Former Clare manager believes their implementation will be ‘complementary’ rather than ‘dramatic’
Micheál McDermott, who manages Celbridge, took his side to Abbotstown on two weekends recently to take part in games against teams from Dublin and Carlow.
And he came away confident that they can lift the pace of football more and that their implementation will be “complementary” and not “dramatic”, as some have envisaged.
The football review committee, under the chairmanship of Jim Gavin, are continuing to road-test their potential rule ‘enhancements’ through the summer to assess what impact they can have.
Celbridge played Castleknock and O’Dempsey’s, with the ‘solo and go’ standing out for former Clare manager McDermott as a positive development.
He also feels that the mark advantage, the four-point goal and complementary two-pointer from outside a 40-metre arc have potential, as does the restriction on where a goalkeeper can receive a pass from a colleague.
Different ‘enhancements’ were only introduced every quarter in their first game but most were integrated into their second game last weekend, and it was quite seamless.
“Anything we faced didn’t impact us at all. If you go out and play your normal game, it complements it more than introducing dramatic change [to it],” said McDermott. “While it sounds like there are loads of rule changes, none are overly dramatic.”
The Cavan native is most taken with the ‘solo and go’ enhancement, predicting that it can potentially take out some of the back-passes that inevitably occur when a free is awarded.
“If there is a foul, the ball is moving straight away,” he said. “There is no waiting to pass back. Often the first thing they [players] do is turn around and nearly kick it back to the goalkeeper. It slows the play and lends to blanket defence. With the ‘solo and go’, you tend to take the advantage and the game is moving fast,” he said.
The player in possession can take four steps before being challenged.
“That advantage means you are gone past your man, so there’s a plus straight away. You have potential for an early kick pass as the defensive structure doesn’t get a chance, especially if your ‘solo and go’ opportunity is in your own half.”
McDermott sees value in the mark advantage, with the requirement to catch inside the 20m line, but accepts that there may be an issue for referees identifying the line on some pitches.
“We had good referees both days, inter-county referees. They’re going to be sharper than a guy doing a Division 8 club game who can hardly see the 20m line on the pitch as it is barely burnt. It’s easier to go out in Abbotstown with the bright white paint which jumps out at you.”
McDermott felt players initially forced shots from beyond the 40m arc looking for two-pointers but not so the last day.
“The second day we played more off the cuff. If there was a shot on and it was outside the arc, ‘take it’.
“Otherwise, we kept going off the shoulder looking to break inside,” he added.
Keeping three players from each team behind the 65m lines worked well and it became “self-regulatory” for players – but McDermott feels there could be an issue policing it properly for officials.
“The lads are shouting at each other ‘Go back, go back’ because there is a penalty if you are seen to be breaking it. It is a good rule because it leaves space up front and invites a kicking game as well.”
He also felt the kick-out enhancements, having to reach beyond the 40m arc and no requirement for players to be outside the 20m line, worked well, as did the 50m penalty for tactical or disrespect infractions.
