Rules on trial
A panel of All-Ireland winners debate football’s new laws
PAUL CURRAN laughs off the latest conspiracy theory, that the contentious package of experimental rules for Gaelic football set to be trialled in the preseason provincial competitions are somehow an attempt to address Dublin’s dominance. And perhaps even help scupper the bid by Jim Gavin’s team for an unprecedented five-in-a-row.
‘I haven’t heard that one,’ he says laughing, before addressing whether they will help improve Gaelic football. And he is adamant that Gaelic football needs a guiding hand. The Dublin All-Ireland winner has seen the game transform since he won his medal in 1995 and has been at the coalface with different teams, managing Ballymun Kickhams to county and provincial honours and within a kick of a ball of an All-Ireland. For the 2019 season, he’ll take charge of Celbridge’s senior footballers.
‘The game is changing an awful lot, particularly in recent years never mind going back 20 years. Whether these changes will make it better or not, people are sick of the defensive game. I have my reservations about different aspects but I’m looking forward to seeing them in action. Three handpasses and kick the ball will definitely change the dynamic of the game – maybe too much?
‘Dublin have a little bit more to be thinking about. In Jim’s case, no stone will be left unturned. You won’t hear much giving out about rules. He’ll get on with it.’
Curran has strong opinions on the package of rules, as do the others canvassed – Paul Hearty, Armagh and Crossmaglen All-Ireland winner; Bernard Flynn, Meath double All-Ireland winner; Ray Silke, AllIreland winning Galway captain; Kevin McStay, former Mayo player, All-Ireland club winning manager with St Brigid’s and now former Roscommon manager.
They all have experience analysing or commenting on the game. McStay carved out a reputation as a rules guru on The Sunday Game and gives an interesting overview of the proposals.
‘Making rule changes – rule drafting plus the implementation – is a
very complex issue. I’m not so sure we have all agreed what type of game we want. Is the purpose to make it a spectacle or how much of a premium do we put on the defensive side of it? Wherever you place yourself in that philosophical debate, this is essentially shooting in the dark. There have been a few early trials and issues have popped up already.’
He has two guiding principles: ‘In my view, a rule can’t possess an advantage due to size,’ which the advanced mark inside the 45 clearly does. And also: ‘No rule should ever dumb down a skill.’
There’s another thing that also sits uneasily with him. ‘The problem I have with a majority is that the onus is on the attacking team to make the accommodation. I don’t think the defending team has been asked to adapt enough.’
Essentially, the new proposals deal with the symptoms of mass defence more than the cause.
‘What we’re trying to do is change behaviour. Change coaching behaviour, make it more offensive minded. We can do that by education, presentations, seeking a culture change – it’s as if we want players not to be recidivist like criminals. My experience of life is that, ultimately, what changes human behaviour is sanction.
‘I had a big debate with [former director general] Paraic Duffy about diving, a yellow card offence. The GAA are always wringing their hands about these developments, cynical play, when one simple sanction would sort it – make diving a red card offence. The message will go out, “We’re not having this”.’
So he’s not fully convinced of the package. ‘If you look at rule changes, if they are going to be fair, they have to be easily implemented.’
Paul Hearty was the beating heart of Crossmaglen’s success story between the posts, a six-time AllIreland winner who endured for over 23 years. He can’t see a need to update the existing rule and push the kick-out from the 13-metre line to the 20 metre line. He’s thankful the committee binned the original proposal about only four players being allowed compete between the two 45s.
‘They rowed back on all that stupidity about players having to get back into position and clear the midfield. This stops you from restarting quickly though, having to go that bit further. Arguably, it will slow things down.
‘I see the advanced mark going against a team that plays an attacking brand of football. Crossmaglen try to move the ball quick, aim for your half-forwards who are expected to be on the move all the time. Any kick forward from a good foot pass now could be a mark inside the 45. It will change the whole continuity of play.’
Bernard Flynn favours an alternative rule change. ‘The rule that should have been brought in, that if you cross your own 45, you are not allowed to play the ball back with the hand or foot. I was doing the Dublin-Donegal match [Super 8 group game]. What took place in last six or seven minutes was an insult to the integrity of Gaelic football. Donegal sit back so Dublin just keep ball.’ He feels that offers a simpler solution.
He’s not the only one to feel it will make the referee’s job nigh on impossible to judge whether a ball has travelled the requisite 20 metres for an advanced mark – ‘carnage’ is what he expects. And he also points out the ‘flaw’ in the kick-out amendment. As it stands, the ball has to travel forwards yet he doesn’t see any restriction in the new rule on a goalkeeper going lateral, or ‘kicking it straight across’. Which the previous amendment sought to address. A recurring theme is a fear that the new rules could ‘stop some of the fluidity of Gaelic football,’ as Silke puts it, whether it’s the handpass limit or the advanced mark. He wonders if it will just lead to players taking the conservative option of a free kick rather than playing on and potentially creating a goal opportunity.
Yet the overriding view as well is that the truth will only come out in the trial.
Let the games begin.
‘A FEW EARLY TRIALS AND ISSUES HAVE BEEN RAISED ALREADY’