06/2024 16:03:20
2550839
Link
1
|
|
Replying To brianb: "I think a few of the suggestions have merit. A few seem slightly pointless.
The pass-back to the goal keeper is a much smaller problem than the review suggests; I don't see the need to restrict goal keeper possession to that extent.
Dissent carrying a 50 meter penalty - that to me is a really good idea. perhaps all frees from personal fouls should be made "solo and go".
The 40m arc and 2 points - I think that is over stating the value of a long distance score as against a closer in score. Put it this way - a '45 would be worth 2 points; I can't see how this would be worth half a goal or twice as much as a well taken point from 30m. Good idea - but the scoring would need more work. 4 points for a goal and 1.5 points for a 40m score would be around what feels right to me.
Defining the tackle a bit better needs to happen and the article seems light in specifics (a bit like the current tackle).
Keeping at least 3 back again makes sense - freeing up a bit of space from the blanket defence; but why 3 and not 4?
I would like to have seen a shot clock introduced; I can see that there are some practical implications but surely these could be worked through?
As for the foam - I don't really see the point; yes - at the moment everyone is making an slightly easier angle for themselves but this doesn't really detract from the game in any way." Taking frees from the wrong place isn't allowed but rule not enforced.
Same with the 4 steps rule.
Will this (to my mind daft) 3 back rule also be applied in hurling?
Seanfanbocht (Roscommon) - Posts: 1979 - 11/06/2024 16:36:30
2550844
Link
1
|
|
Replying To Pikeman96: "I can see all sorts of practical problems with some of those proposals if the idea is that they'd apply at all levels of the game.
The problems with a 'shot clock' rule are surely self-evident. Outside of Croke Park and maybe a few other major venues capable of having a large countdown display on the scoreboard, how would players, managers and spectators even know if the team had already had possession for just 23 seconds and therefore had time for another pass or twp, or if they'd already had it for 28 seconds and therefore had to shoot almost immediately?
Or the idea for a 40-metre arc, that would have to be fairly well visible from a distance away.
I could see it working okay in county grounds. But what about a club ground where the lines are faded because poor oul' Paddy who marks the pitch couldn't do it that week for some reason? And there's a shot from somewhere near the arc but the referee is a bit of a distance away and the arc is too faded for him to be sure about where the shot was actually from?
The proposed changes are all well-intentioned but I just think many of them are not very practical." Whether or not it's practical to officiate a shot clock will make it easier for the defending team to choke out the attacking team for a small amount of time, knowing they'll have to attempt a score or turn the ball over? It'd make the game more end to end, 40 seconds, 50 seconds, whatever they decide, then ball needs to go to the other end of the pitch. Might sound like a better version of what we have but not for me. Basketball and Gaelic Football are great games in their own right but I don't want to see scores being kicked just because a clock says it has to be. One is mainly indoor on a small pitch, minimal contact, not a lot of skill in comparison to Gaelic Football, rolling subs and free throws when a quota of fouls is reached. If I could take some rule changes from basketball the shotclock wouldn't be one of them.
GreenandRed (Mayo) - Posts: 7672 - 11/06/2024 17:14:14
2550856
Link
1
|
|
Changes I'm ok with:
⬤ One v one throw-ins with other two midfielders retreating behind their 45-metre lines
⬤ All kick-outs taken from small rectangle.
⬤ Both teams must keep three players, including the 'keeper, inside their own 65-metre line
⬤ A player can play on from a mark but if no advantage accrues, the original mark will stand.
⬤ Advantage won't be restricted to five seconds but the free will be called back once it's clear no advantage is accruing.
⬤30-metre or 50-metre advancement of the ball for tactical or delaying fouling
⬤ Facility to 'solo and go' from a free with a 30/50-metre advancement if the player is impeded within 13 metres.
⬤ Deliberately holding a player but not grounding him becomes an additional black-card offence
legendzxix (Kerry) - Posts: 8326 - 11/06/2024 21:01:20
2550886
Link
1
|
|
Replying To legendzxix: "Changes I'm ok with:
⬤ One v one throw-ins with other two midfielders retreating behind their 45-metre lines
⬤ All kick-outs taken from small rectangle.
⬤ Both teams must keep three players, including the 'keeper, inside their own 65-metre line
⬤ A player can play on from a mark but if no advantage accrues, the original mark will stand.
⬤ Advantage won't be restricted to five seconds but the free will be called back once it's clear no advantage is accruing.
⬤30-metre or 50-metre advancement of the ball for tactical or delaying fouling
⬤ Facility to 'solo and go' from a free with a 30/50-metre advancement if the player is impeded within 13 metres.
⬤ Deliberately holding a player but not grounding him becomes an additional black-card offence" Why not just introduce an oval ball and completely turn the game into rugby while you're at it… all those changes totally nonsense… leave the game alone
ForeverBlue2 (Cavan) - Posts: 3057 - 11/06/2024 23:37:37
2550911
Link
0
|
|
Replying To legendzxix: "Changes I'm ok with:
⬤ One v one throw-ins with other two midfielders retreating behind their 45-metre lines
⬤ All kick-outs taken from small rectangle.
⬤ Both teams must keep three players, including the 'keeper, inside their own 65-metre line
⬤ A player can play on from a mark but if no advantage accrues, the original mark will stand.
⬤ Advantage won't be restricted to five seconds but the free will be called back once it's clear no advantage is accruing.
⬤30-metre or 50-metre advancement of the ball for tactical or delaying fouling
⬤ Facility to 'solo and go' from a free with a 30/50-metre advancement if the player is impeded within 13 metres.
⬤ Deliberately holding a player but not grounding him becomes an additional black-card offence" I dont see any improvement to the game in those.
How does kickouts from small square help football at u12 level or any level for that matter?
How does making it a rule to keep 3 players inside 65 help modern game either as a spectacle or to referee at club level. They already have incentive to keep players inside 45 through the forward mark.
No time limit on advantage is extremely frustrating in rugby and will stop the game far more than forward mark does.
All fouls are delaying mechanisms. You foul to stop possession or advancement of football or player(technical ones aside) it's part of the game. Are they advocating they all be advancement 30/50m. If not then this becomes about interpretation and that means it's dead before it starts. Think Aidan McCarthys black card and penalty in Limerick v Tipp in hurling for how far interpretation can be taken by a ref.
Unfortunately there is no real change to the game being proposed here. Just ill thought out fanciful tweaks.
Tadhg2020 (Limerick) - Posts: 19 - 12/06/2024 08:17:37
2550925
Link
0
|
|
It's very clear that Jim Gavin and Co have strong ideas and want to trial them early so that real proposals to improving the game can be tested and brought forward, voted upon and enacted quickly.
Great that these proposed rule changes will be trialled and players and management can then give their view.
Definitely , the most radical potential rule changes in quite a while.
I am a big fan of delaying frees being punished by 30 to 50m. That foul has become.endemic at all levels.
I don't see any problem with the 40m arc at all. Good idea to just having 2 midfielders for the throw in.
I would like to see a similar situation applying to ALL throw ins too as its a mess at the moment with far too many players encroaching the 13m space permitted. Perhaps a 30m free against a player encroaching that 13m might work.
Well done Jim Gavin and his committee! Looking forward to a far better game where we can have more skill on display and less cynical fouling.
carlowman (Carlow) - Posts: 1849 - 12/06/2024 08:27:26
2550928
Link
0
|
|
The problem with all these reviews and ideas brought forward by Jim Gavin and his motley crew is that they are thought out as if every game is going to be a counyy game played in Croke park or the like… Rules should be thought out with the intention of how they can be correctly implemented at the lowest level… not the highest….!!!!
ForeverBlue2 (Cavan) - Posts: 3057 - 12/06/2024 08:45:29
2550930
Link
0
|
|
I like the solo and go idea, it should speed up the game, I'd like to make sure it's solo and go forward though.
Bringing the mark to a ball caught inside the 20 from outside the 45 makes sense.
Keeping 3 inside the 65 could be tricky for refs more so
Barrowsider (Carlow) - Posts: 1666 - 12/06/2024 08:57:28
2550935
Link
1
|
|
Replying To Seanfanbocht: "Taking frees from the wrong place isn't allowed but rule not enforced.
Same with the 4 steps rule.
Will this (to my mind daft) 3 back rule also be applied in hurling?" Yes - adding foam to the mix might prevent players stealing a meter or two but doesn't fundamentally alter the game. A step counter for the 4 steps rule - now theres an idea!! Completely impractical but it would change the game!
I can't see any of the rules being applied to hurling - if all are approved it will indeed be a big divergence in the games - especially with the scoring structure.
brianb (Kildare) - Posts: 357 - 12/06/2024 10:30:15
2550960
Link
0
|