No need for another flurry of football rule-changes

First off, a confession.

Despite two of my housemates being certified dinophiles who can tell an Argentinosaurus from a Brachiosaurus at 50 paces, I have never seen Jurassic Park.

However, as is the case with a lot of classic films that I have not sat through, I am aware of some stand-out quotes and there is one in particular that I have used more times than I wish I had to.

In response to John Hammond, the owner of the park, saying that his scientists had done things that nobody had ever done before, Jeff Goldblum’s Dr Ian Malcolm replies, “Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should.”

It can be applied to any number of situations – the continuing misuse of artificial intelligence for one, or the USA’s war on Iran. Or, closer to home, proposals to flood Gaelic football with another raft of experimental rule-changes.

As part of its recommendations which, on the whole, served to revitalise the sport, the Football Review Committee proposed that establishment of an expert advisory group, which would continue to provide oversight and could put forward further alterations.

At the end of last week a new list of trialled rules was publicised. To be tested in the third-level Ryan Cup, they include the four-point goal – part of the FRC’s initial batch but ultimately rejected – the banning of fisted or handpassed scores, the extension of the 40m arc to the endlines, a ‘backcourt’ rule like basketball and a limit on the number of consecutive handpasses.

Now, we’re not saying that the advisory group are as bad as the Jurassic Park scientists but the could/should ratio feels out of kilter here. This was just the second year of the FRC ‘enhancements’ and the game we have seen across 2025 and 2026 is bright daylight compared to the dark night that we had become used to.

Nobody is saying that it is perfect but it needs to be allowed to breathe, and a greater sample size to develop, before more changes come in. Even then, it would be more appropriate if any further tweaks came one at a time. After all, there is a reason why the GAA only allow motions relating to the playing rules of football and hurling every five years.

Speaking of hurling, the recommendations from the John Meyler-led committee are due soon. It was interesting to note that, in the questionnaire available to the public, it was possible to proffer the view that the rules of the sport were fine and that the greatest potential for improvement lay in their implementation.

Without laying the blame at the door of match officials, it’s a proposal with plenty of merit, though it’s almost certain that that would not be the headline suggestion from a body given the remit that the committee has.

One amendment which respondents were asked about was that hardy annual, two points for a sideline cut. Undeniably, it is a marvellous demonstration of one of the skills of the game but it’s worth remembering that a sideline is merely a way of restarting a match when the ball has gone out of play.

Sometimes, that might have been down to good defending – should that be punished on the double? It’s why, for example, 45s and sideline kicks outside the arc in football don’t earn an orange flag.

However – and we don’t claim originality on this, as Justin McCarthy floated it in his 2002 autobiography – what if frees from the ground were accorded such a reward? The rules already allow for a free to be taken in such a way and this extension would serve to punish those giving away fouls – but only if the taker was confident enough to take on the risk and execute it.

You could include the stipulation that it would only apply to frees outside the 40m football arc, say; or you could make it the case for any free, which would have the effect of making a defender think twice before committing a routine foul before a move can develop into a goalscoring opportunity. As we have seen with football, clamping down on indiscipline and dissent goes a long way towards improving the product.