PAOC rang up a dozen of their old scholars and brought them in for a game on zero points.
It was great to watch Bernie Vince, Jack Trengove, Luke Tapscott, Jack Viney, Sam Day, Ed Lower, Nick Lower, Aaron Francis, George Hewett, Cam Hewett, Riley Bonner and Cam Giles all run around together again.

Nice one lads.
We have one running at work. 8 members, $10 each per week.
2 punters up with $40 each (no bank). return $120 and you go again.
We've had a couple of good returns lately with one bloke putting the $40 on Adel United 3-1 in the GF at 17s, and another hitting a 10-leg multi that paid low 40s.
Had plenty return zero as well! haha
We've got one member who doesn't follow sport at all so just puts the $40 on x-lotto!

whats happening at PNU? bit shocking :shock: once party central the place to be, now the place to not be?
Didn't PNU put their hand up to take TTG's place in Div 7 after TTG thought with their ex AFL, ex SANFL and Ex Div 1 A grade players that Div 7 might have been a bit too hard for them and C3 was a much easier option...?

would the committee of TTG have decided that the valuable money their c-grade players pay to play should allow them to only play c-grade opposition players only and that their valuable time should not be dumped in some patch job division to keep flaking agrade clubs alive? :)

Possibly.

Or perhaps it's more like this?
TTG.JPG

morell wrote:tl;dr - commitment and consistency = wins.

Cause and effect.

Does consistency give you wins or does winning and the chance of a flag lead to more commitment?

I'd suggest it's a bit of both!

Good logical outcome. Well done by the league.

Our clubs position, as raised on Monday night, is that the grand finalists should go up and the bottom 3 go down. This was based on the idea that you reward a successful season over a poor season. The saafl promotion / relegation system is great with the grand final representing club success a the gf being more for the players. Now it's all on the line in one game. I welcome expansion but believe the decision rewards the wrong clubs. Absurd.

What? You don't think it's reasonable for each grade to turn over half the teams in it?

The comparisons to Turf Cricket aren't really valid.
In turf cricket they have a straight semi-final then GF set up.
Minor premiers often miss the GF on the basis of losing a toss and getting sent in on a wet deck in the semi final.

Footy is different, the minor premier needs to stuff up twice not to make the GF.

$1.10 before round one? you're nuts.
Even if they go undefeated by 10 goals they'd still only be $1.10 on GF day!

There's got to be another reason they aren't playing a higher div. It can't be money, because we're all capped the same.
Why play higher when you can get the same $$ at D7 as D1.. or perhaps they're getting more in the lower grades than they're worth in the higher grades .. money for jam.

This is it for mine.
At Div 2, 10 players might be splitting the $3,000 per week.

At Div 5, the SANFL player can take $2,000 of the 3k without anyone really questioning it.

When that fisherman spending 200k on his boat results in the guy in his tinny not being able to enjoy his weekend with the reels, then it would be apt. That's what everyone misses. Amateur football is a network. We're all interconnected. You cannot have some clubs paying huge money and not have it affect other clubs that can't.


Your right, the 200k a year fisherman doesn't stop the bloke in his tinny.

However, equally, inflating the price of a marlin doesn't stop you standing on the jetty and catching a squid or two.
To say D1 or country clubs inflating the price of the top end players prevents D7 mitchell park from enjoying their weekend is a load of trollop! You're never going to catch a marlin so don't stop those than can and want to catch one from doing so!

As for protecting the clubs from harming themselves, that's just modern society isn't it. Previously we allowed the stupid to remove themselves from the gene pool, now we put a fence around the pool and have a WHS form for everyone to fill out.

Yeah there was a bit of superficial damage on the deck we played on too. Put a bit of water into it on Wednesday and give it a good roll, she'll be right for Sat'dee!

Clubs submit suggestions for changes to the comp to the turf (ATCA board). The turf also come up with suggested changes they think will improve the comp.
Based on these two avenues for suggested changes, the turf then put a survey out to all clubs to vote and or provide comment on the proposed changes.
The turf review the results of the survey and change or otherwise the bylaws accordingly.

retired60 wrote:Anyone heard or able to confirm the rumour that Nathan VanBerlo might be 'Red' next year?

Part owner of their major sponsor and teaches at the school?
I'd suggest it's likely he'd play 6-8 games, then finals if they make it.

How do they calculate the percentages in the T20 comp? Is it different to the 2-day comp?

I presume they factor run rate in to it?

I cant work it out either Aerie? West Torrens thumped Southern in Round 3 and our % went down. The last round both Glenelg and WT won and both went down again. East Torrens were undefeated and lost to TTG, dropped over 1.2% to miss finals. Weird system!

It's simply net run rate lads!

Glenelg scored 617 runs from 79.2 overs --> run rate = 7.7773
Glenelg conceded 503 runs from 80 overs --> run rate = 6.2875

7.7773 - 6.2875 = 1.4898

I assume Walkerville got up over Goodwood last night?

Fair effort for Pembroke to knock off Pooraka just quietly!

Without knowing who the turf we'll pit against each other in the next round, I'd price the market along the following lines:

Grange $3.50
PAOC $4.80
Modbury $5.25
Walkerville $6.00
Fulham $10.00
Pembroke $10.00
ROCs $12.50
Marion $15.00

Yeah it's an interesting one.

The third umpire got it correct to the current laws. (By the way, well done to Nigel Long for sending it upstairs, most umpires would have given it a simple not out on field as it seemed obvious he was home).

The laws changed some time to say once you've made your ground, if you're running naturally, you're considered in your crease. This came about as a result of slow mo cameras showing both feet to be off the ground at the same time while simply running, which clearly isn't meant to be out when the laws of the game were written back in 18-dickety-2. Essentially the laws were "modernised" to keep up with technology and maintain the intent they were first written.

For mine, the interesting one is when a batsman dives to make his crease, and the bat "bounces". Often you now see the third umpire heavily scrutinizing footage to determine when the bounce either started or finished, and where this coincides with the bails being removed. For mine, that's not the intent of the law, and should be reconsidered.

I'd like to see the law along the lines of "once you've made your ground, you're considered in your crease unless you voluntarily* leave your crease" - the current caveat of "avoiding injury" should also remain.

* - this probably isn't the correct word, as a stumping where a player overbalances isn't voluntary, but should be out - but hopefully you get what I mean.

The above would have seen Wagner considered safe, and that's the intent I believe the law was originally written with.

Captaining Uni's B-grade I think.

Zartan wrote:Was that 2011/12? Can recall he hit 145no in a U21's game against CCCA that season haha!

Yeah seems about right.
Hit runs in the final too I think, made it a long day, spent roughly 150 overs in the middle over the 3 games.

Certainly not the only person with that thought.

The problem is the district clubs show a lot of resistance to reducing the number of teams, and as a result we are now diluting the competition further by introducing a 14th team!

I get that clubs don't want to merge or fold.

SACA should create a new comp, inviting 8 teams to it. The other 5 will then naturally fold, or join other competitions (namely ATCA) if they want to still exist as a club.

Do you think that there is not a single study that tries to control for these factors?

Yes, there have been.

After taking into account things like field chosen, hours worked, years off, etc, a male will earn roughly 3.9% more than an equivalent female in Australia.

http://www.msn.com/en-au/money/topstories/higher-proportion-of-gender-pay-gap-unexplained-in-australia-than-in-us-uk-research-shows/ar-BBqRcqD?ocid=spartanntp

The study looked at a sample of 4,044 salaries anonymously reported on the Glassdoor website by Australian employees.

Of that sample, 77 per cent were male and 23 per cent were female — which the research acknowledged was not necessarily representative of the overall labour market.

From that, Glassdoor estimated there to be a 17.3 per cent "unadjusted" gap in base pay between Australian men and women.

Although, when age, education and years of experience were considered, that gap shrunk to 12 per cent.

It narrowed further to an "adjusted" 3.9 per cent when a richer set of variables were examined, including the specific industry, occupation, state, year, firm size, company and job title.

In the UK the "adjusted" pay gap was 5.5 per cent, while the US figure was slightly lower at 5.4 per cent.


Is this fair? Nope, not really.
Do I think it's enough of an issue that it should be front line news? Probably not.
3.9% is quite small in reality.

It's a little long, but if you've got 15 minutes, I strongly suggest you watch the following:
TPihPrNseAo

While I think some of the video goes a little too far the other way, it certainly does get it's point across to show the other side of the coin.

If you don't have time, here are some stats:

Access to children - in the case of sole custody, 18% of the time it goes to a father, 82% to the mother.
Violence against men - while 1 in 3 women will be assaulted in their lifetime, the figure is 1 in 1 for males.
Medical research - Breast Cancer will affect 1 in 8 women, but 1 in 6 males will get prostate cancer, despite the higher rates for Prostate cancer, Breast Cancer is funded $2 to $1 when compared to Prostate.
92% of workplace deaths are males.
Women live 6 years longer than men.
The education system is biased towards women, with the majority of University Graduates female.
Suicide is far more prevalent in males than females, and is the leading cause of death for males under 45.

There are several areas of life where Men and Women are dealt a different hand.
A 3.9% difference isn't big enough for me to worry about.
For others, it is.

161% still!!!

C'mon Morell, frame a real market you muppet.

Amazing how much easier it is to bat at 7 when your 6 didn't expose you!

Nah, people should be allowed to spend their money on whatever they want.

If an asphalt mob are willing to give Pooraka $50k a season, and then the players put half their match payments back over the Pooraka bar, then good luck to them I say.

Crowds continue on track for Gill's 400k.

Richmond v Carlton - 73,137
Collingwood v Bulldogs - 66,254
St Kilda v Melbourne - 36,429
Sydney v Port - 33,129
Essendon v Hawthorn - 78,294
Gold Coast v Brisbane - 12,710
North v West Coast - 25k
Adelaide v GWS - 50k
Fremantle v Geelong - 40k

Projected Total - 414,953

The 6 down to 4 for a 'sling tackle' was the contentious one. Especially considering the player wasn't hurt and the SN player who copped one earlier in the game was KO'd

I keep seeing comments of this nature.

I might be missing the point, was there a third incident in the same game involving Callum? Or when people refer to his sling tackle, they are talking about when he rag-dolled the ROCs player during the melee?

Assuming the latter:

The ROC's sling tackle was during play.
Callum's sling tackle was not during play, to an opponent that didn't have the footy and followed a 100m dash to get there in the first place.

I don't think they are comparable and would expect the 2nd to get plenty more than the first.

Having now seen the initial sling tackle that started this all, I have even less sympathy for Callum.
SN players directly at the tackle didn't even react, it was simply an unfortunate footy incident that saw a player knocked out.
Callum took it upon himself to run half way across the oval, start a melee, sling an opponent to the ground then shove an umpire. No way we want this guy in our league.

As for the talk of destroying his football career, he's just been told he can't play in our league, he's free to play anywhere else, and that's where I suggest he belongs.

Trade, I suspect you and I are coming from a different philosophical position. If the position is a purely neoliberal user-pays system then your reasoning above is sound (and fair).

My view is that their is sufficient public benefit in having community sporting organisations operating in an area, particularly where Council need not assist in the administrative issues other than grounds/facilities. As such I'm of the view a community sporting organisation should be subsidised by the Council more than what would be a fair, commercial user-pays rate.

If the provision of Council services was based solely on a user-pays philosophy things like libraries and play-groups would for example be hard to justify. However, there is a public benefit in having libraries and as such we generally accept there is a need for them to be subsidised.

I'd suggest the 34 hours a week you get (ie: any time the sun is up and people aren't at School/Work) are worth at least 80% of the value. Therefore by paying only 25%, you are in fact getting a significant subsidy, which I agree you should get.

I don't however agree that you should get a 100% subsidy.
Looking at a library, if I want to borrow a book, I can, I might have to wait up to 2 weeks for the book to be returned, but essentially I can get it in a reasonable amount of time, and that applies to any and everyone.
If I want to book Payneham Oval at 2pm on a Saturday afternoon, it doesn't matter how long I am willing to wait, I can't do it.

You are essentially getting 80% of the value for every 25% you put in. Do you think you should be getting more than 3.2:1?

I certainly think sporting clubs should be supported by the council.
I don't think they should get exclusive use for no cost.

The above applies to all Council assets for mine, eg: the renting of Council function centres. They should be available to the public at a discounted rate, but shouldn't be free.

Our ground isn't exclusively ours during training nights. If a father/son who live across the road want to have a kick down in a pocket or roll an arm over in the nets, we have no right whatsoever to ask them to leave. Many leases enable you to do exactly that.
Morell out of interest, would MP be able to pay what Athelstone have to? Like I said, we wouldn't be able to, and if these rates force sporting clubs to shut down surely that's doing more harm to the council area than good?

I recon the difference with Athelstone is it was a full function centre, rather than say just a ground with some change rooms.

Also, are you sure about that 25th game for the club means zero points as of next season?

8.6.2 A registered player who achieves 25 Matches (without transferring) for the same Affiliated League Club will reduce one (1) additional point the following season after achieving 25 Matches..

This would seem to make much more sense? A bloke worth 5 points coming from AFL shouldn't become 0 rather than 3 after a couple of seasons.

Yeah, must admit as generally we're talking about 3 pt players, not 5s, I was thinking of a 3 pointer, not AFL.

IE: 3 points in first year.
2 points in second year.
0 points in third year (they get 1 years service deduction and 25 game deduction).

morell wrote:I rate Trader highly so I suspect he was extracting the proverbial urine.

Me? Taking the p155? Never!

South Australia National Football League (SANFL) Salisbury North Agius , Keiran Pending 2017-04-20

So does every club get Keiran Agius for a week?

Bit cheeky to play one game and then go to another club in the same division.

Hard to say no to $1000 a game.
Good luck to the lad, I hear he kicked 4 today.
Care to explain how he can get $1,000 a game?
Someone out that way hands him an envelope with 10 green notes in it after the game.

So let me get this straight...

Potting an individual based on pretty much nothing, posting slanderous second hand material and outing him as a "flog" - Kane Cornes - is socially acceptable.

Questioning if a club has struggling numbers, lost some players and perhaps raising some queries about their structure and what grade they'd be suited to - Greenacres - is not socially acceptable.

Rarely has there been a better example of the classical Australian local footy culture neurosis.

Not really "outing him" when everyone already knew he is a flog.

morell wrote:Players should always be reminded that​ any dalliance with trainers is very much frowned upon

#funpolice

Brighton's deck is usually ok, they put a bit in it for the bowlers in the first 20 overs too, which i don't mind.
Infield is as thick as anything though, terrible place to bat unless you want to hit the ball in the air.
Smart teams just ring it up after 20 overs, and let you make 7/150 off 80 overs, boring cricket.

Pooraka make some absolute roads.

Pulteney have the best set of decks if you ask me. Love batting on any of the 5 ovals there.

Goodwood 5 years ago was the best, not so much anymore. Had real issues last season.

Payneham's is shocking. Worst deck in the A1 comp by a fair margin.

Struggles to put his point succinctly, 144 characters is never enough!

The other thing that I haven't seen taken into account is the sponsors that are getting bumped for the China income. IE: MJK are now the "collar sponsor" and the full $3m is applied to the income line of the china figures. But what was the previous Collar Sponsor paying? I assume that income is no longer coming in.
Did they have a collar sponsor previously? I don't recall seeing one?
Yup, Envestra, as seen here

Congrats to Port, anything thing that stops any clubs having to have handouts is a good thing IMO.
I would suspect Port will need to cough up more than $500k for anyone to go over next year, probably $1m as a minimum

That 500k was partly because it was Gold Coast's home game we were buying wasn't it?

The only reason we couldn't use our own home game was due to the deal at Adelaide Oval requiring 11 games.
How long does that deal run for?
Once over, there is no reason why Port Couldn't play their home game in China, therefore not having to pay the away team anything.

Over the years Port has had to play a number of away games at alternative venues without payment:
Darwin 10 times
Launceston 8 times
Canberra 6 times
Alice Springs 3 times
Hobart once

Sure, those venues aren't the likes of another country, but there have been plenty of times we've been told to go to the unique venue, it wouldn't be unreasonable for us to do it to someone else once or twice.

I said it three years ago.
SACA should continue to expand the Premier League, to the point that it is 8 teams and plays most weekends.
Make grade cricket redundant and before long, simply stop running a grade comp.
Those clubs that still want to exist, can do so, they just won't have a comp to play in.
They can then either play against themselves, or join ATCA.

No clubs forced to merge & we get a reasonable top tier comp.

Dutchy clearly very keen to dump their rubbish on to the AdFL.
We've got enough problems as it is, we won't be taking yours.

Unfortunately, with a lot of academia they tend to get caught in their own self reporting social circles and forget that there is a real world out there where peoples experiences and knowledge don't fit into neat and precise categories.

From the Port Adelaide Thread:

But remember its a scale, not a grouping.
Just like you can have some right wing political opinions and some left wing ones.

does anyone have any thoughts on when games start? obviously the long weekend being the first weekend in OCT.. reckon theyll give clubs/grounds an extra week after that or straight into it?

Haven't seen anything yet, but if I were setting it up, I'd do it as follows:

2-day comps will start 7th Oct with a 2-day game.
LO comps to start 14th Oct.
No play all grades 2nd Dec due to Ashes test.
Round 6 of the 2 day comp (Dec 23rd) to be a 1-day fixture - minimise the impact of anyone u/a that close to xmas.
2-day comp to return on Jan 6th.
LO comp to return Jan 13th.
LO comp no play Jan 27th (aust day long weekend).
Last minor round day 10th March.

21 weeks (10 2-dayers, 1x1-dayer), with the LOs having 3 off for 18 games (9 teams twice).
Semi finals 17/18 March.
Grand Finals 24/25 March.

My mail is he wasn't meant to be even playing for the rest of this year
Have a look on Sporting Pulse, it appears the club gave him a 2 game internal suspension, as he missed rounds 5 and 6.
(Internal suspension = keep premiership points)

yeah there was a scuffle in the adelaide Uni game. I'm not sure what happened it that instance though
Cheers Joker, checked with a few of the uni boys and they didn't say much, but were happy to show me their latest photoshop skills.

http://i65.tinypic.com/6xsnsk.png

Amazing what they can do with a computer these days. It almost looks like #3 has landed a left right on the Uni player's chin.
I like the effort they've put in to photoshop the back of his jumper up to make the punch look more forceful. The detail of the lower back tat really adds to the masterpiece.

The club will cop the latest punishment “on the chin”.
Rather apt!

A TTG player punched a SN player and James told the umpire "If that was f***en us you would red carded us"
It now makes sense why James would know exactly what would happen if you punch an opposition player.

SN were crucified.
Indeed!

I don't really care about the AAA all that much. Sure, my preference is for them to sort it all out so it doesn't apply, but whatever really.
For mine, it's this victim mentality that we constantly see from them that annoys me.

James "you treat us differently to them"
Joker "We were crucified"
Brenton "Its not fair our A's are punished"

Getting The Advertiser & Today Tonight to run stories on how hard done by they are is simply annoying.

A Salisbury North player or official has been suspended for an offence against an umpire in each of the past five years.

The fact the above has occurred, yet this club is still playing, is not the outcome I would expect if they were being treated unfairly.
They have been given every opportunity to improve, yet continually refuse to, then whinge and whine when they cop another slap on the wrist.

The club knew they were on the AAA, they knew James belted a bloke behind the play in round 4, they got away with it, then elected to put him back on the park, and two weeks later when he played up again, they claim they were "crucified".

It's no surprise to me that "the mob" are sick of it.

1 week for mine. The double action of Rance got him the 2nd week.

That said, I think an elbow to the back of someone's head is worse than a jumper punch to a guy who is looking at you and engaged in the niggle, so comparing Selwood to Hawkins I recon he should get 3.

The funny part is they are both correct.
SPOS are immature & Morell is annoying.

Seems someone put the delete button into action!

It is inexcusable for an umpire to issue a red card which could result in a player not being able to participate for the rest of the game and his team playing with 17 men for 10 minutes and then, come the end of the game, reassess as a yellow.

So the umpire saw something, sent the player off, and between then and the end of the game, the umpire decided/realized the offence didn't warrant heading to the tribunal. You would rather the umpire continued with the red, forced everyone to head along on Wednesday night and waste their time?

I think its good if the umpire can admit at the end of the game he got it wrong and change his ruling, saving everyone time and effort on a Wednesday night.

Agreed, there are way too many unless, but, however, instead, etc in those rules.

Should be simple:
Where did you play the bulk of your games over the previous 2 seasons:
AFL - 5 points
SANFL - 4 points
Cat 1 leagues - 3 points
Cat 2 leagues - 2 points
B-grade or lower or under age - 0 points.

From there, each season that passes, you take 1 point off your score.
Once you've played 25 games for your club, you become a 0 pointer at the start of next season.

Rules about parents that were former life members but only granted life membership in the last two seasons, etc, all just confuse the matter.
Keep it simple so anyone can follow it!

It is inexcusable for an umpire to issue a red card which could result in a player not being able to participate for the rest of the game and his team playing with 17 men for 10 minutes and then, come the end of the game, reassess as a yellow.

So the umpire saw something, sent the player off, and between then and the end of the game, the umpire decided/realized the offence didn't warrant heading to the tribunal. You would rather the umpire continued with the red, forced everyone to head along on Wednesday night and waste their time?

I think its good if the umpire can admit at the end of the game he got it wrong and change his ruling, saving everyone time and effort on a Wednesday night.
Hypothetical. You are coaching a team in the Adelaide Football League and it's the last game of the minor round. You are playing your arch rival for a spot in the finals and your best player gets a red card early in the second quarter and is sent off for the rest of the game. You play with 17 men for the next 10 minutes and during this time the opposition score 5 goals to nil. At the end of the game you lose by 3 points and the umpire approaches your team manager and tells him he has reassessed the incident involving your best player and he now considers not worthy or a red card or a tribunal appearance. Are you;
a) Happy that your best player doesn't have to go to the tribunal
b) Furious that his over zealous use of a red card has cost your team the win and participation in finals
c) Don't care because you've been hanging out for cricket season

They are two separate incidents.

Sure, we'd like the umpire to get it right at the time of picking which card to issue, that's the ideal outcome.
But lets say he gets it wrong, at the end of the game the umpires observer and or a boundary umpire approaches him and says it was an open hand slap, not a punch, and the player that went down was acting.

Would you like the umpire to compound his error and waste everyone's time on Wednesday? Or have the guts to admit he got it wrong and let everyone get on with it?

Just cause he got the first assessment wrong, doesn't mean he should go ahead with the tribunal.

You are angry at him correcting his mistake to the best of his ability.

I would suggest in the 88 minutes that your 21 blokes made a couple of poor decisions as well.

B3 (10), C1 (10), C2 (9) and C3 (10) all have the ability to merge together back to 12 team comps. So only a net loss of 3 teams overall.
Still, shows the continuing trend away from cricket in general, and specifically 2-day cricket.

The sooner the turf bring in the 8 team, 7x2-dayers and 7x1-dayer format in the main comp, the better.