|
Replying To ForeverBlue2: "The problem Flaker is there are far too many rule changes many of them nonsensical… I agree with the 3 up ( why not 4 ) and the tap and go to an extent… I think at a free the taker should tap and go after stopping ( akin to rugby ) instead of just soloing on as if on an advantage… He can just solo straight into the nearest player and gain this ridiculous 50m advantage.. The 2 point arc is silly and only leading to huge score lines that only makes the game appear to be exciting.. The forwards mark is an embarrassment to any sport and should be immediately ditched.. why should a forward get a free shot ( let alone 2 ) for catching a ball… is he not supposed to be able to do that since he took the game up…? What's in it for the defender…? I also like the idea of the goal kick having to travel a longer distance but I just can't hack the sight of goalkeepers wandering away up the field… this makes absolutely no sense when 3 of your outfield players aren't allowed to do so… Don't get me started on the ridiculous idea of handing the ball to your opponents or not being allowed ask the referee a question….. real infant stuff and no wonder numerous managers are giving out about it.. There you have it…Flaker.. I can see merit in some of the rules but anyone who thinks any of the rest are bringing any sort of improvement to the game are just either delusional , on the FRC or just haven't a clue about football…" The problem the mark was trying to fix was never about the poor forward that can't catch the ball and take the man on because that was never the situation. First of all the ball was never kicked in the first place and second there was never a 1v1 every team would have a second man closing him down & very easy to get caught against endline with nowhere to go.
Not very many forwards that can catch ball & beat 2 defenders
systematic (Galway) - Posts: 135 - 03/02/2025 16:48:08
2589259
Link
0
|
|
Replying To omahant: "Despite all the handpassing, I am finding the games more entertaining (e.g. Armagh v Derry) - I'm not switching off like before.
Should scores be shown as GAT - i.e. goals, arcs and 'total' - to give equal breakdown of goals and arcs, with no need for calculators? (GAPT is too much, IMO).
Given only a few 2-pt attempts in some games, is the long-range score worth enough? Just a question - (as I prefer 4-2-1) - could/should the scale be 6-3-1 (like International Rules)?
What is your optimal 'score variety' breakdown - mine is, for every six 1-pointers, I'd like to see 1 goal and 1 arc as well." In terms of a ratio as scores relative to each other, the ideal ratio for me is 2-3-6. Long range worth 50% more than short range (like basketball) and then a goal worth 2x a long range and 3x a short range (as before).
I know this will never happen as it it's too much of a change from traditional scoring but as far as how the scoring rewards relate to each other it's what I would go for.
benjyyy (Donegal) - Posts: 1428 - 03/02/2025 23:05:12
2589314
Link
1
|
|
Replying To omahant: "@bdbuddah (Meath) - Posts: 1407 - 03/02/2025
It was reported that Aidan O'Shea and a teammate were trying to figure out which team was winning at one stage in the Inter-Pro SFs - which is a bit crazy.
IMO, if three score varieties are broken out (e. g. your 1-5-10, as goals, arcs, pts, GAP), the 'mental maths calculation' to derive '23 total' is a bit much.
To aid Aidan and 'all of us', I prefer 1-5-23 (GAT, goals, arcs, total) for your example. The 1-pointers can still be 'calculated' if so desired, but the more critical total is provided. Granted, it's not traditional, but a better 'ease of reference' like in the AFL (GBT) .
Separately, as there doesn't seem to be enough 2-pt attempts in some games so far, what score variety mix breakdown do we want to see as optimal - say for every 6x 1-pointers, do we want to see 1 goal and 1 arc as well (GAP 1-1-6, GAT 1-1-11)?" I am unsure 2-pointers are actually needed (makes the game more complicated, 3 up seems to create the space anyway) but if there to stay (as looks likely) goals need to go to 4 points imo or teams may feel it is not worth the risk to try work a goal.
bdbuddah (Meath) - Posts: 1412 - 03/02/2025 23:21:57
2589316
Link
1
|
|
Butter or mayo? Beef or salmon? 3 points or 4 points?
Time will tell if the value of a goal should increase. Some think hurling should reward a goal with 4 points as well.
The two pointer is a reward for taking on the riskier shot. Defences will have to push out but could leave themselves vulnerable for conceding goals as a result.
The attacking mark is a reward for a risky pass. The attacker can go for goal with the insurance policy of a free shot for a point.
legendzxix (Kerry) - Posts: 8566 - 03/02/2025 23:48:29
2589318
Link
1
|
|
Replying To benjyyy: "In terms of a ratio as scores relative to each other, the ideal ratio for me is 2-3-6. Long range worth 50% more than short range (like basketball) and then a goal worth 2x a long range and 3x a short range (as before).
I know this will never happen as it it's too much of a change from traditional scoring but as far as how the scoring rewards relate to each other it's what I would go for." OK, thanks.
I had two questions:
Scoring Scale: I had 4-2-1 (2nd choice 6-3-1); and You 6-3-2.
Optimal Scoring Variety: I had 1-1-6; You?
Another way of asking: for every thirty 1-pointers scored, how many goals and arcs do you wish to see? (Mine then being 5-5-30). I wonder if those 'quantities' can be achieved with the 'scale' available?
omahant (USA) - Posts: 3105 - 04/02/2025 00:04:08
2589322
Link
0
|
|
Replying To bdbuddah: "I am unsure 2-pointers are actually needed (makes the game more complicated, 3 up seems to create the space anyway) but if there to stay (as looks likely) goals need to go to 4 points imo or teams may feel it is not worth the risk to try work a goal." What score "variety" mix do you wish to see - i.e. for every thirty 1-pointers, how may goals and arcs would you want - mine is 5 goals and 5 arcs - if any less, I think higher premiums are needed for major scores.
omahant (USA) - Posts: 3105 - 04/02/2025 00:21:38
2589323
Link
0
|
|
Replying To omahant: "What score "variety" mix do you wish to see - i.e. for every thirty 1-pointers, how may goals and arcs would you want - mine is 5 goals and 5 arcs - if any less, I think higher premiums are needed for major scores." I'd like to see 3 or 4 goals a game.
I like the look of goals and the way the crowd react to a goal, they are the high points in games.
Part of the reason for the crowd/ players reaction (as well as looking good) is they are usually thought of as being very important scores in affecting the scoreline/ outcome of games due to their value compared to 'points'.
bdbuddah (Meath) - Posts: 1412 - 04/02/2025 08:22:11
2589338
Link
1
|
|
Replying To legendzxix: "Butter or mayo? Beef or salmon? 3 points or 4 points?
Time will tell if the value of a goal should increase. Some think hurling should reward a goal with 4 points as well.
The two pointer is a reward for taking on the riskier shot. Defences will have to push out but could leave themselves vulnerable for conceding goals as a result.
The attacking mark is a reward for a risky pass. The attacker can go for goal with the insurance policy of a free shot for a point." First things first - for me its usually Butter and Beef.
Before seeing the league games I would have favoured 4 points - but there are less 2 pointers than I anticipated and as you say with defenses having to stretch out further there is a bit more space inside. It might yet be different in the summer when pitches are firmer but with just 2 rounds of the league played - its still early days.
But I'd still think that 3-0-9 (18) should beat 0-6-6 (18) - so for me I'd go up to 4 points as long as we have 2 point scores.
brianb (Kildare) - Posts: 404 - 04/02/2025 15:19:17
2589458
Link
1
|
|
I just don't like the 2pt score… it takes away from Gaelic football as we know it.. Any county player worth his salt should be able to kick a point from around the arc area… It adds nothing to the game apart from distorting the score line.. Some teams are getting 20+ points and still nowhere near winning the games… With the 3 up ( could be 4 ) there's no need to be meddling with a scoring system that has worked ok for the last 100 years….
ForeverBlue2 (Cavan) - Posts: 3544 - 04/02/2025 17:36:22
2589486
Link
0
|
|
Replying To ForeverBlue2: "I just don't like the 2pt score… it takes away from Gaelic football as we know it.. Any county player worth his salt should be able to kick a point from around the arc area… It adds nothing to the game apart from distorting the score line.. Some teams are getting 20+ points and still nowhere near winning the games… With the 3 up ( could be 4 ) there's no need to be meddling with a scoring system that has worked ok for the last 100 years…." Taking away the 2 pts means teams will have 11 men camped inside the D. You need the threat of a 2pt score to draw teams out.
Ros2020 (Roscommon) - Posts: 11 - 04/02/2025 18:13:28
2589490
Link
1
|
|
Replying To brianb: "First things first - for me its usually Butter and Beef.
Before seeing the league games I would have favoured 4 points - but there are less 2 pointers than I anticipated and as you say with defenses having to stretch out further there is a bit more space inside. It might yet be different in the summer when pitches are firmer but with just 2 rounds of the league played - its still early days.
But I'd still think that 3-0-9 (18) should beat 0-6-6 (18) - so for me I'd go up to 4 points as long as we have 2 point scores." Some time ago, I think you liked the scale 6 3 2, or as stated with more traditional values, 3 (1.5) 1.
To eliminate the fractions, the latter could be amended as:
Goals 3 pts
'Pair' of Arcs 3 pts / 'unpaired' Arc 1 pt
Points 1 pt
So, in your example, 3-0-9 (18) beats 0-6-6 (15) 'by a goal'.
To eliminate 'mental maths calculations', I'd be for reporting GAT values (goals, arcs, total) - instead of your GAP to 'calculate' T.
If so desired, 'less important' P can be calculated given GAT.
omahant (USA) - Posts: 3105 - 04/02/2025 19:29:55
2589503
Link
0
|
|
Replying To Ros2020: "Taking away the 2 pts means teams will have 11 men camped inside the D. You need the threat of a 2pt score to draw teams out." That's the thinking behind the rule but I'm not sure it would play out exactly that way.
There already is extra space because of keeping 3 men up front and extra incentive to get the ball up forward because of these 3 men, hard to know if 2 point 'points' are actually needed.
bdbuddah (Meath) - Posts: 1412 - 04/02/2025 21:24:52
2589519
Link
0
|
|
Replying To ForeverBlue2: "I just don't like the 2pt score… it takes away from Gaelic football as we know it.. Any county player worth his salt should be able to kick a point from around the arc area… It adds nothing to the game apart from distorting the score line.. Some teams are getting 20+ points and still nowhere near winning the games… With the 3 up ( could be 4 ) there's no need to be meddling with a scoring system that has worked ok for the last 100 years…." It is a break from tradition. With the way the game has gone risk averse, the new rules are rewarding risk. Creating contests and chaos in the process.
legendzxix (Kerry) - Posts: 8566 - 05/02/2025 00:57:10
2589532
Link
1
|
|
Replying To omahant: "Some time ago, I think you liked the scale 6 3 2, or as stated with more traditional values, 3 (1.5) 1.
To eliminate the fractions, the latter could be amended as:
Goals 3 pts
'Pair' of Arcs 3 pts / 'unpaired' Arc 1 pt
Points 1 pt
So, in your example, 3-0-9 (18) beats 0-6-6 (15) 'by a goal'.
To eliminate 'mental maths calculations', I'd be for reporting GAT values (goals, arcs, total) - instead of your GAP to 'calculate' T.
If so desired, 'less important' P can be calculated given GAT." Please stop… Extra strong aspirin needed
ForeverBlue2 (Cavan) - Posts: 3544 - 05/02/2025 07:02:43
2589537
Link
0
|
|
Replying To omahant: "Some time ago, I think you liked the scale 6 3 2, or as stated with more traditional values, 3 (1.5) 1.
To eliminate the fractions, the latter could be amended as:
Goals 3 pts
'Pair' of Arcs 3 pts / 'unpaired' Arc 1 pt
Points 1 pt
So, in your example, 3-0-9 (18) beats 0-6-6 (15) 'by a goal'.
To eliminate 'mental maths calculations', I'd be for reporting GAT values (goals, arcs, total) - instead of your GAP to 'calculate' T.
If so desired, 'less important' P can be calculated given GAT." I do believe that the 40m score is overvalued in the 3,2,1 scoring system; in a 4,2,1 scoring system I'd think the point is undervalued. I'd think the value is somewhere around 3: 1.5 : 1 - but you can't have half a point.
I prefer seeing goals scored than 40m scores and goals should be a momentum changer in a game so I'd be in favour of a 4 point goal for now - but as other posters have mentioned; the 2 point score draws defenses out and leaves a bit more space inside and should lead to more goal opportunities - so lets see how it develops.
Showing Goals, Arcs, Total still leaves the spectator to calculate the points score. I'd be in favour of showing all score components and doing the sums for the spectator as well. It may take time before scoreboards around the country can be updated in which case it makes sense to do as we're doing now locally - but for TV coverage and News reports its an important aspect of reporting left out.
brianb (Kildare) - Posts: 404 - 05/02/2025 09:53:25
2589552
Link
0
|
|
Replying To brianb: "I do believe that the 40m score is overvalued in the 3,2,1 scoring system; in a 4,2,1 scoring system I'd think the point is undervalued. I'd think the value is somewhere around 3: 1.5 : 1 - but you can't have half a point.
I prefer seeing goals scored than 40m scores and goals should be a momentum changer in a game so I'd be in favour of a 4 point goal for now - but as other posters have mentioned; the 2 point score draws defenses out and leaves a bit more space inside and should lead to more goal opportunities - so lets see how it develops.
Showing Goals, Arcs, Total still leaves the spectator to calculate the points score. I'd be in favour of showing all score components and doing the sums for the spectator as well. It may take time before scoreboards around the country can be updated in which case it makes sense to do as we're doing now locally - but for TV coverage and News reports its an important aspect of reporting left out." In targetting a 3 (1.5) 1 scale, would arcs with alternating value be too messy - 1,2,1,2,1,2 etc?
It's essentially 1 pt each, with a 'bonus' of 1 pt for each 'pair', as opposed to the existing 'each arc'.
I hear the argument that GAPT score reporting is the most transparent, but it seems too much to me, so I'd still be for GAT.
In rugby union, to track 'try bonus point' progress, only tries and total pts are provided (2- & 3-pt scores are buried in the total).
omahant (USA) - Posts: 3105 - 05/02/2025 13:45:56
2589599
Link
0
|
|
Replying To ForeverBlue2: "I just don't like the 2pt score… it takes away from Gaelic football as we know it.. Any county player worth his salt should be able to kick a point from around the arc area… It adds nothing to the game apart from distorting the score line.. Some teams are getting 20+ points and still nowhere near winning the games… With the 3 up ( could be 4 ) there's no need to be meddling with a scoring system that has worked ok for the last 100 years…." I don't think people understand the logic behind the rule changes. I agree that most county players should be well able to kick a 2 point score but that's the idea. what they want is for the sanction for these transgressions to be overly harsh to change the behaviour. If you don't argue with the referee if you don't delay frees then you wont have the frees moved up into scorable positions and the game will move faster. Similarly the thought about making the player hand the ball back is that it gives the advantage back to the attacking team by effectively taking a defender out of play. Its all about making it not worthwhile to foul or delay play.
There is one inconsistency though. it still makes sense to foul inside the arc. I would like to see a foul inside the arc being able to be taken outside for 2 points to ensure consistency.
bystanderbill (Wexford) - Posts: 52 - 05/02/2025 16:54:13
2589633
Link
0
|
|
Replying To brianb: "I do believe that the 40m score is overvalued in the 3,2,1 scoring system; in a 4,2,1 scoring system I'd think the point is undervalued. I'd think the value is somewhere around 3: 1.5 : 1 - but you can't have half a point.
I prefer seeing goals scored than 40m scores and goals should be a momentum changer in a game so I'd be in favour of a 4 point goal for now - but as other posters have mentioned; the 2 point score draws defenses out and leaves a bit more space inside and should lead to more goal opportunities - so lets see how it develops.
Showing Goals, Arcs, Total still leaves the spectator to calculate the points score. I'd be in favour of showing all score components and doing the sums for the spectator as well. It may take time before scoreboards around the country can be updated in which case it makes sense to do as we're doing now locally - but for TV coverage and News reports its an important aspect of reporting left out." What is the next step in the process in relation to the rule changes?
I thought the rule changes were to run for a full season (club and county) but talking to someone today they thought there was to be a review after the current league.
Personally I think all the rules should be left in place for a full season (club and county) as it will only be when players/ coaches have got used to them that we will have a real feel for how the game will look if we retain them.
Also the players/ coaches need some sense of certainty about the rules if they are going to give them a fair go.
bdbuddah (Meath) - Posts: 1412 - 05/02/2025 19:04:12
2589653
Link
0
|
|
Replying To bdbuddah: "What is the next step in the process in relation to the rule changes?
I thought the rule changes were to run for a full season (club and county) but talking to someone today they thought there was to be a review after the current league.
Personally I think all the rules should be left in place for a full season (club and county) as it will only be when players/ coaches have got used to them that we will have a real feel for how the game will look if we retain them.
Also the players/ coaches need some sense of certainty about the rules if they are going to give them a fair go." I believe there is a review post league, but only to make an amendment if something is clearly not working or to tweak one of the new rules to make it fairer/better/ easier to implement.
I wouldn't have a problem with that.
sligo joe (Dublin) - Posts: 851 - 05/02/2025 19:40:48
2589657
Link
1
|
|
Replying To bdbuddah: "What is the next step in the process in relation to the rule changes?
I thought the rule changes were to run for a full season (club and county) but talking to someone today they thought there was to be a review after the current league.
Personally I think all the rules should be left in place for a full season (club and county) as it will only be when players/ coaches have got used to them that we will have a real feel for how the game will look if we retain them.
Also the players/ coaches need some sense of certainty about the rules if they are going to give them a fair go." They were to be reviewed on an ongoing basis and tweaks could be made if something wasn't working in practice.
Seanfanbocht (Roscommon) - Posts: 2107 - 05/02/2025 19:46:33
2589661
Link
1
|