Live Scores - Finals Week 1

All discussions to do with the SANFL

Re: Live Scores - Finals Week 1

Postby Trent Plucktrum » Mon Sep 03, 2018 5:27 pm

southee wrote:
Wedgie wrote:
southee wrote:Questions might want to be asked more so over the North runner pushing Ben Haren in 2nd quarter.

Disgraceful!

At least that one happened! It'll be interesting to see if the SANFL find it was deliberate or accidental.


We will see ...

Either way won't change the result :D
My Team


The Cocks
User avatar
Trent Plucktrum
Under 16s
 
 
Posts: 328
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 5:05 pm
Has liked: 2 times
Been liked: 20 times

Re: Live Scores - Finals Week 1

Postby Fluffbag » Mon Sep 03, 2018 6:55 pm

mal wrote:What a game !
Some good skill levels for the first 3 quarters
SA made a few costly boo boos in the last quarter, NA made less , pressure of an elimination final an excuse

SA had an excellent season, if they aint raped by the AFL , can be a BIG flag hope next season

Thring, Spina, Barns , Smith did enough when needed
Hender amazes with what he can do on a football field

Loved the umpiring style
Less charity free kicks, ala AFL

Not sure how you can say South had an excellent season when we failed for the 54th year in a row, only Melbourne fans have waited as long as us. At least they made two grand finals since 1979.

Making top 5 when 2 out of 10 clubs aren’t really trying is hardly a great season.
Fluffbag
Under 16s
 
 
Posts: 250
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2014 6:24 pm
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 48 times
Grassroots Team: Modbury

Re: Live Scores - Finals Week 1

Postby southee » Mon Sep 03, 2018 7:10 pm

Trent Plucktrum wrote:
southee wrote:
Wedgie wrote:
southee wrote:Questions might want to be asked more so over the North runner pushing Ben Haren in 2nd quarter.

Disgraceful!

At least that one happened! It'll be interesting to see if the SANFL find it was deliberate or accidental.


We will see ...

Either way won't change the result :D


Who said it had anything to do with changing the result ?
Is out of change.....thanks Cambridge Clarrie!!!
User avatar
southee
Assistant Coach
 
 
Posts: 4927
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 2:00 am
Location: Somewhere in the jungle!!!
Has liked: 858 times
Been liked: 122 times

Re: Live Scores - Finals Week 1

Postby Brendan M » Mon Sep 03, 2018 10:11 pm

I was at the second game on Sunday and I felt a bit sorry for the umpires: they are the scapegoat for the AFL's mindless tinkering with our game. The 'new' holding the ball interpretation has overturned more than a century's principle that the player going for the ball is both protected and rewarded. To see a mob of players squealing at the umpires while laying on top of the fool who got to the ball first, and in most cases had no prior opportunity, is unedifying and wrong.

AFL Inc has changed this rule because coaches and the football industry have poisoned the game with presses, floods and scrums to win at all costs and to minimise the size of their losses. Yet it was the custodians of football that enabled this ugliness through a simple but profound rule change - introducing the interchange system. The intent was good, make sure there are 18 fit players on the ground. The outcome is bad - constant rotations to support 18 up and 18 back for a whole game.

While there is debate about introducing zones and enlarged goal squares, a sensible adjustment is to abolish the interchange. Have subs only and revert to a more sensible holding the ball rule. This will change the game for the better.

Whatever the AFL does about the rules, the last thing they should do is to listen too closely to those who invented and benefit from the existing system - the coaches, the administrators and bean counters who are too often concerned about their own interests -not the players, not the supporters and certainly not the umpires, who are stuck in the middle of this unhappy mess.
Brendan M
Rookie
 
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 6:19 am
Has liked: 40 times
Been liked: 47 times

Re: Live Scores - Finals Week 1

Postby Aerie » Tue Sep 04, 2018 12:39 pm

CUTTERMAN wrote:
scott wrote:Heard this odd fact from the 2nd game this morning.

Sturt laid 101 tackles and received only 1 holding the ball free. Eagles laid 86 tackles and received 10.

Glad this backs up what I thought on the day. Three glaring high tackles that weren’t paid, two in our F50 that were deemed HTB, the last free and resulting goal to WWT pretty well summed up the umpiring for the whole game.


The two in your F50 were because the Sturt players ducked in to the tackle trying to win a free kick. HTB every day of the week.
User avatar
Aerie
Coach
 
 
Posts: 5585
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 1:05 am
Has liked: 147 times
Been liked: 503 times

Re: Live Scores - Finals Week 1

Postby CUTTERMAN » Tue Sep 04, 2018 12:43 pm

Aerie wrote:
CUTTERMAN wrote:
scott wrote:Heard this odd fact from the 2nd game this morning.

Sturt laid 101 tackles and received only 1 holding the ball free. Eagles laid 86 tackles and received 10.

Glad this backs up what I thought on the day. Three glaring high tackles that weren’t paid, two in our F50 that were deemed HTB, the last free and resulting goal to WWT pretty well summed up the umpiring for the whole game.


The two in your F50 were because the Sturt players ducked in to the tackle trying to win a free kick. HTB every day of the week.

What a load of crap. I’m sure the vast majority of neutrals watching would disagree with you.
'PAFC don't want any advantages in the SANFL. It would only take away from any achievements we earned.'
Keith Thomas ABC 891 Radio, 21/6/14.
CUTTERMAN
League - Top 5
 
 
Posts: 2954
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 10:50 pm
Has liked: 213 times
Been liked: 124 times

Re: Live Scores - Finals Week 1

Postby GMcG » Tue Sep 04, 2018 12:47 pm

Brendan M wrote:I was at the second game on Sunday and I felt a bit sorry for the umpires: they are the scapegoat for the AFL's mindless tinkering with our game. The 'new' holding the ball interpretation has overturned more than a century's principle that the player going for the ball is both protected and rewarded. To see a mob of players squealing at the umpires while laying on top of the fool who got to the ball first, and in most cases had no prior opportunity, is unedifying and wrong.

AFL Inc has changed this rule because coaches and the football industry have poisoned the game with presses, floods and scrums to win at all costs and to minimise the size of their losses. Yet it was the custodians of football that enabled this ugliness through a simple but profound rule change - introducing the interchange system. The intent was good, make sure there are 18 fit players on the ground. The outcome is bad - constant rotations to support 18 up and 18 back for a whole game.

While there is debate about introducing zones and enlarged goal squares, a sensible adjustment is to abolish the interchange. Have subs only and revert to a more sensible holding the ball rule. This will change the game for the better.

Whatever the AFL does about the rules, the last thing they should do is to listen too closely to those who invented and benefit from the existing system - the coaches, the administrators and bean counters who are too often concerned about their own interests -not the players, not the supporters and certainly not the umpires, who are stuck in the middle of this unhappy mess.

these reasons are why I rarely go anymore, the game has turned into a boring, scrambly, rugby-ish game of keepings-off.
GMcG
Under 16s
 
Posts: 256
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 2:58 pm
Has liked: 221 times
Been liked: 45 times

Re: Live Scores - Finals Week 1

Postby blueandwhite » Tue Sep 04, 2018 3:37 pm

Impartial view here.
Sturt are a 5 goal better side when Riley is fit and playing.
Mattner strangles the life out of the opposition, in a similar way to Norwood - when the opposition has a mark or free in their defensive 50 they will deliberately give away a 25 m penalty to give time to get 18 players in front of the ball. This works particularly well on smaller grounds like Norwood and Unley, where they can strangle the life out of the opposition, but the bigger grounds like Adelaide they find it difficult to cover the acerage quickly. Generally they score after a poor forward entry from the opposition, a turnover and a fast break to an open forward line. Usually 10-11 goals will win the game. Ugly but effective.
Tiocfaidh ár Lá
User avatar
blueandwhite
League - Best 21
 
 
Posts: 1626
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2005 6:00 pm
Location: Cloney Harp
Has liked: 25 times
Been liked: 218 times
Grassroots Team: Jamestown-Peterborough

Re: Live Scores - Finals Week 1

Postby Aerie » Tue Sep 04, 2018 6:30 pm

CUTTERMAN wrote:
Aerie wrote:
CUTTERMAN wrote:
scott wrote:Heard this odd fact from the 2nd game this morning.

Sturt laid 101 tackles and received only 1 holding the ball free. Eagles laid 86 tackles and received 10.

Glad this backs up what I thought on the day. Three glaring high tackles that weren’t paid, two in our F50 that were deemed HTB, the last free and resulting goal to WWT pretty well summed up the umpiring for the whole game.


The two in your F50 were because the Sturt players ducked in to the tackle trying to win a free kick. HTB every day of the week.

What a load of crap. I’m sure the vast majority of neutrals watching would disagree with you.


The ducking part or the if you duck it is play on, therefore holding the ball? Both times they definitely ducked.

McAdam was paid a mark in the last right in front of goal after he dropped it. He even played on and hand balled knowing he dropped it.

The worst decision of the day was the non-holding the ball when Poole was tackled running in to goal. That should have been a free kick to Sturt given they were hot on holding the ball all day.
User avatar
Aerie
Coach
 
 
Posts: 5585
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 1:05 am
Has liked: 147 times
Been liked: 503 times

Re: Live Scores - Finals Week 1

Postby gadj1976 » Tue Sep 04, 2018 7:55 pm

Brendan M wrote:I was at the second game on Sunday and I felt a bit sorry for the umpires: they are the scapegoat for the AFL's mindless tinkering with our game. The 'new' holding the ball interpretation has overturned more than a century's principle that the player going for the ball is both protected and rewarded. To see a mob of players squealing at the umpires while laying on top of the fool who got to the ball first, and in most cases had no prior opportunity, is unedifying and wrong.

AFL Inc has changed this rule because coaches and the football industry have poisoned the game with presses, floods and scrums to win at all costs and to minimise the size of their losses. Yet it was the custodians of football that enabled this ugliness through a simple but profound rule change - introducing the interchange system. The intent was good, make sure there are 18 fit players on the ground. The outcome is bad - constant rotations to support 18 up and 18 back for a whole game.

While there is debate about introducing zones and enlarged goal squares, a sensible adjustment is to abolish the interchange. Have subs only and revert to a more sensible holding the ball rule. This will change the game for the better.

Whatever the AFL does about the rules, the last thing they should do is to listen too closely to those who invented and benefit from the existing system - the coaches, the administrators and bean counters who are too often concerned about their own interests -not the players, not the supporters and certainly not the umpires, who are stuck in the middle of this unhappy mess.


Abolish the interchange completely? That will have a counter effect. It will make everyone more tired and AFL players admit that when they get tired, they surround the ball to stop the ball getting out. You'll also find, as a code, we produce more athletes rather than footballers (as I'd know them) which isn't the way I want the game to go.

If you mean abolish the interchange cap, then I'd agree with that.
User avatar
gadj1976
Coach
 
 
Posts: 9143
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2007 1:57 pm
Location: Sleeping on a park bench outside Princes Park
Has liked: 795 times
Been liked: 849 times

Re: Live Scores - Finals Week 1

Postby therisingblues » Tue Sep 04, 2018 8:18 pm

Aerie wrote:
CUTTERMAN wrote:
The ducking part or the if you duck it is play on, therefore holding the ball? Both times they definitely ducked.

McAdam was paid a mark in the last right in front of goal after he dropped it. He even played on and hand balled knowing he dropped it.

The worst decision of the day was the non-holding the ball when Poole was tackled running in to goal. That should have been a free kick to Sturt given they were hot on holding the ball all day.

A rare moment when I will disagree with you.
I thought watching live he marked it, then I cursed when he played on. I reckon he had enough of it on the replay also.
If you look at the top 50 AFL marks of all time you will see players with less of what McAdam had of it on there.
My explanation of the play on would be that at Unley against North he took a similar grab, and the ball bounced free when he landed, the umpire called play on that day. Probably his memory of that warned him that it would happen again.
I'm gonna sit back, crack the top off a Pale Ale, and watch the Double Blues prevail
1915, 1919, 1926, 1932, 1940, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1974, 1976, 2002, 2016, 2017
User avatar
therisingblues
Coach
 
 
Posts: 6190
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2005 12:50 am
Location: Fukuoka
Has liked: 369 times
Been liked: 514 times
Grassroots Team: Hope Valley

Re: Live Scores - Finals Week 1

Postby RB » Tue Sep 04, 2018 9:06 pm

gadj1976 wrote:
Brendan M wrote:I was at the second game on Sunday and I felt a bit sorry for the umpires: they are the scapegoat for the AFL's mindless tinkering with our game. The 'new' holding the ball interpretation has overturned more than a century's principle that the player going for the ball is both protected and rewarded. To see a mob of players squealing at the umpires while laying on top of the fool who got to the ball first, and in most cases had no prior opportunity, is unedifying and wrong.

AFL Inc has changed this rule because coaches and the football industry have poisoned the game with presses, floods and scrums to win at all costs and to minimise the size of their losses. Yet it was the custodians of football that enabled this ugliness through a simple but profound rule change - introducing the interchange system. The intent was good, make sure there are 18 fit players on the ground. The outcome is bad - constant rotations to support 18 up and 18 back for a whole game.

While there is debate about introducing zones and enlarged goal squares, a sensible adjustment is to abolish the interchange. Have subs only and revert to a more sensible holding the ball rule. This will change the game for the better.

Whatever the AFL does about the rules, the last thing they should do is to listen too closely to those who invented and benefit from the existing system - the coaches, the administrators and bean counters who are too often concerned about their own interests -not the players, not the supporters and certainly not the umpires, who are stuck in the middle of this unhappy mess.


Abolish the interchange completely? That will have a counter effect. It will make everyone more tired and AFL players admit that when they get tired, they surround the ball to stop the ball getting out. You'll also find, as a code, we produce more athletes rather than footballers (as I'd know them) which isn't the way I want the game to go.

If you mean abolish the interchange cap, then I'd agree with that.
We could go back to the early twentieth century when it was 36 men in a cage. No interchange, no 19th and 20th men, no substitutes.

Players won't know what to do when they've scored a goal!!
R.I.P. the SANFL 1877 - 2013
User avatar
RB
Coach
 
Posts: 5628
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 3:45 pm
Has liked: 759 times
Been liked: 1073 times

Re: Live Scores - Finals Week 1

Postby gadj1976 » Tue Sep 04, 2018 9:55 pm

RB wrote:
gadj1976 wrote:
Brendan M wrote:I was at the second game on Sunday and I felt a bit sorry for the umpires: they are the scapegoat for the AFL's mindless tinkering with our game. The 'new' holding the ball interpretation has overturned more than a century's principle that the player going for the ball is both protected and rewarded. To see a mob of players squealing at the umpires while laying on top of the fool who got to the ball first, and in most cases had no prior opportunity, is unedifying and wrong.

AFL Inc has changed this rule because coaches and the football industry have poisoned the game with presses, floods and scrums to win at all costs and to minimise the size of their losses. Yet it was the custodians of football that enabled this ugliness through a simple but profound rule change - introducing the interchange system. The intent was good, make sure there are 18 fit players on the ground. The outcome is bad - constant rotations to support 18 up and 18 back for a whole game.

While there is debate about introducing zones and enlarged goal squares, a sensible adjustment is to abolish the interchange. Have subs only and revert to a more sensible holding the ball rule. This will change the game for the better.

Whatever the AFL does about the rules, the last thing they should do is to listen too closely to those who invented and benefit from the existing system - the coaches, the administrators and bean counters who are too often concerned about their own interests -not the players, not the supporters and certainly not the umpires, who are stuck in the middle of this unhappy mess.


Abolish the interchange completely? That will have a counter effect. It will make everyone more tired and AFL players admit that when they get tired, they surround the ball to stop the ball getting out. You'll also find, as a code, we produce more athletes rather than footballers (as I'd know them) which isn't the way I want the game to go.

If you mean abolish the interchange cap, then I'd agree with that.
We could go back to the early twentieth century when it was 36 men in a cage. No interchange, no 19th and 20th men, no substitutes.

Players won't know what to do when they've scored a goal!!


Not sure what you mean RB - other than historically you are 100% accurate! ;-)
User avatar
gadj1976
Coach
 
 
Posts: 9143
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2007 1:57 pm
Location: Sleeping on a park bench outside Princes Park
Has liked: 795 times
Been liked: 849 times

Re: Live Scores - Finals Week 1

Postby RB » Tue Sep 04, 2018 10:26 pm

Prior to 1930, no substitutes were permitted at all. If one of your 18 was injured, you were down to 17.

There's a number of reasons why you couldn't do that now, but nevertheless one can imagine how different the game would be with no bench/subs.
R.I.P. the SANFL 1877 - 2013
User avatar
RB
Coach
 
Posts: 5628
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 3:45 pm
Has liked: 759 times
Been liked: 1073 times

Re: Live Scores - Finals Week 1

Postby VALE PARK » Wed Sep 05, 2018 2:39 pm

Might make for a better game.
VALE PARK
Under 18s
 
Posts: 660
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 8:32 am
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 59 times
Grassroots Team: Goodwood Saints

Re: Live Scores - Finals Week 1

Postby wild dog » Wed Sep 05, 2018 8:45 pm

gadj1976 wrote:
Brendan M wrote:
AFL Inc has changed this rule because coaches and the football industry have poisoned the game with presses, floods and scrums to win at all costs and to minimise the size of their losses. Yet it was the custodians of football that enabled this ugliness through a simple but profound rule change - introducing the interchange system. The intent was good, make sure there are 18 fit players on the ground. The outcome is bad - constant rotations to support 18 up and 18 back for a whole game.


Abolish the interchange completely? That will have a counter effect. It will make everyone more tired and AFL players admit that when they get tired, they surround the ball to stop the ball getting out. You'll also find, as a code, we produce more athletes rather than footballers (as I'd know them) which isn't the way I want the game to go.

If you mean abolish the interchange cap, then I'd agree with that.


The point being, if you abolish the interchange, we go back to a positional based game because of physical limitations. As there are not as many chasing the ball around to make and close space i.e. zones, there will not be as many players surrounding the ball. They have experimented with capping the rotations for this reason.

Substitute players when form, tactics or injury dictates; a novel idea.
User avatar
wild dog
Under 18s
 
 
Posts: 550
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 11:56 am
Has liked: 56 times
Been liked: 180 times
Grassroots Team: Smithfield

Re: Live Scores - Finals Week 1

Postby gadj1976 » Wed Sep 05, 2018 10:15 pm

wild dog wrote:
gadj1976 wrote:
Brendan M wrote:
AFL Inc has changed this rule because coaches and the football industry have poisoned the game with presses, floods and scrums to win at all costs and to minimise the size of their losses. Yet it was the custodians of football that enabled this ugliness through a simple but profound rule change - introducing the interchange system. The intent was good, make sure there are 18 fit players on the ground. The outcome is bad - constant rotations to support 18 up and 18 back for a whole game.


Abolish the interchange completely? That will have a counter effect. It will make everyone more tired and AFL players admit that when they get tired, they surround the ball to stop the ball getting out. You'll also find, as a code, we produce more athletes rather than footballers (as I'd know them) which isn't the way I want the game to go.

If you mean abolish the interchange cap, then I'd agree with that.


The point being, if you abolish the interchange, we go back to a positional based game because of physical limitations. As there are not as many chasing the ball around to make and close space i.e. zones, there will not be as many players surrounding the ball. They have experimented with capping the rotations for this reason.

Substitute players when form, tactics or injury dictates; a novel idea.


Are we getting more congestion this year rather than last? I think we are and I think its because of reduced interchange (at AFL level).

Also, regarding the suggestion above, I think you underestimate the coaches. They'll still push players to get to each contest. The types of players introduced to the game will be runners than skillful footballers. I know what I'd rather watch.

I work at a junior club and if the A grade has no rotations, we'll start teaching kids how to play like that from U11's!

I think the idea of no interchange would be a disastrous idea.
User avatar
gadj1976
Coach
 
 
Posts: 9143
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2007 1:57 pm
Location: Sleeping on a park bench outside Princes Park
Has liked: 795 times
Been liked: 849 times

Re: Live Scores - Finals Week 1

Postby wild dog » Wed Sep 05, 2018 10:38 pm

gadj1976 wrote:
wild dog wrote:
gadj1976 wrote:
Brendan M wrote:
....... The outcome is bad - constant rotations to support 18 up and 18 back for a whole game.

Abolish the interchange completely? That will have a counter effect. It will make everyone more tired and AFL players admit that when they get tired, they surround the ball to stop the ball getting out. You'll also find, as a code, we produce more athletes rather than footballers (as I'd know them) which isn't the way I want the game to go.

The point being, if you abolish the interchange, we go back to a positional based game because of physical limitations. As there are not as many chasing the ball around to make and close space i.e. zones, there will not be as many players surrounding the ball. They have experimented with capping the rotations for this reason.


Are we getting more congestion this year rather than last? I think we are and I think its because of reduced interchange (at AFL level).

Also, regarding the suggestion above, I think you underestimate the coaches. They'll still push players to get to each contest. The types of players introduced to the game will be runners than skillful footballers. I know what I'd rather watch.

I work at a junior club and if the A grade has no rotations, we'll start teaching kids how to play like that from U11's!

I think the idea of no interchange would be a disastrous idea.


An honest answer gadj - I don't know because I have stopped watching. I watch my son in the under 9's and the odd Centrals game - 3 this year. It is only what I have read regards the capping of rotations and the benefits that is supposed to provide.

Good luck with the junior coaching, looks like my turn next year.
User avatar
wild dog
Under 18s
 
 
Posts: 550
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 11:56 am
Has liked: 56 times
Been liked: 180 times
Grassroots Team: Smithfield

Re: Live Scores - Finals Week 1

Postby SABRE » Fri Sep 07, 2018 11:55 pm

Both clubs haven't won a crumpet for 54 years, yet the psychological highs
and lows right now couldn't be more different for supporters of each club.
For South Adelaide ....
westcoastpanther wrote:I hate football

And moments ago from 'Nasher' on the Melbourne Demons forum ....

F**k yes. How good is football?

Oh dear Lordy, sport at it's utterly cruel best. I feel for both of you.
:partyman:
Luv,
Sabre.
NFC 2021
User avatar
SABRE
Reserves
 
 
Posts: 911
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 8:54 pm
Location: Beyond Redemption
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 44 times

Re: Live Scores - Finals Week 1

Postby Dogs64 » Sat Sep 08, 2018 12:22 pm

Anyone know if the reserves finals are on the digital pass?
0
Dogs64
Under 16s
 
 
Posts: 385
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2018 9:11 am
Has liked: 309 times
Been liked: 177 times

PreviousNext

Board index   Football  SANFL

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests

Around the place

Competitions   SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums   Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |