SA Footy

Does anyone have any proof of Glenelg scoring 11.10 (76)? Because that's what the SANFL website has the score as. I tend to disregard any difference the SANFL website has to League matches because the evidence everywhere else points to the score being 11.9 (75).

The West vs Eagles match, Round 8 2006, is an example where every source available (the ABC TV coverage and the following couple of weeks Football Budget included) showed West scoring 8.10 (58), but a few weeks later the score was 8.9 (57).

So I find it hard to believe that the SANFL website is correct in this any of these cases where the evidence is overwhelming against it.

spell_check wrote:Does anyone have any proof of Glenelg scoring 11.10 (76)? Because that's what the SANFL website has the score as. I tend to disregard any difference the SANFL website has to League matches because the evidence everywhere else points to the score being 11.9 (75).

The West vs Eagles match, Round 8 2006, is an example where every source available (the ABC TV coverage and the following couple of weeks Football Budget included) showed West scoring 8.10 (58), but a few weeks later the score was 8.9 (57).

So I find it hard to believe that the SANFL website is correct in this any of these cases where the evidence is overwhelming against it.

The advertiser doesn't run the sanfl site. Or do they?

The Adelaide Oval scoreboard did have Glenelg's final score of 11.10.76 before the goal umpires corrected it to 11.9.75.

We (the Glenelg Statisticians) are confident that the correct score was 11.9 75.

HeartBeatsTrue wrote:

spell_check wrote:Does anyone have any proof of Glenelg scoring 11.10 (76)? Because that's what the SANFL website has the score as. I tend to disregard any difference the SANFL website has to League matches because the evidence everywhere else points to the score being 11.9 (75).

The West vs Eagles match, Round 8 2006, is an example where every source available (the ABC TV coverage and the following couple of weeks Football Budget included) showed West scoring 8.10 (58), but a few weeks later the score was 8.9 (57).

So I find it hard to believe that the SANFL website is correct in this any of these cases where the evidence is overwhelming against it.

The advertiser doesn't run the sanfl site. Or do they?

I don't think so, because the Advertiser had 11.9 (75). I would have thought that the person who enters the data onto the website would look at the Goal Umpires scorecards, but what Brucetiki said does not make that true.