John Fintan Daly: Gaelic football - A game in crisis and the nuclear option
FOOTBALL CRISIS: John Fintan Daly Snr before the AIB GAA Football All-Ireland Junior Club Championship Final. Photo by Piaras Ó Mídheach/Sportsfile
Few can dispute that the modern game of Gaelic Football Is terminally ill and requires radical surgery.
Essentially, all sport is a form of entertainment for those that watch it and should be a healthy/enjoyable activity for those that take part in it. By any objective metric, it fails on both fronts.
Spectators have long ago voted with their feet and falling attendances at games have become a consistent pattern at all levels.
The game has the benefit of life support for as long as the tribe mentality persists and promotes the local parish, club or county but even that cannot save the game from itself as currently constituted.
The way the game is played now is controlled by a myriad of professional coaches and statisticians whose only purpose is to retain possession at all costs and create a stalemate situation whereby they can win the contest by the odd score at the death.
It is in this context that we need a fundamental change in mentality. A radical/nuclear solution is necessary. Various rule changes have been trialled in modern times which had minimal positive effect and often had unintended consequences.
To restrict a long sequence of hand-passing, a rule change was trialled in the National League some years ago whereby every fourth pass had to be kicked. The result ?.... that became a 15m token kick pass that would otherwise have been by hand and the sequence started all over again.
We introduced defensive/midfield and advance marks but the latter did not result in the much-hoped for catch in a crowded zone that rewarded high fielding. Instead, the forward executed a chest catch unopposed with his marker being helpless to contest it. We are currently trialling two new proposals at Higher Education games, the first being that the kick out out must be received by the defender outside the defensive 45 line and the other requires any free, sideline kick or mark between the 20m lines must be played forward.
This brings me to a proposal that has been forensically thought out with a coach’s hat on. It is made in the knowledge that coaches will always try to circumvent any change to keep possession at all costs and to frustrate the opposition, in the same way that lawyers try to find loopholes in statute law or tax experts with new tax law.
In my view, any change has firstly to be universal in that it can be implemented by a referee operating on his own at local club level just the same as in the inter-county arena. It would be wrong for having different rules for club and inter county level, with players rotating between both. Some recent proposals are convoluted and could only be administered in the big games, regardless whether they brought the desired result.
In open play, the player in possession can only play the ball level or forward from where he stands, be it hand or kick pass (this doesn’t include a knocked down or deflected ball as that is not in possession). This means that even the most defensive teams will be forced into a faster transition whether they like it or not. The goalkeeper would not be excluded in general play provided he also received a pass level or forward. In default, a free is awarded to the opposition at the place where the foul on the ball occurred.
It would result, literally, in the game being played 'on the front foot', so to speak . The second aspect of this rule change is that, once the team in possession carry or play the ball beyond the attacking 45m line, they can pass the ball in the normal or current fashion. This is a reward/incentive for getting the ball into the offensive third and in the knowledge that players often need to offload the ball back for the second receiver to attempt a score. However, this comes with one important restriction: once they have passed through that attacking 45, they cannot play or carry the ball back over that line. If they do, a free is awarded to the defending team who, in turn can only play that free level or forward.
The consequence of this? Coaches will realise very quickly that it is tactically sensible to keep two forwards up top to benefit from such a turnover and also knowing that, the faster the transition, the greater the benefit. This is a 'carrot' approach, incentivising coaches to keep two up rather than the 'stick' option which would require them to keep these players up and would be impossible for a referee to implement at local club level (or indeed any level).
The added consequence of the 45m line rule would be to focus the minds of the attacking team, insofar as the failure to score or kick the ball dead quickly would force them to recycle the ball latterly and that 45m line could be like an extra defender with serious pressure on the ball carrier. This all leads to quicker decisions and faster transition all round. It makes this other recent proposal of a shot clock also unnecessary and probably impossible to implement anyway.
So let's examine the potential drawbacks and play devil’s advocate for a minute. .... No, they will adapt as they’ve always done before. Once settled in, they will realise that this new “Go Forward game” is more enjoyable than the keep-ball/defensive mindset that they were programmed to do. No longer will they be just ball carriers whose only instruction is not to engage a defence or get turned over.
Of course there will be resistance to radical change but they will also discover that this is a more challenging way to play the game that requires more skill development all round. Players are being coached like robots and this has taken instinct out of game to the extent of strangling the life out of it. The game must be rescued urgently.
Really? The consequences will ensure faster transition and forwards being kept up front to receive those turnover frees. Coaches will soon realise that the risk/reward early ball balance has shifted in favour of the attacking team and the philosophy will change from conceding the minimum to outscoring the opposition. Take your example from the innovation of Derry this season who boldly placed four players inside the attaching 20 metre line so as to tie up a defence who tried to outnumber the attack but found themselves exposed.
I agree fully except that you are leaving it to the two managements to choose to play that way . What we had in July were teams with high skill levels who knew how to strip tackle and counter-attack at pace. Dublin won because they were that bit better on the counter but both teams' intention was to outscore the opposition and win rather than shutting up shop and not lose. Lesser teams wouldn’t dream of that approach against these two as they wouldn’t back themselves to win a shoot out. The safer option is pack the defence and keep the score down.
Surely, we must rescue the game we love before it is driven to oblivion. Like the climate crisis, it is real and here now and we cannot fudge the issue by tinkering at the edges. The GAA cannot afford to wait another full season before facing a stark reality.
This proposal may be categorised by some as being "left field" and too radical. With respect, it needs to be to start a new conversation about where we are headed. Some years ago, I called a club game of constant short passing as “ football in a phone box”. We must offer something more than that to the paying public who’ve had enough of stalemate and lost faith in the game they once flocked to see.
As an addendum, a change to 13-a-side may also lesson congestion and lead to a more attractive spectacle.
One last thing: let's resolve the result on the day issue by moving from penalties to additional time of a new game where the ball is thrown in as normal and next score wins - it makes for a real proper climax with the winner doing it on the field.
