Experimental rules in any sport will always be a media dream filling column inches effortlessly with arguments, opinions and debate and the new rules for this year’s AFL are no different.

Since the warm up competitions started in early January nearly every football manager has been giving their views on the rule changes and the viability of using the second most important GAA competition to experiment, with differing conclusions throughout the provinces.

It is my opinion that if the GAA want to experiment with the rules it should not interfere with one of the flagship competitions. They should use the warmup leagues to have a look at improving the games and then with the consensus of a select panel of experts, together the current managers, have the option to continue into the national leagues if they feel it is worth pursuing. I consciously decided that I wouldn't mention the experimental rules over the past couple of weeks, instead waiting until the conclusion of the first two league matches before adding to the debate.

Firstly I feel any rule change that can not be consistently implemented should not be persisted with. I feel this is the case with the change to the hand pass where players now have to strike the ball with a closed fist. We have seen continuous replays over the last number of years of players scoring points with their open hand where the rule states it most be with a closed fist. If this cannot be properly regulated in one off situations like that, how can anyone be confident that it can be consistently implemented throughout a game. I have to admit the exaggerated striking action visually tidies up this skill but I strongly believe it is near impossible for referees to get this adjudication correct on all occasions. In the recent televised Cork/Kerry game 16 times the match was stopped much to the frustration of players, management and supporters, which in my opinion, with the benefit of rewind on sky plus, incorrectly on so many occasions.

In a game like Gaelic football with one official trying to cover a pitch 140 metres long by 90 metres wide, how can we expect them to get this decision consistently correct when the game moves at times from end to end in seconds, in addition to players having their back to the official at times when striking the ball. In a recent game where a player that I was talking to questioned the referee, when he awarded a free to the opposing team, where clearly he could not see if the player struck the ball with an open hand or his fist as his back was to him, responded by saying that he awarded it as he felt that the player could not have fisted it, as it was dispatched too fast. When we have a situation where referees start second guessing what players are doing it’s a clear indication that this rule change should not be pursued. It is my understanding that the GAA hierarchy are very much in favour of this change on a permanent basis but I hope common sense prevails when voted on at Congress.

The only people that are opposed to the new closer to goal position of a penalty are goal- keepers. It would appear that most people involved in the game favour this change. It will be interesting at the end of the national leagues to see the statistic’s on the conversion of penalties at the new position of 11 metres from goal compared to the old position of 13 metres. In Sligo’s two league games to date both Antrim and Louth were awarded penalties, which both duly converted. I am in favour of this change as the advantage should always be with the team that has been awarded the penalty. I feel this statistic is now going to rise to a 85% to 90% conversion rate, from an old rate of circa 60%, which in turn will make defenders a lot more diligent and less reckless in the penalty area. Would the Kerry backs have pulled down Johnny Davey last summer when he was about to shoot and would they have won the all Ireland if the penalty was to be taken 11 metres out, we will never know, but there is now opportunity to tidy this imbalance.

Over the years playing, managing and spectating I always felt a player that climbed above all others to spectacularly field a ball from a kick out, at times was not rewarded for this skill, often either falling to the ground or crowded out when landing, by players that had no interest in contesting the ball, therefore gaining no advantage and regularly being penalised for not getting rid of it in time. However, having observed this experimental mark I would certainly not be happy with the current format, which leaves it to the authority of the referee to award the mark or not. Nor would I be in favour of the restricted nature of a mark only being rewarded between the two 45's as this only complicates the matter further.

Even though I feel we should not tamper too much with the rules I would like to see how the mark would work by leaving it to the discretion of the fielding player, to either play on or mark the ball, where his own intuition will decide where the best advantage is. If he decides to mark it, there needs to be a time restriction of say 5 seconds to restart the game with either a fist or foot pass, to prevent it becoming a time wasting exercise and to keep the game moving. You will find in most cases the players will opt to play on, as they may not want to allow their opponents the time to use the modern tactic of getting more players behind the ball but at the same time take the mark if they feel they have no advantage.

The only other significant experiment states the referee can no longer blow the half or full time whistle whilst the ball is in play. This generally has been well received by all concerned as over the years we have seen many high profile games blown up when a team had an obvious scoring opportunity, which was not allowed to develop, at the referee's sole discretion.

However, it would be very important in order to avoid controversy particularly in a tight match, that the referee makes players aware that the time is up as we have seen players on the team that is winning making the decision to play the ball outside the perimeter of the playing field obviously hoping the referee is going to blow the final whistle.

All in all, even though I don't think there is much wrong with the current rules (except I would love to see a moving ball allowed to be lifted from the ground without putting a foot under it), anything that helps to make the game better has to be considered. So Yes to the penalty change, Yes to half/final time rule change, No to fist pass and No to the mark under the current format.