Let's talk Ports! Part 2

[RussellEbertHandball]

I was there! It was not long after I'd moved to WA and I flexed off from work for the afternoon - Blighty kicked a big bag (may have bee double figures) and took a trademark speccy in the goal square. SA won something like 30 goals to 16.....

Heard Blight talk about the game recently on his program. He talked about all those stars who went to the VFL the next year, said Kernahan kicked 6 but that he kicked 6.6.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

RossFC have a read of this thread on the Footy History board (not main board as I said above) and the last post in particular, which was posted a few months after I read the thread.

It says the WAFL had a lighting carnival round, in May 1983 and used 25m and 50m arcs for that, the commentators liked it so much, that the WAFL decided to keep it. That WA v Vic state game that I remember seeing it for the first time was played a few weeks later.

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/when-did-the-50m-arc-come-in-and-why.1141555/

 

[Ford Fairlane]

Actually that's not true. The SANFL were reasonably innovative under Don Brebner and Don Roach in the 1970's.

It was once Max had been president for a few years and Roach left to become CEO of the swans, conspiracy theorists said it was a VFL plot, that the SANFL became very conservative.

I will grant that they are very innovative in discovering ways to submerge snouts in a trough.

 

[70sDinosaur]

I think SA had the interchange before anyone else?

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

I think SA had the interchange before anyone else?

Yep 1976 SA brought in the interchange and Vics the 2 umpires. Next year Vics copied the interchange and SA copied 2 umpires. Think the WAFL just copied the Vics, 2 umpires in 1976 and interchange next year.

 

[GremioPower]

Uploaded by the SANFL youtube. Didn't know there used to be 25m lines. Also reminds me of some of the goals that Polec kicked.

I have been thinking there should be a 15m arc for a while now, but the concept is not fully ready on my mind yet.

 

[RossFC]

I have been thinking there should be a 15m arc for a while now, but the concept is not fully ready on my mind yet.

How about a goal square haha

 

[finbarr]

The SANFL's 2 points for a win and 1 point for a draw makes more sense than the VFL/AFL 4 and 2. The AFL's system is excessive and pointless.

 

[GremioPower]

How about a goal square haha

Why would I get rid of the goal square? It would be on top of it.

The SANFL's 2 points for a win and 1 point for a draw makes more sense than the VFL/AFL 4 and 2. The AFL's system is excessive and pointless.

AFL's point system would make sense only if there were bonus points like in union.

 

[Andre]

The SANFL's 2 points for a win and 1 point for a draw makes more sense than the VFL/AFL 4 and 2. The AFL's system is excessive and pointless.

4 and 2 doesn’t even have any football related meaning. Even 6 and 3 would have been better since 6 points is a goal so 6 points for a win is the full result.

 

[70sDinosaur]

I remember as a little kid watching the highlights of VFL games on Sunday afternoons and hearing Lou Richards commentate.

When someone scored a goal he would often say "that's full points".

Now to my young, untrained ears, not familiar with this strange Victorian accent, it sounded to me like he was saying "that's four points", so for a couple of years I laboured under the impression that in Victoria they only got four points for a goal and not six like in SA.

 

[1954]

Actually that's not true. The SANFL were reasonably innovative under Don Brebner and Don Roach in the 1970's.

It was once Max had been president for a few years and Roach left to become CEO of the swans, conspiracy theorists said it was a VFL plot, that the SANFL became very conservative.

I can recall in the early days of footy park, and well before lines on the oval ( apart from the diamond and later the square), there were marks ( possibly a 5 ) painted on the concrete plinth of the boundary fence on both half forward flanks at each side of the ground, which appeared to me to indicate the distance from goal.

 

[El Zorro]

How about a goal square haha

Given that the sport is played on an oval pitch, and given the 50 m arcs, the goal "square" should be a goal "arc".

 

[RossFC]

Given that the sport is played on an oval pitch, and given the 50 m arcs, the goal "square" should be a goal "arc".

What about the centre square?

 

[El Zorro]

What about the centre square?

A circle/oval of course

 

[GremioPower]

I can recall in the early days of footy park, and well before lines on the oval ( apart from the diamond and later the square), there were marks ( possibly a 5 ) painted on the concrete plinth of the boundary fence on both half forward flanks at each side of the ground, which appeared to me to indicate the distance from goal.

If it has 4 equal sides and 4 angles of 90º, it is a square. It doesn't matter if its base is an angle or a side. A diamond has no 90º angle.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

If it has 4 equal sides and 4 angles of 90º, it is a square. It doesn't matter if its base is an angle or a side. A diamond has no 90º angle.

It was called the centre diamond because of the orientation, it's just terminology to differentiate between the change.

Going by this old picture it was neither diamond nor square

 

[Grave Danger]

It was called the centre diamond because of the orientation, it's just terminology to differentiate between the change.

Going by this old picture it was neither diamond nor square

I wonder if whoever marked that out was the same bloke from the "Who are the Cows?" commercial.

 

[Schulzenfest]

The SANFL's 2 points for a win and 1 point for a draw makes more sense than the VFL/AFL 4 and 2. The AFL's system is excessive and pointless.

oldmanyellsatcloud.jpg

 

[70sDinosaur]

It was called the centre diamond because of the orientation, it's just terminology to differentiate between the change.

Going by this old picture it was neither diamond nor square

The centre parallelogram?

 

[Ford Fairlane]

The centre parallelogram?

I don't think there is much parallel going on. It's just a bog standard quadrilateral.

 

[Grave Danger]

The 'diamond' at the SCG would just about have reached the goal 'squares'. At Kardinya Park it would touch the side boundaries.


(for REH's sake)

 

[1954]

If it has 4 equal sides and 4 angles of 90º, it is a square. It doesn't matter if its base is an angle or a side. A diamond has no 90º angle.

The orientation of the `diamond' was changed to a `square' because the point of the diamond ( particularly on the smaller suburban grounds) pushed the outer key forward (chf ) position too far back and caused extra congestion in the forward line as no player could enter the area until after the ball had been bounced, same as today.
Quite a few coaches and commentators of the time lamented that it was making the key outer attacking position redundant.
The `diamond' was brought in along with a couple of other rule changes to reduce the number of players at centre bounce downs, ie before coaches could just send multiple players into the centre to protect a lead and you would end up with continued ball ups with virtually no clean clearances and often very unattractive football, but orientated as a `diamond' it only moved that congestion further up the field.

I am old enough to have played ( or more to the point tried to play ) suburban footy under the `diamond' system, and I am surprised that an old campaigner like Ford Fairlane doesn't remember it, unless of course he is only a middle aged campaigner masquerading as a golden oldie.

 

[Eddie Dingle]

It was called the centre diamond because of the orientation, it's just terminology to differentiate between the change.

Going by this old picture it was neither diamond nor square

Looks like someone’s grandad did that after a couple of sherries.

Snafl pre grow the pie days.

 

[Eddie Dingle]

The orientation of the `diamond' was changed to a `square' because the point of the diamond ( particularly on the smaller suburban grounds) pushed the outer key forward (chf ) position too far back and caused extra congestion in the forward line as no player could enter the area until after the ball had been bounced, same as today.
Quite a few coaches and commentators of the time lamented that it was making the key outer attacking position redundant.
The `diamond' was brought in along with a couple of other rule changes to reduce the number of players at centre bounce downs, ie before coaches could just send multiple players into the centre to protect a lead and you would end up with continued ball ups with virtually no clean clearances and often very unattractive football, but orientated as a `diamond' it only moved that congestion further up the field.

I am old enough to have played ( or more to the point tried to play ) suburban footy under the `diamond' system, and I am surprised that an old campaigner like Ford Fairlane doesn't remember it, unless of course he is only a middle aged campaigner masquerading as a golden oldie.

Oh he’s old alright.