2019 SANFL Grand Final- Port Adelaide v Genelg 3pm Sunday 22/9

twiggy4PM

Club Legend
Jul 10, 2017
1,039
896
AFL Club
Adelaide
If one could sum up this club right now they did it themselves today. Lost a grand final to Glenelg. Glenelg. Laughable but apt.
And yet you did. Out coached and out played. For all the good Frampton did he should have saved the club the lawyers fees and accepted the penalty.
 

El_Scorcho

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 21, 2007
25,808
61,611
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Aston Villa, San Antonio Spurs
And yet you did. Out coached and out played. For all the good Frampton did he should have saved the club the lawyers fees and accepted the penalty.
Do you reckon when they demolish Glenelg Oval for housing they'll do a good job of it, or will they make the mistake of going too high density like so many suburban developments before them?
 

Northalives

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 12, 2005
5,721
4,654
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
PORT ADELAIDE
Our bread and butter is to be strong and vibrant in the AFL and having Port players spread around the league is nonsense. We have made 3 sanfl grand finals in 5 years with the current model. We were not viable when we were two separate entities. We need to be better with our contracted players and stretch those restrictions. We need to change the player profile of our afl listed players too. We have to change our inner-core and our vision, and be a football club first and foremost.
You completely miss the point. Having new recruits spend 10 hours maximum, absolute maximum out of their 35 hour working week is not having "Port players spread around the league" as you suggest.

Of the 38 players on the AFL list, there are 22 who make the team, 2 travelling emergencies and anywhere between 4 and 8 players injured in any one week, lets be optimistic and say 5 therefore, 9 players will turn out for their assigned SANFL Club on any given week. These 9 players will spend 6 hours training with the SANFL club and 4 hours playing with them and I am really stretching the amount of time they will be spending away from Port. I believe they only trained one night a week with the SANFL club but let's say two.

The advantages of this scenario, I believe, greatly outweigh the disadvantages if Port applied some intelligent thinking instead of being transfixed on the idea that it's good to have all the players at the club all the time, which, if we had a proper CLUB structure in place, would NOT be bad at all but the reality is, that we DO NOT have a proper club structure in place. What we have, is a refuge for the AFL players just about completely devoid of reality and attachment to the "true" Port Adelaide "tradition", as some give lip service to and therefore, they aren't answerable to the true Port Adelaide traditions. They are spirited away from the nasty outside world and they live in a cocoon where it's easy to take your life and career for granted.

Choco Williams introduced a scheme when he was coach whereby players spent some of their time working at everyday jobs; whether that be in a factory, retail wherever, so that the players could get a sense of what it's like in the real world and how fortunate they are that they are full time footballers and to remind them, that they are full time footballers because of the work they have done to achieve that status.

The incentive to be a regular in the 22 at AFL level could not be anymore emphasised by being at suburban club with greatly inferior lighting, resources, change rooms, grounds etc etc for 10(max) out of the 35 hours they are employed for by the Port Adelaide Football Club. From a coaching perspective, it furthers a players propensity towards adapting to different scenarios where the reliance is on the player himself to assess and adapt without reference to a coach or coaches. Psychologically, this can have profound positive ramifications. These players are Port players and they will spend 75% or so of their professional lives at the club and 25% or so of their professional lives being treated like crap by opponents and targeted during SANFL games with or without the support of their part-time team mates who probably wouldn't know them from a bar of soap. It means that these players must stand on their own two feet and if they can't, then they aren't worth tuppence anyway. There will be weeks where we won't have any players going to the SANFL if our injury list is large, sometimes, one or two, 3 or 4 - it's not earth shattering, indeed, as part of an integrated coaching regime, this has great merits and we have not even touched upon what going back to an original club structure means for the players as well, let alone for our long term survival.

Having a Magpies and a Maggie reserves and under 18's and 16's and our zones back, means that we will have the Port Adelaide family back; people whose families have been Port for generations and who will always, always be there even in the bleakest of times when the AFL side is not going well, as opposed to what would happen now if we had another few years of shocking results and as I have intimated above, don't hold your breath that the players we now have, regardless of how supremely skilful some are, don't for one moment think that they will develop a ruthless, take no prisoners, mongrel side to them when, in their world, away from the actual match, they do not face the stern, critical, hard-nosed appraisal from people with generations of Port mentality instilled in them.

You say, "We have to change our inner-core and our vision, and be a football club first and foremost.". I would suggest to you that our inner core was the reason that we now have a Port Adelaide team in the AFL and our vision has always been to play at the highest level but we have destroyed our club senselessly because some in the football department are so one dimensional, so lacking in vision, that they screamed blue murder at not having all the AFL players for 35 hours per week at the one place and to hell with the cost to the club and that cost has been that we have abandoned the very "model", that made us a power.

Our club has been synonymous with being progressive on the football front but the footballing department, far from being progressive and developing new stratagems to improve our players by expanding on what was in place, they instead use the methodology that sports coaches use for sports played by INDIVIDUALS, eg, runners, athletics, swimmers, tennis players, squash etc etc where external considerations are immaterial. Team sports however are completely different - the clue is in the word team and that necessarily means that there are a multitude of components which MUST be taken into consideration when trying to develop a team to be the best they can, to meet and surmount any obstacles/impediments in the pursuit of winning.

You say that "Our bread and butter is to be strong and vibrant in the AFL" but over the last 5 years, we have finished 10th this year and in the previous four years, 10th, 5th, 10th and 9th and not even looked like we could win a flag, indeed, we have become synonymous with being pea hearted when the going really gets tough and as a consequence, look at our attendances and where do the players go after such insipid performances, where do they spend the rest of their working week, at the sanctuary called Alberton, free from "white noise" according to one of our co-captains, protected from the nasty outside real world.

Human nature for kids has always been to go for that which is "winning", what the "buzz" is and now, the particular model that we operate under means that for the last five years, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 years olds would not "go for Port" in a fit if it were not for their family but think about this, the Lefevre Peninsula now, I believe, belongs to Woodville West Torrens and all the young kids there, if they show any talent at Aussie Rules, they'll find themselves at WWT and the first thing that they will be confronted with, will be Woodville West Torrens's sheer hatred for anything Port and these kids will grow up to be men and maybe have children of their own and who do you reckon they'll want to play for, why Woodville West Torrens of course and who will they be taught to despise, well Port Adelaide of course!

As it was, regardless of how badly the team may have been going, there was a steady production of Port Adelaide people being born everyday with no option but to be Port people for the rest of their lives and so too their offspring and so on and so forth. Do not for one moment dismiss how vitally important this fact is, or should I say, was. That is the only guarantee that Port Adelaide would always exist; it was literally our life blood but now, we are on life support beause we don't have a beating heart anymore. We are reliant on marketing strategies, on being able to con people into supporting us and given the performances of the team over the last five years and taking into account how lame the Magpies/reserves were in the Grand Final, the longer we go without winning a flag, the harder it will be to win the minds and hearts of youngsters. Far from being "two separate entities", those die hard Maggies supporters who were completely against Port going into the AFL, they are and all will die off and they would have been replaced easily, by the those being born Port Adelaide in this early part of the 21st century and they/we, are under no illusions that the Magpies in the SANFL and the Power in the AFL are one and the same!

We survived the assassination attempt by the SANFL, we survived the draconian restrictions placed upon us by the same mob and we kept standing up to them and saying no, all of us are Port, both Magpies and the Power and we will just push on until the AFL decide to introduce zones and a more community orientated club structure where we keep all of those communities that gave us the strength to play in the AFL or, we just keep it as it is and use our brains to come out on top, like we have for 150 years but no, the football department demanded that they get themselves a cosy little set up where they can just carry on with the conventional, production line methodologies without having to think too much; just observe their stop watches and stick to the prescribed fitness and conditioning program because they are too scared to be innovative and those charged with carrying out what is in the best interests of the WHOLE Port Adelaide Football Club, caved in to their demands and abandoned 150 years of established Port Adelaide communities and families. If you want further proof of how idiotic the people running the club are, they wouldn't even say to the same football department who poisoned our roots that no, we do not have co-captains at Port Adelaide, we have one Captain who wears the number 1.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

GremioPower

Futebol Australiano
May 26, 2017
7,696
13,251
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Grêmio, DC United, Clev. Indians
The last touch rule is actually a good thing. People complain about the AFL's tendency to devolve into a rolling maul - last touch is a great way to avoid the same happening in the slower, less skillful SANFL by decreasing stoppages. It also makes the game easier to umpire. Umpires routinely cock-up deliberate out-of-bounds decisions, but last touch means they don't have to try and guess a player's intent. Even paying it inside the arcs isn't the end of the world - it just rewards teams who can hit wide targets coming out of d50 and teams who play a proper forward structure instead of bombing it to the pockets.

Yesterday was disgusting, and we got a raw deal from the umpires, but complaining about that rule misses the point.

Even if the rule was brought in specifically by the SANFL to target us, and even if the umpires were using it to screw us, a Port Adelaide team's response should be "Fine, fu** you, we'll win it anyway." Yesterday's Port Adelaide team appeared utterly incapable of such a response, because of how badly our club's culture, traditions, and identity have been eroded.
That's what we should be complaining about.
I would go for an out-on-the-full rule. It would be a free kick if the ball is kicked, handballed or tipped straight out of bounds without touching the field-of-play. It would also be a free kick if the ball is carried (either run or tackled) out of bounds. No more deliberate, but not a "last touch" either.
 

agmsy

Team Captain
Sep 28, 2014
343
1,000
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
I would go for an out-on-the-full rule. It would be a free kick if the ball is kicked, handballed or tipped straight out of bounds without touching the field-of-play.
Maybe, but I think that spoiling would be an unintended casualty of such a rule. I love seeing a defender come across and punch it ten rows deep into the crowd.

It would also be a free kick if the ball is carried (either run or tackled) out of bounds. No more deliberate, but not a "last touch" either.
I would like to see umpires go harder at players who give up in a tackle and carry the ball across the boundary, but I don't think penalising every player who is tackled out of play will positively change behaviour - teams might willingly give away the free kick (giving them time to set up behind the ball) rather than turn the ball over in play.
 

GremioPower

Futebol Australiano
May 26, 2017
7,696
13,251
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Grêmio, DC United, Clev. Indians
Maybe, but I think that spoiling would be an unintended casualty of such a rule. I love seeing a defender come across and punch it ten rows deep into the crowd.
It would. The principle is that the ball must be kept alive. If you spoil the ball straight out-of-bounds [which is usually intentional, by the way], you are violating the principle. That's a FK against you.

If the ball hits the ground before leaving, there would be a chance of it bouncing and staying inbound. Thus, in such a case, there's no faul.

I would like to see umpires go harder at players who give up in a tackle and carry the ball across the boundary, but I don't think penalising every player who is tackled out of play will positively change behaviour - teams might willingly give away the free kick (giving them time to set up behind the ball) rather than turn the ball over in play.
Tactical fouls can be part of the game. Currently, however, the player is not penalized at all. Instead of a free against, there is a throw-in. It is much worse.
 

Coobk001

Brownlow Medallist
Mar 26, 2007
12,167
22,301
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
CWS, OakR, SAS, Ducks
The last touch rule is actually a good thing. People complain about the AFL's tendency to devolve into a rolling maul - last touch is a great way to avoid the same happening in the slower, less skillful SANFL by decreasing stoppages. It also makes the game easier to umpire. Umpires routinely cock-up deliberate out-of-bounds decisions, but last touch means they don't have to try and guess a player's intent. Even paying it inside the arcs isn't the end of the world - it just rewards teams who can hit wide targets coming out of d50 and teams who play a proper forward structure instead of bombing it to the pockets.

Yesterday was disgusting, and we got a raw deal from the umpires, but complaining about that rule misses the point.

Even if the rule was brought in specifically by the SANFL to target us, and even if the umpires were using it to screw us, a Port Adelaide team's response should be "Fine, fu** you, we'll win it anyway." Yesterday's Port Adelaide team appeared utterly incapable of such a response, because of how badly our club's culture, traditions, and identity have been eroded.
That's what we should be complaining about.
Could not disagree with this more.

The last touch rule takes away from the fundamentals of our game. We missed a couple kicks into our forward line on the weekend by bugger all and it rolled out and as a result we were penalised.

That is just ridiculous. Attacking, daring play, taking the game on, and hell even the defensive arts of finding the boundary line are removed by the rule.

The rule must be abolished. It has been an embarrassment to the SANFL now for a few years. It's a bloody kids league rule, and has no place in our game.
 

Schulzenfest

TheBrownDog
Feb 23, 2008
52,204
137,262
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Toronto Raptors
*long post*
You severely, severely overestimate the importance of tinpot SANFL clubs to a young footballer's upbringing. No 8 year old child 'dreams of playing for Woodville West Torrens'. And there are tons of examples of players across the league who played for other SANFL clubs but came into the league as Port fans, Connor Rozee being the most recent example.
 

Tibbs

Premiership Player
Sep 9, 2013
4,152
9,090
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
The last touch rule is actually a good thing. People complain about the AFL's tendency to devolve into a rolling maul - last touch is a great way to avoid the same happening in the slower, less skillful SANFL by decreasing stoppages. It also makes the game easier to umpire. Umpires routinely cock-up deliberate out-of-bounds decisions, but last touch means they don't have to try and guess a player's intent. Even paying it inside the arcs isn't the end of the world - it just rewards teams who can hit wide targets coming out of d50 and teams who play a proper forward structure instead of bombing it to the pockets.

Yesterday was disgusting, and we got a raw deal from the umpires, but complaining about that rule misses the point.

Even if the rule was brought in specifically by the SANFL to target us, and even if the umpires were using it to screw us, a Port Adelaide team's response should be "Fine, fu** you, we'll win it anyway." Yesterday's Port Adelaide team appeared utterly incapable of such a response, because of how badly our club's culture, traditions, and identity have been eroded.
That's what we should be complaining about.
Is is? .... Is it really? if it is, why is SA the only state using this rule? If it is so good, surely other states would be seeing the merit of it, and copying it?

I really thought our game was called Australian Rules Football ... not, South Australian Rules Football! Having a separate, significantly different set of rules that our AFL team plays under, and the second Magpie team plays under, is beyond ludicrous! It is diabolical, and says so much about the administrators of the SANFL, and their delusional arrogance!
 

PA88

Premiership Player
Apr 6, 2014
4,321
5,158
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
It doesn't matter if the last touch rule is good or not. The rules should be the same across the land. Whilst the sanfl is getting life support from the two AFL teams it should be accommodating the afl 100%.
 

Andre

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 3, 2002
24,129
27,387
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
I don't think a blanket last touched is the way to go, but the current deliberate rules need to be less open to umpire interpretation. If it goes at least 15 metres towards a teams goal I'd say it's fine. If a player for the team is within 5 metres when it crosses the line it's fine. Otherwise deliberate.

Sure not all that go out would be meant to, but I'd take a 50 metre kick down the line and over the boundary then the constipated string of handballs we have out of defense when we've no one forward of centre.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

RussellEbertHandball

Flick pass expert
Nov 16, 2004
58,367
80,492
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
The Mighty Blacks
Men vs Boys and the men win is my basic take of the GF result.

The Bays had 13 of their 21 who were between 25-31 years of age and we had 6 between 25-28.

The pants wetter SANFL clubs' supporters have to stop wetting their pants, because until more men play for the B grade of the 2 AFL clubs, then they wont be winning SANFL premierships. For us to to have won, the older blokes - Trengove, Mckenzie, Mayes, Suttcliffe and Lienert (Appleton is 26) had to have great games and 21 year old Ladhams and 20 year old Hayes had to stop 31 year old Jessie White. Suttcliffe and Lienert played very well but they and the other 3 didn't have great games. Too many of our 19-21 year olds were over awed.

State league footy is mainly one on one footy. We have lost the last 2 GF's when the oppo have shut down our players time and space with high pressure footy and especially one on one footy. The younger boys weren't used to it and struggled to handle it.

Its not easy for SANFL sides to stop highly skilled kids if both AFL sides dont have many injuries and are playing 17-20 AFL listed players in their side in the minor round but come finals when its restricted to 17, and especially the pressure of PF and GF, the season's biggest pressure games, a bunch of boys will always struggle against men.

I need to look at the rules for the VFL because the AFL sides and AFL affiliated sides regularly win GF's over the stand alone clubs. See how big their supplementary list, what restrictions they have because since 2013, Hawks + Box Hill won in 2013 ( Box Hill finished 2nd 2014 and 2015) 2016 WB + Footscray both won and Richmond 2017 won AFL but missed a goal after siren to win VFL and this year are in both GF's.

Since PAFC last won the flag in the SANFL in 1999, every SANFL club apart from South has won a flag. South will probably beat Port to the next flag

Centrals 2000,01,03,04,05,07,08,09,10
Sturt.... 2002,16,17
WWT.... 2006,11
NORD.. 2012,13,14
WA...... 2015
NA....... 2018
Glenelg 2019
 

chazwazza

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 15, 2012
7,704
12,138
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Sturt Football Club
I didn’t like the Last Disposal OOB when it first came in as it can reward no effort, I have accepted it since but I’d like to see a few changes with it’s implementation.

I’d like it to be excluded from inside the 50 arcs but wouldn’t go to war over it. Ideally there’d be a 40m arc and it kept out of that. I just find it hard to see that a handball that bounces four times and rolls OOB is rewarded with a shot on goal.

I’d also like to see no free given if the opponent has shepherded it over or made no attempt to keep it in.

Possibly get rid of the Deliberate OOB rule all together or really tighten up on it which I think has sort of happened anyway but I think it’s been creeping back in.

Over all it makes it easier to umpire as compared to the clusterf*** that the AFL are doing.
 

Duckimus Prime

Club Legend
Apr 26, 2008
1,307
1,715
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
I’d also like to see no free given if the opponent has shepherded it over or made no attempt to keep it in.
The first part is already the case.
https://sanfl.com.au/juniors/news/last-possession-out-of-bounds/
  • Where a Player who does not have possession stops the football being touched by an Opposition Player by Shepherding the ball across the Boundary Line where the ball could have otherwise been touched by the player being blocked, then the umpire will not award a free kick but will instead order a boundary throw in.
 

chazwazza

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 15, 2012
7,704
12,138
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Sturt Football Club
The first part is already the case.
https://sanfl.com.au/juniors/news/last-possession-out-of-bounds/
  • Where a Player who does not have possession stops the football being touched by an Opposition Player by Shepherding the ball across the Boundary Line where the ball could have otherwise been touched by the player being blocked, then the umpire will not award a free kick but will instead order a boundary throw in.
Without being certain I’ve assumed this was part of the rule but it’s not enforced enough.
 

agmsy

Team Captain
Sep 28, 2014
343
1,000
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
The last touch rule takes away from the fundamentals of our game. We missed a couple kicks into our forward line on the weekend by bugger all and it rolled out and as a result we were penalised.
But we also missed a lot of kicks by a country mile because we were bombing it to the pockets, over the heads of stationary forwards. Those forward entries may be a fundamental part of our game, but they've also proven fundamentally flawed at AFL level. If it doesn't work in a league without last touch, we've only got ourselves to blame when we roll it out in a league that does have last touch.

Is is? .... Is it really? if it is, why is SA the only state using this rule? If it is so good, surely other states would be seeing the merit of it, and copying it?
Who knows - they may yet. I don't remember the exact circumstances under which the last touch rule was brought in, but, given how the AFL has monitored its effectiveness as a rule, it's possible they and the SANFL are cooperating. Much better to have a decent sample of games under the new rule to properly evaluate its effectiveness, rather than letting that snivelling idiot Steve Hocking introduce more changes after misinterpreting the data from less than a handful of VFL games.

I really thought our game was called Australian Rules Football ... not, South Australian Rules Football!
Cute.

Having a separate, significantly different set of rules that our AFL team plays under, and the second Magpie team plays under, is beyond ludicrous! It is diabolical, and says so much about the administrators of the SANFL, and their delusional arrogance!
Hyperbolic.
 

Coobk001

Brownlow Medallist
Mar 26, 2007
12,167
22,301
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
CWS, OakR, SAS, Ducks
But we also missed a lot of kicks by a country mile because we were bombing it to the pockets, over the heads of stationary forwards. Those forward entries may be a fundamental part of our game, but they've also proven fundamentally flawed at AFL level. If it doesn't work in a league without last touch, we've only got ourselves to blame when we roll it out in a league that does have last touch.
You haven't justified the rule. You've babbled about our game plan and style, which is completely irrelevant. I don't care if we finish last, I don't care if we try and play rugby.

All of that has nothing to do with the fact that a fundamental rule is penalizing teams randomly, based on an unlucky bounce, in a sport that is predicated on its unpredictability, the random bounce of the ball, and the imprecise nature of executing skills with an oval ball.

The rule is garbage. This isn't soccer, this isn't under 8s. The rule has no place in AFL.
 

chazwazza

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 15, 2012
7,704
12,138
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Sturt Football Club
You haven't justified the rule. You've babbled about our game plan and style, which is completely irrelevant. I don't care if we finish last, I don't care if we try and play rugby.

All of that has nothing to do with the fact that a fundamental rule is penalizing teams randomly, based on an unlucky bounce, in a sport that is predicated on its unpredictability, the random bounce of the ball, and the imprecise nature of executing skills with an oval ball.

The rule is garbage. This isn't soccer, this isn't under 8s. The rule has no place in AFL.
The code is Australian Rules, AFL is a competition playing Australian Rules. Don’t be a lemming.
 

agmsy

Team Captain
Sep 28, 2014
343
1,000
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
You haven't justified the rule.
I already justified the rule. It makes the game easier for umpires to adjudicate because they don't have to guess the intent behind a player's disposal, and serves as an effective measure to combat the suffocating increase in stoppages by replacing throw-ins with clean possessions. It's not the only the solution to these problems, and it may not be the best one, but it does seem to be working.

All of that has nothing to do with the fact that a fundamental rule is penalizing teams randomly
You seem to be conflating "random" with "uniformly at random", and discounting the willingness and ability of players and coaches to account for this randomness.

a sport that is predicated on its unpredictability, the random bounce of the ball, and the imprecise nature of executing skills with an oval ball
Surely the game is and should be predicated on rewarding (all else equal) players and teams who are able to execute skills with an oval ball with a higher level of precision and accuracy?
 

Top Bottom