SA Footy

Does any one have the official ground sizes?

The Crows will be training at Woodville on Anzac day as it is very close to Subiaco in size and shape.
I believe Woodville is 205 long by 120 wide with playing area of 185 by 110.

I would think Elizabeth wider but may be a little shorter?

Noarlunga I think was to be the same as footy park.

Can any one list the size of the ovals plus the playing size? Spelly????

(At Thebby currently the boundary seems further from the fence than i remember it - so Thebby's figures might be out)

cd wrote:Does any one have the official ground sizes?

The Crows will be training at Woodville on Anzac day as it is very close to Subiaco in size and shape.
I believe Woodville is 205 long by 120 wide with playing area of 185 by 110.

I would think Elizabeth wider but may be a little shorter?

Noarlunga I think was to be the same as footy park.

Can any one list the size of the ovals plus the playing size? Spelly????

(At Thebby currently the boundary seems further from the fence than i remember it - so Thebby's figures might be out)

I could give dimensions that have been published, but I don't think they are correct.

What is really needed is not a trundle wheel, but a surveyor.

Spelly is your info the official version or from somewhere else?
I can say from our plans at Oval Ave my figures are accurate assuming the plans are accurate!

According to the 1991 and 1980 Football Times year books:

Football Park 165 x 133
Elizabeth 178 x 136
Glenelg 157 x 119
Prospect 175 x 117
Norwood 161 x 111
Alberton 168 x 128
Adelaide 165 x 117
Unley 165 x 117
Richmond 168 x 128
Thebarton 167 x 133
Woodville 175 x 116

Subiaco 188 x 134
MCG 173 x 149

It would be what Tassie has just posted. I doubt that Unley is longer than Norwood and Glenelg.

spell_check wrote:It would be what Tassie has just posted. I doubt that Unley is longer than Norwood and Glenelg.

Didn't you just contradict yourself there Spelly? You say it would be what Tassie has posted then go on to say that you don't think Unley is longer than Glenelg or Norwood...which was what he posted.
Just looking at those figures, it is interesting to note that in "Football Times Land" (obviously exists on a different plane to our own world) Unley oval is the exact same dimensions as Adelaide Oval. My guess is that the guy who copied the figures was looking at the dimensions of Sturt's home ground, which was possibly still listed as Unley on the statistics sheet he was reading, and then filled out Adelaide Oval with the same figures as that was where Sturt played their home games around that period.

I was the dip sh!t guy Theri, I simply copied Sturt's home ground out of the 1991 book when they were playing at Adelaide. According to the 1980 book:

Unley Oval 161 x 116

Common sense tells me there must be a minumum and a maximum.
Does anyone know what htey are. Seems some really big differences on that list.

There's no min and max JC. Just whatever the ground designers at the time decided and how much land was available - which at Elizabeth Oval was a bloody lot!

I still have nightmares about doing fast laps there.

Thanks DW.

Does this mean that a club could techincally move the boundary lineto make a narrow oval if it suited them. Say if they played a through the middle game and was playing a club that had a couple of strong wingers?

Sorry to be dumb, was just wondering if this comes into a coaches strategy when planning a game play.

johntheclaret wrote:Thanks DW.

Does this mean that a club could techincally move the boundary lineto make a narrow oval if it suited them. Say if they played a through the middle game and was playing a club that had a couple of strong wingers?

Sorry to be dumb, was just wondering if this comes into a coaches strategy when planning a game play.

i dont think so as i cant really remember the boundary lines changing at any of the grounds...will stand corrected tho...only guessing

I vaguely remember them changing the dimensions of footy park by bringing in the boundary lines at each end of the ground. This was to give the goal umpires more space and keep the yobbos like me further away.

johntheclaret wrote:Common sense tells me there must be a minumum and a maximum.
Does anyone know what htey are. Seems some really big differences on that list.

Dogwatcher wrote:There's no min and max JC. Just whatever the ground designers at the time decided and how much land was available - which at Elizabeth Oval was a bloody lot!

I still have nightmares about doing fast laps there.

Length must be between 135 and 185 metres.
Width must be between 110 and 155 metres.



At a pinch, this is the most up to date reference I could find-
http://www.wafootball.com.au/resources/umpiring/afl-laws-2006/download.html



It's pretty easy to check ground sizes using the measurement function in Google Earth.

StrayDog wrote:

Dogwatcher wrote:There's no min and max JC. Just whatever the ground designers at the time decided and how much land was available - which at Elizabeth Oval was a bloody lot!

I still have nightmares about doing fast laps there.

Length must be between 135 and 185 metres.
Width must be between 110 and 155 metres.

Well there you go, I stand corrected.

I just assumed that because of the varying sizes of grounds, there was no standard size.

Add about one meter to Norwood oval in length..I worked with a surveyor and was asked to
square off the Parade end goal posts...which for all these years without anyone knowing
were not square to the other end. They were slightly facing the north east and once we
aligned them and marked out where they should be placed, found out there was about an extra meter gained in length. This was done during the summer of 2005.

I make the playing surface at 'lizbeff to be 178 x 130 - almost legal to play on widthways.

I reckon Norwood Oval width is 118 metres fence to fence. Given that its playing surface is 111 metres width (seems pretty well right) it leaves only 3.5 metres (average) between the boundary and the fence/wall on the wings. Goal to goal, I reckon its closer to 168 metres than 161.

Unley is a bit harder to work out due to its nature but appears to be 168 x 120. Very interesting shape, noticably "flatter" at the southern end, kind of egg shaped.

Tassie's Footy Times playing surface measurements for Footy Park, Prossie, Glenelg and Albertoon look pretty close.

Woodville appears to be 178 x 113.

therisingblues wrote:

spell_check wrote:It would be what Tassie has just posted. I doubt that Unley is longer than Norwood and Glenelg.

Didn't you just contradict yourself there Spelly? You say it would be what Tassie has posted then go on to say that you don't think Unley is longer than Glenelg or Norwood...which was what he posted.
Just looking at those figures, it is interesting to note that in "Football Times Land" (obviously exists on a different plane to our own world) Unley oval is the exact same dimensions as Adelaide Oval. My guess is that the guy who copied the figures was looking at the dimensions of Sturt's home ground, which was possibly still listed as Unley on the statistics sheet he was reading, and then filled out Adelaide Oval with the same figures as that was where Sturt played their home games around that period.

No, the only figures I have would what Tassie had posted. I said I don't think they are accurate.

Who's got a long tape measure and a couple of days to spare?

I always remember reading somewhere that Glenelg Oval was the shortest oval at 143m which somewhat surprised me, hence it stuck in my mind.
I've been looking around for where I may have read that, I always thought it was in my " League football In S.A. " book by Ern Kolosche, but can't find it in there. Has evey other stat etc though...a great little book.

lesthemechanic wrote:I always remember reading somewhere that Glenelg Oval was the shortest oval at 143m which somewhat surprised me, hence it stuck in my mind.

I'm amazed no league side's ever kicked 50 goals there yet

lesthemechanic wrote:I've been looking around for where I may have read that, I always thought it was in my " League football In S.A. " book by Ern Kolosche, but can't find it in there. Has evey other stat etc though...a great little book.

Agreed. Mr Kolosche's statistical work could never be over praised.