The duration of a quarter...

[The Apostle]

Discussed briefly in another section of SAfooty...

Quarter duration: 25 minutes + time-on Vs 20 minutes + time-on.

[redandblack]

Time on was measured differently then.

[Hondo]

With the extra things they stop the clock for since changing to 20 minute quarters I expect the average time of each quarter has only dropped by a couple of minutes and not the whole 5. Anyone know?

[The Apostle]

Some of the old-timers on here should know...I only know the post 1996 rules...I was XXXX U-17s & U-19s timekeeper from XXXX to XXXX...

I can mention 2 major "incidents" in those years that only a select few know about but I don't wanna start trouble...

[G]

Why bother mentioning it then

[Barto]

With the extra things they stop the clock for since changing to 20 minute quarters I expect the average time of each quarter has only dropped by a couple of minutes and not the whole 5. Anyone know?

Pretty much this. The actual length of the quarters remain similar anyway.

[Thiele]

keep it as it

[spell_check]

For the 1994 season, the AFL changed the method of timekeeping; the SANFL followed suit two years later. This appears in here: http://footystats.freeservers.com/Speci ... eview.html

<||> the AFL tipped to extend the 1994 season by trimming the pre-season Foster’s Cup and by-passing the week-long State of Origin concept. The Australian Medical Journal reveals research showing a significant increase of severe injuries over the past eight years, foreshadowing AFL approval of an increase to three on the inter-change bench. The AMA findings were linked with a strong push for a reduction to 20-minute long quarters plus added time …

Followed by the announcement in here: http://footystats.freeservers.com/Speci ... eview.html

Wide-ranging changes announced
20-minute quarters – three interchange
The most dramatic change was the reduction of quarters to 20-minutes plus added time thus ending the traditional “100 minutes of football” (trimming the length of a game between five and seven minutes) and the introduction of a third interchange player.

The duration of playing time at 25 minutes of four quarters had been a 107-year-old tradition decided upon at the Inter-Colonial Football Conference held in Melbourne on November 4-5, 1885.

1993 research had discovered about 12 minutes playing time each match was lost at boundary throw-ins and scores; average time lost per score was 5.84 seconds and the average number of scoring shots per game was 56; more than six minutes playing time was lost at boundary throw-ins and five-and-a-half minutes after a score had been made; the average length of time-on per game in 1993 was 21 minutes.

The differences in timing between the two are:

1) The clock is stopped upon the indicaton (hand signal) of a score by the goal umpire under the 20 minute rule, compared with the signal of a score (flag waving).
2) The clock is stopped upon the whistle by the boundary umpire to signal either a throw in or an out on the full free kick. Time recommences once the ball has either left the hand of the boundary umpire or the kick or handball of the player taking the free.
Under the 25 minute rule, time continued to count down unless if there was a long break in play; then the field umpire would signal time on.

The only year in which the current format differed was in 2006, when time on was added at each ball up. This still continues at AFL level, but in the SANFL, it only lasted that year. I assume to do with the fact there are more ball-ups in the SANFL.

[spell_check]

The shorter the game goes, the more players there are to rotate off the bench, makes the game go quicker. After reading about impact injuries and that players even in the SANFL are bigger than they were say 30 years ago, means that the players hit harder more often under a quicker game. That's why I oppose the fourth interchange player, and as well would like to see the 25 minute time on rule back.

I have timed quarters on random games I've watched under the 20 minute rule, and it seems to have about two minutes to go per quarter if it were timed for a 25 minute quarter. I think FlyingHigh said this, but if it were the 25 minutes rule, we may see more one on one contested footy, because the temptation to just play keepings off lesses due to the fact you can play near the boundary. Therefore you get more contests - both at throw ins and also when there are players near the boundary.

[MightyEagles]

I say keep it as it is. I am used to the 20 minute plus time on.

[Mr66]

Never heard a good reason from the AFL (what's new ) as to why
this was changed.
Games finish approximately the same time, so players are still out on the ground for the same period of time.

[MAY-Z]

Never heard a good reason from the AFL (what's new ) as to why
this was changed.
Games finish approximately the same time, so players are still out on the ground for the same period of time.

to stop the time wasting that used to happen in the last quarter under the 25 minute rule.

[FlyingHigh]

The shorter the game goes, the more players there are to rotate off the bench, makes the game go quicker. After reading about impact injuries and that players even in the SANFL are bigger than they were say 30 years ago, means that the players hit harder more often under a quicker game. That's why I oppose the fourth interchange player, and as well would like to see the 25 minute time on rule back.

I have timed quarters on random games I've watched under the 20 minute rule, and it seems to have about two minutes to go per quarter if it were timed for a 25 minute quarter. I think FlyingHigh said this, but if it were the 25 minutes rule, we may see more one on one contested footy, because the temptation to just play keepings off lesses due to the fact you can play near the boundary. Therefore you get more contests - both at throw ins and also when there are players near the boundary.

My work here is done

[FlyingHigh]

Never heard a good reason from the AFL (what's new ) as to why
this was changed.
Games finish approximately the same time, so players are still out on the ground for the same period of time.

to stop the time wasting that used to happen in the last quarter under the 25 minute rule.

But the umpires always had the power to signal time-off if there was going to be an extended delay anyway.
I believe the original reason from the AFL was to stop the wear-and-tear on players, but this hasn't really happened because the ball is "live" more than it used to be.