|
More jeopardy needed in the group stages
Id love to see a format as follows
12 teams - Group A 6 teams / Group B 6 teams
Group A seeded as previous years semi finalists plus next 2 highest seeded teams
Group B next 6 best ranked teams
This needed to set up teams in group a and b for first year
Knockouts
Group A 1st & 2nd - through to semi final
Group A 3rd & 4th - through to 1/4 final
Group A 5th - knocked out but safe
Group A 6th - relegated to Group B for following year
Group B 1st & 2nd through to 1/4 final with 1st promoted to Group A for following year
Group B 3rd / 4th / 5th - out of championship but safe
Group B 6th - relegated to intermediate
Hurltheball (Wicklow) - Posts: 29 - 05/09/2026 07:18:56
2692793
Link
0
|
|
Replying To Pikeman96: "Clubs are always encouraged to consult with their players before deciding how to vote at the meetings on championship structures. I know however that unfortunately, many clubs don't actually do this. But it doesn't have to involve players actually going to a meeting.
Every club is supposed to have a Players' Representative on their committee, and this must be somebody who played championship in the previous year. This is in the overall Rule Book and is not just something either I or Wexford GAA are making up. My club has quite a good one and he consults with the other players via a WhatsApp group and some phone calls every year when it comes time to make those decisions. If you don't mind me suggesting, that could be your first step if you really feel you don't have a voice in it.
But to put your head on the block (!), as a player yourself, which of these would you choose? -
a) groups of four so there are less matches and more chances of a weekend off.
b) groups of six so there are more chances of going through to the knockout stages, but less chances of a weekend off.
"Groups of six but with more weekends off" isn't an option for all the reasons outlined already and several times before." 100% groups of 4. It's not that as players we are looking for weekends off either to contradict myself a bit. It is time to train/prepare properly, put game plans in place, maybe even get a practise match outside the county to improve ourselves and the overall standard. But at the same time if a lad has a knock or a niggle, he has time to recover or a lad getting back fitness has the time for a few blowout sessions without worrying about being bet for the weekend if he gets a chance to play.
hownow1 (Wexford) - Posts: 9 - 05/09/2026 08:29:40
2692799
Link
0
|
|
Replying To tearintom: "Was talking to a club manager over the weekend.
2 players went to EP, a couple of others took the week for their own holidays not EP.
But 4 players now are informing him they've tickets for Katie Taylor fight next Saturday and not sure of availability!
Maybe we should get another weekend off?" Could just go watch The Alley hurl instead of Katie Taylor. Same thing.
countyman2022 (Wexford) - Posts: 1090 - 05/09/2026 10:34:26
2692809
Link
0
|
|
Replying To Viking66: " Replying To Pikeman96: "@Formertownie - I'm all in favour of a free weekend if the calendar allows it, for all the reasons you mention. I'm just not sure I'll ever be convinced that the best way of using the free weekend is to arrange it around when a minority of players would like to go to a music festival.
I'd suggest a more "natural" break this year would have been to play Round 5 football on the weekend just gone by, and then use next weekend as the free one after the groups were completed in both codes and before moving into the knockout stages." It is a minority of players, but a pretty significant minority at the same time. It would affect alot of clubs ability to field second teams after it."
countyman2022 (Wexford) - Posts: 1090 - 05/09/2026 10:35:23
2692810
Link
0
|
|
Replying To Viking66: "The difference between going through and getting relegated would be less though. There would be fewer opportunities to get yourself out of a hole if you weren't at full tilt from the off." Fair point. You could view it as more jeopardy from that point of view all right. But one could still argue that other point of view too!
Pikeman96 (Wexford) - Posts: 4003 - 05/09/2026 11:13:53
2692816
Link
0
|
|
Replying To hownow1: "100% groups of 4. It's not that as players we are looking for weekends off either to contradict myself a bit. It is time to train/prepare properly, put game plans in place, maybe even get a practise match outside the county to improve ourselves and the overall standard. But at the same time if a lad has a knock or a niggle, he has time to recover or a lad getting back fitness has the time for a few blowout sessions without worrying about being bet for the weekend if he gets a chance to play." There you go then, and thanks for the straight answer.
If the majority of your team-mates feel the same, I'd suggest to be sure to have your voices heard before structure of next year's championship is up for decision. Those decisions are always made at the January meeting of the County Board.
I'd have some of the players attend the AGM, make sure that a players' representative is appointed to the committee (as the Rule Book says should happen anyway), and make it clear that you expect the players to be canvassed through that representative ahead of the championship structures meeting.
Pikeman96 (Wexford) - Posts: 4003 - 05/09/2026 11:16:17
2692817
Link
0
|
|
Replying To countyman2022: " Replying To Viking66: "[quote=Pikeman96: "@Formertownie - I'm all in favour of a free weekend if the calendar allows it, for all the reasons you mention. I'm just not sure I'll ever be convinced that the best way of using the free weekend is to arrange it around when a minority of players would like to go to a music festival.
I'd suggest a more "natural" break this year would have been to play Round 5 football on the weekend just gone by, and then use next weekend as the free one after the groups were completed in both codes and before moving into the knockout stages." It is a minority of players, but a pretty significant minority at the same time. It would affect alot of clubs ability to field second teams after it."
Unless the answer is "yes", then 13 is a minority.
Thirteen would obviously be a significant number to be down for a weekend all right, but unless you've no more than 25 players total, it's still a minority.
For what it's worth, in my own club, just four players went. Nobody from the first team in either hurling or football.
Pikeman96 (Wexford) - Posts: 4003 - 05/09/2026 11:19:11
2692818
Link
0
|
|
Possible suggestion. For both codes
4 groups of 3 a, b, c, and d.
Everyone plays their 2 group games giving a table 1st, 2nd and 3rd. Then then one final group game where 1st from group a plays 3rd in group b, 1st from group b plays 3rd in group a and 2nd from group a plays 2nd in group b.
The same thing happens in groups c and groups d.
After that then you combine groups a and b into one 6 team division and groups c and d the same. Tot up the points total of each team in the 6 team divisions giving you a 1 to 6 ranking with teams separated on scoring difference etc etc
From there its top 4 in each side in to quarter finals and bottom 2 from each into relegation.
Reduces group games from 5 to 3, across both codes that frees up 4 weeks to use for breaks, EP etc etc and scope to better structure the championship. Could start with 3 weeks hurling, finish group stage then break and 3 weeks football and finish group stage etc etc. It would also add a bit of novelty, from round 2 on you dont know for definite who your playing until finals etc.
Now tear the concept apart at your will!
tearintom (Wexford) - Posts: 1696 - 05/09/2026 12:46:27
2692822
Link
0
|
|
Replying To tearintom: "Possible suggestion. For both codes
4 groups of 3 a, b, c, and d.
Everyone plays their 2 group games giving a table 1st, 2nd and 3rd. Then then one final group game where 1st from group a plays 3rd in group b, 1st from group b plays 3rd in group a and 2nd from group a plays 2nd in group b.
The same thing happens in groups c and groups d.
After that then you combine groups a and b into one 6 team division and groups c and d the same. Tot up the points total of each team in the 6 team divisions giving you a 1 to 6 ranking with teams separated on scoring difference etc etc
From there its top 4 in each side in to quarter finals and bottom 2 from each into relegation.
Reduces group games from 5 to 3, across both codes that frees up 4 weeks to use for breaks, EP etc etc and scope to better structure the championship. Could start with 3 weeks hurling, finish group stage then break and 3 weeks football and finish group stage etc etc. It would also add a bit of novelty, from round 2 on you dont know for definite who your playing until finals etc.
Now tear the concept apart at your will!" Here's a really, really technical point, not intended to tear it apart (!), but just to show a possible difficulty:
When you combine the tables from Group A and B (for example), you end up with two teams on six points. They obviously haven't played each other so you use overall score difference to decide first and second.
Further down the combined table, the teams vying for 4th and 5th place are both on two points. They have played each other. The team that won that match obviously has the head-to-head advantage, but has a worse overall score difference.
Do you use the head-to-head rule to put that team through, or do you use the "overall score difference" rule like you're already having to do elsewhere in the same group?
i.e. can you use two different rules to separate two teams on the same points in the same group? And bear in mind that the decision would decide who goes through to quarter-finals, and who goes out of the championship. Potentially a real can of worms either way.
Pikeman96 (Wexford) - Posts: 4003 - 05/09/2026 21:20:38
2692853
Link
0
|
|
Replying To Pikeman96: "Here's a really, really technical point, not intended to tear it apart (!), but just to show a possible difficulty:
When you combine the tables from Group A and B (for example), you end up with two teams on six points. They obviously haven't played each other so you use overall score difference to decide first and second.
Further down the combined table, the teams vying for 4th and 5th place are both on two points. They have played each other. The team that won that match obviously has the head-to-head advantage, but has a worse overall score difference.
Do you use the head-to-head rule to put that team through, or do you use the "overall score difference" rule like you're already having to do elsewhere in the same group?
i.e. can you use two different rules to separate two teams on the same points in the same group? And bear in mind that the decision would decide who goes through to quarter-finals, and who goes out of the championship. Potentially a real can of worms either way." No, the head to head rule is actually a bug bear of mine when it comes to all things GAA.
I wouldn't use it at all personally, I find it lessens jeopardy.
tearintom (Wexford) - Posts: 1696 - 06/09/2026 10:00:01
2692867
Link
0
|
|
Replying To tearintom: " Replying To Pikeman96: "Here's a really, really technical point, not intended to tear it apart (!), but just to show a possible difficulty:
When you combine the tables from Group A and B (for example), you end up with two teams on six points. They obviously haven't played each other so you use overall score difference to decide first and second.
Further down the combined table, the teams vying for 4th and 5th place are both on two points. They have played each other. The team that won that match obviously has the head-to-head advantage, but has a worse overall score difference.
Do you use the head-to-head rule to put that team through, or do you use the "overall score difference" rule like you're already having to do elsewhere in the same group?
i.e. can you use two different rules to separate two teams on the same points in the same group? And bear in mind that the decision would decide who goes through to quarter-finals, and who goes out of the championship. Potentially a real can of worms either way." No, the head to head rule is actually a bug bear of mine when it comes to all things GAA. I wouldn't use it at all personally, I find it lessens jeopardy."
And there's good reason. Say your team has beaten mine by 10 points and there's another team in our group who gets progressively weaker as the weeks go by.
You've played them in Round 1 when they still had as much to play for as everybody else, and beat them by 6 points. You lose your other three games by 6 points, 5 points, and 5 points so you end up on 4 points in the table and a score difference of zero.
I lose my first game by a point, lose to you by 10, lose another by 4 points, and then I win a game by four. I then play that weak team in Round 5. By then, they're already destined for the relegation final, they barely raise a gallop, and I beat them by 15. Now I've ended up on four points the table and a score difference of +4.
Under your way of doing things, I'd go through, and you'd be out, despite the fact you'd beaten me by 10 points. Main reason I'd be through would simply have been down to the order the fixtures came in. You had to play that weak team in Round 1 before they knew they'd go so badly. I got to play them in Round 5 when they were already in Relegation and so they had no reason to even make an effort.
How would you feel then?
Pikeman96 (Wexford) - Posts: 4003 - 06/09/2026 19:42:34
2692923
Link
0
|
|
Replying To Pikeman96: " Replying To tearintom: "[quote=Pikeman96: "Here's a really, really technical point, not intended to tear it apart (!), but just to show a possible difficulty:
When you combine the tables from Group A and B (for example), you end up with two teams on six points. They obviously haven't played each other so you use overall score difference to decide first and second.
Further down the combined table, the teams vying for 4th and 5th place are both on two points. They have played each other. The team that won that match obviously has the head-to-head advantage, but has a worse overall score difference.
Do you use the head-to-head rule to put that team through, or do you use the "overall score difference" rule like you're already having to do elsewhere in the same group?
i.e. can you use two different rules to separate two teams on the same points in the same group? And bear in mind that the decision would decide who goes through to quarter-finals, and who goes out of the championship. Potentially a real can of worms either way." No, the head to head rule is actually a bug bear of mine when it comes to all things GAA. I wouldn't use it at all personally, I find it lessens jeopardy."
And there's good reason. Say your team has beaten mine by 10 points and there's another team in our group who gets progressively weaker as the weeks go by.
You've played them in Round 1 when they still had as much to play for as everybody else, and beat them by 6 points. You lose your other three games by 6 points, 5 points, and 5 points so you end up on 4 points in the table and a score difference of zero.
I lose my first game by a point, lose to you by 10, lose another by 4 points, and then I win a game by four. I then play that weak team in Round 5. By then, they're already destined for the relegation final, they barely raise a gallop, and I beat them by 15. Now I've ended up on four points the table and a score difference of +4.
Under your way of doing things, I'd go through, and you'd be out, despite the fact you'd beaten me by 10 points. Main reason I'd be through would simply have been down to the order the fixtures came in. You had to play that weak team in Round 1 before they knew they'd go so badly. I got to play them in Round 5 when they were already in Relegation and so they had no reason to even make an effort.
How would you feel then?"]But there is no round 5.
There's 3 rounds where every round a team will have something to play for even if you've lost your 1st 2 games. In theory anyway.
Scoring difference means teams should keep going and even when losing keep trying to get scores etc, encourages attacking and keeps teams going imho.
In many situations head to head simply reduces seasons down to one game where we do tk ow what the circumstances were, dodgy ref decision, controversial score, injury crisis that week etc etc. I find it even more annoying say in inter County where teams regularly have mkre home gane than away, home advantage counts for a lot as we know.
I get the head to head rule, I just dont like it personally but in the scenario of the structure I posted I would only use it if available when scoring averages are rhe same and points fkr are rhe same .
tearintom (Wexford) - Posts: 1696 - 07/09/2026 07:38:35
2692954
Link
0
|
|
But there is no round 5.
There's 3 rounds where every round a team will have something to play for even if you've lost your 1st 2 games. In theory anyway.
Scoring difference means teams should keep going and even when losing keep trying to get scores etc, encourages attacking and keeps teams going imho.
In many situations head to head simply reduces seasons down to one game where we do tk ow what the circumstances were, dodgy ref decision, controversial score, injury crisis that week etc etc. I find it even more annoying say in inter County where teams regularly have mkre home gane than away, home advantage counts for a lot as we know.
I get the head to head rule, I just dont like it personally but in the scenario of the structure I posted I would only use it if available when scoring averages are rhe same and points fkr are rhe same .
tearintom (Wexford) - Posts: 1696 - 07/09/2026 08:49:54
2692963
Link
0
|
|
@tearintom - anyway, when all is said and done, seems your answer to the basic question I asked before we got all technical is that you'd use overall scores rather than head-to-head as the first deciding factor whenever there's a tie in the table. That's a perfectly reasonable proposal. I'd just suggest it might have difficulty in being accepted if people consider the sort of scenarios I've outlined.
But now to get technical again.
I note that in the last line of your last post, you refer to scoring averages rather than scoring difference. They're not the same thing. A team with a better score difference might have a worse score average. Example:
- Over three matches, you end up with total 60 points for, and 50 points against. Your score difference is +10 and your score average is 1.2
- I end up with 50 points for and 41 points against. My score average is +9 and my score average is 1.22
Under a "score difference" rule, you'd go through. Under a "score average" rule, I would.
Pikeman96 (Wexford) - Posts: 4003 - 07/09/2026 09:41:55
2692972
Link
0
|
|
Replying To Pikeman96: "@tearintom - anyway, when all is said and done, seems your answer to the basic question I asked before we got all technical is that you'd use overall scores rather than head-to-head as the first deciding factor whenever there's a tie in the table. That's a perfectly reasonable proposal. I'd just suggest it might have difficulty in being accepted if people consider the sort of scenarios I've outlined.
But now to get technical again.
I note that in the last line of your last post, you refer to scoring averages rather than scoring difference. They're not the same thing. A team with a better score difference might have a worse score average. Example:
- Over three matches, you end up with total 60 points for, and 50 points against. Your score difference is +10 and your score average is 1.2
- I end up with 50 points for and 41 points against. My score average is +9 and my score average is 1.22
Under a "score difference" rule, you'd go through. Under a "score average" rule, I would." Sorry yeah that was a typo, it would be score difference rather than average. Then if they are the same it would be who scored most points etc etc.
And im under no illusions that a proposal like i outlined would be unlikely to go through due to reasons both me and you have outlined previously. 3 games, all have pressure real pressure. 2 less games in total, 3 actually less than what we have with the current preliminary quarter final in hurling would lead to convulsions with the HAC.
But it could work, would give us 4 weeks to play with, we could even have a build up to couty finals, remember when that was a thing? And it keeps the 12 team divisions which seems to be a big thing.
tearintom (Wexford) - Posts: 1696 - 07/09/2026 10:37:20
2692984
Link
0
|
|
@tearintom - Thanks. I'm genuinely not out to "tear it apart", like you feared somebody might do when you first posted it! Was just pointing out a technical thing that would have to be considered, and in fairness, you've considered it all right and come up with an answer. It often happens that others don't have an answer when a technical point is raised about a new proposal.
But here's one for you. :)
You say you don't like the head to head rule because it "simply reduces seasons down to one game" that can be influenced by dodgy refereeing decisions, a controversial score, or one team suffering an injury crisis. And of course, the "crunch" match could indeed be influenced by those things.
But surely that would apply to every knockout match ever played too??????
Pikeman96 (Wexford) - Posts: 4003 - 07/09/2026 12:30:01
2693017
Link
0
|
|
Replying To Pikeman96: "@tearintom - Thanks. I'm genuinely not out to "tear it apart", like you feared somebody might do when you first posted it! Was just pointing out a technical thing that would have to be considered, and in fairness, you've considered it all right and come up with an answer. It often happens that others don't have an answer when a technical point is raised about a new proposal.
But here's one for you. :)
You say you don't like the head to head rule because it "simply reduces seasons down to one game" that can be influenced by dodgy refereeing decisions, a controversial score, or one team suffering an injury crisis. And of course, the "crunch" match could indeed be influenced by those things.
But surely that would apply to every knockout match ever played too??????" Thanks for not trying to tear it apart, i think .....lol
Yeah of course it does. For me i just see a lot of dead rubber games as a result of the head to head rule where teams know they can be caught points wise but have the other team on the head to head. If theyre bejng separated on scoring difference then suddenly it isnt a ead rubber depending obviously on the circumstances with the score
As I said ive always disliked the head to head rule, I know its a staple gaa rule but in scenarios where league tables are used ive never liked it.
tearintom (Wexford) - Posts: 1696 - 07/09/2026 14:13:46
2693045
Link
0
|
|
Replying To tearintom: " Replying To Pikeman96: "@tearintom - Thanks. I'm genuinely not out to "tear it apart", like you feared somebody might do when you first posted it! Was just pointing out a technical thing that would have to be considered, and in fairness, you've considered it all right and come up with an answer. It often happens that others don't have an answer when a technical point is raised about a new proposal.
But here's one for you. :)
You say you don't like the head to head rule because it "simply reduces seasons down to one game" that can be influenced by dodgy refereeing decisions, a controversial score, or one team suffering an injury crisis. And of course, the "crunch" match could indeed be influenced by those things.
But surely that would apply to every knockout match ever played too??????" Thanks for not trying to tear it apart, i think .....lol Yeah of course it does. For me i just see a lot of dead rubber games as a result of the head to head rule where teams know they can be caught points wise but have the other team on the head to head. If theyre bejng separated on scoring difference then suddenly it isnt a ead rubber depending obviously on the circumstances with the score As I said ive always disliked the head to head rule, I know its a staple gaa rule but in scenarios where league tables are used ive never liked it."
I do think the fact a team wins the game between 2 tied teams should count for something, but making that count by way of additional points in scoring difference would remove the completely dead rubber scenario we sometimes get as you are highlighting.
Viking66 (Wexford) - Posts: 20656 - 07/09/2026 15:22:37
2693058
Link
0
|
|
@tearintom - again, it's a valid point, that a team may not care about overall score difference if they know they already have the head-to-head advantage over their most likely rival anyway.
But it's a point that would have been considered at Congress when the rule was being changed about ten years ago to switch from overall score difference to the head-to-head result in the case of two-way ties. And that change was approved almost unanimously.
Pikeman96 (Wexford) - Posts: 4003 - 07/09/2026 16:37:30
2693071
Link
0
|
|
@Viking66 - meant to post this yesterday, but yours is an interesting idea. If it ever were to be proposed, I'd suggest linking the "bonus" points for having won the head-to-head match to the margin of victory in that match - e.g. if you'd won it by two points, you'd get two bonus points. If you'd won it by eight points, you'd get eight bonus points.
Would be a bit like the old "away goals count double" rule in soccer.
Possible criticism would be if the head-to-head match was very one-sided (say 15 points) and one argued that the "bonus" 15 points would make it too difficult to make up the deficit, but as you said, the head-to-head result should count for something, so it follows that a large victory there should probably count for more than a narrow one.
Pikeman96 (Wexford) - Posts: 4003 - 08/09/2026 13:35:24
2693150
Link
0
|