OPINION: Back-pass rule could be a game-changer

The new rule around back passes to goalkeepers may not have generated debate but has the potential to produce subtle but profound changes to our game, writes Michael Hannon.

The introduction of the so-called back pass rule ruffled a few feathers at Congress a couple of weekends ago. It seemed to come as a bolt out of the blue. 

No real debate occurred around it in the weeks and months leading up to congress. In reality, the black card in hurling was the proposed rule change that dominated the national media.

Turn on the radio any night leading up to Congress and two hurlers could be heard hammering out the reasons for and against the black card. “Leave the game of hurling alone” and “if it ain't broke, don't fix it” were often heard in the lead up to Congress. “We don’t need a black card” was the almost universal refrain from the camán-wielding fraternity. 

Not a whisper could be heard from the football community though on the proposed back pass rule. And in the end, two whole minutes is all it took up on the night. 

The rule itself relates to a goalkeeper not being able to receive a return pass from who ever he hits a kick-out to. On the night itself the only person to speak on the rule change was the Kildare delegate from whose county it was being proposed.

With no-one else speaking for or against the motion, it was passed with relative ease. 

Perhaps the lack of engagement with it from the footballing community was a result of a general sense of 'rule change fatigue' setting in given the relatively large number of rule changes we’ve witnessed trialled and introduced to the sport over the past five years. 

I have to say I find the back pass rule an interesting tweak that could yet have some profound consequences on the game of Gaelic football. 

Now, firstly, I should say that I believe there isn’t a whole lot wrong with the rules of the game as things stand. The tackle is refereed fairly loosely and with great variation depending on the man in the middle but that is often the case with field sports. 

In rugby in the lead-up to big international games, we often hear commentators on about how such a referee tends to referee the breakdown in a very specific way and that the teams will have to adjust for his particular approach. 

Even in a game like basketball, where the rules are very well laid out, tune into any NBA game and note the discrepancies from night to night with how referees call the offensive charge.

Were his feet set at the point of impact? Slow down the camera shot. Rewind. Play it forward. Rewind again. Even then, the two commentators will often disagree with each other, one siding with the referee and one against. 
With the introduction of VAR in soccer, we are seeing this same process being played out over and over again now in the Premier League in England. 

READ MORE: MOSTLY FOOTBALL: Dubs have earned their success the hard way

The rule book is the rule book but the interpretation of the action in front of the referee is always going to be open to differing points of views. 

Gaelic football, to me, outside of the interpretative licence employed by referees towards the tackle, has one major issue. It is quite simply too difficult to win back the ball. 

If there was a more focused approach taken to not just how many, but to where and how turnovers happen, and then rules tweaked to increase the frequency that this happens, we would actually end up with an even more attacking-based game. 

I’ll give you an example of just one way that this might play out. People lament the fact that there isn’t more kick-passing in the game of Gaelic football but why would players risk speculative kick-passing when they know that a turnover in their full-forward line will result in the opposition creating a scoring opportunity moments later at the other end of the field?

If your chances of winning the ball back as a team tried to transition it back up the field were considerably higher than they currently are, then many a team would be more willing to kick the ball in the first place. And I don't just mean kick perfect kick-passes that favour the forward, but kick more speculative passes that favour no-one in particular. 

Let's be clear, I’m not advocating hit-and-hope footballing tactics, but rather saying that the game would evolve into something different if you had a higher chance of winning the ball back in somewhere other than inside your own 45-metre line. 

Make it more difficult and more treacherous to run the ball the length of the field. One of the simplest ways to do that is to prevent the ball from going backwards once it crosses a certain point. 

This is essentially what the new back pass rule is attempting to do with goalkeepers even if there are loopholes with it. 

While the man who receives the pass can not give the ball back to the 'keeper, there doesn’t seem to be anything stopping the next player who receives it from playing the ball back to the netminder. 

Even still, due to the fact that there is that one person who doesn’t have that outlet of a goalkeeper for that one phase of play, we could yet see a greater willingness from teams to push up and create pressure higher up the field on the opposition kick-out. 

But that’s not really what has me so interested in the introduction of this new rule. My hunch is that this rule could inform thinking over the next five years for where the game really needs to evolve to in order to become an even better and more exciting spectacle. 

If it works as intended, and makes the game more exciting, less predictable, and more difficult for teams to 'manage' the action on the field, then we’re on to a winner. 

And who knows, just maybe that’s what delegates at Congress were thinking when they all sat in silence when it was being proposed! 
 

Follow Michael Hannon on Twitter here.

READ MORE: MOSTLY FOOTBALL: Game management let Cavan down against Clare