South Australian Football...

[wmvaux]

Who's idea was it too paint the point posts red?

I know it's something that probably started about 15 years ago, but recently driving around SA and Adelaide I saw a number of football grounds and wondered why someone thought painting the point posts red was a good idea.

Can anyone shed any light on this please?

 

[Ebert80]

In SA we do a few things differently, including 2 premiership points for a win in SANFL, and teams written with forwards up the top, defenders down the bottom.

Doesn't make us wrong though, however, just different.

I'm not sure when red posts commenced, but if you have a look at this color footage from late 1950's, there were red posts then..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaoWSECtURI&feature=related

I'm not sure its really a big deal TBH.

 

[wmvaux]

Thanks for the link to the video, I have been a Port fan for many years. Always loved seeing SANFL.

It was just curiosity on my behalf, but it's interesting to see the posts were red way back then too. I just think it makes it harder to see red posts as opposed to white and didn't know if there was a reason.

Yes I understand SA footy is a bit different and I have no complaints, just interested in it.

 

[knobby]

They have been red since I was a boy ! But as Ebert80 pointed out back in the 50's as well !
I actually spoke to the umpires director about this quite a few years back, he didnt have an answer, but summized that it could maybe be for the benefit of the goal umpire

 

[Smoooothy]

my local footy club has photo's from the 1920's, they had red posts back then too

no idea why it was done this way, footy park had red posts until the end of the 1990 SANFL season too

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Because the goal posts are white?

Would have spared Malcolm Blight some blushes if the VFL had adopted the same colour scheme

Same as it's 2 points for a win, 1 for a draw here. You'd only need to have 4 points for a win if there were result types where 1 or 3 points were given out. Logic at play.

 

[Robranisgod]

The behind posts have been red in SA for 100 years. I always thought that it was logical and that the VFL had it wrong. I know Prospect Oval still has red behind posts, I don't know which of the other SANFL Ovals still have them.

 

[wmvaux]

my local footy club has photo's from the 1920's, they had red posts back then too

no idea why it was done this way, footy park had red posts until the end of the 1990 SANFL season too

I guess they changed when Adelaide came in for the 91 season. Didn't they have a wire fence too for memory at football park?

 

[NSWCROW]

I guess they changed when Adelaide came in for the 91 season. Didn't they have a wire fence too for memory at football park?

Yep behind the goals.

 

[Alby_Green]

Thanks for the link to the video, I have been a Port fan for many years. Always loved seeing SANFL.

It was just curiosity on my behalf, but it's interesting to see the posts were red way back then too. I just think it makes it harder to see red posts as opposed to white and didn't know if there was a reason.

Yes I understand SA footy is a bit different and I have no complaints, just interested in it.

Thus making it easier to see the posts that you actually want to be kicking between - the goals! Footy is all about kicking goals!

It would be interesting to see a trial of the red behind posts in the AFL pre-season comp. IMO it makes a difference when having a snap for goal when there are only two white posts. Four white posts in a snap situation, not as easy.

 

[brucetiki]

I guess they changed when Adelaide came in for the 91 season. Didn't they have a wire fence too for memory at football park?

And still exist behind the goals at most SANFL grounds to this day - even Noarlunga (which was opened in 1995) has them. These days, however, some grounds have either replaced them with giant netting (similar to what AFL grounds have pre-match) or have tacked the netting around the fencing.

 

[Exe Gesis]

The other thing SA football does correctly* compared to VIC football is the percentages.

In Vic you divide 'for' by 'against' and multiply x 100. Which is too shallow, favors high-scoring teams too much, hurts defensive teams or teams who play in inclement weather.

Whereas in SA, you add the 'for' and 'against', then divide the 'for' by that total x 100. Which gives a far better indication of a teams dominance in all conditions, all types of games (open or dour games), as it highlights how many points a team contributes to the total number of points scored in a game.

* Other things SA does correctly is red behind posts, awarding 2 pts for a win not 4, and calling the check-side kick "check-side" not a "banana" which further illustrates the too shallow VIC way of thinking.

** This thread should be moved (imo) to the AFL board so the VICs can see it.

 

[Goat 53]

I've always thought the SA way of doing the percentage makes more sense. If you're 450 points for and 450 points against then you have 50% rather than 100%. To me it's more logical to say that your for points are 50% of the agregate.

 

[Exe Gesis]

That's a perfect example. Thanks for posting.

 

[FishingRick04]

We took a long time to get the 50 metre arc too

 

[brucetiki]

We took a long time to get the 50 metre arc too

No later than the VFL I didn't think - though we never coloured ours until about 2001, and even then that's at the club discretion and is usually marked in that club's colours.

The only time I've seen the SANFL arrange the colouring of 50 metre arcs was in last year's indigenous round, when one end was in Aboriginal colours and the the other end in Torres Strait Islander colours.

 

[nick1408]

I've always thought the SA way of doing the percentage makes more sense. If you're 450 points for and 450 points against then you have 50% rather than 100%. To me it's more logical to say that your for points are 50% of the agregate.

But doesn't it skew the results if a team is getting thumped?

450 for and 900 against gave me a percentage of 300% - ((450+900)/450*100=300)

Then if the scores are reversed it gave me 150% - ((900+450)/900*100=150)

Where have I gone wrong here?


Maybe if it was divided by against it would promote high scoring wins but then again dividing for and against does this well.

 

[knobby]

But doesn't it skew the results if a team is getting thumped?

450 for and 900 against gave me a percentage of 300% - ((450+900)/450*100=300)

Then if the scores are reversed it gave me 150% - ((900+450)/900*100=150)

Where have I gone wrong here?


Maybe if it was divided by against it would promote high scoring wins but then again dividing for and against does this well.

It's the other way;

Points for / total points (for + against) x 100
450 / 1350 x 100 = 33.33%.
900 / 1350 x 100 = 66.67%.

I gues the thinking is you've scored 33% or 66% in games played