Printable View
Leave me out of this;)Quote:
Originally Posted by John83
Coming from a small rural area the parish is all important. Its not the local village or town, its the parish and that means GAA and remember.....the Community Games:D
In rural life your parish defines you as i know growing up 3 miles away from any combined civilisation. I was known from my parish and not townland or village.
I love the GAA. I think they are the best thing to happen to the planet Earth since the big bang.
dunno how any cricket fan can keep a straight face while calling any other sport crapQuote:
Originally Posted by Sheridan
what are you on about, his post was in reply to sheridan, and i was answering the question he raised!!! i didn't take issue with anything you said :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by John83
Which, if you think about it, makes you the ignorant one, and you should cop on :p :D
I played both all my life and took the odd penalty in both. It's a lot harder to score a penalty in gaelic football. It's 2 metres futher out and the posts are a metre nearer together.Quote:
Originally Posted by elroy
That said, I managed to miss a few in both codes :)
I heard only about 50% of penalties are converted in Gaelic Football (Senior Championship). Like you say it's much more difficult to score. The penalty taker has to hit strike it well and very much to the corner to have any chance, assuming the goalkeeper does not pick a side, which inexpicably they often do.Quote:
Originally Posted by eitoof
In Hurling it amazes me how many penatly takers drive it down the middle, the one place that contains a renowned shot stopper.
The majority of times that a penalty is awarded in either code it's because a genuine goal scoring opportunity has been denied illegally, so I wonder if a penalty where you have a 50/50 chance of scoring is adequate reward, especially considering the guilty party generally remains on the pitch. Take the Sligo penalty in Tralee on Saturday for example. Johnny Davey looked to have a certain goal before being fouled by Tommy Griffin (?). Should a professional foul type rule be introduced or would it be too harsh? That could well be the foul that wins Kerry the All Ireland, God forbid.
The problem is that while the rule is practically interpreted in GAA most of the time to reflect a genuine goal-scoring opportunity being denied, technically however there are several offences that could be committed to warrant a penalty that most would deem overly harsh to treat as a professional foul. In essence, were this to be brought in then there'd need to be a clarification as to what is constitutes a professional foul and what is 'just' a penalty.
Yeah that would be my thinking as well. It would probably cause more hassle than it's worth.
Most of it from you Paul.Quote:
Originally Posted by paul_oshea
You've denigrated every post that you disagree with without actually coming up with anything to actually back up your point.
Gaelic football is a mish-mash of two or three purer games which takes the worst element of each. There are three unique or semi-unique skills, the solo, the high catch and long kicking out of hand. All three of them are getting less and less prevalent and the game has evolved into wheelchair basketball without the wheelchairs (this isn't an anti-disabled comment btw)
If you decide to respond to my post, can you try and address the points raised rather than childish retorts.
Gaelic Football isn't perfect but I am still a big fan. It's like anything if it a good match I'll enjoy it, if not I'll probably watch it anyway. I think saying it's only got three original skills or whatever isn't really that important. If it's a good game it's a good game, doesn't matter how many high catches, long kicks or solos were in evidence. In my opinion the short hand passing game can be quite attractive to watch, when carried out by a team capable of utilising it fully ie.accurate passing with good support play eg.Tyrone. There's nothing more awful to watch than a team kicking long balls to forwards that can't get out in front of their backs. It's fair enough that some people think it's rubbish, that's the same with every sport. To each their own and all that.
I didn't say anything on this thread, bar "there is an awful lot of sh1te" and my agreement with what someone else said, therefore I dont see how there was any from me?! :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
But, all of the above is your opinion,which of course you are entitled too.
so you mean like regular basketball? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
One has to chuckle at synchronised knuckle-dragging being compared favourably to the infinitely nuanced sport of cricket. If you don't like cricket it's because you don't understand it, and if you don't understand it it's because you're stupid.
That hurling-as-culturally-significant-pastime which the Irish establishment has attempted to fashion into a truism has really done a number on the populace if even people intelligent enough to appreciate football believe it. Let's have a look at the cold, hard facts.
Football
Origin: England (codified 19th cent.)
Export vectors: Emigration, industry, empire.
Coverage: Universal.
Cricket
Origin: England (codified 18th cent.)
Export vectors: Empire, military, diplomacy.
Coverage: Advanced post-colonial societies in both hemispheres.
Gaelic Games
Origin: Ireland (codified 19th cent.)
Export vectors: Mass emigration on biblical scale, military, industry.
Coverage: Monosyllabic farmhands called Ger on small, rainy Atlantic island.
So basically your argument is that hurling is crap because you say it is, and cricket is good because you say it is?
Bravo.
wtf? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheridan
The GAA has actively sought to impede the "development" of other field sports in Ireland and deserves criticism for this. Whether Gaelic Games are "better" than cricket is a matter of individual taste. Export vectors and coverage is an "unusual" way to compare sports. :D
Sheridan genuine question here, i admit im too lazy to search the answer myself. Not a fan of cricket, watch the odd clip here and there, so understand the basics, but how can a game of cricket end in a draw?
For example i understand the first test of the ashes ended in a draw this year because australia didnt manage to bowl england out before the end of play time on the final day??
Test matches last 5 days, if neither team has won the match by the end of the last day it's a draw. In the first test, England still had batsmen in at the end of the match so Australia hadn't won. It usually happens when some time is lost because of rain.Quote:
Originally Posted by elroy
Test cricket, is simple, whoever gets bored first loses :D
Bring back the empire I hear you say ;)
ok but then on the otherside how come england didnt win if they still had batsmen left, is it because they didnt equal australia's number of runs or ? (sorry for hijacking this thread)Quote:
Originally Posted by Schumi
They had scored a few runs more than Australia (about 10 or 20 I think) by the end but Australia had another full innings left to go.Quote:
Originally Posted by elroy