The FRC are 10,000 hours’ing the new football rules
has anyone ever heard of the butterfly effect?
The butterfly effect, a concept in chaos theory, describes how small changes in the initial conditions of a complex system can lead to vastly different outcomes
I have gone through an emotional rollercoaster of feelings, vibes and emotions with the proposals to change Gaelic Football.
For a long time I’ve been of the somewhat dismissive feeling “it’s evolving, just get better at coaching”
And it was evolving. Armagh had just literally moved the dial.
Then I saw some of the ideas, and I thought “ya some of this looks good”
However with the roll out and the mass propaganda that has accompanied the first trials we should really pull the hand break quickly.
This is an ego project, and it is starting to stink.
Firstly there is the unavoidable and understandable nostalgic bias of some of the FRC themselves. I forgive that to a large degree, we have to accpet that these people, who have all been quite successful to extremely successful in some or indeed multiple areas of their lives and seem by and large there for the right reasons, are doing this through their experiences and eyes honestly.
But they are creating a strange game that may not be that much better but will almost certainly suit the big picks of Kerry and Dublin and to a lesser extent Galway, Donegal and Mayo. Because it’s going to, ironically really, become an even more running game.
More S&C. More GPS. More arguments.
Imagine.
But I came round a little bit, and much like I’d ignore a lot of things to have a significant change in government, I was changing my approach to “give them a go”. And it would add new challenge and impetus to my own coaching going forward.
However the media and individual member approach to this has been alarming.
This has become a marketing and propaganda effort rather than the pursuit of an improvement in the game. These rules should be done 1 at a time over 1-3 years.
Suggesting all these rules are attached to each other shows a distinct lack of understanding of motor learning and how human movement behaviour evolves. You can’t cookie cutter this.
Put something in, let it self organise itself.
Learn.
Iterate.
Just like we do in coaching.
This is why I call it the 10,000 hours mindset. It’s all related to that.
You see it all the time in coaching.
“I can fix that”
“Stop to fix”
“Question for understanding “
All cognitive psychology, education driven ideas around how we learn. That have no qualitative evidence whatsoever to support them in terms of motor learning.
Jarleth Burns has jumped the shark here. Trying to do too much too soon and be all things to all men is not a great approach to getting things done.
Rather than getting a heap of celebrity managers and ex players in, first job (and something he may only have got credit for in 5/10/15 years) would be to create a better way of creating rules and changing aspects of the game in calm and consistent manner.
Classic cart before the horse.
But that won’t one up Sean Kelly and his Club All Ireland improvements.
I think the presidency has outlived its usefulness in modern society. We continue to suffer for the ultra conservative decision not to appoint Liam Sheedy as CEO a number of years ago.
Sheedy has shown an eye for skilled people who may not have been celebrities and empowered them. It always bugs me as to what might have been. I know from talking to people close to it the whole thing was a sham. No offence meant to the ultimate winner of that process, but he’s a bean counter. And we are getting bean counter results.
In fact I’d suggest Burns may be a good CEO. But that’s a different role, and it’s an overlap that doesn’t work.
The pandering and fawning to Jim Gavin and how he must be a genius must be embarrassing for him more than anyone. He is clearly a very intelligent guy who understands teams and empowerment also, and would be driven to succeed as he loves the game. I love his passion and articulation. And he brought the game forward too.
It does not make him all knowing though.
Him and the group are not beyond challenge. Nor have they sought to be to be fair. Michael Murphy has been very vocal on this side of things. But i do feel they have left some pieces behind.
“If you get on the wrong train, every stop along the way is wrong”
Constraints & affordances
Constraints
In ecological dynamics (the study of how we learn to move in our environments)or more practically a constraint led approach to coaching, a “constraint” refers to factors that shape and guide behaviour by interacting with the environment, tasks, and individual characteristics.
These constraints are not merely barriers but are seen as sources of information that influence decision-making and action.
They are categorized into three types: environmental (e.g., light, temperature), task (e.g., rules, equipment), and individual (e.g., height, motivation)[1][2][3].
Constraints help in skill development by creating affordances (opportunities for action), allowing individuals to adapt and respond effectively to their surroundings[2][4].
Rules are constraints.
By providing boundaries, constraints help individuals explore and discover effective solutions through perceptual attunement, where they learn to focus on relevant information and ignore distractions. (1)(4)
The 40m arc, seen as a positive automatically, is a constraint. It is possibly either a positive or negative constraint in terms of speeding up the game. Or improving distance kicking.
Or will it just change the line of engagement? Or indeed is it just marking out the organic line that emerged because of the broad human ability to kick a ball far? And accurately?
One of Armaghs great strengths was how they moved this line to reduce the effectiveness of opposition attacks. Every game they set up somewhere different.
That’s skillful.
That’s intelligent.
That’s coaching.
Now we’ll all line up in the same spot.
Affordances
One of the areas the group either haven’t considered or understand is the notion of affordances.
James Gibson explained affordances as the
opportunities for action that the environment provides to an organism, emphasising a direct perception of these possibilities without extensive sensory processing. He defined affordances as relational, meaning they depend on both the properties of objects and the capabilities of the observer, which can vary based on context and intention. For example, a chair affords sitting for humans but may not be usable by a baby. This concept highlights the interaction between an organism and its environment, underscoring that perception drives action
When we share a pitch we teammates and opponents we share a landscape of affordances.
Each one of us perceives them differently.
As put so well by someone in the recent past (who I can’t remember to credit)
“When a gap appears Xavi see’s a pass, but Messi see’s a dribble “
Messi and Xavi are constrained by their own skills, abilities and experiences and will perceive in accordance with our own perceptions.
Think like this.
I play for Kerry, I see Donaghy inside. How will I kick that in? Long and high is ok.
I see Gooch? I’ll reconsider where I put it.
They are also constrained by the pitch and the rules of the game.
And so will all Gaelic Footballers be when any or all rules are rubber stamped.
Constrained by the 3v3 up top. But that constraint might lead to more kicking.
So would a shot clock by the way.
But either way we would probably get more kicking in the game in transition, which is something I think we can all agree would be desirable.
But, we should let that happen? It may not solve everything but it would create more sensible conversations.
Maybe 1 playing rule adjustment and 1 disciplinary action implemented at once?
Maybe the 50m penalty for cynical fouling. The reason the game is the way it is, is because referees and the rules allowed it happen.
The most cynical of them all were Fitzmaurice’s Kerry and Gavin’s Dublin ironically enough.
Then you could see the game flow.
Or you try 4 points for a goal.
Or a 2 point 40 arc shot.
But not all at once.
Now to be fair to the FRC and its members, they are constrained by the archaic outdated GAA system.
They are probably doomed to failure by the ridiculous situation where rules can only be adjusted every 5 years. This came about because lazy administrators didn’t want to think too hard any longer.
They didn’t have or trust expertise, they didn’t know what they were doing so they brushed it under the carpet.
How Irish.
I upset a few people a few years ago, and many of these people I respect highly and like personally, who were members of the new GAA Sports Science Group. To paraphrase, I said it would be largely a waste of time and they wouldn’t be listened to.
Now it’s arguable I was a little bit off and plain wrong for a small few instances, but this situation now is really what I am talking about. This is where some of them were needed.
And maybe the GAA or more specifically Croke Park did want this, but Jarleth Burns either didn’t realise this or wanted his own crew completely.
And this is GAA Administration 1.01. And why we end up In bamboozling situation like this time after time.
But I was told in that GAA Sports Science discussion I was “being negative” or “jealous”
I suppose they assumed I wanted in, when I couldn’t think of anything worse. Going onto a committee that I’d feel would get nowhere? I mean I really believe this, and why? I’d grown up in the GAA. Many of these people hadn’t really. Not in a coaching or admin world at least.
The GAA’s mind bending bureaucracy and overly democratic approach means it cannot by its very nature be progressive and essentially you can’t get much done to stay up and relevant.
Every swinging Tom, dick & Harry gets a vote.
And that completely demeans science, analysis and expertise.
However here now we are in a situation in which people , players, coaches or viewers, not only won’t get enough time to tune their perceptions as to what is happening with the new constraints but they will be asked to vote on something that may not even represent the task and environmental constraints that are being pressed upon players and everyone else last weekend.
That’s what we call “a farce”
Analysis, science & expertise
One of the gaping holes in the FRC from the start was the lack of motor learning and game analysis experts involved.
What was thrown at me when I said this was “oh you fancy yourself so do you?”, which in itself was a back handed compliment. Yes I believe someone like me would add from the skill acquisition side.
However there are far more recognisable people they could have got, Paul Kinnerk being one. Phil Kearney is involved in some GAA projects already and was another more neutral, to name but 2.
Kinnerk ticks so many boxes it’s absurd if he wasn’t asked (I don’t know, he may have refused). But I think this goes to show the lack of understanding in the GAA around skill development.
There is still a mechanical, we can build this like mikado, 10,000 hours, the brain is a computer, cognitive science approach to something that is clearly far more “alive”, ecological and dynamic.
Everything I’ve heard from these people, or seen from coaching sessions or whatever, tallies with this.
Being a successful manager in a sport deserve to get you a significant say if you are someone like Gavin.
But it doesn’t mean you understand skill development (nor does it mean he doesn’t either) or studies like chaos theory. And people who have insights there, are useful.
But the GAA seems to have stayed away from actual deep expertise here and it shows.
As Stephen O’ Meara said in this article with Maurice Brosnan ; https://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/gaa/arid-41216056.html
As he suggests, the analysis in GAA leaves a lot to be desired at times.
Why count tackles for instance?
Well culturally it’s because we think every win is due to us out working the opponent.
But very often it’s about out thinking the opponent.
In fact if you KPI tackles, you are probably encouraging diving in and poor defensive behaviours.
“If I have to make a tackle I already have made a mistake”
Maldini
Most of the FRC people I’ve listened to or read are look at outcomes alone, and this is a fraught way to approach.
This is one insight as to why this seems so clunky and over thought.
Voting on something that’s never been trialled
That’s now what is happening.
And it completely throws the entire process into disrepute. Really this was the final push into this article to be honest.
One idea I had, based on years of practice design and changing the movement behaviour of footballers, was to double the score from a high turnover.
This is changing the affordance landscape. I’ve done this hundreds of times. Rewarded certain behaviours through a reward system.
Then I was told this was actually shot down by the FRC way back at its inception.
Not because it was my idea (or whoever else’s) but this kinda shows the lense through which the FRC are looking at things.
Rather than creating new constraints and seeing how things play out, they are trying to fix symptoms.
Now that’s not 100% true either, because some of their discipline ideas are strong and do eat away at the source of many of the issues in football. Although some are covering for referees not doing their jobs.
In fact, as mentioned previously, I believe the discipline interventions may have changed the game on their own.
Constrain to afford
“Constrain to afford” is a coaching principle within the Constraints-Led Approach (CLA), which emphasizes designing practice environments that limit certain options while enhancing opportunities for athletes to self-organize and find effective solutions. This approach encourages creativity and adaptability by manipulating task constraints to create affordances—opportunities for action—aligned with learning objectives.
When you create a rule, as we said it’s a constraint, it creates new opportunities to act (affordances). This is no different to designing practice sessions, we design/constrain to afford opportunities to act - as a coach that’s really to change behaviour. That’s exactly what the FRC are trying to do also. Just they are using a cognitive, symptom based approach to solve a car dynamic ecological issue.
Forcing the issue you could say. Again, under pressure due to ridiculous structures and maybe a bit of ego as well.
We never know how these will be treated.
That’s why one at a time, or maybe one play and one discipline rule at a time is a far better approach.
The “enhancements”
So the rules, what do I see in them, with others and on their own;
The 3v3 behind half way
This really works pretty much the same in open play with or without the other playing rules.
It really comes into play with the 50m cynical delay rule, as that deterrent will incentivise quick play and the top 3 can make the most of space either over the top or wide.
This may allow a broader range of tactical approaches for team where around, through & over are all on.
This is something that should be trialled for a significant amount of time and I expect it to be a success.
It was clear it needs time, the players were not even aware of the space they had the last weekend. That will change. So this is an exciting part of the change ups.
I’ve actually used the 3 up along 65/45 as a tactic in recent years, why? To create space.
The one negative too it though, or unintended consequence, is one of the reasons I did this was offensively to create space. Defensively to close space.
“Play in 2/3rds of the pitch”
Italian soccer style. Big pitch with ball, small without.
While you can’t get the 15 back behind your own 45 (generally pointless anyway) you are still almost putting 30 players very close to half the pitch. I see strategy emerging where that is utilised in the same we use “the sideline as a friend” now.
It might be worth considering having that line at the 45. Not sure what would happen, but then we are talking real space.
Again, should be trialled alone or after 50m rule.
Verdict: A true constraint. Something that I would be surprised doesn’t have a positive effect.
The Kickout rules
These remain hard to figure out. It looked like all the players were still playing to old rules. There is a concern I’ve discussed with others before around the KO that it became microcosm of the entire football debate, a nostalgic narrative that didn’t actually add up for all modern players and coaches.
The kickout now, significantly brought on by Stephen Cluxton, is a far more skilled and tactical animal than it was in the “good old days”.
Goalkeepers have their games developed beyond all recognition from the past. And we want to “de-skill” them?
There is a lot of stupid nostalgic and to be honest insulting and arrogant talk about goalkeepers in the GAA sphere.
There is no need to change them.
That said, no back pass to keeper as suggest by Stephen O’ Meara in the 2023 piece is a good idea.
I would allow the keeper to get involved in the play again beyond the half way. I think this is a happy half way.
It feels like the FRC read SOM’s advice and wanted to simply put their own version in. Rather than taking the simple option.
The KO element could stay but we have no idea whatsoever how it will play out. It needs time. I think the long contest KO’s we say the last day will dissipate after a while. Just a feeling, there wouldn’t have been 2024 KO defences matching up to a 2025 rule.
*courtesy of @noplanb on x.com and Irish Times
52% on long KO’s is something teams will want to avoid. So we will see more and more strategic work on this. I’ve already come up with a couple of games.
And based on my experience it takes 6-12 training sessions and 3-6 games to really see how anything might be embedding. Another reason why the rules needed really 1-3 years and a far slower drop feed of implementation.
Short KO’s may be a bit more risky and contested. But they could also be backed off like Connacht did the last day.
Why not?
Some teams you want them building up.
Some teams do very well from long KO’s and they might be bigger than you.
So give them the KO. This won’t change.
The notion of “contests” is selfish nostalgic view as well. These “contests” often turn into rucks and actually slow the game down and allow teams back which will reduce the kicking.
Long accurate kickouts can be a thing of beauty. I think medium and long angled “strike across the balll” KO’s will emerge from this.
Verdict: Seeing as I’d get rid of the 2 point arc i’d get rid of the minimum distance also but would keep other factors like kick as soon as you want no matter where players are.
Just stop the pass back to keeper entirely unless into opposition half. That will change the game in a more dynamic way and still allow a plethora of KO options.
2 point scoring zone
This is a “must try harder” verdict. Incentivising scoring skills by just adding points for certain skills goes against my skilled behaviour ideals.
Incentivise fast and brave “play” but reward that and not a particular type of shot.
This is one of the rules that will play out significantly differently from IC to Club.
Even at IC, under pressure I think we’ll see quite a few 20-30% days from outside the arc. Having watched it and thought about it more, I feel it’s a distraction now.
I’m still allowing a bit of space to be converted, but the coach in me is saying “nah, not a huge incentive. Maybe late in games etc, but I have other ways of creating excitement in the game.
At club level very little will change. The club teams I’ve worked with in recent years wouldn’t change a tap. Brian Hurley in cork was probably the only out and out threat from that range I encountered. And I coached Conor Sweeney and David Buckley who did definitely have facilitated getting on the loop for double value shots. But other than that I wasn’t overly concerned about anyone from distance the last few years.
I don’t see that changing.
Thus, the 3v3 is devalued a bit and only useful in very fast transition.
At least in terms of 3 pointers teams will still have principles of no middle, collapse defence and more to avoid goals. I think we may see an increase in hooked pointed shooting from little pockets at both sides of the goal where there is some space to be found.
As I detail below, done quick the other day, I think 11v12 or even 12v12 is still very manageable defensively once we get the hand of it and we’ll still have lots of lateral play.
Verdict: Get rid. Simple as.
My solution as well promoted is a double score for high turnovers.
Incentivised football is quality and intense football.
I think this is a useless rule at club level, but my approach (and clearly I wasn’t the only suggester) would make for wildly exciting play. It was shelved at first meeting I believe.
Maybe it’s just too exciting 🤷🏽♂️
4 points for a goal
This has never made sense. Or at least changing both scoring systems was always hard to figure out why they got there?
How did anyone let this get out the door?
Look it looks like being tanked already anyways so I’m no going to give it too much energy. Same as last rule “enhancement”, I’d ditch and replace with an incentivised, affordance based rule.
The Advanced Mark
Just so people would stop talking about it, we should get rid of the advanced mark.
Teams actually got very skilled at creating these opportunities. It was kicking and catching.
Referees made an absolute mess of this regularly as well, I even had an attacker get sent off for 2 yellows cos he told the ref he was wrong about the rules twice.
The ref of course was wrong.
People are never ever happy in Ireland really, with anything. So this is one I was happy to tolerate, didn’t over coach it, but I don’t care if it goes and if people stop giving out about it I’d be happier without it.
The 50m cynical foul punishment (and general dissent)
Despite the fact that I’m almost certain to fall foul of this some day, I wholly agree with it.
As opposed to incentivising, this is a deterrent and I’m all good with that.
This is a no brainer and something come pushed for years. The band the ball back element is also a game changer. This is the smartest little bit they put in, by a mile.
This immediately increases the sportsmanship and heightens respect while reducing tensions.
I do have one fear, ref’s who take a dislike to a team or management will abuse it and look for infringements, especially at club level.
Verdict: Can come in and isn’t tied to anything else really, while being tied to everything really. A no-brainer that’s years late. Could be a game changer. But we may never know now.
This is the one rule I’d have let in place for a year before anything else to see where we are at then. This for me would be the epitome of thinking about chaos theory.
1v1 Throw in
For me this is a real solving the symptom over addressing the cultural issue - referees not refereeing the present throw in properly. Letting ref’s off the hook again.
Referees have a grossly outsized place in GAA. They are crucial, we have to have them. But the amount of them who have no respect for the game, the rules, the players or coaches is increasing yearly. Met it again at the weekend, all about the referee, acting like a child. For every David Coldrick there is 3 self absorbed lunatics.
And this abuse of position is really embedded in Croke Park. In Cork, Tipp & Limerick (my recent experiences) the best ref’s are really good, hurling and football. But the drop off after the top few really is drastic.
By not pulling ref’s on their jobs ,like policing the throw in properly, and creating rules to get them out of jail we are just enabling more poor refereeing and an imbalance.
That all said, it’s not a rule to be too bothered about and it did start the games positively. I would suggest the 2nd midfielders are allowed pick up any position they want just before throw in outside the middle 45 zone. Attack if you want, defend if you want. See what happens.
Verdict: Overall a positive, but an insight into one of the major issues with the entire process.
Solo & Go
This is a positive. Again bringing this in with the 50m rule is something that should be trialled alone and see what affect it has on the game before changing scoring rewards etc.
This will take a while to come into more use.
This is a hugely significant change in motor behaviour. It may even take a season or two to be fully explored.
Changing motor behaviour is long and complex. Now motivation can have an oversized changing affect at times but I’m not convinced this will be utilised very well.
I’ll give an (ironic) example. I needed a team I worked with in recent times to get more ruthless, cynical and cute.
They were giving up far too many transition goal chances. Most of them started by giving the ball back too easily, or not seeing danger. Discussing it was never going to work but we did discuss it.
Then I put constraints on games that rewarded defending teams if they kept inside half way for 15 seconds they won the practice. Of course this works the other way in getting out too.
I incentivised a change in behaviour.
Did it change?
For young lads almost immediately. For the rest some yes, some no. But definitely not to required levels. And it completely fell apart in 2nd to last group game and we gave up 4 goals.
So I doubled down. It improved and kept us competitive in last game and played well but lost so were in Relegation final. Again I used varied constraints in preparation for that game. Individual and collective.
But then it happened on an epic scale. Aggressive frontal-middle press. No easy transitions, give away the 10m if you have to. Buy the 5 seconds.
Why? Partly we saw it made us more competitive. Partly we finally got using selection as a tool right and partly losing senior status was not something anyone wanted.
Motivation accelerated things.
Had we won the last group game it’s possible I wouldn’t have enough evidence and a result to show its importance again next year. Sport is funny like that.
Now of course the rules may mean we have to change approach and overall the new rules will suit this team.
But the point is motor behaviour is a hell of a thing to change. I experience some form of the above all the time every year with every team. And only representative repetition of scenarios is what leads to to change. And sometimes that can be temporary if you don’t make sure it’s embedded.
I think that’s something this FRC don’t get or are wilfully ignoring.
No back pass to goal keeper.
I think this is a reasonable half way house. Allow a variety of goalkeeping types to emerge, but not ruin the role of the goalkeeper.
We want Niall Morgan’s and we want Conor Gleeson’s. Just like we want Kieran Donaghy’s and we want Colm Coopers.
Again though, getting blue in the face now…., this was a rule that could have been trialled on its own and have had some affect.
With data and some behavioural changes you can assess the actual effects of one rule.
Vanishing foam
Again another one referees should be dealing with. I’ve seen 20 metres stole this year in vital and close games. With linesmen involved. It’s ridiculous.
Do the job first and then let’s see what’s needed.
A firm no from me
Stop clock
Bring it on, the time keeping is all over the place as well.
I’m spinning plates here…..
Subs from 5 to 6
I’m torn. I love the idea of an interchange. I’ve seen up close in AFL and Basketball how it adds great tactical battles to games. It would enhance coaching and tactical know-how endlessly. There is a reason basketball coaches are so tactically tuned in.
People who may not have been great players or even technical coaches could have a big impact if they have a feel for the game.
Will we go big?
Will we go fast?
Will we keep our shape but load defensive players?
And on and on.
The flip side though is that both an interchange and 6 subs helps the big population teams again.
So it’s a no for now, as much as I’d like it myself and would use it at club level, I think overall it’s not a great idea.
Sideline official having more influence
Absolutely not. I think 2 refs would solve so many issues. With 2 refs I’d get rid of the umpires or linesmen.
But give power to the linesmen and others first before anyone else.
To finish
Ultimately I think the FRC are constrained by the constipation of the organisation.
I am very empathetic to the constraints under which they are working.
But they have ignored expertise, and that’s why people like me are writing articles like this.
The GAA talks a good game about the club game. About the chance of small clubs usurping the big town or city club.
Or that a county like Tyrone or Armagh with limited playing resources can create a system, upskill their coaches and “have a shot” as long as they stay consistent.
That ability to reduce population advantages is critical to Gaelic Games.
One nail in that coffin is the reduced size of championships and the relegation and promotion systems that exist. All favouring bigger populations.
That competitiveness will be further eroded by these rules at every level. It will reduce the intelligence of players and dumb down & de-centivise coaching creativity.
The consequences are unintentional, but they might be severe.
References
[1] The Ecological Dynamics Framework: An Innovative Approach to ... https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8910696/
[2] Ecological Dynamics Part 3 - Constrain to Afford https://members.thecoachessite.com/article/ecological-dynamics-a-model-for-skill-development-part-3
[3] Making Sense of the Constraints-Led Approach in Basketball https://basketballimmersion.com/making-sense-of-the-constraints-led-approach-in-basketball/
[4] Keith Davids on ecological dynamics - FIFA Training Centre https://www.fifatrainingcentre.com/en/community/science-explained/train/keith-davids-on-ecological-dynamics.php
[5] Team decision-making behavior: An ecological dynamics approach https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667239122000570
[6] An ecological dynamics approach to motor learning in practice https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667239122000089
[7] Understand Agility. Ecological Dynamics Perspective. - LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/understand-agility-ecological-dynamics-perspective-gaszy%C5%84ski-a2m9f
[8] Learning to coach: An ecological dynamics perspective https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/17479541221138680?icid=int.sj-full-text.similar-articles.1