SA Footy

gadj1976 wrote:

therisingblues wrote:North were fantastic today. Sturt were too slow by comparison, dropped too many possessions and were poorer around stoppages.
There was a heap of Red and White in the crowd again, they made more noise than those of us wearing Blue also. Perhaps because they were leading all day, but I reckon there might have been more of them than us! I am not used to saying that.
Back to the footy, and I reckon we actually played better today than we did against the Eagles, but North seemed to have us all worked out. It seemed whatever we tried to stifle them or outclass them just did not work. Impressive stuff.
I imagine a Norwood v North Grand Final at Adelaide Oval would go close to being filled, and I was looking forward to Sturt being part of that equation somehow. In today's era of footy, there has to be an extra honour to participate in a sold out SANFL Grand Final.
Thanks Osborne for the two flags, congratulations on a great career.Another irreplaceable player. Best of luck for the future.

TRB, that would have to be our two worst games I've seen in a decade or two. We played like Sturt of the mid 90's. No game plan, no forwards and no skills. We played injured players and that didn't assist but it's not to say that was the difference. We were outplayed by a faster more keen, structured and switched on unit in North.

What struck me the most was our skills. We were just plain terrible. We turned it over several times which cost us goals. Not that it singularly would've been an issue, however North's implied pressure made it even worse.

Not sure if we were THAT bad, but we looked like a completely different side to what I witnessed in the minor round.
Sometimes it was as simple as not holding a mark in the forward lines. On three occasions, just off the top of my head, we moved the ball well out of North's forward 50. Got the ball to within scoring range, with a player just needing to complete the mark... and he didn't.
North's crumbers then gathered, and the ball went zooming down the opposite wing... North goal.
Key moments like those, where we were trailing by between 2 to 4 goals, could have resulted in extra pressure on the opposition, and instead of being 2 goals down, the margin extends to 4 goals.
Having said that, North missed a lot of easy shots on goal, and should have been further ahead. But you have to take your chances when you get them. We were still about 5 goals down at 3/4 time. i know we had a depleted bench by then... damn frustrating game. Ironically, the only pleasure to be had was watching the Roosters show how it's done, at our bloody expense!

ferret wrote:Why are most posters saying that Norwood played played badly, give some credit to the Eagles. The Eagles didn't allow Norwood to play their normal free flowing attacking football. Hard contested defensive football can also be a part of a teams armoury.

Mate I give the Eagles plenty of credit. They were committed, tough, tenacious and gritty and whilst I think we made a heap of errors, many of them were as a result of the pressure the Eagles applied. Regardless of who wins the Prelim, the GF will be a genuine 50/50 game.

FlyingHigh wrote:

ferret wrote:Why are most posters saying that Norwood played played badly, give some credit to the Eagles. The Eagles didn't allow Norwood to play their normal free flowing attacking football. Hard contested defensive football can also be a part of a teams armoury.

From what I saw, yeah, the Eagles played with a good plan that somewhat frustrated Norwood, combined with, as Spargo said during the game, Norwood playing a little bit arrogantly.

If Norwood want to get their hands properly dirty in the GF, can't see either North or Eagles getting close, former will be an 18 to 11 goal game, latter 14 to 7.

I certainly think that Norwood are red hot favourites but I do give the other teams a silly show. North made Norwood look slow at Prospect early in the year although Norwood had clearly not reached their peak to that point. Then at the Parade North looked to have Norwood's measure for much of the game and this was without North's wildcard, Hender, playing. Norwood's class and experience did win through though on that occasion.
North would need fine weather to beat either the Eagles of Norwood.
Whoever wins this week would have to get through unscathed to have a chance though. Norwood look to be virtually at full strength. We all saw what injuries to key players did to Sturt.

Norwood as good as they seem to be with a host of AFL standard players will have only played one game in four weeks. This tends to make you go stale while the other challengers get extra practice and barring injuries running into form.
It could be whoever wins the prelim is in the box seat to cause a boilover

robranisgod wrote:

FlyingHigh wrote:

ferret wrote:Why are most posters saying that Norwood played played badly, give some credit to the Eagles. The Eagles didn't allow Norwood to play their normal free flowing attacking football. Hard contested defensive football can also be a part of a teams armoury.

From what I saw, yeah, the Eagles played with a good plan that somewhat frustrated Norwood, combined with, as Spargo said during the game, Norwood playing a little bit arrogantly.

If Norwood want to get their hands properly dirty in the GF, can't see either North or Eagles getting close, former will be an 18 to 11 goal game, latter 14 to 7.

North would need fine weather to beat either the Eagles of Norwood.

Sunday fine and 19

Said to a Norwood mate after the elimination final I though North were the only side that could knock them off. Didn't think Sturt or the Eagles had the firepower up forward to knock Norwood off in a final. Sturt did well to finish where they did but I don't reckon they got over losing Beard and the Eagles don't seem to put enough scoreboard pressure on when they have the momentum. The Cocks can score and score heavily. That being said, I also said I have been wrong in the past. Go the Cocks!

Tom Gray did his ACL yesterday.

By current standards it wasn't a bad crowd yesterday. It was on a par with 2010 and 2014 and just less than 2009. It was certainly much better than crowds for other semi finals of the last 10 years.

robranisgod wrote:By current standards it wasn't a bad crowd yesterday. It was on a par with 2010 and 2014 and just less than 2009. It was certainly much better than crowds for other semi finals of the last 10 years.

I would say that was because 3 of the sides have a very reasonable following.
What was the official crowd figure? It looked above 10,000, but it is hard to estimate that size crowd at Adelaide.

therisingblues wrote:

robranisgod wrote:By current standards it wasn't a bad crowd yesterday. It was on a par with 2010 and 2014 and just less than 2009. It was certainly much better than crowds for other semi finals of the last 10 years.

I would say that was because 3 of the sides have a very reasonable following.
What was the official crowd figure? It looked above 10,000, but it is hard to estimate that size crowd at Adelaide.

13,000+ from memory as per Monday's paper.

Reddeer wrote:Norwood as good as they seem to be with a host of AFL standard players will have only played one game in four weeks. This tends to make you go stale while the other challengers get extra practice and barring injuries running into form.
It could be whoever wins the prelim is in the box seat to cause a boilover

Centrals had something like 11 2nd semi finals wins & won 9 grand finals, there goes that theory.

robranisgod wrote:By current standards it wasn't a bad crowd yesterday. It was on a par with 2010 and 2014 and just less than 2009. It was certainly much better than crowds for other semi finals of the last 10 years.

2008 / Sturt vs Norwood & Central District vs Glenelg / Adelaide Oval / 22568

2009 / Sturt vs Eagles & Central District vs Glenelg / Football Park / 14207

2010 / Eagles vs Glenelg & Central District vs Norwood / Football Park / 13162

2011 / Eagles vs South Adelaide & Central District vs Norwood / Football Park / 11443

2012 / North Adelaide vs Central District & Norwood vs West Adelaide / Football Park / 10284

2013 / North Adelaide vs Eagles & Norwood vs West Adelaide / Football Park / 9248

2014 / South Adelaide vs Sturt & Norwood vs Power Reserves / Adelaide Oval / 13431

2015 / Central District vs Power Reserves & Eagles vs West Adelaide / Adelaide Oval / 9247

2016 / Ravens vs South Adelaide & Eagles vs Sturt / Adelaide Oval / 9029

2017 / Sturt vs Central District & Power Reserves vs Eagles / Adelaide Oval / 9029


https://australianfootball.com/leagues/ ... limit=1000


I think I've collated that correctly, but can't vouch for the accuracy of the figures

GMcG wrote:

Reddeer wrote:Norwood as good as they seem to be with a host of AFL standard players will have only played one game in four weeks. This tends to make you go stale while the other challengers get extra practice and barring injuries running into form.
It could be whoever wins the prelim is in the box seat to cause a boilover

Centrals had something like 11 2nd semi finals wins & won 9 grand finals, there goes that theory.

Yep, close, 13 wins.

FWIW, the two that the 'Dogs have lost have been to the eventual Premier '(79 and '95.)

North Adelaide midfielder Jarred Allmond is available to play in Sunday’s Preliminary Final after having his rough conduct charge downgraded at the SANFL Tribunal on Tuesday night.

Originally offered a one-match ban with an early guilty plea for engaging in rough conduct with Sturt’s Josh Dodd in Sunday’s First Semi-Final at Adelaide Oval, Allmond risked a two-match ban if unsuccessful.

Allmond pleaded guilty to the charge of rough conduct but challenged the finding of high contact (to Dodd’s head).

The SANFL Tribunal panel, after hearing evidence from Dodd, deemed that in the circumstances, high contact couldn’t be established beyond reasonable doubt.

This ensured Allmond’s penalty was scaled down to a $200 fine and reprimand.

http://sanfl.com.au/news/2018/09/11/week-2-finals-sanfl-irp/

saintal wrote:

therisingblues wrote:

robranisgod wrote:By current standards it wasn't a bad crowd yesterday. It was on a par with 2010 and 2014 and just less than 2009. It was certainly much better than crowds for other semi finals of the last 10 years.

I would say that was because 3 of the sides have a very reasonable following.
What was the official crowd figure? It looked above 10,000, but it is hard to estimate that size crowd at Adelaide.

13,000+ from memory as per Monday's paper.

Official crowd : 13,102

Magellan wrote:North Adelaide midfielder Jarred Allmond is available to play in Sunday’s Preliminary Final after having his rough conduct charge downgraded at the SANFL Tribunal on Tuesday night.

Originally offered a one-match ban with an early guilty plea for engaging in rough conduct with Sturt’s Josh Dodd in Sunday’s First Semi-Final at Adelaide Oval, Allmond risked a two-match ban if unsuccessful.

Allmond pleaded guilty to the charge of rough conduct but challenged the finding of high contact (to Dodd’s head).

The SANFL Tribunal panel, after hearing evidence from Dodd, deemed that in the circumstances, high contact couldn’t be established beyond reasonable doubt.

This ensured Allmond’s penalty was scaled down to a $200 fine and reprimand.

http://sanfl.com.au/news/2018/09/11/week-2-finals-sanfl-irp/

That is a very strange phrase to use in a footy Tribunal hearing. The law is clear: disciplinary Tribunals of all sorts act on the balance of probabilities (with the only extra 'hurdle' that serious allegations should not be regarded as proved based on flimsy evidence). The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt only applies to criminal proceedings in a Court.

You do hear the phrase 'benefit of the doubt' used in footy Tribunal (and other informal Tribunal) proceedings, but that's just used in its general colloquial sense—the 'prosecution' doesn't have to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt for the player to be found 'guilty' and disciplined.

It's not just a semantic point in this case, either: unless Dodd was particularly convincing for the defence, it's theoretically possible on the reverse angle we've got that contact was to Dodd's shoulder/collarbone area, but given the way that Dodd's head jerks back instantly (in circumstances where it's very unlikely to be a stage) it's much more likely that some contact was made to his head.

So it would appear that (unless the person writing up the result has taken a liberty) that Mr Allmond and North may have gotten very lucky.

Wasn't even deemed a free kick by the umpires, wasn't evem deemed a mention by the commentators, wasn't deemed anything by the bloke on the receiving end. Was a ridiculous initial decision by the IRP obviously trying to justify their existence. If that was worth a game 30 players would get reported and miss games every week.

Guy who laid the bump: wasn't high
Guy who was on the receiving end: wasn't high
Sturt players who didn't remonstrate: wasn't high
3 umpires on the ground: wasn't high
Guy watching a video taken from one camera 100 metres away: it might have been high
North lucky my arse, it was a no brainer to take that one to the tribunal. Its much more likely no contact was made to the head according to that evidence! He pushed a guy in the side as he kicked it FFS.

Whoever made the decision in the IRP to give him 2 games should be sacked. Saying something couldn't be proved was just their way of covering someone's arse who made a riculous decision, they couldn't come out and say the guy was completely incompetent or cheating.

Mr Allmond and North are extremely unlucky they had to deal with this distraction because of someone's incompetence.

Wedgie wrote:Wasn't even deemed a free kick by the umpires, wasn't evem deemed a mention by the commentators, wasn't deemed anything by the bloke on the receiving end. Was a ridiculous initial decision by the IRP obviously trying to justify their existence. If that was worth a game 30 players would get reported and miss games every week.

Guy who laid the bump: wasn't high
Guy who was on the receiving end: wasn't high
Sturt players who didn't remonstrate: wasn't high
3 umpires on the ground: wasn't high
Guy watching a video taken from one camera 100 metres away: it might have been high
North lucky my arse, it was a no brainer to take that one to the tribunal. Its much more likely no contact was made to the head according to that evidence! He pushed a guy in the side as he kicked it FFS.

Whoever made the decision in the IRP to give him 2 games should be sacked. Saying something couldn't be proved was just their way of covering someone's arse who made a riculous decision, they couldn't come out and say the guy was completely incompetent or cheating.

Mr Allmond and North are extremely unlucky they had to deal with this distraction because of someone's incompetence.

You should be a lawyer

SimonH wrote:

Magellan wrote:North Adelaide midfielder Jarred Allmond is available to play in Sunday’s Preliminary Final after having his rough conduct charge downgraded at the SANFL Tribunal on Tuesday night.

Originally offered a one-match ban with an early guilty plea for engaging in rough conduct with Sturt’s Josh Dodd in Sunday’s First Semi-Final at Adelaide Oval, Allmond risked a two-match ban if unsuccessful.

Allmond pleaded guilty to the charge of rough conduct but challenged the finding of high contact (to Dodd’s head).

The SANFL Tribunal panel, after hearing evidence from Dodd, deemed that in the circumstances, high contact couldn’t be established beyond reasonable doubt.

This ensured Allmond’s penalty was scaled down to a $200 fine and reprimand.

http://sanfl.com.au/news/2018/09/11/week-2-finals-sanfl-irp/

That is a very strange phrase to use in a footy Tribunal hearing. The law is clear: disciplinary Tribunals of all sorts act on the balance of probabilities (with the only extra 'hurdle' that serious allegations should not be regarded as proved based on flimsy evidence). The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt only applies to criminal proceedings in a Court.

You do hear the phrase 'benefit of the doubt' used in footy Tribunal (and other informal Tribunal) proceedings, but that's just used in its general colloquial sense—the 'prosecution' doesn't have to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt for the player to be found 'guilty' and disciplined.

It's not just a semantic point in this case, either: unless Dodd was particularly convincing for the defence, it's theoretically possible on the reverse angle we've got that contact was to Dodd's shoulder/collarbone area, but given the way that Dodd's head jerks back instantly (in circumstances where it's very unlikely to be a stage) it's much more likely that some contact was made to his head.

So it would appear that (unless the person writing up the result has taken a liberty) that Mr Allmond and North may have gotten very lucky.

Apparently Dodd was very convincing for the defence. He openly stated that he wasn't hit high. If the player hit said that he wasn't hit high I think that means that there is reasonable doubt. Furthermore he wasn't concussed and got up and was back involving himself in the play within about 10 seconds.

SimonH wrote:So it would appear that (unless the person writing up the result has taken a liberty)

There's every chance...