SA Footy

In the reviews of last nights game it has been reported that on at least two occasions Norwood players hand balled to West Adelaide players and Norwood player laid an own tackle on a fellow Norwood player. Considering that Norwood were coming back reasonably strongly in the last quarter its likely these turnovers cost them passages of play which may have cost them in the final score and possibly contributed to Westies final score.

So a question for Norwood fans, is that actually correct information that those turnovers happened and do you think it had anything to do with the clashing of jumpers? Should the away guernsey used in night games against sides like West or South be looked at?

Sojourner wrote:Norwood players hand balled to West Adelaide players

At least they hit a target....

SJABC wrote:

Sojourner wrote:Norwood players hand balled to West Adelaide players

At least they hit a target....

Regardless of day or night, I can't see how Norwood's away guernsey does anything to avoid a clash with West's guernsey.

What's better?
- All blue vs black and red sash
- Blue and red vs black and red sash

Having said that, were West players handballing to Norwood players?

I think the problem is that it is not much of an alternate strip. Adding red to the top of and the NFC logo still makes it very similiar to its traditional guernsey.

If you are going to have a clash/away jumper it needs to be different, not similiar. West have an all red guernsey, norths is predominately white, Eagles have a couple (yellow + blue).

They need to avoid Norwood-West matches at night. I realise my eyes aren't as young as they used to be, but when the ball was across the other side of the ground I couldn't tell what was happening. It's bad enough during the day, but under lights it's worse.

The alternate strip was introduced to avoid clashes with South Adelaide, so I'm not real sure why they decided to use it against West.

Hopeful Jelly wrote:Regardless of day or night, I can't see how Norwood's away guernsey does anything to avoid a clash with West's guernsey.

Have always said the same thing .. Even as a spectator I've struggled on occasion to differentiate between out players and those of Westies and South at times.

The away guersney doesn't have enough difference to the standard one to address the situation imho.

Adelaide Hawk wrote:They need to avoid Norwood-West matches at night. I realise my eyes aren't as young as they used to be, but when the ball was across the other side of the ground I couldn't tell what was happening. It's bad enough during the day, but under lights it's worse.

The alternate strip was introduced to avoid clashes with South Adelaide, so I'm not real sure why they decided to use it against West.

Agree AH, I had to look for the white shorts

Brodlach wrote:Agree AH, I had to look for the white shorts

Which then clashes with the umpires who refuse to change their colours either.

I think the problem was exaggerated under the lights. I believe they are the lowest standard for State League footy (300 lux?) and evidence of this could be seen with the photo from the game in today's paper very dull indeed.


with my eyes that are not that old I found it hard to follow the ball in the air when it was kicked extremely high.

heater31 wrote:with my eyes that are not that old I found it hard to follow the ball in the air when it was kicked extremely high.

Blame Westies for that, there's only a certain height handballs can go

Constance_Perm wrote:

heater31 wrote:with my eyes that are not that old I found it hard to follow the ball in the air when it was kicked extremely high.

Blame Westies for that, there's only a certain height handballs can go

Unlike at Unley today where a ball actually "burst" and had to be replaced because it was dead flat !!

Big Phil wrote:

Constance_Perm wrote:

heater31 wrote:with my eyes that are not that old I found it hard to follow the ball in the air when it was kicked extremely high.

Blame Westies for that, there's only a certain height handballs can go

Unlike at Unley today where a ball actually "burst" and had to be replaced because it was dead flat !!

I have seen that happen before......ball was smothered and it made a funny noise. next bloke went to pick it up off the ground and did it one handed holding it in the air to indicate that something was wrong


I think Norwood's new one's are 600 lux? and would be a huge improvement on the 300 lux

Big Phil wrote:

Constance_Perm wrote:

heater31 wrote:with my eyes that are not that old I found it hard to follow the ball in the air when it was kicked extremely high.

Blame Westies for that, there's only a certain height handballs can go

Unlike at Unley today where a ball actually "burst" and had to be replaced because it was dead flat !!

It was the kick for goal from Salter just before that did it.

quote="heater31"]

Big Phil wrote:

Constance_Perm wrote:

heater31 wrote:with my eyes that are not that old I found it hard to follow the ball in the air when it was kicked extremely high.

Blame Westies for that, there's only a certain height handballs can go

Unlike at Unley today where a ball actually "burst" and had to be replaced because it was dead flat !!

I have seen that happen before......ball was smothered and it made a funny noise. next bloke went to pick it up off the ground and did it one handed holding it in the air to indicate that something was wrong


I think Norwood's new one's are 600 lux? and would be a huge improvement on the 300 lux[/quote]

Would the return of Baseball back to Norwood have anything to do with the upgrade of the lights?[

Adelaide Hawk wrote:......I realise my eyes aren't as young as they used to be, but when the ball was across the other side of the ground I couldn't tell what was happening........It's bad enough during the day, but under lights it's worse.

Have the same problem at Elizabeth........maybe it isn't just an old wives tale

Mr Irate wrote:

Adelaide Hawk wrote:......I realise my eyes aren't as young as they used to be, but when the ball was across the other side of the ground I couldn't tell what was happening........It's bad enough during the day, but under lights it's worse.

Have the same problem at Elizabeth........maybe it isn't just an old wives tale

I wonder about the lights at Elizabeth. It's a very big ground, plus the light towers are a fair distance from the boundary, so it would be very difficult to light that oval evenly. Haven't been there to see them, but judging from the photos there appears to be uneven light there.

Probably need another bank on each tower & then some across the top of the Grandstand.....by 3/4 time Im looking like this

Adelaide Hawk wrote:

Mr Irate wrote:

Adelaide Hawk wrote:......I realise my eyes aren't as young as they used to be, but when the ball was across the other side of the ground I couldn't tell what was happening........It's bad enough during the day, but under lights it's worse.

Have the same problem at Elizabeth........maybe it isn't just an old wives tale

I wonder about the lights at Elizabeth. It's a very big ground, plus the light towers are a fair distance from the boundary, so it would be very difficult to light that oval evenly. Haven't been there to see them, but judging from the photos there appears to be uneven light there.

Spot on Adelaide Hawk, the Ponderosa is obviously the biggest ground in the SANFL so the lights have a larger expanse to illuminate. I know for a fact the club are looking at upgrading the amount of 'wattage' or lux out of each exisiting tower and even some discussions about the possibility of a third tower in the middle of centre wing.

The lux output at Elizabeth is up to the required standard (which I can't seem to remember at the moment ) set the by the SANFL and the players have given feedback that it is fine from a playing point of view out there but certainly from a spectators POV there could be some improvements, which like I mentioned, the club is addressing.

min spec is 300 lux ... whatever that means.