OPEN TO CHANGE
Managers cannot be allowed to scupper new rules package
SHANE WALSH liked much of what he heard during the week. Open play, more contests for possession, chances to run, accurate kicking and high fielding fit neatly with the Galway man’s philosophy of how football should be played.
Most other forwards share similar views but, for the most part, can only muse over what it would be like to play that type of game.
Essentially, it doesn’t exist anymore. Instead, Gaelic football has become locked into a straight-jacket, with its occupants programmed for relentless handpassing as they try to figure out how to get through the gridlock.
It can make for dismal viewing, but up to now officialdom allowed it to continue, perhaps hoping that liberation from the boredom would arrive of its own accord.
As time passed and the possession game, accompanied by massed defences, became ever more entrenched, it called for corrective action, the framework for which was announced last Tuesday.
Of course, it may still lead to no change, since the proposals from the GAA’s Playing Rules Committee have a long way to go before being cleared for trial in next year’s Allianz League.
Consultations across all strands of the association are getting under way and it will be then up to Central Council to decide on which, if any, of the five proposed changes go forward for experiment.
Restrictions
The package includes: restricting the handpass to three, after which the ball must be kicked; introducing a ‘mark’ for an attacking player who fields the ball on or inside the opposition’s 20-metre line; insisting that all kick-outs pass the 45-metre line; replacing black (one) and yellow (two) cards with a 10-minute sinbin sanction; and requiring all sideline balls, except those on or inside the opposition’s 13-metre line, to be kicked forward.
The handpass restriction and attacking mark will attract most discussion as they would have the biggest impact.
Walsh likes the sound of them while pointing out that it’s impossible to form a real judgment without seeing how they would work in practice.
“Less handpassing and the offensive mark would certainly make the game more open. If a team are only allowed three handpasses before having to kick the ball, it would lead to more turnovers.
“Spectators would prefer that to long passages of play when one side or the other use handpassing to keep possession,” he said.
He believes that restricting the handpass would make for a much more open game, which would be enjoyable for players too.
However, he does not think that it should be restricted to three handpasses.
“It might be all right in open play, but if you get squeezed into a corner, it could be very hard to work a way out in three passes. That would leave no option but for the third player to lamp the ball anywhere. That wouldn’t do much for the game. I’d prefer to see six handpasses allowed as that would create more room to work into open space,” said Walsh.
He has experience of the six-handpass rule, having been on Ireland’s International Rules team in Australia last year, and found it very enjoyable.
It has been suggested that requiring referees to add handpass counting to all their other duties would lead to more mistakes, but that has been refuted by Maurice Deegan, one of the longest-serving refs in the game.
He experienced it in International Rules games and insists that it came easy.
“You get used to it very quickly. Three handpasses would be no problem for referees. Anyway, players would get used to it very quickly too and wouldn’t get caught out very often with a fourth one. I found that in International Rules, neither set of players were used to the handpass limit but they adapted well,” he said.
Walsh thinks the attacking mark proposal is a positive idea. A fetch made inside or on the opponents’ 20-metre line would entitle the catcher to have a free shot at goal, provided the delivery came from outside the 45-metre line.
“It would be great for high fielders, lads like Damien Comer and Aidan O’Shea. They can make a good catch close to goal now and be surrounded by defenders but, this way, a high catch gives you a shot at goal. It would also encourage accurate, long-range kicking from outside the ‘45’ to give your inside men the best chance of making a catch,” said Walsh.
If past experience is anything to go by, his enthusiasm for the restricted handpass experiment and offensive mark is unlikely to be universally shared.
Handpass
The Kilkerrin-Clonberne man was only a year old the last time an attempt was made to curb the handpass. An experiment, which allowed only one handpass, was trialled in the 1994/’95 league before being crushed by the weight of opposition.
A player receiving the ball from a handpass had to deliver it by foot, a limitation which caused uproar on the opening day of the league.
“I hope when the League ends that this experiment will be thrown on the rubbish heap where it belongs,” said Pete McGrath, manager of the Down team that won the 1994 All-Ireland final a month earlier (leagues started in October back then).
Granted, allowing only one handpass was a massive change but the group who proposed the latest restriction should be prepared for a similar backlash, especially from managers.
History shows that managers in both football and hurling are notoriously suspicious of rule changes. So they are quite happy to use their influence – and it has never been greater – to get what they want.
It happened when the sin-bin, which is now back on the agenda, was under experiment in 2005. Managers launched a concerted attack on a sanction designed as a counter measure to cynical fouling, portraying it as an evil intervention which would ruin the game.
That remains a big threat now too. If managers unite in their opposition to any – or all – of the proposals, there’s a danger that other will follow.
The GPA’s role will be important too. Presumably, they will test the mood among the players before the decision is taken on whether to proceed with any experiments.
Strong opposition from players would probably influence Central Council members, especially if it’s backed up by managers.
With due respect to players and managers, they form only part of the equation so their opinions should not be given disproportionate consideration if they unite to fight change.
Obviously, all five recommendations will not be approved as that would amount to too much change at the same time.
It’s interesting that limiting the handpass was listed at No 1 on the proposal list, although in the absence of a media briefing session by the Rules Committee, it’s not clear if the 1-5 order was in terms of priority.
However, it’s likely that the handpass figured high on their deliberations. Its growing influence has sucked much of the entertainment from the modern game, mainly because of a negative impact on the number of contests for possession.
Limiting it to three may not be the answer but it’s worth a try. So when it comes to forming opinions on the proposals, it should be done with open minds and a willingness to experiment.
Going on past experience, it’s by no means certain that will be the case.