Rd 4 Sturt v Eagles Review

[CENTURION]

That's where Norwood got the idea from?

Wish we'd put it in front of the total score, poor planning

Norwood need a horizontal pole!

[Mr Irate]

Thanks everyone......I've only read pages 5 to 7 but it's been brilliant......special mentions to those that provided the scoreboard and floodlight photos......lmao

Would have thought Norwood may have learnt from the Noarlunga scoreboard / light tower debacle.......

[Mr Irate]

i noticed ronny fuller at the game today doing his homework

6 times tables ?

[CENTURION]

i noticed ronny fuller at the game today doing his homework

6 times tables ?

no, Eagles, minus Fuller, equals A HAPPY TEAM!

[ferret]

Tristan Gum another great give away by Jarman.

[LPH]

i noticed ronny fuller at the game today doing his homework

6 times tables ?

Sheer GOLD

[Mickyj]

i noticed ronny fuller at the game today doing his homework

6 times tables ?

no, Eagles, minus Fuller, equals A HAPPY TEAM!

very true Bayman they took his picture on the ABC.
Very true Centurion .I kept saying pre season the Eagles were a different side this year.
I kept getting laughed at etc etc
I bet there's no laughing at Unley today
I would think in the WHUFC household there may be some laughing after his bet

"GODS" EAGLE ARMY we are on the march .

[Voice]

Certainly don't disagree about the appreciation of all volunteers in the SANFL, at all clubs and across the league in general...

But too many times today at Unley the young scoreboard attendant miss-calculated the scores or completely missed a goal or point registered and failed to put it on the board.

The attendant at any ground doing the scoreboard has to pay attention to the game for 100% of the time to make sure the scores are correct and up to date, unfortunately, this wasn't the case today at Unley on a couple occassions.

Agreed though that everyone makes mistakes from time to time but that being said, unlike Richmond last night, at least there was a scoreboard and time clock

Have a look at what you wrote BP, 'too many times' and then 'on a couple of occasions'. Bit dramatic mate and a bit of a contradiction champ.
For starters I have never been to any ground, including the G and AAMI where I haven't seen the score being displayed wrong. At a SANFL game with a 13 yo volunteer and you're having a whinge, come on.
The fact is he made a blue twice, once he didn't add a goal into the total and once he put the 6 upside down so it read as a 9.

[baggy8]

Great performance by the Eagles - they were a pleasure to watch. BUT no need for any doom and gloom from Sturt supporters. To me the key moment of the game was when Toby Thurstans came off injured in the first couple of minutes of the second quarter. Not only did we have reduced rotations from thereon, but there seemed to be a lack of organization in defence apart from Nick Wark who remained very disciplined keeping Salter in check; and more obviously no height in defence.

Toby should be fit next week, James McLeay will be in the side and while we might not beat Centrals I would expect to get a lot closer to them than we did to the Eagles.

[Voice]

Saw Jai tonight, he was still beaming, we showed him the tape of him on TV. Interesting part is he was in Sturt gear today, ran out with the players and tossed the coin, but his Mum is a Eagles fan!

As for the scoreboard here is a photo from last week, there were some errors, but never really mattered. Could be an issue if wrong in the last 1/4 when close though. Id be surprised if he was a volunteer as PhilH said even at Amateur level they get paid.

That looks to me like a number card with 9 on one side and 0 on the other that has tipped out of the mounting (meaning it is an upside down 9, not a 6). Can't believe the lad wasn't shot at the end of the game.

My younger brother had the scores incorrect after a junior grand final once, by two points. It indicated a 1 point win to the losing side. Dad had to drive around to the scoreboard to collect him before everyone realised! It can have an impact and at SANFL level it should be right. But this photo proves nothing to me.

Somebody with some sense. Well done smac. It's an upside down 9 so it would quite obviously have a 0 on the other side meaning scores were correct in the pic. If anyone can remember, it was very windy last week.
Anyway, as I said in my last post, there is not one ground that I've been to that hasn't had the scores wrong at one stage or another. Too all you people giving him shit just remember I have a camera with me at every game so I hope it doesn't happen at your oval in the near future as you will be copping it three fold.

[Voice]

click here for pics of the match.

[Voice]

Is this little Jai here Dutchy?

[spell_check]

Actually, I would like to bring up another point. Yes it's totally academic, and no it means nothing to the outcome of the game, but it relates to a free kick paid to Evans. McGlone kicks the ball out towards the scoreboard wing, I think looking for Evans, but his kick is a bit off target. It almost went out on the full, but strikes an Eagles trainer. That's what the free is paid for.

The rule book states:

15.10.1 A Free Kick shall be awarded against a Player or a Team where
the field Umpire is of the opinion that:
(a) the Player is engaging in Time Wasting;
(b) an Official of the Team or such other person of the Team
who may from time to time be permitted onto the Playing
Surface, intentionally, recklessly or negligently interferes
with the football, a Player of the opposition Team, an
Umpire or general play

I've never seen a free paid in this manner before. The trainer turned his back and tried to get out of the way when he saw the ball coming. It appeared to be heading out on the full anyway (about 1m from the boundary where it happened). How is that at odds with the above rule?

I think the word "negligent" pretty well covers it Spelly. IMO if the ball was already bounced out of bounds then it would be okay for the trainer to come in to contact with the ball, but while the ball is in play and live then it shouldn't matter what may have happened had the trainer not been there. I imagine if two Eagles players attempted to pass the ball one to another and their trainer got in the way and touched the ball then this would also be negligent interference of the ball, regardless of how beneficial his interference may or may not have been to either side, and a free would be paid to the opposing side.

It wasn't a complete shank from McGlone, but it missed his intended target by about 5 metres. I wonder what happens if a player completely shanks the kick and hits the back of a trainer who has very little time to get out of the way, or does not see the ball at all? Is that negligent? That word is rather ambiguous.

By the way, I'm trying to talk about something that happened on field, so any other discussion would be good.

[Dutchy]

Yep thats him Voice, do you mind if I pass it on to the family?

[wycbloods]

Yep thats him Voice, do you mind if I pass it on to the family?

A good photo that one Voice.

I am sure Gally would love that one Dutchy.

[Aerie]

Actually, I would like to bring up another point. Yes it's totally academic, and no it means nothing to the outcome of the game, but it relates to a free kick paid to Evans. McGlone kicks the ball out towards the scoreboard wing, I think looking for Evans, but his kick is a bit off target. It almost went out on the full, but strikes an Eagles trainer. That's what the free is paid for.

The rule book states:

15.10.1 A Free Kick shall be awarded against a Player or a Team where
the field Umpire is of the opinion that:
(a) the Player is engaging in Time Wasting;
(b) an Official of the Team or such other person of the Team
who may from time to time be permitted onto the Playing
Surface, intentionally, recklessly or negligently interferes
with the football, a Player of the opposition Team, an
Umpire or general play

I've never seen a free paid in this manner before. The trainer turned his back and tried to get out of the way when he saw the ball coming. It appeared to be heading out on the full anyway (about 1m from the boundary where it happened). How is that at odds with the above rule?

I think the word "negligent" pretty well covers it Spelly. IMO if the ball was already bounced out of bounds then it would be okay for the trainer to come in to contact with the ball, but while the ball is in play and live then it shouldn't matter what may have happened had the trainer not been there. I imagine if two Eagles players attempted to pass the ball one to another and their trainer got in the way and touched the ball then this would also be negligent interference of the ball, regardless of how beneficial his interference may or may not have been to either side, and a free would be paid to the opposing side.

It wasn't a complete shank from McGlone, but it missed his intended target by about 5 metres. I wonder what happens if a player completely shanks the kick and hits the back of a trainer who has very little time to get out of the way, or does not see the ball at all? Is that negligent? That word is rather ambiguous.

By the way, I'm trying to talk about something that happened on field, so any other discussion would be good.

Trainers should be out of the way full stop and I think that no matter what situation it should be a free kick to the opposition if the trainer touches the ball or gets in the way. Second time in two weeks that trainer has been in the way.

[LPH]

C'mon... get off the trainer's back, he's a volunteer FFS... everyone makes mistakes

[spell_check]

Thank you Aerie. Good call too, but LEH has got the right idea as well. What happens if he comes on the site and reads that....

[Aerie]

If he does then maybe he should toughen the ...

[LPH]

It's not his fault!!