Imagine this. One team wins three, draws three and picks up nine points from ten games in a league campaign. Another team, in the same division, could win once, draw once and pick up three points.
The team that has nine points is relegated. The team that has three stays up.
Except there is no need to imagine it. It’s happening in Laois this year. The Mountmellick footballers will be relegated to ACFL Division 3 for 2025; Park-Ratheniska could stay up with three points from a possible 20.
How this is possible is that for the last three seasons, Laois GAA have operated a new system where the club football leagues – in the top three divisions – reset after the first phase, after the eight teams have all played each other once, and split into a top and bottom four.
The points are completely reset and everyone goes back to zero in the new section.
This year Mountmellick finished on seven points in the first phase; Rosenallis finished on two; Park-Ratheniska lost six games and gave a walkover in the other. Along with Killeshin, who won two of their seven games, that four made up the bottom section of Division 2.
All four teams were back on zero points and Mountmellick, by managing just two draws from their three games, are now relegated.
Park-Ratheniska beat Mountmellick and a draw with Killeshin in the last game on Sunday will keep them up.
This isn’t criticism of Park-Ratheniska or Mountmellick. It’s the system, one that the clubs of the county supported when it was introduced ahead of the 2020 season (where no club league was played because of Covid).
But it is seriously flawed when a club can lose all seven games in that first phase and be treated the exact same way as a club that won three times and drew once. Indeed Park-Ratheniska even had two of three games at home in the second phase.
It’s always been possible that something like this could happen. This is the most glaring example of why it’s not right.
The additional phase is in an effort to provide players with a minimum number of games and limited dead rubbers – and that is fair enough.
But games can’t be just for the sake of it: the fairness of the competition – and the quality and meaning of those fixtures – must take precedence.
As it is, a club could essentially give seven walkovers (and we’ll get to that scourge later) in the first phase, and come out and get enough points to stay up.
So what to do about it? We’ll give a couple of solutions.
Option 1 – Semi-finals and relegation playoff
Instead of the second round-robin phase, which has a certain staleness to it anyway with so many repeated fixtures, a simple case of allowing the top four teams in the semi-finals – with 1st at home to 4th and 2nd and home to 3rd – is fair and rewards the teams that finish higher up the table.
For relegation, perhaps the team that finishes last is automatically relegated, with the 6th team at home to the 7th in a relegation playoff.
In order to balance the number of home games a club has, introduce one round that is played at neutral venues. In that instance all clubs would play three home games, three away and one neutral.
Option 2 – Second-chance in second phase for higher finishers
Continue with the first phase league games as is currently used and still split into a top and bottom four.
But instead of the current random nature of fixtures, reward the teams that finish higher up the table initially – and punish those who are lower down.
So at the top of the table, 1st are at home to 2nd and 3rd are at home to 4th. The 3rd v 4th is straight knockout, essentially a quarter-final, where the loser is out. The winner of 1st v 2nd advances to the league final, while the loser reverts to a semi-final against the winner of the other game.
The same could be applied at the bottom of the table. 5th at home to 6th – winner is safe from relegation. 7th at home to 8th – loser is relegated. Loser of 5th v 6th plays the winner of the 7th v 8th where the winner stays up and the loser is relegated.
Of course it would still be possible for someone to do well in the first phase and still be relegated – but at least there would be obvious rewards – and punishments for your finishing position after seven rounds of games.
Option 3 – reward finishing position with more home games
Again, continue the league format as it is, even with the second phase of games. But your finishing position in the first phase determines where you play your games.
So if you finish 1st (or 5th), you have three home games and none away in the second phase. Finish 2nd (or 6th) and you have two at home and one away. Finish 3rd (or 7th) and you’ve one home and two away. And finish 4th (or 8th) and you’re away for all three games.
This option would also need a split of three home, three away and one neutral in the first phase – but that shouldn’t be insurmountable.
Walkover culture needs proper punishment
There have always been walkovers – but it does seem that the phenomenon in Laois is now more widespread than it has been in a long, long time.
There have been some attempts to tackle the issue – with teams no longer able to give a tactical walkover knowing that points difference then can’t be used against them. That has opened up a whole other can of worms.
After the same club twice won a lower-grade junior football championship despite pulling out a higher-graded team, Laois GAA added a rule that prevented that happening in knockout competitions – though it can still be manipulated in a group format.
But, overall, are Laois as a county doing enough to punish clubs that concede games?
Already this weekend, Portarlington’s relegation from ACFL Division 1 has been confirmed because Graiguecullen, who were already safe, gave Stradbally a walkover. Portarlington needed Graiguecullen to win that game for Port to have a chance.
At the winners end of Division 1, Portlaoise opted to give St Joseph’s a walkover in their first game and then received a walkover from a Courtwood side already qualified for the final in the last one.
None of that is acceptable in the highest level of club league football in the county and as well as finding out why clubs would rather not play those games, Laois GAA need to be far more severe to clubs that concede games, regardless of the level.
It’s simply not fair on the opposition either, nor to many of their own players who are being denied a game.
Again, what to do about it? We’ve a handful of suggestions – some or all of which would make a difference.
1 – Increase the fine for giving a walkover from €100 to €500
2 – One strike and out. Instead of only removing clubs from competitions, throw them out if they give any walkover
3 – Punish other teams in the club #1. So if a club’s second team give a walkover, it should also result in a points deduction for the first team. Likewise, if a first team gives a walkover, each subsequent team should lose points.
4 – Punish other teams in a club #2. If a team concedes a game on a weekend, and have another team, particularly a lower grade, playing that same weekend, that team should have to forfeit their game as well. Too often clubs are happy to ‘mind’ their second team. The rules should duly punish that.
Laois GAA – and the clubs – will have a chance to tackle the above issues. If they don’t they can expect the same issues to crop up again and again.
SEE ALSO – LaoisToday: Alan Hartnett appointed as new Content Manager
