National Forum

Can Gaelic Football (Handball?) Be Saved?

(Oldest Posts First) - Go To The Latest Post


Or perhaps not!

BarneyGrant (Dublin) - Posts: 3118 - 20/04/2024 18:32:39    2539264

Link

Replying To bdbuddah:  "What I'm talking about here is tackling in gaelic football to be refereed like it was 20 or 30 years ago when more psychical contact with the man was allowed in the tackle.
The way the game is refereed is too much on the side of man in possession and against the tackler nowadays.

I have heard it suggested by people that allowing an Aussie Rules tackle may be one way of discouraging keep ball tactics but I'd prefer to use other type rule changes to steer the game away from keep ball/ blanket tactics."
I do like the Aussie tackle in 'their' game - easy to understand and the ball keeps moving - but, I agree - I would not want it in 'our' game.

I heard someone suggest not allowing a second tackler against the ball carrier - that's a start, maybe?

omahant (USA) - Posts: 2889 - 20/04/2024 19:30:36    2539299

Link

Replying To bdbuddah:  "I've heard the same type of statement (referee needs to use common sense rather than strictly following the rule book) be used about other team field sports I've watched. Same as in general life in sport you often have to use common sense.

Maybe it would be no harm if the GAA looked at the tackle and referenced in the rule book that a tackle on the man is allowed but listed specifics of what's not allowed (pulling jersey/ grabbing other players by arms and legs/ grabbing player with 2 arms etc. etc.)"
Maybe "half" an Aussie tackle? - grab/rugby tackle with one arm - if the ball carrier goes to ground, he concedes a free? This would bring back some of the old roughness without overly image changing our 'gaelic' game.

What I like in the AFL - the tackle rule favours the tackler - the ball carrier is holding a 'hot potato' that he has to timely offload.

omahant (USA) - Posts: 2889 - 20/04/2024 19:43:11    2539304

Link

Replying To BarneyGrant:  "Retro Jimmy so far. 2/5 Derry might look like free money by end."
Still feel that way?

omahant (USA) - Posts: 2889 - 20/04/2024 19:46:27    2539308

Link

Replying To omahant:  "Maybe "half" an Aussie tackle? - grab/rugby tackle with one arm - if the ball carrier goes to ground, he concedes a free? This would bring back some of the old roughness without overly image changing our 'gaelic' game.

What I like in the AFL - the tackle rule favours the tackler - the ball carrier is holding a 'hot potato' that he has to timely offload."
Ya, I think something like this would bring us back to where we were previously.

bdbuddah (Meath) - Posts: 1400 - 21/04/2024 08:46:53    2539452

Link

Replying To bdbuddah:  "Ya, I think something like this would bring us back to where we were previously."
I can come back to Junior B safely then.

tirawleybaron (Mayo) - Posts: 1197 - 24/04/2024 18:10:00    2540466

Link

Replying To tirawleybaron:  "I can come back to Junior B safely then."
I'm trying to visualise this, maybe I've got it wrong but in practice I don't think we'd actually see much incidences of players being dragged to the ground if you allow tackling the man with one arm (omahant's half Aussie rules tackle)
It would be hard to actually put someone to ground this way I think (?), you'd usually need to use 2 arms to actually put someone to ground.
If when tackling with one arm if you followed by using a second arm to grab them (or forced them back with one arm over your leg) it would be a foul.

I think it would result in players trying to hold possession being pulled up more for over carrying and allow the tacklers to shepherd the player in possession away from the goals.
That's what's in my mind in saying I'd like a rule like this.

bdbuddah (Meath) - Posts: 1400 - 25/04/2024 15:30:56    2540628

Link

Replying To bdbuddah:  "Ya, I think something like this would bring us back to where we were previously."
Oh cool. So another stoppage in play? That's exactly what we need.

TheFlaker (Mayo) - Posts: 8155 - 25/04/2024 17:25:00    2540645

Link

Replying To bdbuddah:  "I'm trying to visualise this, maybe I've got it wrong but in practice I don't think we'd actually see much incidences of players being dragged to the ground if you allow tackling the man with one arm (omahant's half Aussie rules tackle)
It would be hard to actually put someone to ground this way I think (?), you'd usually need to use 2 arms to actually put someone to ground.
If when tackling with one arm if you followed by using a second arm to grab them (or forced them back with one arm over your leg) it would be a foul.

I think it would result in players trying to hold possession being pulled up more for over carrying and allow the tacklers to shepherd the player in possession away from the goals.
That's what's in my mind in saying I'd like a rule like this."
So the game is too defensive but you want to give defenders more incentive to be more defensive?

GreenandRed (Mayo) - Posts: 7651 - 25/04/2024 20:29:19    2540667

Link

Replying To bdbuddah:  "I'm trying to visualise this, maybe I've got it wrong but in practice I don't think we'd actually see much incidences of players being dragged to the ground if you allow tackling the man with one arm (omahant's half Aussie rules tackle)
It would be hard to actually put someone to ground this way I think (?), you'd usually need to use 2 arms to actually put someone to ground.
If when tackling with one arm if you followed by using a second arm to grab them (or forced them back with one arm over your leg) it would be a foul.

I think it would result in players trying to hold possession being pulled up more for over carrying and allow the tacklers to shepherd the player in possession away from the goals.
That's what's in my mind in saying I'd like a rule like this."
Do some of you lads on here go for a heap of pints and then write down ideas?

TheFlaker (Mayo) - Posts: 8155 - 25/04/2024 20:58:16    2540670

Link

Replying To GreenandRed:  "So the game is too defensive but you want to give defenders more incentive to be more defensive?"
At the moment in terms of game plans moving the ball directly has a big element of risk.

Playing a possession game has less risk as keeping possession is fairly easy.

If we put more risk into playing the possession game (increase chances for tackler to make turn overs) teams may be less inclined to play possession style and more inclined to play direct attacking football.
To play direct successfully you would need to leave players forward.

Regarding more stoppages, I don't necessarily think there would be more stoppages as it may help change the mindset towards moving the ball quicker.

Also remember the aim of this is just to put in writing the way years ago the referees used to referee the tackle.

bdbuddah (Meath) - Posts: 1400 - 25/04/2024 23:15:18    2540687

Link

Replying To bdbuddah:  "I'm trying to visualise this, maybe I've got it wrong but in practice I don't think we'd actually see much incidences of players being dragged to the ground if you allow tackling the man with one arm (omahant's half Aussie rules tackle)
It would be hard to actually put someone to ground this way I think (?), you'd usually need to use 2 arms to actually put someone to ground.
If when tackling with one arm if you followed by using a second arm to grab them (or forced them back with one arm over your leg) it would be a foul.

I think it would result in players trying to hold possession being pulled up more for over carrying and allow the tacklers to shepherd the player in possession away from the goals.
That's what's in my mind in saying I'd like a rule like this."
I'd like to think the ball would move faster, like in the AFL. Holding a player with one arm causing a potential overcarry should be enough for him/her to avoid such tackle (I think) - but as you say, it would need to be trialled - often too, there are unforseen unintended consequences with rule changes.

omahant (USA) - Posts: 2889 - 26/04/2024 01:07:11    2540690

Link

Replying To TheFlaker:  "Do some of you lads on here go for a heap of pints and then write down ideas?"
Pints usually come after the brainstorm, but sometimes concurrently - can work better that way - but this won't be understood by those who don't contribute at all.

omahant (USA) - Posts: 2889 - 26/04/2024 01:17:43    2540692

Link

Replying To bdbuddah:  "At the moment in terms of game plans moving the ball directly has a big element of risk.

Playing a possession game has less risk as keeping possession is fairly easy.

If we put more risk into playing the possession game (increase chances for tackler to make turn overs) teams may be less inclined to play possession style and more inclined to play direct attacking football.
To play direct successfully you would need to leave players forward.

Regarding more stoppages, I don't necessarily think there would be more stoppages as it may help change the mindset towards moving the ball quicker.

Also remember the aim of this is just to put in writing the way years ago the referees used to referee the tackle."
And....to add to the last point....also with an eye to the future and a better football code to play and view.

omahant (USA) - Posts: 2889 - 26/04/2024 01:23:25    2540693

Link

Replying To omahant:  "I'd like to think the ball would move faster, like in the AFL. Holding a player with one arm causing a potential overcarry should be enough for him/her to avoid such tackle (I think) - but as you say, it would need to be trialled - often too, there are unforseen unintended consequences with rule changes."
Do you watch Aussie Rules? People asking for change on here seem to think it's a faster, free flowing game. It isn't always. And I am all for rule changes if they make sense but now we want some half baked new tackle which won't help in any way. Mad stuff.

TheFlaker (Mayo) - Posts: 8155 - 26/04/2024 09:12:23    2540705

Link

Replying To TheFlaker:  "Do some of you lads on here go for a heap of pints and then write down ideas?"
I'm not sure, I know where the lads are coming from. Do you not find it ridiculous how easy referees give frees nowadays?. Some of the frees given are terrible, as soon as there is any contact with the ball carrier immediately a free.
Looking back a few pages people here said we can't expect referees to use common sense to judge when the defender went too far in putting a tackle like they used to years ago and they can only go by what's in the rule book.

GreenMan1987 (Meath) - Posts: 50 - 26/04/2024 09:16:42    2540706

Link

Replying To GreenMan1987:  "I'm not sure, I know where the lads are coming from. Do you not find it ridiculous how easy referees give frees nowadays?. Some of the frees given are terrible, as soon as there is any contact with the ball carrier immediately a free.
Looking back a few pages people here said we can't expect referees to use common sense to judge when the defender went too far in putting a tackle like they used to years ago and they can only go by what's in the rule book."
All the chat we have is to do with speeding up the game . Now suddenly we are looking to introduce new tackle rules. This isn't even an issue on the ground. Nobody is talking about it.

TheFlaker (Mayo) - Posts: 8155 - 26/04/2024 09:35:44    2540708

Link

Referees in football are far too fussy and continually blow up for the slightest of contact sometimes even penalising the attacking player who could break clear only to be blown up for a free in .. thus infuriating both players and supporters… Hurling referees seem to let a lot more physical contact go and those players have a weapon in their hands… GAA need to sort out this mess as regards the quality of referees

ForeverBlue2 (Cavan) - Posts: 3027 - 26/04/2024 10:07:59    2540713

Link

Replying To bdbuddah:  "At the moment in terms of game plans moving the ball directly has a big element of risk.

Playing a possession game has less risk as keeping possession is fairly easy.

If we put more risk into playing the possession game (increase chances for tackler to make turn overs) teams may be less inclined to play possession style and more inclined to play direct attacking football.
To play direct successfully you would need to leave players forward.

Regarding more stoppages, I don't necessarily think there would be more stoppages as it may help change the mindset towards moving the ball quicker.

Also remember the aim of this is just to put in writing the way years ago the referees used to referee the tackle."
I think you're right there. Teams aren't inclined to take a risk in possession and hence play keep ball and often move the ball backwards.

I'd like to see a trial of 2 basketball rules in football. The over and back rule and a shot clock:

Over and Back: Once the ball is played beyond the 70 - the team in possession cannot retreat outside the 70 - this then allows the defending team to push up and makes keep ball more difficult.

A shot clock - once you enter the 70 the team has a maximum of 75 seconds to use possession.

The aim would be to balance the risk of moving the ball quickly down field and holding onto it to play a possession game.

brianb (Kildare) - Posts: 352 - 26/04/2024 10:47:36    2540725

Link

Replying To brianb:  "I think you're right there. Teams aren't inclined to take a risk in possession and hence play keep ball and often move the ball backwards.

I'd like to see a trial of 2 basketball rules in football. The over and back rule and a shot clock:

Over and Back: Once the ball is played beyond the 70 - the team in possession cannot retreat outside the 70 - this then allows the defending team to push up and makes keep ball more difficult.

A shot clock - once you enter the 70 the team has a maximum of 75 seconds to use possession.

The aim would be to balance the risk of moving the ball quickly down field and holding onto it to play a possession game."
So basically you want to reward the defensive team that stay in their own half pretty much all of the game and maybe try and sneak a win late on?

sligo joe (Dublin) - Posts: 793 - 26/04/2024 13:17:01    2540755

Link