SA Footy

So, who do people like for it?

On the plus side, you can say it is sure competitive, where anyone in the top dozen or so could get a bag in 1 or 2 games and win it. Punter's nightmare.

On the minus, it's pretty safely shaping up to be the lowest winning total since it was called the Ken Farmer Medal in 1981, dipping under Clint Alleway's record low 47 in 2015—and will probably be the lowest leading goalscorer in the SANFL minor round since 1921 (when the winner managed 42 majors).

As you'd expect from a low total, there are by my count at least 5 non-KPFs in the top 10, and a medium/small forward like Mark Evans or Terry Milera could well win it. We already knew that the age of Tim Evans, Scott Hodges, Tractor Prime, Adam Richardson stay-at-home FFs whose only job in the team was to kick goals, is over. Brant Chambers was probably the last of them. But is the age of individual high goalscoring over for good, too? Or will the wheel turn again?

Geezus, who cares. I remember the days when kicking 100 two years in a row didn't even get you a Ken Farmer.
It's lost all of its prestige.

Good thread..

Certainly disappointing to see the demise of effective KPFs (and the overall decline in scoring) in our league but it reflects the way 'modern' football is played.

Mid-fielders Joel Cross and Nick Liddle leading the way for South at a little over 1.0 goal per game, a sign of the times.

I think the last kick/handball out of bounds rule has inadvertently been responsible for less goals the last few years. From what I have seen the majority of these infringements are paid in the forward line of the offending team. What would usually be a boundary throw in deep in attack and a chance to set up for a score, is now a ball rebounded out of the attacking 50.

I could be wrong but it seems like not as many goals are scored in recent times.

PatowalongaPirate wrote:I think the last kick/handball out of bounds rule has inadvertently been responsible for less goals the last few years. From what I have seen the majority of these infringements are paid in the forward line of the offending team. What would usually be a boundary throw in deep in attack and a chance to set up for a score, is now a ball rebounded out of the attacking 50.

You're absolutely bloody SPOT ON!

I think I rant this to everyone who listens.

This rule has been seen as the saviour to the SANFL because the scoring has fractionally increased a couple of points per game. Basically so small it's not even noticable and certainly not worth this ridiculous rule. It's only being spruiked by the media because they need to push something all the time. Something always has to change. Once the AFL introduces it, then they'll need to introduce something else. And once that's introduced, them something else will need to change.

I hate the rule in its' current role. If it absolutely has to stay, I'd only apply the rule on the wings between the attacking 50s where 95% of the genuine deliberate out of bounds infringements generally occur. Anything inside the attacking/defending zones are throw-ins. Keep the ball in scoring areas - that's what you want. Not the ball flying back out as soon as it came in.

I have heard many people now say "I used to hate the rule, but now I've gotten used to it". It was introduced to speed the game up. The game doesn't need speeding up. It was introduced to improve scoring. Well, really hasn't done it. It's totally counter-active to scoring as described above. Maybe if scoring was up 20 points per game, then fair enough. But not two or three or whatever it is.

What would improve scoring is having the clock only running when play is actually happening. Stopping the clock for ball-ups and other bits of play where the ball isn't in play. Our scoring is slow because our quarters barely last 25 or 26 minutes. Up to 2-3 minutes per quarter is lost through the ball sitting in the umpires' hands waiting for a ball up and other bits of the game where the clock shouldn't be running (ie forward wasting 40 secs to have a shot for goal). Imagine that extra 8-12 mins of game time across the match.

Instead of trying to manipulate the fabric of the game (ie changing the rules), let the games go the length of time they should. Guaranteed to increase scoring.

Look at 2006.

More, because I'm on a roll.


Since Round 17 2014, there's been just ONE match at SANFL League level where both teams scored 100+ points each. That's just 1 out of the last 373 League matches.

Code: Select all

Round 10 2016 @ Alberton Oval
Port Adelaide 1.3 8.5 12.6 17.8 (108)
Glenelg 5.2 6.6 13.10 19.13 (127)

This deliberate out of bounds rule and limited interchanges were introduced from 2016 onwards as the supposed saving grace for improved scoring but aside from scoring slightly increasing in the first year, it just hasn't done anything. Throw-in stoppages are obviously down (it's only referred to as "stoppages being down" in mainstream media to give the impression that ball-up stoppages have reduced as a result of these changes).


Points Per Game
2018 - 157
2017 - 157
2016 - 164 (rule changes introduced)
2015 - 151 (several rounds affected by heavy rain)
2014 - 161

So scoring has actually trended down every year since the rule was introduced after briefly cresting and is still down on 2014 and earlier. Scoring this year was tracking under 157 until two teams combined for 23 goals in the fourth quarter aided by hurricane-force winds. Huge wind machines will be introduced next as it clearly worked in two games this round.

scott wrote:More, because I'm on a roll.


Since Round 17 2014, there's been just ONE match at SANFL League level where both teams scored 100+ points each. That's just 1 out of the last 373 League matches.

Code: Select all

Round 10 2016 @ Alberton Oval
Port Adelaide 1.3 8.5 12.6 17.8 (108)
Glenelg 5.2 6.6 13.10 19.13 (127)

This deliberate out of bounds rule and limited interchanges were introduced from 2016 onwards as the supposed saving grace for improved scoring but aside from scoring slightly increasing in the first year, it just hasn't done anything. Throw-in stoppages are obviously down (it's only referred to as "stoppages being down" in mainstream media to give the impression that ball-up stoppages have reduced as a result of these changes).


Points Per Game
2018 - 157
2017 - 157
2016 - 164 (rule changes introduced)
2015 - 151 (several rounds affected by heavy rain)
2014 - 161

So scoring has actually trended down every year since the rule was introduced after briefly cresting and is still down on 2014 and earlier. Scoring this year was tracking under 157 until two teams combined for 23 goals in the fourth quarter aided by hurricane-force winds. Huge wind machines will be introduced next as it clearly worked in two games this round.

PatowalongaPirate wrote:I think the last kick/handball out of bounds rule has inadvertently been responsible for less goals the last few years. From what I have seen the majority of these infringements are paid in the forward line of the offending team. What would usually be a boundary throw in deep in attack and a chance to set up for a score, is now a ball rebounded out of the attacking 50.

I could be wrong but it seems like not as many goals are scored in recent times.

The flipside to that though, given so much attacking foray is setup by transition from defence, should mean more score the other way shouldn't it?

It's made the game much more attractive to watch, probably the only positive to happen to the SANFL in recent years.

JK wrote:

PatowalongaPirate wrote:I think the last kick/handball out of bounds rule has inadvertently been responsible for less goals the last few years. From what I have seen the majority of these infringements are paid in the forward line of the offending team. What would usually be a boundary throw in deep in attack and a chance to set up for a score, is now a ball rebounded out of the attacking 50.

I could be wrong but it seems like not as many goals are scored in recent times.

The flipside to that though, given so much attacking foray is setup by transition from defence, should mean more score the other way shouldn't it?

It should.......but reading through what Scott posted above makes me think otherwise.

PatowalongaPirate wrote:

JK wrote:

PatowalongaPirate wrote:I think the last kick/handball out of bounds rule has inadvertently been responsible for less goals the last few years. From what I have seen the majority of these infringements are paid in the forward line of the offending team. What would usually be a boundary throw in deep in attack and a chance to set up for a score, is now a ball rebounded out of the attacking 50.

I could be wrong but it seems like not as many goals are scored in recent times.

The flipside to that though, given so much attacking foray is setup by transition from defence, should mean more score the other way shouldn't it?

It should.......but reading through what Scott posted above makes me think otherwise.

Bloody Scott with all his facts

scott wrote:What would improve scoring is having the clock only running when play is actually happening. Stopping the clock for ball-ups and other bits of play where the ball isn't in play.

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the AFL introduce this 20+ years ago? Around the time quarter length reduced from 25 to 20 minutes?

Usually the SANFL follows the AFL on rule changes straight away. Interesting that this hasn't happened.

Scott, do you have data on the average number of tackles per game in recent seasons?

Have noticed a few South games recently having tackle counts that resembled AFL totals (ie 180-200).

Doesn't add to the spectacle/scoring.

saintal wrote:Scott, do you have data on the average number of tackles per game in recent seasons?

Have noticed a few South games recently having tackle counts that resembled AFL totals (ie 180-200).

Doesn't add to the spectacle/scoring.

Yeah mate.

Average tackles per match (H&A)
2018 - 126.4 (this should climb a fraction more as winter progresses)
2017 - 131.6
2016 - 122.2
2015 - 106.8
2014 - 84.0
2013 - 87.4
2012 - 87.6
2011 - 84.0

Comparing this season to the AFL, tackles per match are 126.4 (SANFL) v 129.6 (AFL) - only about a 2% difference. However, SANFL matches last about 10-15% less than AFL matches. The SANFL also has less stoppages than the AFL so what we're doing at SANFL level clearly isn't working.

It's relentless secondary stoppages which hinder scoring and make games unattractive. Secondary stoppage rates are lower at throw-ins than at ball-ups as, after the umpiring department did away with ball-up bounces a few years ago, the umpires throw the ball up with such accuracy around the ground that the ruckmen know to within about 50cm of where the ball is coming down, and therefore players around the stoppage can set up much closer. Because ruckman engage in the way they do at a stoppage, it's rare for a ball to be smashed out. It's generally just a tap down to the feet of the stoppage. Consider a throw-in where the ball is thrown in a considerable distance and could land anywhere within a 10sqm radius, players at the stoppage generally spread like wildfire.

Throw-ins clearly aren't the problem which is why this deliberate out of bounds rule isn't going to fix stoppages and scoring. All it does it make the rule black and white which at AFL level is currently Russian Roulette.

RB wrote:

scott wrote:What would improve scoring is having the clock only running when play is actually happening. Stopping the clock for ball-ups and other bits of play where the ball isn't in play.

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the AFL introduce this 20+ years ago? Around the time quarter length reduced from 25 to 20 minutes?

Usually the SANFL follows the AFL on rule changes straight away. Interesting that this hasn't happened.

In 2006 the AFL introduced stopping the clock when ball ups are called as it continued to tick for 15-20 seconds while the ump retrieved the ball and then threw it up. It was pushed quite heavily by Dennis Committi for years.

Consider about 15 ball ups per quarter times 12-15 seconds. It's around three minutes of wasted game time. We're basically playing 17 minutes plus time on in the SANFL .

The SANFL introduced stopping the clock for ball ups the same year as the AFL and scoring went up crazy as a result. A combination of (1) games finishing late and (2) timekeepers apparently not being able to identify when the umpire has blown their whistle to indicate a ball up was the reasons given to scrap it for 2007 onwards. This was when matches were commencing at 2:20pm and with average 30-minute quarters (up from 26-27), games were finishing around 5:00pm-5:10pm as they were lasting about 15-20 minutes longer. Literally almost an entire quarter of scoring potential.

(1) If games are finishing late, adjust the start time to 2:10pm like they've aleady done. Matches will finish at 4:50pm-5:00pm.
(2) If timekeepers are compenent enough to timekeep a match, they'll be able to identify when there's a stoppage. Because there's a lot of them.

Scoring is around 157 per game this season and it's hovered around that mark for some time.

In 2006, it was 206 per game.

Instead of manipulating the rules to carve how the powers that be want the game played, just cut the wastage = more scoring potential.

scott wrote:
(2) If timekeepers are compenent enough to timekeep a match

Which you'd imagine league level timekeepers would be. I mean the AFL timekeepers have no trouble with 90,000+ crowds.

Thanks Scott, very interesting.

Anyone know the interpretation of a tackle? Have noticed in some instances Champion Data credit a tackle to a secondary player who arrives momentarily after the inital tackle. This brings up the total count.

SimonH wrote:So, who do people like for it?

On the plus side, you can say it is sure competitive, where anyone in the top dozen or so could get a bag in 1 or 2 games and win it. Punter's nightmare.

On the minus, it's pretty safely shaping up to be the lowest winning total since it was called the Ken Farmer Medal in 1981, dipping under Clint Alleway's record low 47 in 2015—and will probably be the lowest leading goalscorer in the SANFL minor round since 1921 (when the winner managed 42 majors).

As you'd expect from a low total, there are by my count at least 5 non-KPFs in the top 10, and a medium/small forward like Mark Evans or Terry Milera could well win it. We already knew that the age of Tim Evans, Scott Hodges, Tractor Prime, Adam Richardson stay-at-home FFs whose only job in the team was to kick goals, is over. Brant Chambers was probably the last of them. But is the age of individual high goalscoring over for good, too? Or will the wheel turn again?

Brett Eddy and Michael Wundke. John Butcher probably fits that mould now as well.

RB wrote:

scott wrote:
(2) If timekeepers are compenent enough to timekeep a match

Which you'd imagine league level timekeepers would be. I mean the AFL timekeepers have no trouble with 90,000+ crowds.

Thanks Scott, very interesting.

To be fair to SANFL timekeepers, AFL timekeepers are hooked up to the umpiring audio so can hear the whistle.

Other than maybe when there's a close game and the crowd is going nuts or just in general there's a huge crowd at Norwood or Sturt, I find the whistle to be pretty audible at SANFL matches.

scott wrote:[
The SANFL introduced stopping the clock for ball ups the same year as the AFL and scoring went up crazy as a result. A combination of (1) games finishing late and (2) timekeepers apparently not being able to identify when the umpire has blown their whistle to indicate a ball up was the reasons given to scrap it for 2007 onwards. This was when matches were commencing at 2:20pm and with average 30-minute quarters (up from 26-27), games were finishing around 5:00pm-5:10pm as they were lasting about 15-20 minutes longer. Literally almost an entire quarter of scoring potential.

The SANFL was the only League to revert back, I think - at least the WAFL never went back.

The ABC matches in 2006 after Round 9 started at 2:15. Even so, Rd 23 telecast was cut short, if you recall.

And back then, AFL aspirant umpires bounced the ball, now all around the ground it's thrown up, so it wouldn't take as long anyway.