Rules Is the SCG an appropriate place to play footy.

[Stumpy Pete]

Now before I get into it - please note this is not a Sydney troll thread.

We have recently seen tribunal decisions and a stance from AFL that actively discourage tackling and contesting the ball in the air.

I say this because many tackles are at risk of becoming a slinging or dumping tackle as this can be affected by both the original tackler and the tacklee as well as others joining in (see Taylor Adams

3

Taylor Adams

Age

30

Ht

181cm

Wt

85kg

Pos.

M/F

Career

Season

Last 5

D

24.9

5star

K

13.5

5star

HB

11.4

5star

M

4.0

4star

T

4.8

5star

CL

5.0

5star

D

20.4

5star

K

12.4

5star

HB

8.0

4star

M

4.0

4star

T

5.9

5star

CL

5.9

5star

D

18.2

5star

K

11.0

4star

HB

7.2

5star

M

4.4

4star

T

3.0

5star

CL

2.2

4star

).


Similarly , the Van Rooyen decision means that players now need to take into account the extent to which contact to the head might be reasonably foreseen even if they are undertaking an act that is permissible within the laws of the game.

So with that laid out - I question whether the SCG is an appropriate place to play AFL. Relative to other grounds the smaller SCG playing area will lead to more congested play meaning a higher number of tackles and more opportunities for spoiled marking contests.

It stands to reason that with more tackles and spoils come more unintentionally dangerous tackles and spoils.

So - is the SCG appropriate for “new” footy and if so, do the new crackdowns from the tribunal and AFL risk disproportionately affecting the Swans?

I think the answers are no and yes respectively.

Regards

S. Pete

 

[aCunningPlan]

Now before I get into it - please note this is not a Sydney troll thread.

We have recently seen tribunal decisions and a stance from AFL that actively discourage tackling and contesting the ball in the air.

I say this because many tackles are at risk of becoming a slinging or dumping tackle as this can be affected by both the original tackler and the tacklee as well as others joining in (see Taylor Adams).


Similarly , the Van Rooyen decision means that players now need to take into account the extent to which contact to the head might be reasonably foreseen even if they are undertaking an act that is permissible within the laws of the game.

So with that laid out - I question whether the SCG is an appropriate place to play AFL. Relative to other grounds the smaller SCG playing area will lead to more congested play meaning a higher number of tackles and more opportunities for spoiled marking contests.

It stands to reason that with more tackles and spoils come more unintentionally dangerous tackles and spoils.

So - is the SCG appropriate for “new” footy and if so, do the new crackdowns from the tribunal and AFL risk disproportionately affecting the Swans?

I think the answers are no and yes respectively.

Regards

S. Pete

Whoever wants to do the homework, it would be good to see how many suspensions there are at each ground per game in the last twelve months.

 

[Mister B]

Now before I get into it - please note this is not a Sydney troll thread.

We have recently seen tribunal decisions and a stance from AFL that actively discourage tackling and contesting the ball in the air.

I say this because many tackles are at risk of becoming a slinging or dumping tackle as this can be affected by both the original tackler and the tacklee as well as others joining in (see Taylor Adams).


Similarly , the Van Rooyen decision means that players now need to take into account the extent to which contact to the head might be reasonably foreseen even if they are undertaking an act that is permissible within the laws of the game.

So with that laid out - I question whether the SCG is an appropriate place to play AFL. Relative to other grounds the smaller SCG playing area will lead to more congested play meaning a higher number of tackles and more opportunities for spoiled marking contests.

It stands to reason that with more tackles and spoils come more unintentionally dangerous tackles and spoils.

So - is the SCG appropriate for “new” footy and if so, do the new crackdowns from the tribunal and AFL risk disproportionately affecting the Swans?

I think the answers are no and yes respectively.

Regards

S. Pete

6 other grounds that are more likely to be "congested" based on area per player. The sooner people actually do a bit of research and stop regurgitating information from 25 years ago the better. Close thread.

 

[Stumpy Pete]

6 other grounds that are more likely to be "congested" based on area per player. The sooner people actually do a bit of research and stop regurgitating information from 25 years ago the better. Close thread.

Thanks - I’ll consider myself wiser than I was yesterday.

Regards

S. Pete

 

[Mister B]

Thanks - I’ll consider myself wiser than I was yesterday.

Regards

S. Pete

Sorry, was probably a little blunt. I think the graph is really interesting in that it highlights the concept of a small SCG is very much from days long gone and assumptions from a lower camera angle. The reality is it is almost identical in size to the GABBA and i don't recall anyone ever mentioning it as being small. Perhaps also highlights why Kardinia Park is a bit of a fortress.

 

[Pancakes]

If they continue to play games at that dump down at Geelong, then playing games at the SCG is fine.

I've seen backyards bigger than that horrible goat track, no idea why the AFL lets games continue to be played there.

 

[owen87]

Sorry, was probably a little blunt. I think the graph is really interesting in that it highlights the concept of a small SCG is very much from days long gone and assumptions from a lower camera angle. The reality is it is almost identical in size to the GABBA and i don't recall anyone ever mentioning it as being small. Perhaps also highlights why Kardinia Park is a bit of a fortress.

KP is quite long, so looks misleading given the distance from 50m arc to square

 

[Syd]

Wouldn't even be a discussion if the TV Camera placements were better.

Camera angles provide a distorted view giving the perception of small and congested.

FWIW I think the narrower grounds are worse.

 

[pattymalone00]

Don’t know if this is the right thread to add this too but

 

[Teen Wolf]

Don’t know if this is the right thread to add this too but

It's the same situation at the Gabba. So yes it is to do with the cricket pitch, but more accurately it's about curators thinking they're god's gift to grass and finding ways to be difficult.

 

[Ichabod Noodle]

If you want to stop football being played at the SCG because of its size, then you need to mothball Docklands, because it’s smaller.

 

[MF]

Thanks - I’ll consider myself wiser than I was yesterday.

Regards

S. Pete

Just wanted to highlight this absolutely awesome reply that goes against the grain for responding to a factual and reasonable counter argument on bigfooty (and the internet in general).

Instead of doubling down and acting like a dickhead as almost everyone does he acknowledges the oversight (in what was a reasonable argument based on the assumption he, and many others make) and immediately moves on.

So rare and surprising that it's worth acknowledging.

I wish more people on bigfooty and the internet were more like Pete

 

[Osho]

The ground's dimensions are fine.

It's the underground camera angles folk should complain about. In an entertainment industry, it's redicularse.

 

[Stumpy Pete]

Just wanted to highlight this absolutely awesome reply that goes against the grain for responding to a factual and reasonable counter argument on bigfooty (and the internet in general).

Instead of doubling down and acting like a dickhead as almost everyone does he acknowledges the oversight (in what was a reasonable argument based on the assumption he, and many others make) and immediately moves on.

So rare and surprising that it's worth acknowledging.

I wish more people on bigfooty and the internet were more like Pete

Thanks for the acknowledgment.

Surely you’re not really a s**t bloke?

Regards

S. Pete