View Full Version : Only in South Australia...
footyman
20 May 2003, 23:52
Why do they have different coloured behind posts in South Australia (SANFL)? There was a game on Foxtel last week where they had green behind posts - great when there is a hill of green grass behind the goals.
Can anyone tell me why they don't just use white posts?
I'd also be curious to know the answer, I went to Norwood last year and no one there knew the answer. all they could say was that its always been that way.
footyman
21 May 2003, 00:41
Originally posted by DaveW
Seen the MCG lately?
I have mate, but they are only the tops of the posts and we know the reason for that - cos players whinged about the white light tower behind.
Why are the whole posts different colours in SANFL and what is the reason for it?
safooty
21 May 2003, 02:31
To be specifically correct footyman,
The ground you were watching was Elizabeth Oval (I umpired that match - Central v Eagles) and the posts are not green & blue. That is the goal post padding.
The colours represented Centrals main sponsor in NAP Financial Services.
Depending on the Ground and their sponsors, the padding will differ. This would only be in SANFL, not amateur league etc etc.
Captain Kouta
21 May 2003, 12:55
Behind posts have always been red in SA.
It makes it easier to see the goals in a split second.
timelord
21 May 2003, 14:05
South Australia have always been just that little bit different. Red behind posts, 2 points for a win and one point for a draw (shouldn't that apply for every Showdown? :D ), percentages half of the rest of country.....any more I've missed?
Originally posted by timelord
South Australia have always been just that little bit different. Red behind posts, 2 points for a win and one point for a draw (shouldn't that apply for every Showdown? :D ), percentages half of the rest of country.....any more I've missed?
You mean the fact that percentages are actually percentages is a bad thing?
mud n blood
21 May 2003, 16:47
Heaps of grounds up here in Brisbane have yellow point posts, but always white goal posts.
screech
21 May 2003, 16:55
Our percentages are a much better system than the vic system where in some junior comps you get dominating teams with infinity percent or 5 digit percentages.
SA Percentage = Points Scored/(Points Scored + Points Conceded)
ie 100% means that no points have been conceded
0% means no points have been scored
and everything in between.
Vic Percentage = Points Scored/Points Conceded
Infinity% means no points have been conceded
0% means no points have been scored
and everything in between.
There is no real difference except the SA system reads a bit better and looks neater.
EagleBlue
21 May 2003, 20:54
Originally posted by timelord
2 points for a win and one point for a draw (shouldn't that apply for every Showdown?
Pay that one !!!! :D
Phil Doyle
21 May 2003, 23:04
Originally posted by Captain Kouta
Behind posts have always been red in SA.
It makes it easier to see the goals in a split second.
When snapping fer goal you should be aiming for a point behind the goals and ignoring the big sticks. I always aim for the goal ump, and miss more often than not.
Oh yeah, and in Mexico they name the sides back to front.
Unley Legend
21 May 2003, 23:40
Originally posted by timelord
South Australia have always been just that little bit different. Red behind posts, 2 points for a win and one point for a draw (shouldn't that apply for every Showdown? :D ), percentages half of the rest of country.....any more I've missed?
Yes, here in SA, in the team lists, the team is listed full forward line at the top, instead of full back line at the top. Now, before you complain about how stupid that is, think about it for a second. This way the left half forward flank is on the left hand side of the page, not on the right like in the ridiculous AFL listings. Am I the only one who finds the AFL listings really frustrating to read?
Uncle Steve
21 May 2003, 23:47
The 25-metre penalty is a Croweater innovation, is it not?
Originally posted by timelord
2 points for a win and one point for a draw (shouldn't that apply for every Showdown? :D ) Ah yes, I remember Trevor Marmalade using that line in 1997. Amazing that you can poke fun at a more sensible system. *hmph* :)
Originally posted by Port01
You mean the fact that percentages are actually percentages is a bad thing? INDEED! The AFL should really call their calculation a quotient.
Originally posted by Port01
You mean the fact that percentages are actually percentages is a bad thing?
Both are percentages, just of different things. Although points for/points against is a bit easier to work out quickly than points for/total points when they don't give you total points in the ladder!
timelord
22 May 2003, 00:16
You mean the fact that percentages are actually percentages is a bad thing?
What is that supposed to mean, Port01?
I was merely reflecting on the fact that SA leagues work out their percentages differently - to the rest of Australia for the record, not just Victoria (to correct Screech on that one).
Actually Screech, there is an easier way (IMO) to explain how percentages are worked out.
SA - Points Scored/Points Conceded x 50
Rest - Points Scored/Points Conceded x 100
What that means is, if you've scored more points than you have conceded, in South Australia the percentage is 50% or higher. In the rest of Australia it's 100% or higher - hence my reference to SA being "half" (fitting in with the premiership points, which is exactly the same principle)
My comment was NOT a reflection on which system is better - just a reflection on the difference. We could argue which is better until doomsday!
BTW - Uncle Steve - I don't know when SA introduced the 25 metre penalty, but I do know that at least one metro Melbourne league introduced it the same year the 50 metre penalty was introduced in the then VFL (1988 I think it was). The league was Diamond Valley and they still use it. Nowadays so do Eastern and the VAFA. The 15 metre penalty is still used at the lower junior levels - as it should be.
Originally posted by timelord
SA - Points Scored/Points Conceded x 50
WRONG.What that means is, if you've scored more points than you have conceded, in South Australia the percentage is 50% or higher. In the rest of Australia it's 100% or higher - hence my reference to SA being "half" (fitting in with the premiership points, which is exactly the same principle)
That much is true.
Originally posted by DaveW
WRONG.
You really do have a problem mate. Don't bother correcting him or anything. Or actually providing reasons why you think the SA system is better.
Mobbenfuhrer
28 May 2003, 16:09
For Aga Vic SA
100 80 125% 56%
80 100 80% 44%
90 178 51% 34%
178 90 198% 66%
0 100 0% 0%
100 0 #DIV/0! 100%
timelord
29 May 2003, 01:11
Originally posted by DaveW
WRONG.
I just looked at Kev's caulculations. What is going on here?
I double checked with the SANFL ladder.
I have to say that the SA way of calculating percentages is absolutely ridiculous. It gives no credit at all to the teams who score heaps and keep their opponents quiet.
The 2 points for a win, 1 point for a draw at least makes sense. This doesn't. Not at all.
Originally posted by timelord
I have to say that the SA way of calculating percentages is absolutely ridiculous. It gives no credit at all to the teams who score heaps and keep their opponents quiet. Huh? If it was calculated the AFL way the same order is maintained as if it was calculated the SANFL way. It may not look as big - just as a 6 points gap may not look as big as a 12 point gap ;). So I don't understand your point.
Originally posted by ozzult
You really do have a problem mate. Don't bother correcting him or anything. Or actually providing reasons why you think the SA system is better. Look, what he said was factually incorrect. The correct formula was mentioned earlier in the thread. He chose to ignore it or mistakenly believed his calculation was the same, which it isn't. Look at Mobbenfuhrer's figures - you'll see the SA column is not always half the Vic column.
And the SA system isn't necessarily 'better', but it fits the description. :)
For those interested - and to refute timelord's claim that the SANFL way is 'absolutely ridiculous' - here's a short proof that the SANFL percentage will still order teams the same was as the AFL percentage.
Team 1 F points for, A points against
Team 2 f points for, a points against
100 * F / (F + A) > 100 * f / (f + a) [SANFL percentage]
<=> F / (F + A) > f / (f + a)
<=> (F + A) / F < (f + a) / f
<=> F / F + A / F < f / f + a / f
<=> 1 + A / F < 1 + a / f
<=> A / F < a / f
<=> F / A > f / a
<=> 100 * F / A > 100 * f / a [AFL percentage]
So its just a question of taste which is chosen.
Yes, I'm a nerd.
Originally posted by timelord
II have to say that the SA way of calculating percentages is absolutely ridiculous. It gives no credit at all to the teams who score heaps and keep their opponents quiet.
There isn't any difference.
Non-mathematically, the SA version is:
'What percentage of the score in your games do you score?'
The Vic version is:
'What percentage of the oppositions totals in your game do you manage?'
Both will give the same ladder, and reward teams identically.
I think the AFL version is mathematically cleaner, but the SA version is cleaner in spoken terms.
timelord
29 May 2003, 11:58
Originally posted by DaveW
For those interested - and to refute timelord's claim that the SANFL way is 'absolutely ridiculous' - here's a short proof that the SANFL percentage will still order teams the same was as the AFL percentage.
Team 1 F points for, A points against
Team 2 f points for, a points against
100 * F / (F + A) > 100 * f / (f + a) [SANFL percentage]
<=> F / (F + A) > f / (f + a)
<=> (F + A) / F < (f + a) / f
<=> F / F + A / F < f / f + a / f
<=> 1 + A / F < 1 + a / f
<=> A / F < a / f
<=> F / A > f / a
<=> 100 * F / A > 100 * f / a [AFL percentage]
So its just a question of taste which is chosen.
Yes, I'm a nerd.
I think my point is proven. The SA version is complicated. The other version is simple. Hence my observation about the SA system being ridiculous.
As far as which system is better - I think I said this before, we'll argue that until doomsday and not get anywhere.
timelord
29 May 2003, 12:04
Originally posted by Port01
There isn't any difference.
Non-mathematically, the SA version is:
'What percentage of the score in your games do you score?'
The Vic version is:
'What percentage of the oppositions totals in your game do you manage?'
Both will give the same ladder, and reward teams identically.
I think the AFL version is mathematically cleaner, but the SA version is cleaner in spoken terms.
Under the SA version it is impossible to get more than 100%.
Under the other version it can go much higher, which is what I meant about teams being rewarded for scoring heaps and keeping the opposition quiet.
Therefore, I can not agree that teams are rewarded identically - even if the ladder order doesn't change.
And there is another factor. How good will a team feel if they beat a team with a percentage of 600%? A whole lot better than they would if they beat a team with less than 100%! Case in point - VAFA Under 19's a few weeks back, Banyule v Uni Blacks which I umpired. Black were on around 600%. Banyule were about 200%. Both sides were undefeated. Banyule won, and celebrated like they'd won a flag almost!
(and this post was my 500th!!)
Originally posted by timelord
Under the SA version it is impossible to get more than 100%.
Under the other version it can go much higher, which is what I meant about teams being rewarded for scoring heaps and keeping the opposition quiet.
Therefore, I can not agree that teams are rewarded identically - even if the ladder order doesn't change. timelord, that makes about as much sense as saying 2 points isn't a proper reward for winning but 4 points is.
Ask Malcolm Blight if he wished there were red point posts when he ran into the open point that day.
Originally posted by DaveW
timelord, that makes about as much sense as saying 2 points isn't a proper reward for winning but 4 points is.
haha
yeah how about the AFL award 4,000 points for every win and the percentages as they stand can be multiplied by 100.
Then they can look better and people like timelord can actually think their team has been performing better.
Both systems are essentially the same, just on a different scale. If you want to compare systems, look at what they do in Soccer and Ice Hockey where the percentage is irrelevant and they go on goal difference. We have a fairer system than those sports.
Mong
timelord
29 May 2003, 23:21
Originally posted by DaveW
timelord, that makes about as much sense as saying 2 points isn't a proper reward for winning but 4 points is.
Which is an interesting observation when you consider that I AGREE with you about the premiership points!!
Obviously you are so into the pros of the SA system that you are unwittingly blind to the cons - and happily so it seems. Well, that's your problem, buddy. We will never agree, so it's best to leave the argument at that because it's getting too close for my liking to getting personal.
Originally posted by timelord
Which is an interesting observation when you consider that I AGREE with you about the premiership points!!It was an analogy.
Obviously you are so into the pros of the SA system that you are unwittingly blind to the cons - and happily so it seems. Well, that's your problem, buddy. We will never agree, so it's best to leave the argument at that because it's getting too close for my liking to getting personal. First of all, you're the one making it personal. You're calling me blind, not the other way around. Your argument that teams don't get proper reward in the SANFL doesn't make a lot of sense. Percentage is not a reward in itself - its just a relative separator. Now it still separates the same as AFL percentage, so what's the problem?
Another analogy... What if the AFL decided that they wouldn't have the factor of 100 in their percentage calculation? i.e. Just a straight out division of for by against. So in the AFL ladder you see this:
3. Port Adelaide 6-3 1.1954
4. Fremantle 6-3 1.1370
The difference in percentage is now just 0.06 instead of 6. But the same order is still maintained, so surely there's no problem?
timelord
29 May 2003, 23:39
DaveW has been added to my ignore list (a first for me because it takes a lot to make me do that!). And the previous post has been reported for it's rude and ignorant tone.
Originally posted by timelord
DaveW has been added to my ignore list (a first for me because it takes a lot to make me do that!). And the previous post has been reported for it's rude and ignorant tone. What the? Are you suzi olsen in disguise? Someone doesn't agree with you so you ignore them? I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall trying to get my point across. Please tell me (if you do at some stage un-ignore me), what part of my post was 'rude'? What part was 'ignorant'? If you look at some of the stuff you've written in this thread I'd say that would be a fitting description of yourself.
Mobbenfuhrer
30 May 2003, 00:06
I can't for the life of me see what was rude about Dave's post, Phil.
As it appears, the two of you simply differ on which method holds the most value. Others on the same thread have also argued the same toss.
I also have to say that until this thread, I didn't realise what the difference in the two methods actually was. I thought the SA figures were simply half the 'rest' figures.
What's got me interested now is; are the situations where the different methods could at all cause a difference in the ladder line-up?
Originally posted by Mobbenfuhrer
What's got me interested now is; are the situations where the different methods could at all cause a difference in the ladder line-up? No. That was the key point of the proof.
100 * F / (F + A) > 100 * f / (f + a) [SANFL percentage]
<=> 100 * F / A > 100 * f / a [AFL percentage]
If your SANFL percentage is superior then your AFL percentage is superior. :)
Mobbenfuhrer
30 May 2003, 00:20
Originally posted by DaveW
No. That was the key point of the proof.
100 * F / (F + A) > 100 * f / (f + a) [SANFL percentage]
<=> 100 * F / A > 100 * f / a [AFL percentage]
If your SANFL percentage is superior then your AFL percentage is superior. :)
Yeah I saw all that ... can't understand a bloody word of it! :o
Originally posted by Mobbenfuhrer
Yeah I saw all that ... can't understand a bloody word of it! :o :) Well anyway, in the example you provide, the ordering in both cases is Team 6*, Team 4, Team 1, Team 2, Team 3, Team 5.
* Presuming infinity is a valid value on the Vic ladder
Mobbenfuhrer
30 May 2003, 00:29
Originally posted by DaveW
* Presuming infinity is a valid value on the Vic ladder
I have no idea how its shown, but it has to be accepted as a valid value.
Remember Fitzroy's first match as tenant at Western Oval? Round 1, 1995, I think. 0.0 at half-time. We nearly found out!
timelord
30 May 2003, 12:41
Originally posted by Mobbenfuhrer
I can't for the life of me see what was rude about Dave's post, Phil.
As it appears, the two of you simply differ on which method holds the most value. Others on the same thread have also argued the same toss.
The key is in the second paragraph, Kev. Dave is making a call that is complicated to the layman - and his rudeness and ignorance lies in his apparent refusal to accept that this is the case. I take that as a personal affront because I take the view that the simpler a system is, the easier it is to understand. Dave can throw all the mathematical logic at me that he wants - he will continue to ignore (hence the ignorance) the simplicity of the AFL system. And his refusal acknowledge my argument as valid - whether he agrees with it or not - is just plain rude.
And you, Kev, know an additional reason why I see things slightly differently anyway - and I won't publicise it here because it hasn't directly affected this particular problem.
Mobbenfuhrer
30 May 2003, 13:03
The only thing that looks complicated to me is Dave's calculation with all the '<==>'s (which almost made my brain explode) ... the two contesting methods don't seem complicated at all.
Which one is 'better' is a matter of opinion.
timelord
30 May 2003, 13:10
Originally posted by Mobbenfuhrer
The only thing that looks complicated to me is Dave's calculation with all the '<==>'s (which almost made my brain explode) ... the two contesting methods don't seem complicated at all.
Which one is 'better' is a matter of opinion.
Well, I can see things in the SA system that you can't, Kev - again for that same reason. And I think you saw it as well hence your near brain explosion!
I never even wanted to enter an argument about which was better. After all - I have said twice now on this thread (and this is now the third time) that argument could go onto until doomsday and never be resolved. And yet Dave is determined to convince me otherwise - and I am simply not biting because he is refusing to see that the AFL system is SIMPLER, not better - there is a difference.
He can argue all be wants about better - he will NEVER win the argument about simple. The AFL system wins hand down there. Whether or not being simple makes it better is a moot point now.
Mobbenfuhrer
30 May 2003, 13:25
I thought I could see what you're saying about the SA system that you don't like ... aren't you're saying that a) clubs aren't rewarded with big percentages for big wins and b) clubs aren't rewarded for beating teams on big percentages?
But I don't understand why you think SA % doesn't show that. So, maybe I've missed something.
To me, it would be a great reward for an SA team to defeat a team that had a % of 100 ... because its the maximum.
I have to admit that I disagree that the Vic system is simpler. I like it better, but I don't think it is better.
screech mentioned earlier in this thread :
Originally posted by screech
SA Percentage = Points Scored/(Points Scored + Points Conceded)
ie 100% means that no points have been conceded
0% means no points have been scored
and everything in between.
Vic Percentage = Points Scored/Points Conceded
Infinity% means no points have been conceded
0% means no points have been scored
and everything in between.
If you compare the two calculations :
SA Percentage = Points Scored/(Points Scored + Points Conceded)
Vic Percentage = Points Scored/Points Conceded
... then SA is obviously simpler.
If you compare the two ranges :
SA Range < 0% ----- 50% ----- 100%>
Vic Range < 0% ----- 100% ----- oxo%> (that's meant to be a sideways 8 = infinity)
... then they're pretty well the same, apart from the possibility of 'infinity' needing to be represented on occasion in a ladder. (How would they do that?)
(Apologies if no-one wanted to continue thrashing this out)
timelord
30 May 2003, 13:58
I give up!
Goodbye Big Footy.com
(See you in TLFC, Kev)
Originally posted by timelord
I give up!
Goodbye Big Footy.com
(See you in TLFC, Kev)
A gross over-reaction to nothing much.
What the?
None of these systems are exactly complicated, an neither is any more complicated than the other. It's primary school maths.
It's like if someone gives you a dollar and you buy an apple for 45c, what percentage of your money has been spent? Well it's 45% (that's for the layman ;) ). And there you have the South Australian system boys and girls.
What I am finding complicated is timelord's logic. ;)
(That last bit was a joke, in case I get reported)
Mong
Well I'm sorry if what I said has scared timeload off bigfooty. He is normally a good contributor to the Regional Board. I just found what he was saying in this thread misguided and wrong. So I argued the toss with him - nothing unusual in that. I don't know why he couldn't hack that.
In my eyes, he's denigrated himself by his childish behaviour in these last couple of days.
Mobbenfuhrer
31 May 2003, 08:48
Originally posted by Mobbenfuhrer
SA Percentage = Points Scored/(Points Scored + Points Conceded)
Vic Percentage = Points Scored/Points Conceded
... then SA is obviously simpler.
Ok, I'm an idiot ... completely mistook the above one for the Vic %, and the below one for the SA %.
The Vic one is the simpler calculation! 2 steps. The SA one has 3.
No wonder Phil thought I was unable to grasp his point!