Live Scores - Finals Week 1

[Trent Plucktrum]

Questions might want to be asked more so over the North runner pushing Ben Haren in 2nd quarter.

Disgraceful!

At least that one happened! It'll be interesting to see if the SANFL find it was deliberate or accidental.

We will see ...

Either way won't change the result

[Fluffbag]

What a game !
Some good skill levels for the first 3 quarters
SA made a few costly boo boos in the last quarter, NA made less , pressure of an elimination final an excuse

SA had an excellent season, if they aint raped by the AFL , can be a BIG flag hope next season

Thring, Spina, Barns , Smith did enough when needed
Hender amazes with what he can do on a football field

Loved the umpiring style
Less charity free kicks, ala AFL

Not sure how you can say South had an excellent season when we failed for the 54th year in a row, only Melbourne fans have waited as long as us. At least they made two grand finals since 1979.

Making top 5 when 2 out of 10 clubs aren’t really trying is hardly a great season.

[southee]

Questions might want to be asked more so over the North runner pushing Ben Haren in 2nd quarter.

Disgraceful!

At least that one happened! It'll be interesting to see if the SANFL find it was deliberate or accidental.

We will see ...

Either way won't change the result

Who said it had anything to do with changing the result ?

[Brendan M]

I was at the second game on Sunday and I felt a bit sorry for the umpires: they are the scapegoat for the AFL's mindless tinkering with our game. The 'new' holding the ball interpretation has overturned more than a century's principle that the player going for the ball is both protected and rewarded. To see a mob of players squealing at the umpires while laying on top of the fool who got to the ball first, and in most cases had no prior opportunity, is unedifying and wrong.

AFL Inc has changed this rule because coaches and the football industry have poisoned the game with presses, floods and scrums to win at all costs and to minimise the size of their losses. Yet it was the custodians of football that enabled this ugliness through a simple but profound rule change - introducing the interchange system. The intent was good, make sure there are 18 fit players on the ground. The outcome is bad - constant rotations to support 18 up and 18 back for a whole game.

While there is debate about introducing zones and enlarged goal squares, a sensible adjustment is to abolish the interchange. Have subs only and revert to a more sensible holding the ball rule. This will change the game for the better.

Whatever the AFL does about the rules, the last thing they should do is to listen too closely to those who invented and benefit from the existing system - the coaches, the administrators and bean counters who are too often concerned about their own interests -not the players, not the supporters and certainly not the umpires, who are stuck in the middle of this unhappy mess.

[Aerie]

Heard this odd fact from the 2nd game this morning.

Sturt laid 101 tackles and received only 1 holding the ball free. Eagles laid 86 tackles and received 10.

Glad this backs up what I thought on the day. Three glaring high tackles that weren’t paid, two in our F50 that were deemed HTB, the last free and resulting goal to WWT pretty well summed up the umpiring for the whole game.

The two in your F50 were because the Sturt players ducked in to the tackle trying to win a free kick. HTB every day of the week.

[CUTTERMAN]

Heard this odd fact from the 2nd game this morning.

Sturt laid 101 tackles and received only 1 holding the ball free. Eagles laid 86 tackles and received 10.

Glad this backs up what I thought on the day. Three glaring high tackles that weren’t paid, two in our F50 that were deemed HTB, the last free and resulting goal to WWT pretty well summed up the umpiring for the whole game.

The two in your F50 were because the Sturt players ducked in to the tackle trying to win a free kick. HTB every day of the week.

What a load of crap. I’m sure the vast majority of neutrals watching would disagree with you.

[GMcG]

I was at the second game on Sunday and I felt a bit sorry for the umpires: they are the scapegoat for the AFL's mindless tinkering with our game. The 'new' holding the ball interpretation has overturned more than a century's principle that the player going for the ball is both protected and rewarded. To see a mob of players squealing at the umpires while laying on top of the fool who got to the ball first, and in most cases had no prior opportunity, is unedifying and wrong.

AFL Inc has changed this rule because coaches and the football industry have poisoned the game with presses, floods and scrums to win at all costs and to minimise the size of their losses. Yet it was the custodians of football that enabled this ugliness through a simple but profound rule change - introducing the interchange system. The intent was good, make sure there are 18 fit players on the ground. The outcome is bad - constant rotations to support 18 up and 18 back for a whole game.

While there is debate about introducing zones and enlarged goal squares, a sensible adjustment is to abolish the interchange. Have subs only and revert to a more sensible holding the ball rule. This will change the game for the better.

Whatever the AFL does about the rules, the last thing they should do is to listen too closely to those who invented and benefit from the existing system - the coaches, the administrators and bean counters who are too often concerned about their own interests -not the players, not the supporters and certainly not the umpires, who are stuck in the middle of this unhappy mess.

these reasons are why I rarely go anymore, the game has turned into a boring, scrambly, rugby-ish game of keepings-off.

[blueandwhite]

Impartial view here.
Sturt are a 5 goal better side when Riley is fit and playing.
Mattner strangles the life out of the opposition, in a similar way to Norwood - when the opposition has a mark or free in their defensive 50 they will deliberately give away a 25 m penalty to give time to get 18 players in front of the ball. This works particularly well on smaller grounds like Norwood and Unley, where they can strangle the life out of the opposition, but the bigger grounds like Adelaide they find it difficult to cover the acerage quickly. Generally they score after a poor forward entry from the opposition, a turnover and a fast break to an open forward line. Usually 10-11 goals will win the game. Ugly but effective.

[Aerie]

Heard this odd fact from the 2nd game this morning.

Sturt laid 101 tackles and received only 1 holding the ball free. Eagles laid 86 tackles and received 10.

Glad this backs up what I thought on the day. Three glaring high tackles that weren’t paid, two in our F50 that were deemed HTB, the last free and resulting goal to WWT pretty well summed up the umpiring for the whole game.

The two in your F50 were because the Sturt players ducked in to the tackle trying to win a free kick. HTB every day of the week.

What a load of crap. I’m sure the vast majority of neutrals watching would disagree with you.

The ducking part or the if you duck it is play on, therefore holding the ball? Both times they definitely ducked.

McAdam was paid a mark in the last right in front of goal after he dropped it. He even played on and hand balled knowing he dropped it.

The worst decision of the day was the non-holding the ball when Poole was tackled running in to goal. That should have been a free kick to Sturt given they were hot on holding the ball all day.

[gadj1976]

I was at the second game on Sunday and I felt a bit sorry for the umpires: they are the scapegoat for the AFL's mindless tinkering with our game. The 'new' holding the ball interpretation has overturned more than a century's principle that the player going for the ball is both protected and rewarded. To see a mob of players squealing at the umpires while laying on top of the fool who got to the ball first, and in most cases had no prior opportunity, is unedifying and wrong.

AFL Inc has changed this rule because coaches and the football industry have poisoned the game with presses, floods and scrums to win at all costs and to minimise the size of their losses. Yet it was the custodians of football that enabled this ugliness through a simple but profound rule change - introducing the interchange system. The intent was good, make sure there are 18 fit players on the ground. The outcome is bad - constant rotations to support 18 up and 18 back for a whole game.

While there is debate about introducing zones and enlarged goal squares, a sensible adjustment is to abolish the interchange. Have subs only and revert to a more sensible holding the ball rule. This will change the game for the better.

Whatever the AFL does about the rules, the last thing they should do is to listen too closely to those who invented and benefit from the existing system - the coaches, the administrators and bean counters who are too often concerned about their own interests -not the players, not the supporters and certainly not the umpires, who are stuck in the middle of this unhappy mess.

Abolish the interchange completely? That will have a counter effect. It will make everyone more tired and AFL players admit that when they get tired, they surround the ball to stop the ball getting out. You'll also find, as a code, we produce more athletes rather than footballers (as I'd know them) which isn't the way I want the game to go.

If you mean abolish the interchange cap, then I'd agree with that.

[therisingblues]

The ducking part or the if you duck it is play on, therefore holding the ball? Both times they definitely ducked.

McAdam was paid a mark in the last right in front of goal after he dropped it. He even played on and hand balled knowing he dropped it.

The worst decision of the day was the non-holding the ball when Poole was tackled running in to goal. That should have been a free kick to Sturt given they were hot on holding the ball all day.

A rare moment when I will disagree with you.
I thought watching live he marked it, then I cursed when he played on. I reckon he had enough of it on the replay also.
If you look at the top 50 AFL marks of all time you will see players with less of what McAdam had of it on there.
My explanation of the play on would be that at Unley against North he took a similar grab, and the ball bounced free when he landed, the umpire called play on that day. Probably his memory of that warned him that it would happen again.

[RB]

I was at the second game on Sunday and I felt a bit sorry for the umpires: they are the scapegoat for the AFL's mindless tinkering with our game. The 'new' holding the ball interpretation has overturned more than a century's principle that the player going for the ball is both protected and rewarded. To see a mob of players squealing at the umpires while laying on top of the fool who got to the ball first, and in most cases had no prior opportunity, is unedifying and wrong.

AFL Inc has changed this rule because coaches and the football industry have poisoned the game with presses, floods and scrums to win at all costs and to minimise the size of their losses. Yet it was the custodians of football that enabled this ugliness through a simple but profound rule change - introducing the interchange system. The intent was good, make sure there are 18 fit players on the ground. The outcome is bad - constant rotations to support 18 up and 18 back for a whole game.

While there is debate about introducing zones and enlarged goal squares, a sensible adjustment is to abolish the interchange. Have subs only and revert to a more sensible holding the ball rule. This will change the game for the better.

Whatever the AFL does about the rules, the last thing they should do is to listen too closely to those who invented and benefit from the existing system - the coaches, the administrators and bean counters who are too often concerned about their own interests -not the players, not the supporters and certainly not the umpires, who are stuck in the middle of this unhappy mess.

Abolish the interchange completely? That will have a counter effect. It will make everyone more tired and AFL players admit that when they get tired, they surround the ball to stop the ball getting out. You'll also find, as a code, we produce more athletes rather than footballers (as I'd know them) which isn't the way I want the game to go.

If you mean abolish the interchange cap, then I'd agree with that.

We could go back to the early twentieth century when it was 36 men in a cage. No interchange, no 19th and 20th men, no substitutes.

Players won't know what to do when they've scored a goal!!

[gadj1976]

I was at the second game on Sunday and I felt a bit sorry for the umpires: they are the scapegoat for the AFL's mindless tinkering with our game. The 'new' holding the ball interpretation has overturned more than a century's principle that the player going for the ball is both protected and rewarded. To see a mob of players squealing at the umpires while laying on top of the fool who got to the ball first, and in most cases had no prior opportunity, is unedifying and wrong.

AFL Inc has changed this rule because coaches and the football industry have poisoned the game with presses, floods and scrums to win at all costs and to minimise the size of their losses. Yet it was the custodians of football that enabled this ugliness through a simple but profound rule change - introducing the interchange system. The intent was good, make sure there are 18 fit players on the ground. The outcome is bad - constant rotations to support 18 up and 18 back for a whole game.

While there is debate about introducing zones and enlarged goal squares, a sensible adjustment is to abolish the interchange. Have subs only and revert to a more sensible holding the ball rule. This will change the game for the better.

Whatever the AFL does about the rules, the last thing they should do is to listen too closely to those who invented and benefit from the existing system - the coaches, the administrators and bean counters who are too often concerned about their own interests -not the players, not the supporters and certainly not the umpires, who are stuck in the middle of this unhappy mess.

Abolish the interchange completely? That will have a counter effect. It will make everyone more tired and AFL players admit that when they get tired, they surround the ball to stop the ball getting out. You'll also find, as a code, we produce more athletes rather than footballers (as I'd know them) which isn't the way I want the game to go.

If you mean abolish the interchange cap, then I'd agree with that.

We could go back to the early twentieth century when it was 36 men in a cage. No interchange, no 19th and 20th men, no substitutes.

Players won't know what to do when they've scored a goal!!

Not sure what you mean RB - other than historically you are 100% accurate! ;-)

[RB]

Prior to 1930, no substitutes were permitted at all. If one of your 18 was injured, you were down to 17.

There's a number of reasons why you couldn't do that now, but nevertheless one can imagine how different the game would be with no bench/subs.

[VALE PARK]

Might make for a better game.

[wild dog]

AFL Inc has changed this rule because coaches and the football industry have poisoned the game with presses, floods and scrums to win at all costs and to minimise the size of their losses. Yet it was the custodians of football that enabled this ugliness through a simple but profound rule change - introducing the interchange system. The intent was good, make sure there are 18 fit players on the ground. The outcome is bad - constant rotations to support 18 up and 18 back for a whole game.

Abolish the interchange completely? That will have a counter effect. It will make everyone more tired and AFL players admit that when they get tired, they surround the ball to stop the ball getting out. You'll also find, as a code, we produce more athletes rather than footballers (as I'd know them) which isn't the way I want the game to go.

If you mean abolish the interchange cap, then I'd agree with that.

The point being, if you abolish the interchange, we go back to a positional based game because of physical limitations. As there are not as many chasing the ball around to make and close space i.e. zones, there will not be as many players surrounding the ball. They have experimented with capping the rotations for this reason.

Substitute players when form, tactics or injury dictates; a novel idea.

[gadj1976]

AFL Inc has changed this rule because coaches and the football industry have poisoned the game with presses, floods and scrums to win at all costs and to minimise the size of their losses. Yet it was the custodians of football that enabled this ugliness through a simple but profound rule change - introducing the interchange system. The intent was good, make sure there are 18 fit players on the ground. The outcome is bad - constant rotations to support 18 up and 18 back for a whole game.

Abolish the interchange completely? That will have a counter effect. It will make everyone more tired and AFL players admit that when they get tired, they surround the ball to stop the ball getting out. You'll also find, as a code, we produce more athletes rather than footballers (as I'd know them) which isn't the way I want the game to go.

If you mean abolish the interchange cap, then I'd agree with that.

The point being, if you abolish the interchange, we go back to a positional based game because of physical limitations. As there are not as many chasing the ball around to make and close space i.e. zones, there will not be as many players surrounding the ball. They have experimented with capping the rotations for this reason.

Substitute players when form, tactics or injury dictates; a novel idea.

Are we getting more congestion this year rather than last? I think we are and I think its because of reduced interchange (at AFL level).

Also, regarding the suggestion above, I think you underestimate the coaches. They'll still push players to get to each contest. The types of players introduced to the game will be runners than skillful footballers. I know what I'd rather watch.

I work at a junior club and if the A grade has no rotations, we'll start teaching kids how to play like that from U11's!

I think the idea of no interchange would be a disastrous idea.

[wild dog]

....... The outcome is bad - constant rotations to support 18 up and 18 back for a whole game.

Abolish the interchange completely? That will have a counter effect. It will make everyone more tired and AFL players admit that when they get tired, they surround the ball to stop the ball getting out. You'll also find, as a code, we produce more athletes rather than footballers (as I'd know them) which isn't the way I want the game to go.

The point being, if you abolish the interchange, we go back to a positional based game because of physical limitations. As there are not as many chasing the ball around to make and close space i.e. zones, there will not be as many players surrounding the ball. They have experimented with capping the rotations for this reason.

Are we getting more congestion this year rather than last? I think we are and I think its because of reduced interchange (at AFL level).

Also, regarding the suggestion above, I think you underestimate the coaches. They'll still push players to get to each contest. The types of players introduced to the game will be runners than skillful footballers. I know what I'd rather watch.

I work at a junior club and if the A grade has no rotations, we'll start teaching kids how to play like that from U11's!

I think the idea of no interchange would be a disastrous idea.

An honest answer gadj - I don't know because I have stopped watching. I watch my son in the under 9's and the odd Centrals game - 3 this year. It is only what I have read regards the capping of rotations and the benefits that is supposed to provide.

Good luck with the junior coaching, looks like my turn next year.

[SABRE]

Both clubs haven't won a crumpet for 54 years, yet the psychological highs
and lows right now couldn't be more different for supporters of each club.
For South Adelaide ....

I hate football

And moments ago from 'Nasher' on the Melbourne Demons forum ....

F**k yes. How good is football?

Oh dear Lordy, sport at it's utterly cruel best. I feel for both of you.

Luv,
Sabre.

[Dogs64]

Anyone know if the reserves finals are on the digital pass?
0