National Forum

3V1 After Galway Red/Black Card(S)

(Oldest Posts First)

I don't hear any voices countering Jim McGuiness' "farcical" comment relating to 3v1 after Galway's red/black cards.
What should the tweak be here?

With a 13-man Galway, there are three options:
a) 3v3 min in each half AT ALL TIMES - this is probably best as Donegal can use its advantage.
b) 2v2 or 1v1 - second choice, Galway can keep 11 in one half, but Donegal has more.
c) 3v1, no change - no way, this has to go - it truly is "farcical".

omahant (USA) - Posts: 3089 - 24/02/2025 14:39:17    2592915

Link

Another 'rule' that's farcical imo is the 2pointer becoming a 1 pointer, if it gets touched en route. I presume this means that if a goalie gets the tips of his glove to the ball as a 2pointer sails over the bar, then hey presto, it's just a 1pointer. Imagine a poor divil of a ref in a years time getting an earful from lads claiming to be outside poorly marked '40 metre zones', and simultaneously dealing with a keeper claiming he touched it going over. There was more than one mention of 'the joys of chaos' in GAA football over the weekend. Is it any wonder?

Pope_Benedict (Galway) - Posts: 3966 - 24/02/2025 15:09:25    2592929

Link

If it was really 3v1 at all times, as Jim was claiming, then on the numerous occasions that Donegal dispossessed Galway, why didn't they simply launch the ball down the field with a gale at their back? It would've been 3v1 and an almost guaranteed goal

In reality, it was never actually 3v1 up there as Galway kept players back, meaning that Galway had to attack with 9 players most of the time. So exactly as the rule intends

We won't mention that two of the decisions we're at best questionable

PressureKick (UK) - Posts: 254 - 24/02/2025 15:20:34    2592933

Link

Replying To PressureKick:  "If it was really 3v1 at all times, as Jim was claiming, then on the numerous occasions that Donegal dispossessed Galway, why didn't they simply launch the ball down the field with a gale at their back? It would've been 3v1 and an almost guaranteed goal

In reality, it was never actually 3v1 up there as Galway kept players back, meaning that Galway had to attack with 9 players most of the time. So exactly as the rule intends

We won't mention that two of the decisions we're at best questionable"
Because it wasn't 3v1 at the Galway end, that was what Jim highlighted.

When Galway went a man down, they played with 2 forwards, Donegal still had to keep 3 back. But when Donegal attacked into Galways half of the field, it was 12 v 12.

When Galway went 2 men down, Galway players with 1 forwards, Donegal still had to keep 3 back. So again when the attacked into Galways half of the field, it was 12 v 12.

Losing two men hampered Galways attack, but defensively they could still protect their huge lead, because defensively they could always maintain the numbers and Donegal could not push an extra man up.

Commodore (Donegal) - Posts: 1274 - 24/02/2025 15:41:39    2592937

Link

Replying To Commodore:  "Because it wasn't 3v1 at the Galway end, that was what Jim highlighted.

When Galway went a man down, they played with 2 forwards, Donegal still had to keep 3 back. But when Donegal attacked into Galways half of the field, it was 12 v 12.

When Galway went 2 men down, Galway players with 1 forwards, Donegal still had to keep 3 back. So again when the attacked into Galways half of the field, it was 12 v 12.

Losing two men hampered Galways attack, but defensively they could still protect their huge lead, because defensively they could always maintain the numbers and Donegal could not push an extra man up."
But surely you can't expect the team losing players to lose it on both ends like a double whammy? That would make it multiple times more penal than the old rules even

Say this happened last year? Galway would take two forwards off and defend as normal and be limited in attack. So that's exactly what happened this time. And on the times Galway got too aggressive in attack Donegal had the opportunity to kick into a 3v1 or 3v2 with a gale at their backs. Literally never an easier opportunity to take advantage than the second half yesterday and Donegal wouldn't kick it

You want two player removed from both the attacking and defending phase? So you want 12 v 10 defenders in the attacking phase, and also the opposition can only attack with 10 v your 12 also? That would actually become "farcical" as Jim likes to say and its not what happened under the old rules where teams kept defenders but removed attackers to compensate for the man loss

PressureKick (UK) - Posts: 254 - 24/02/2025 16:01:22    2592945

Link

Replying To PressureKick:  "If it was really 3v1 at all times, as Jim was claiming, then on the numerous occasions that Donegal dispossessed Galway, why didn't they simply launch the ball down the field with a gale at their back? It would've been 3v1 and an almost guaranteed goal

In reality, it was never actually 3v1 up there as Galway kept players back, meaning that Galway had to attack with 9 players most of the time. So exactly as the rule intends

We won't mention that two of the decisions we're at best questionable"
Why would it be a guaranteed goal? Galway had 12 defenders, if they wanted them. The 3v1 had zero advantage under these launched balls that you're advocating? Donegal had possible numerical advantage in the region of the field that they'd be launching these scuds from, but they wouldn't have any numerical advantage under the dropping ball. Where does the 'guaranteed goal' come into all this?

Pope_Benedict (Galway) - Posts: 3966 - 24/02/2025 16:17:04    2592948

Link

Everyone complains about the rules when they discover something they hadn't thought of.

But think of the logic for a minute
1. Galway didn't purposely go down to 14 and then 13 men.
2. When defending Galway could bring back 12 players into their own half at the start of the game and when down to 14/13 - nothing changed by the red & black cards
3. When attacking Galway could bring forward 12 players + keeper - nothing changed after the red/black Cards
4. Donegal had the wind at their back and, on turnover ball, had a numerical advantage if Galway pushed 12 player up in attack - Galway didn't because that would be suicide into the wind - so Galway attacked with less players - scoring less - all as a result of the red & black cards.
5. When attacking Donegal could safely bring forward their keeper, knowing they still had a numerical advantage in their own half when attacking - so they could punish Galways lack of numbers by leaving the goalie upfield full time.

What Donegal missed, was the chance to move their keeper into defence and bring on a forward in a sub goalies jersey. They could have had Shaun Patton at corner back and played with 13 in Galways half

The problem is not the rules - the problem was Donegal didn't exploit them

tirawleybaron (Mayo) - Posts: 1224 - 24/02/2025 16:20:13    2592950

Link

Replying To Pope_Benedict:  "Why would it be a guaranteed goal? Galway had 12 defenders, if they wanted them. The 3v1 had zero advantage under these launched balls that you're advocating? Donegal had possible numerical advantage in the region of the field that they'd be launching these scuds from, but they wouldn't have any numerical advantage under the dropping ball. Where does the 'guaranteed goal' come into all this?"
You're misunderstanding a bit. Jim was saying Galway only had to leave 1 up when defending and 1 back when attacking, so could defend + attack with their full compliment. Its when Galway are attacking im referring to.

If Galway were attacking with their full complement in Donegal's half, then it was 3 v 1 to Donegal in the Galway half of the field. When Galway were turned over (as they were frequently), Donegal could immediately launch the ball down the pitch where the entire half was only populated by 1 Galway defender and 3 Donegal attackers, giving an easy goal chance

In reality this was never on in that way because Galway players kept players back marking and attacked with 9 players versus 12 defenders for much of the second half, hence being at a serious disadvantage. But that's not what was being claimed in the interview

PressureKick (UK) - Posts: 254 - 24/02/2025 17:25:32    2592968

Link

Replying To Commodore:  "Because it wasn't 3v1 at the Galway end, that was what Jim highlighted.

When Galway went a man down, they played with 2 forwards, Donegal still had to keep 3 back. But when Donegal attacked into Galways half of the field, it was 12 v 12.

When Galway went 2 men down, Galway players with 1 forwards, Donegal still had to keep 3 back. So again when the attacked into Galways half of the field, it was 12 v 12.

Losing two men hampered Galways attack, but defensively they could still protect their huge lead, because defensively they could always maintain the numbers and Donegal could not push an extra man up."
You're going to have to spell it out to him, having men sent off or black carded is no longer a disadvantage.

Saynothing (Tyrone) - Posts: 2215 - 24/02/2025 18:41:58    2592995

Link

Replying To PressureKick:  "But surely you can't expect the team losing players to lose it on both ends like a double whammy? That would make it multiple times more penal than the old rules even

Say this happened last year? Galway would take two forwards off and defend as normal and be limited in attack. So that's exactly what happened this time. And on the times Galway got too aggressive in attack Donegal had the opportunity to kick into a 3v1 or 3v2 with a gale at their backs. Literally never an easier opportunity to take advantage than the second half yesterday and Donegal wouldn't kick it

You want two player removed from both the attacking and defending phase? So you want 12 v 10 defenders in the attacking phase, and also the opposition can only attack with 10 v your 12 also? That would actually become "farcical" as Jim likes to say and its not what happened under the old rules where teams kept defenders but removed attackers to compensate for the man loss"
No, the scenario you describe isn't like for like.

Last year if Galway lost 2 men, you're correct in saying they might have taken off two forwards for two defensive players and held 12 players deep. However last year Donegal could legally push all their spare players up into the Galway half during attacks and benefit from having extra players. So it could have been 12 v 14 or even 13 v 15 in the Galway half if Donegal were attacking.

This year, Galway could keep 12 players deep, with one attacker in the Donegal half, but under the new rules Donegal still had to keep 3 defenders in their own half. So when they attacked in the Galway half, it was 12 v 12. This meant that even though Galway had only 13 players on the field, Donegal had zero advantage in the Galway half of the field, as Donegal could only legally have 12 players in that half during attacks.

We're using Galway/Donegal for this discussion, but it applies to all teams. Jim made a fair point.

Commodore (Donegal) - Posts: 1274 - 24/02/2025 21:27:08    2593021

Link

Replying To PressureKick:  "If it was really 3v1 at all times, as Jim was claiming, then on the numerous occasions that Donegal dispossessed Galway, why didn't they simply launch the ball down the field with a gale at their back? It would've been 3v1 and an almost guaranteed goal

In reality, it was never actually 3v1 up there as Galway kept players back, meaning that Galway had to attack with 9 players most of the time. So exactly as the rule intends

We won't mention that two of the decisions we're at best questionable"
What a load of waffle

Scenicparish (Donegal) - Posts: 425 - 24/02/2025 21:29:01    2593022

Link

Replying To Pope_Benedict:  "Why would it be a guaranteed goal? Galway had 12 defenders, if they wanted them. The 3v1 had zero advantage under these launched balls that you're advocating? Donegal had possible numerical advantage in the region of the field that they'd be launching these scuds from, but they wouldn't have any numerical advantage under the dropping ball. Where does the 'guaranteed goal' come into all this?"
He hasn't a clue the difference between defenders and forwards in relation to the new rules?

Scenicparish (Donegal) - Posts: 425 - 24/02/2025 21:33:03    2593027

Link

Replying To Scenicparish:  "What a load of waffle"
It will be changed anyway.The problem was just unforseen.

gunman (Donegal) - Posts: 1134 - 24/02/2025 23:12:30    2593056

Link

3 up and 3 back is a bit of a conundrum alright when players are sent off. One for the FRC to figure out!

legendzxix (Kerry) - Posts: 8539 - 25/02/2025 06:24:47    2593066

Link

Replying To gunman:  "It will be changed anyway.The problem was just unforseen."
Yes but if they do change it then a red card effectively decides a game.
At the very highest level teams that can attack with 12 players (goalie included) playing against 10 outfield defenders are going to win almost always unless they're playing a much weaker team.
It's going to be too easy for them to get scores.
So that's the other side of it.
Neither scenario is ideal.

galwayman2 (Galway) - Posts: 1301 - 25/02/2025 09:58:05    2593090

Link

Replying To Commodore:  "No, the scenario you describe isn't like for like.

Last year if Galway lost 2 men, you're correct in saying they might have taken off two forwards for two defensive players and held 12 players deep. However last year Donegal could legally push all their spare players up into the Galway half during attacks and benefit from having extra players. So it could have been 12 v 14 or even 13 v 15 in the Galway half if Donegal were attacking.

This year, Galway could keep 12 players deep, with one attacker in the Donegal half, but under the new rules Donegal still had to keep 3 defenders in their own half. So when they attacked in the Galway half, it was 12 v 12. This meant that even though Galway had only 13 players on the field, Donegal had zero advantage in the Galway half of the field, as Donegal could only legally have 12 players in that half during attacks.

We're using Galway/Donegal for this discussion, but it applies to all teams. Jim made a fair point."
That is the case if you look at the game from an entirely defensive point of view.
Donegal didn't have to sit back and see what Galway did.

Donegal had 15 v 13 player and the ability to leave their keeper upfield in Galways half at all times.

On a Galway kickout - Donegal could have pressed 13 v 12 in Galways half and still had 2v1 in Donegals half
On a Donegal kickout - Galway could only press with 9/10 as they had to keep numbers back in their own half in case Donegal won their kickout and let it go long into Galways half (which they never tried at all)

If Donegal had put an outfield jersey on Patton and put a forward in goal, they could easily have pushed up on galway all over the field with the wind on their backs and an extra forward in attack - they never thought of it.

The alternative scenario, where Galway would always have to keep 3 up, would result in an extreme penalty where Donegal would be cable to attack with 13 players (including keeper) and Galway would be confined to only 9 to mark 13 against the wind. Such a penalty would take the physicality out of the game completely as a bad tackle would likely cost your team the game.

tirawleybaron (Mayo) - Posts: 1224 - 25/02/2025 10:46:55    2593106

Link

Replying To legendzxix:  "3 up and 3 back is a bit of a conundrum alright when players are sent off. One for the FRC to figure out!"
I'd suggest the solution could be:
3 up/ 'ANY 4' back AT ALL TIMES.
It solves two issues:
a) red/black carded teams attack/defend with 10 (or 9) v 11
b) attacking goalkeeper creates at most 11v11.

Challenges, please.

omahant (USA) - Posts: 3089 - 25/02/2025 14:59:39    2593164

Link

Replying To legendzxix:  "3 up and 3 back is a bit of a conundrum alright when players are sent off. One for the FRC to figure out!"
Maybe if the other team has a man sent off, your team only is required to keep two back or two up?

Seems fairer

Commodore (Donegal) - Posts: 1274 - 25/02/2025 15:16:46    2593169

Link

Replying To Scenicparish:  "He hasn't a clue the difference between defenders and forwards in relation to the new rules?"
Its you that seems to lack understanding buddy, which looks like its in keeping with your posts elsewhere

All the posts above seem to be referring to the instances where Donegal were attacking and Galway defending. Obviously there's less of penalizing factor for the team down players here, nobody is disputing that.

What everyone seems to be ignoring is the occasion when Galway were attacking and Donegal were defending. Jim also referenced this in an interview, stating that Galway could both attack and defend with the full compliment. In fairness he did interviews with multiple different media outlets and didn't mention this on every occasion.

Galway were clearly heavily penalized when they were attacking phase, as to attack with their full available compliment wouldve left 2 players free down the far end of the field in reach of an easy kickpass with the wind if they lost possession. So they largely had to attack with 9 outfielders

PressureKick (UK) - Posts: 254 - 25/02/2025 15:51:13    2593181

Link