New starting times

[Dutchy]

Times suit me.

You obviously don't have a son that finishes playing at 11.30 (if the games are on time), and a daughter that finishes dancing at 12.00 on Sat. mornings, looks like I won't be seeing too much of the magoos this year.

Nah you right he has a daughter that finshes footy at 12.00 and a son that finishes dancing at 11.30...

[BPBRB]

the reserves should start 10 minutes earlier then they do. i beleive that almost every glenelg reserves game (so i presume it happened) everywhere else was cut short by at least 5 minutes. there are three times which i can think of this having a bearing on the result with the team that was trailling finishing off much stronger and just missing out on a win due to the short qtrs. its surely not that difficult for the sanfl to adjust the start times accordingly

Talk about "desperate" (clutching at straws won't change it!). The answer is to make sure your team plays more than 1 good quarter and is in front earlier in the game (or earlier in the last quarter) and can't be beaten. Maybe the Bays ressies coaches should tell the players the game starts at 11.45 a.m. not the 15 minute mark of the last quarter.

Which 3 games were the bays ressies "robbed" in then? I bet you mention the 2005 Ressies GF?

[MAY-Z]

the reserves should start 10 minutes earlier then they do. i beleive that almost every glenelg reserves game (so i presume it happened) everywhere else was cut short by at least 5 minutes. there are three times which i can think of this having a bearing on the result with the team that was trailling finishing off much stronger and just missing out on a win due to the short qtrs. its surely not that difficult for the sanfl to adjust the start times accordingly

Talk about "desperate" (clutching at straws won't change it!). The answer is to make sure your team plays more than 1 good quarter and is in front earlier in the game (or earlier in the last quarter) and can't be beaten. Maybe the Bays ressies coaches should tell the players the game starts at 11.45 a.m. not the 15 minute mark of the last quarter.

Which 3 games were the bays ressies "robbed" in then? I bet you mention the 2005 Ressies GF?

im not saying we should have had 3 more wins- in fact i think it would have been an extra win but 2 extra losses

we would have won th efirst game between glg & na at the bay, lost the glg vs na at prospect (where we didnt score in the 2nd half) and would have been a chance of losing the last game of the minor round vs south.

so what do you have against playing a full game of football- starting 10 mins earlier wont hurt anyone, if the game is suppossed to be x minutes long play the full x not x less a bit because noone can be bothered changing start times

[BPBRB]

the reserves should start 10 minutes earlier then they do. i beleive that almost every glenelg reserves game (so i presume it happened) everywhere else was cut short by at least 5 minutes. there are three times which i can think of this having a bearing on the result with the team that was trailling finishing off much stronger and just missing out on a win due to the short qtrs. its surely not that difficult for the sanfl to adjust the start times accordingly

Talk about "desperate" (clutching at straws won't change it!). The answer is to make sure your team plays more than 1 good quarter and is in front earlier in the game (or earlier in the last quarter) and can't be beaten. Maybe the Bays ressies coaches should tell the players the game starts at 11.45 a.m. not the 15 minute mark of the last quarter.

Which 3 games were the bays ressies "robbed" in then? I bet you mention the 2005 Ressies GF?

im not saying we should have had 3 more wins- in fact i think it would have been an extra win but 2 extra losses

we would have won th efirst game between glg & na at the bay, lost the glg vs na at prospect (where we didnt score in the 2nd half) and would have been a chance of losing the last game of the minor round vs south.

so what do you have against playing a full game of football- starting 10 mins earlier wont hurt anyone, if the game is suppossed to be x minutes long play the full x not x less a bit because noone can be bothered changing start times

I'm not opposed to an earlier start but the fact is presently, if the ressies are shortened by 5 or so minutes in an overall game of say around 115-120 minutes, does that really matter to the overall result? There's still all that other time (the other 110-115 minutes) to ensure you set yourself for a win.

It's a bit like losing in the league where the full time allotmenty has been played, your hear lines like the following from the losing supporters "If we only had another minute we would have won". The facts are you don't get that minute so if you apply that rationale to the other end of the spectrum e.g. if the siren goes and your team is 5 goals down do you then want another 10-15 minutes in case you over run the opposition? You have to be good enough overall on the day and if you are comfortably in front and controlling the game then whether the last quarter goes 15 minutes or 45 minutes it won't much matter.

[Rooster Chic]

the reserves should start 10 minutes earlier then they do. i beleive that almost every glenelg reserves game (so i presume it happened) everywhere else was cut short by at least 5 minutes. there are three times which i can think of this having a bearing on the result with the team that was trailling finishing off much stronger and just missing out on a win due to the short qtrs. its surely not that difficult for the sanfl to adjust the start times accordingly

Talk about "desperate" (clutching at straws won't change it!). The answer is to make sure your team plays more than 1 good quarter and is in front earlier in the game (or earlier in the last quarter) and can't be beaten. Maybe the Bays ressies coaches should tell the players the game starts at 11.45 a.m. not the 15 minute mark of the last quarter.

Which 3 games were the bays ressies "robbed" in then? I bet you mention the 2005 Ressies GF?

im not saying we should have had 3 more wins- in fact i think it would have been an extra win but 2 extra losses

we would have won th efirst game between glg & na at the bay, lost the glg vs na at prospect (where we didnt score in the 2nd half) and would have been a chance of losing the last game of the minor round vs south.

so what do you have against playing a full game of football- starting 10 mins earlier wont hurt anyone, if the game is suppossed to be x minutes long play the full x not x less a bit because noone can be bothered changing start times

I'm not opposed to an earlier start but the fact is presently, if the ressies are shortened by 5 or so minutes in an overall game of say around 115-120 minutes, does that really matter to the overall result? There's still all that other time (the other 110-115 minutes) to ensure you set yourself for a win.

It's a bit like losing in the league where the full time allotmenty has been played, your hear lines like the following from the losing supporters "If we only had another minute we would have won". The facts are you don't get that minute so if you apply that rationale to the other end of the spectrum e.g. if the siren goes and your team is 5 goals down do you then want another 10-15 minutes in case you over run the opposition? You have to be good enough overall on the day and if you are comfortably in front and controlling the game then whether the last quarter goes 15 minutes or 45 minutes it won't much matter.

couldnt have said it any better myself. well done.

[Squawk]

An earlier start time may actually affect ABC ratings because I think a lot of people would switch from Channel AFL at 4.30pm. If the ABC still finish at 6pm there may be more talk time from 5.50-6.00pm for example and in addition the delayed telecast will be further advanced by 4.30pm with the earlier ABC start time.

A 2.15 start time for the ABC also suggests a 15 minute game preview which would seem to be longer than before.

[MAY-Z]

the reserves should start 10 minutes earlier then they do. i beleive that almost every glenelg reserves game (so i presume it happened) everywhere else was cut short by at least 5 minutes. there are three times which i can think of this having a bearing on the result with the team that was trailling finishing off much stronger and just missing out on a win due to the short qtrs. its surely not that difficult for the sanfl to adjust the start times accordingly

Talk about "desperate" (clutching at straws won't change it!). The answer is to make sure your team plays more than 1 good quarter and is in front earlier in the game (or earlier in the last quarter) and can't be beaten. Maybe the Bays ressies coaches should tell the players the game starts at 11.45 a.m. not the 15 minute mark of the last quarter.

Which 3 games were the bays ressies "robbed" in then? I bet you mention the 2005 Ressies GF?

im not saying we should have had 3 more wins- in fact i think it would have been an extra win but 2 extra losses

we would have won th efirst game between glg & na at the bay, lost the glg vs na at prospect (where we didnt score in the 2nd half) and would have been a chance of losing the last game of the minor round vs south.

so what do you have against playing a full game of football- starting 10 mins earlier wont hurt anyone, if the game is suppossed to be x minutes long play the full x not x less a bit because noone can be bothered changing start times

I'm not opposed to an earlier start but the fact is presently, if the ressies are shortened by 5 or so minutes in an overall game of say around 115-120 minutes, does that really matter to the overall result? There's still all that other time (the other 110-115 minutes) to ensure you set yourself for a win.

It's a bit like losing in the league where the full time allotmenty has been played, your hear lines like the following from the losing supporters "If we only had another minute we would have won". The facts are you don't get that minute so if you apply that rationale to the other end of the spectrum e.g. if the siren goes and your team is 5 goals down do you then want another 10-15 minutes in case you over run the opposition? You have to be good enough overall on the day and if you are comfortably in front and controlling the game then whether the last quarter goes 15 minutes or 45 minutes it won't much matter.

losing a shortened game is nothing like losing when the full allotment of time has been played, i am sure everyone has seen games where the lead has changed in the last 5 minutes of actual time but unfortunatley due to the sanfls lack of commonsense this cant happen fairly in the reserves with the present start times.

[BPBRB]

You don't get it do you May-z'y???

[MAY-Z]

You don't get it do you May-z'y???

dont get what, youre saying that you are happy for results to be created whenever the sanfl feel like.

[spell_check]

I still don't see why can't the Reserves matches start earlier. It just makes sense so no cheating, as I said would happen and the game can be played out in full.

[MAY-Z]

I still don't see why can't the Reserves matches start earlier. It just makes sense so no cheating, as I said would happen and the game can be played out in full.

hooray my thoughts exactly- noone wants to see the option of unsportmenlike behaviour become influential in matches, starting earlier eliminates the possibility of such behaviour impacting on matches

[Ecky]

Totally agree with you, Spelly and May-Z

[BPBRB]

You don't get it do you May-z'y???

dont get what, youre saying that you are happy for results to be created whenever the sanfl feel like.

Who is creating results??? The team in front when the siren sounds at the end of the 4th quarter wins the game regardless of how long the quarter goes. Both clubs supply a timekeeper so it's not as if the winning team's timkeeper blows the final siren early because his team is in front! The timekeepers know the SANFL rule about having to finish the Ressies at a certain time to ensure the League starts on time AND so do the competing teams. As I said put the game beyond doubt earlier in the quarter and no problems what time they finish.

Still an earlier start say at 11.30 will surely fix this problem.

[Wedgie]

I disagree with you BPBRB, using your philosophy a game might as well as only be 10 seconds long as the better side would have had a good 10 seconds to set up their game. All games should be played over their full entirity and I think well agree its not that hard, just start the bloody games earlier.

[Wedgie]

An earlier start time may actually affect ABC ratings because I think a lot of people would switch from Channel AFL at 4.30pm. If the ABC still finish at 6pm there may be more talk time from 5.50-6.00pm for example and in addition the delayed telecast will be further advanced by 4.30pm with the earlier ABC start time.

A 2.15 start time for the ABC also suggests a 15 minute game preview which would seem to be longer than before.

Dude, the ABC has finished coverage at 5pm for years, hence why they needed the game moved earlier.
They don't show the first half live and start coverage at 2.30pm.
How would an earlier time impact on their ratings as they'll continue to start coverage at 2.30 with a delayed first half like they have for years?
Are you thinking of the finals or have I missed something?

[BPBRB]

An earlier start time may actually affect ABC ratings because I think a lot of people would switch from Channel AFL at 4.30pm. If the ABC still finish at 6pm there may be more talk time from 5.50-6.00pm for example and in addition the delayed telecast will be further advanced by 4.30pm with the earlier ABC start time.

A 2.15 start time for the ABC also suggests a 15 minute game preview which would seem to be longer than before.

Dude, the ABC has finished coverage at 5pm for years, hence why they needed the game moved earlier.
They don't show the first half live and start coverage at 2.30pm.
How would an earlier time impact on their ratings as they'll continue to start coverage at 2.30 with a delayed first half like they have for years?
Are you thinking of the finals or have I missed something?

But they catch up with a short break at halftime and go live for the 2nd but still some games still just finsh on 5.00 p.m despite a 2.15 p.m. start last year to counter the late finishes.

P.S. 10 second games - c'mon that would lessen the drinking options!

[PhilH]

Wedgie is right

This is why the ABC game want their game to start at 2.15pm,

Survey figures show a very strong increase in ABC audience after 4.30pm

So both parties want to see the final quarter (Shown Live) being played AFTER the AFL is finished.
BUT
Not so late as to go over 5.00pm national network cut off

Its a fine balance BUT 2.15pm seems to be the agreed time between SANFL & ABC that meets those two wishes.

[cd]

Correct me if i'm wrong but i think we are starting at 2pm for all games. Thus the TV game will be half an hour behind at the start of the telecast if staying with 2:30 to 5pm timeslot.

By no discussion at quarter time, half time and 3 quarter time would be a live last quarter rather than a live second half.

Or will the whole telecast be delayed?

Just my ramblings - personal post
Col D

[MightyEagles]

The starting times for the underage has also changed.
17s - 11.15
19s - 2.00

17s also starting a week early.

[tigers34738586]

stop stuffing around with S.A.N.F.L. tradition, and keep the game times the same