Would you pay in to see this ?

[William Of Orange]

I am sure you have seen this video floating around , its a poor reflection on the game


http://hoganstand.com/article/index/290127?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

 

[Big Jim]

Problem is Wullie, we pay to see our lads play regardless of what they do. They don't get paid so whatever they get up to is up to them. As long as we continue to follow our teams this is what they can do. Once we stop following them the numbers decline, income stops and clubs fold and the sport dies. We can't expect change when all we want is for our teams to win at any price. Don't blame the players, managers or strategists. None of those are to blame. It's us!!

 

[PatMustard]

I can't get it

 

[ShiftYa]

Problem is Wullie, we pay to see our lads play regardless of what they do. They don't get paid so whatever they get up to is up to them. As long as we continue to follow our teams this is what they can do. Once we stop following them the numbers decline, income stops and clubs fold and the sport dies. We can't expect change when all we want is for our teams to win at any price. Don't blame the players, managers or strategists. None of those are to blame. It's us!!

Could it possibly be the rules? Many sport s have tweaked and overhauled rules to make there sport more spectator friendly. Basketball for example brought in the shot clock and then the 3 point line after that, some rugby leagues have introduced a bonus point for scoring a certain number of trys. Even the mark rule introduced has helped fielding from kickouts. Could a change to the rulebook help our sport @Calm1?

 

[POINTMAN]

Any change in rules has to be practical - referees have to be able to apply these without any difficulties. Limit consecutive handpasses to 2 or max 3. 2 points for a score from play and maybe 4 or 5 points for a goal. Award more attacking play, make the game more watchable and enjoyable.

 

[PatMustard]

Any change in rules has to be practical - referees have to be able to apply these without any difficulties. Limit consecutive handpasses to 2 or max 3. 2 points for a score from play and maybe 4 or 5 points for a goal. Award more attacking play, make the game more watchable and enjoyable.

You might see even more defensive set ups if a goal value increases.

Maybe have a two-pointer outside the 50, to draw defences out.

 

[Androim]

Enforce rule making the handpass be a clearly striking action, and eliminate all backward hand passes.

 

[bcb1]

The idea of hand pass restrictions, shot clocks and no pass back over the halfway are too hard to manage and control. The idea of increasing the value of a score would be better I think. 2 points for a score outside a certain line and 4 for a goal would be easier to implement. Less variables to manage for a referee.

 

[Big Jim]

Could it possibly be the rules? Many sport s have tweaked and overhauled rules to make there sport more spectator friendly. Basketball for example brought in the shot clock and then the 3 point line after that, some rugby leagues have introduced a bonus point for scoring a certain number of trys. Even the mark rule introduced has helped fielding from kickouts. Could a change to the rulebook help our sport @Calm1?

Simple, have any of the rule "changes' over the last 20-30 years really helped our sport? Going by what you and others have stated here and before it seems not. There is nothing wrong with the rules we have/had. What I mean by that is that the game is playable if the current rules are implemented correctly and evenly. As @bcb1 says, less variables for a ref to manage. Make it more complicated and constantly change because "a" team doesn't play the way you like, but within the rules is only moving the goalposts and frustrates rather than enhances. Implement the damn rules we have and then let the game evolve. Who cares about basketball and looking to please the spectators? I played basketball and it's a great game, but never once did I worry if the spectators were happy. I worried about winning with my team. We have some really good games for spectators with the current rules and some really dour ones. It's just bloody daft to change the rules again so we have constant dour games!

The object of playing is to win. NOT entertain. That is a consequence of playing!

 

[ShiftYa]

The object of playing is to win. NOT entertain. That is a consequence of playing!

Why can't both be achieved? From my experience I enjoy playing in free flowing games more than the defensive ones. I'm not saying it's basketball the point I was making that other sports have face similar problems and rule changes where how they overcome them. In any case having a declining national interest in our sport shows our sport currently is not in good health and stating business as usual is just showing ignorance to the problem. Imagine winning an inter county All-Ireland final in croke Park with only 20,000 in attendance, wouldn't feel the same, would it? Well that's what will happened if you forget about the spectators.

 

[Big Jim]

You're absolutely right of course. Why can't both be achieved? Constant changing of the rules though only changes one, not the other. If you're only changing to increase entertainment than you're so far off the mark it'd be criminal and stupid. It's sport after all. If you don't realise that sport is about competition my friend then you really have an issue I didn't think you had. If you can't agree with that, then you're not the person I enjoyed engaging wth over the last few years. What have you done with the real Shiftya!!

We HAVE had constant rule changes. You cannot deny that. Yet you are stating that the game is progressively getting worse and having lower attendances. Doesn't take a genius to see the common denominator. Like everyone else that's been around these forums for a while, I know how you complain about teams - senior county football team in particular and how they are not winning. Never seen you complain they weren't entertaining.

As for 20k at an all ireland final. You know, like others, that ain't gonna happen. If Armagh were in the final there's be 82k+ at it. That's because that is were the main entertainment is. Entertainment value is in the games not the rules. No one wants the spectators ignored. No one suggested that. You may have interpreted that, but it wan't suggested. What was suggested was that the game is about winning not entertaining. Are you really saying that if Armagh lost a game by 20 points, you'd be happy because it was entertaining?? I think not.........sorry, no. I know not!!

 

[ShiftYa]

We have had constant rule changes but mostly insignificant things like the square ball one for example, there has been no major rule changes to note. I don't believe the the entertainment value of the game has declined because of 'constant rule changes' I would put it down to the introduction of professionalism in the game. What I mean by that is the introduction of statistics, technology and paid management who can use these tools to develop systems/styles of play that exploit the current rule set.

In the case of just changing the rules for entertainment at the cost of competitiveness you seem to think these two thing negatively correlate, as I've said in my previous post why can't both be achieved at the same time.

As for the 20 point thing, I've never found a walkover to be entertaining (unless it happening to the diving midgets of course). For most, for a game to be entertaining it must 1st be competitive so as I say the two thing go hand in hand.