SA Footy

A huge thanks to Peter Berrett, a long time passionate Sturt fan who contacted me after seeing one of my pics in the Messenger, I gave him a disc of my Sturt pics and he forwarded this wonderful photo that he took at the 1973 Qualifying Final openining bounce. Im sure he wont mind me reproducing it here to share.
From left to right are Howard (NA), Greenslade (St), Casey (St), Foster (Umpire), Stringer (NA), Sporn (NA), Davies (St), Robran (NA), Von Bertouch (NA), Howard (St), Neil Sachse (NA), Phillips (NA), Bagshaw (St), Barton (St), Miels (St) and Burgan (St).
Sturt won the game, then got beaten by the Bays and then belted by North in the Prelim to set up the Greatest SANFL Grand Final of all time.

Now that's what a footy field should look like - a proper centre patch in traditional style.

Psyber wrote:Now that's what a footy field should look like - a proper centre patch in traditional style.

..... and plenty of great players around the ball

I loved that era of footy.

Looking at the number of players around the ball, I'm guessing that it may have been just after the opening bounce - i.e. another bounce straight after. Unless if 6 from each team was allowed in the centre diamond, then it was changed to 4.

That's a very good quality photo for its time, it's a shame there isn't many more like it.

Looking at the colour of Norths shorts I'd say it was just as Wedgie explained...................the opening bounce, 30 seconds later someones nice white shorts would have been filthy

Ian wrote:Looking at the colour of Norths shorts I'd say it was just as Wedgie explained...................the opening bounce, 30 seconds later someones nice white shorts would have been filthy

I'm just wondering how two extra players from each team got there so quickly. There could have always been a ball up without anyone falling over, particularly as a ball up used to be called pretty quickly then.

whata great pic!

spell_check wrote:

Ian wrote:Looking at the colour of Norths shorts I'd say it was just as Wedgie explained...................the opening bounce, 30 seconds later someones nice white shorts would have been filthy

I'm just wondering how two extra players from each team got there so quickly. There could have always been a ball up without anyone falling over, particularly as a ball up used to be called pretty quickly then.

The centre square was introduced to SANFL in 1973, in the form of a diamond, later to become a square. The theory was the boundary umpires would stand on opposite sides and detect if there were more than 4 players in the square at the bounce.

They would check how many were already in there, then each umpire would check to their right hand side to see if anyone ventured in before the bounce, thus having all 4 lines covered. Some coaches (certainly I know of one who definitely did it) would start with only 2 in the square.

Then the boundary umpires would check either side, 2 players from each side would run in as the umpire was about to bounce the ball. So, one ump would count 2 plus 2 running in early, and so would the other umpire. Hence, they would have 6 players inside the diamond prior to the bounce.

Didn't take long for the authorities to wake up to what was going on ... possibly a year or two

Adelaide Hawk wrote:

spell_check wrote:

Ian wrote:Looking at the colour of Norths shorts I'd say it was just as Wedgie explained...................the opening bounce, 30 seconds later someones nice white shorts would have been filthy

I'm just wondering how two extra players from each team got there so quickly. There could have always been a ball up without anyone falling over, particularly as a ball up used to be called pretty quickly then.

The centre square was introduced to SANFL in 1973, in the form of a diamond, later to become a square. The theory was the boundary umpires would stand on opposite sides and detect if there were more than 4 players in the square at the bounce.

They would check how many were already in there, then each umpire would check to their right hand side to see if anyone ventured in before the bounce, thus having all 4 lines covered. Some coaches (certainly I know of one who definitely did it) would start with only 2 in the square.

Then the boundary umpires would check either side, 2 players from each side would run in as the umpire was about to bounce the ball. So, one ump would count 2 plus 2 running in early, and so would the other umpire. Hence, they would have 6 players inside the diamond prior to the bounce.

Didn't take long for the authorities to wake up to what was going on ... possibly a year or two

Crikey, never knew that and you've given us a solution as to what was happening the pic, thanks for that!

I wonder why they did not just have a big circle (50 yards/45 metres in diameter) to begin with, instead of a diamond. The boundary umpires could still be opposite each other in line with the closest point of the circle to the boundary line.

spell_check wrote:I wonder why they did not just have a big circle (50 yards/45 metres in diameter) to begin with, instead of a diamond. The boundary umpires could still be opposite each other in line with the closest point of the circle to the boundary line.

2 reasons.
1) its muche easier to judge if a player crosses a straight line as opposed to a curved one
2) straight lines are much easier to draw!

Wedgie wrote:

spell_check wrote:I wonder why they did not just have a big circle (50 yards/45 metres in diameter) to begin with, instead of a diamond. The boundary umpires could still be opposite each other in line with the closest point of the circle to the boundary line.

2 reasons.
1) its muche easier to judge if a player crosses a straight line as opposed to a curved one
2) straight lines are much easier to draw!

Not if they use bright enough lines, and I reakon there would be tools out there to draw circles - the 50 metre line is something that seems to be done well.

spell_check wrote:I wonder why they did not just have a big circle (50 yards/45 metres in diameter) to begin with, instead of a diamond. The boundary umpires could still be opposite each other in line with the closest point of the circle to the boundary line.

The rule was included in the laws of the game by a majority decision of the Australian Football Council as a result of the initiatives of the Victorian Football League. The SANFL were opposed to the changes but, as was their habit, loyally accepted the directions of the AFC.

For memory, the rule was introduced because of the success John Kennedy had with Hawthorn in 1971, keeping the forward line open for Peter Hudson to compete one-out. They would congest the centre of the ground, top rovers Crimmins and Matthews would get the ball out to Bob Keddie who would run forward and pass to Hudson. Other clubs attempted to copy Hawthorn's successful style but only served to present congested packs in the middle at centre bounces.

Mike Patterson adopted this tactic to a degree when he came over to coach North Adelaide. Certainly they congested the middle, but not quite to the degree of the VFL. The SANFL were opposed to the change for the following reasons:

1. They we not convinced the congestion at centre bounces were as pronounced as certain VFL coaches had made out.
2. One of the natural skills of the game is the ability to bring the ball from packs gathering at ball-ups (or stoppages as they are now known).
3. Centre bounces accounted for only 25% of all ball-ups.
4. Difficulties would be experienced in policing the rule - umpires would have difficulty in seeing the markings on wet days due to muddy grounds.
5. The new rule would limit the players' freedom of players to follow the ball at will, except for when a full-back was kicking off.

Reason number 4 was particularly interesting, as that is precisely what happened

spell_check wrote:

Wedgie wrote:

spell_check wrote:I wonder why they did not just have a big circle (50 yards/45 metres in diameter) to begin with, instead of a diamond. The boundary umpires could still be opposite each other in line with the closest point of the circle to the boundary line.

2 reasons.
1) its muche easier to judge if a player crosses a straight line as opposed to a curved one
2) straight lines are much easier to draw!

Not if they use bright enough lines, and I reakon there would be tools out there to draw circles - the 50 metre line is something that seems to be done well.

I disagree, straight lines are always going to be much easier to police, its why there's more mistakes from boundary umpires on the footy field than what there are on the soccer or rugby league field where there is straight lines.
I do however agree that from a logic point of view a circle would make more sense than a squre of diamond.

Wedgie wrote:

spell_check wrote:

Wedgie wrote:

spell_check wrote:I wonder why they did not just have a big circle (50 yards/45 metres in diameter) to begin with, instead of a diamond. The boundary umpires could still be opposite each other in line with the closest point of the circle to the boundary line.

2 reasons.
1) its muche easier to judge if a player crosses a straight line as opposed to a curved one
2) straight lines are much easier to draw!

Not if they use bright enough lines, and I reakon there would be tools out there to draw circles - the 50 metre line is something that seems to be done well.

I disagree, straight lines are always going to be much easier to police, its why there's more mistakes from boundary umpires on the footy field than what there are on the soccer or rugby league field where there is straight lines.
I do however agree that from a logic point of view a circle would make more sense than a squre of diamond.

That's what I was thinking, makes more sense. I reakon that players still enter the square before the bounce/ball up anyway.

And AH, that's how it turned out to be in Round 21 1973, you probably saw this and the picture in the Advertiser of someone remarking the lines at Norwood at half time because of the mud.

spell_check wrote:That's what I was thinking, makes more sense. I reakon that players still enter the square before the bounce/ball up anyway.

And AH, that's how it turned out to be in Round 21 1973, you probably saw this and the picture in the Advertiser of someone remarking the lines at Norwood at half time because of the mud.

The week before was the match where Joanna Ratcliffe and Kirsty Gordon were abducted from Adelaide Oval.

I don't recall the picture from round 21, but I certainly recall the match. Norwood Oval was complete mud, not a blade of grass to be seen. The amazing thing is, the following week it was in beautiful condition. Norwood Oval didn't drain very well in those days

I've seen this photo before and I was under the impression it was the 73 Prelim. Which makes more sense when you see the line up. Robran started on the ball whereas in the Qualifying Plummer did.
Either way great photo.

Is that Michael Nunan's head that can be sen just above that NA no. 2??

edit: just saw Wedgie's list of names, so presumably isnt Nunan.

GWW wrote:Is that Michael Nunan's head that can be sen just above that NA no. 2??

edit: just saw Wedgie's list of names, so presumably isnt Nunan.

That would be Brendon Howard. (No. 2 is Terry Von Bertouch), I'm pretty sure Nunan is the player just behind the umpire.

Quagmire Final is more appropriate.

Is it just me or were the guernsey colours more vivid 35 years ago?