Standardised playing field size

[Taylor]

It would be a good advantage to be able to play half the home and away games on a ground that is much smaller than the rest, if only to reduce the running load on your squad by x% every second week.

 

[Scotland]

It's easier to standardise a rectangle than it is an oval.

Footy doesn't need standardised playing fields, just the same restrictions the other codes have (i.e. min/max length and width) - which probably already exists somewhere in the laws of the game.

Footy is played differently on the SCG compared to Subiaco but that's OK. There's a practical limit, though. Footy on a primary school oval or a field 250m long would just be stupid.

 

[Spook]

The fact our grounds are different sizes just proves how amateurish AFL is as a sport.

Does that make cricket, horse racing and say F1 racing even more amateurish than footy?

How can formula 1 consider them selves a professional sport with a completely different shaped track each week

 

[radiojake]

Semantics. The terms are used interchangeably.

I have a bigger problem with people erroneously calling the sport AFL than I do with grounds around the country being different sizes

 

[kickazz]

The fact our grounds are different sizes just proves how amateurish AFL is as a sport.

Like golf, yeah?

 

[basashi]

Let's work on standardising the umpiring first.

 

[spannerSM]

It kinda hurts West Coast more than most, I admit. The new stadium should help even things out more.

Ground | Area (m^2) | As % of MCG
\MCG|17719|100
\Carrara|16944| 95.6
\Gabba|16908| 95.4
\(Perth Stadium)|(16846)|(95.1)
\Subiaco|16768| 94.6
\SCG|16610| 93.7
\Showgrounds|16423|92.7
\Docklands|16135|91.1
\Adelaide Oval|16133|91.0
\Kardinia Park|15355|86.7

As it stands Subi is a bit bigger than the SCG and a bit smaller than the Gabba. The new Perth Stadium will be a bit bigger than the SCG and a bit smaller than the Gabba.

 

[Bokonon]

That decision was made over 150 years ago when the game was played in parks. Personally I say respect tradition.

 

[didaksrightfoot]

I reckon we keep the different sized grounds.

BUT I propose one big change for Grand Final day:

The dimensions of the MCG field (like in cricket) are adjusted to that of the "Home" team (or as close as you can get it).

Ie. Eagles were higher on the ladder last year. For a number of reasons we can't move the Grand Final out of the MCG. But, why can't we bring the field in to make it closer to Subi dimensions, so that the Eagles at least get some advantage for a higher ladder position? (Rather than the current big disadvantage of having to fly to Melbourne and play on your oppositions home ground).

As in cricket, having the field a few metres further away from the supporters is not going to be an issue, and in fact, it allows extra room for security measures, cameramen etc.

 

[Millky95]

As in cricket, having the field a few metres further away from the supporters is not going to be an issue, and in fact, it allows extra room for security measures, cameramen etc.

It was bought in to protect players driving and sliding for the ball to stop a 4. They have a minimum 5m I think gap between the rope and the fence to stop players smashing their heads.

As long as each ground reaches a minimum standard, leave the grounds alone. They all have their quirks and the best sides adapt to the ground they are playing on

 

[Augustine]

The fact our grounds are different sizes just proves how amateurish AFL is as a sport.

It drives me insane that a comment that is demonstrably stupid on many levels gets over 10 likes.

 

[SJ]

It's easier to standardise a rectangle than it is an oval.

Footy doesn't need standardised playing fields, just the same restrictions the other codes have (i.e. min/max length and width) - which probably already exists somewhere in the laws of the game.

Footy is played differently on the SCG compared to Subiaco but that's OK. There's a practical limit, though. Footy on a primary school oval or a field 250m long would just be stupid.

http://s.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/GeelongCats/Articles/General 2016/laws2016.pdf

3.2 PLAYING SURFACE


(a) The Playing Surface shall be:

(i) oval in shape;

(ii) between 135 metres and 185 metres in length; and

(iii) between 110 metres and 155 metres in width.

 

[Tiger2709]

Nope.

Rugby and Soccer teams have home ground advantages and the grounds are the same size everywhere. You would be putting a lot of effort and it wouldn't change anything.

If you use the average size (160m) the SCG is 10m shorter, you would have to remove 5m of stand each side and in the end for no real advantage.

Actually soccer pitches in the Premier league are not all the same size.

 

[blue harvest]

Footy on a primary school oval or a field 250m long would just be stupid.

'On 7 August 1858 a famous match between Melbourne Grammar School and Scotch College began at Richmond Paddock, which was co-umpired by Wills and John Macadam and also involved Scotch headmaster Thomas H. Smith.[12] A second day of play took place on 21 August and a third, and final, day on 4 September.[13] While the full rules of the match are unknown, the match was played with a round ball, the distance between the goals was approximately half a mile (approximately four times longer than the MCG playing surface), and there were 40 players per side. The game was declared a draw with each side scoring one goal.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_Australian_rules_football

 

[Augustine]

'On 7 August 1858 a famous match between Melbourne Grammar School and Scotch College began at Richmond Paddock, which was co-umpired by Wills and John Macadam and also involved Scotch headmaster Thomas H. Smith.[12] A second day of play took place on 21 August and a third, and final, day on 4 September.[13] While the full rules of the match are unknown, the match was played with a round ball, the distance between the goals was approximately half a mile (approximately four times longer than the MCG playing surface), and there were 40 players per side. The game was declared a draw with each side scoring one goal.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_Australian_rules_football

We should have done that again on the 150th anniversary.

 

[AstonSouffle]

How the hell can you run a fair and even competition if the grounds vary in size all over the country? Now I get there are historical reasons for this but with all the stadium redevelopment which has happened around the country in the last two decades, the AFL could have pure more effort into making sure grounds we're at least the same ******* shape.

It's a matter of perspective, I've personally always viewed the ground being a variable as a strength of the game(not just at AFL level mind you, but all the way down to Modified level). Possibly someone with power in the past two decades must've thought the same.

 

[Mr_Moogle]

It drives me insane that a comment that is demonstrably stupid on many levels gets over 10 likes.

Wanting standardized playing fields isn't stupid at all. Not understanding why they are different sizes in the first place would be though.

No, suggesting that the lack of standardisation somehow makes the AFL an amateur organisation is stupid

They have had decades and millions of dollars in government funding to help redevelop stadiums around the country. They could have tried to make grounds more homogeneous but instead they've chosen to ignore it and now we have fat grounds & skinny grounds. Now to some people this isn't an issue at all but it really bugs the hell out of me.

 

[replicant]

http://s.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/GeelongCats/Articles/General 2016/laws2016.pdf

I want someone to build that 185x155 monster.

That's 22521 m2... about 22% bigger than the MCG!

 

[radiojake]

They have had decades and millions of dollars in government funding to help redevelop stadiums around the country. They could have tried to make grounds more homogeneous but instead they've chosen to ignore it and now we have fat grounds & skinny grounds. Now to some people this isn't an issue at all but it really bugs the hell out of me.

I like the different size grounds myself..

oh well...

 

[Garlic muncher]

I don't have a problem with different sized grounds, but there should be a minimum size and the SCG would not really pass, tad small IMO, haven't read the previous posts so someone may have touched on it.

 

[Garlic muncher]

A little tired of debunking this myth. It's JUST FOUR BLOODY METRES shorter than Etihad and 10m wider. That's like putting the posts just two metres forward at either end (i.e. less than a third of the goal square aka nothing). If anything the width of the ground has far more impact on the level of congestion and ability to move the footy forward and the SCG is one of the few grounds that comes close to matching the MCG (the apparent home of AFL). Simmonds Stadium is 26 metres narrower than the MCG and we never hear people constantly whinging about that.

My eyes tell me otherwise, the wings are wide at the SCG, but the distance post to post seems way shorter.

 

[Mr_Moogle]

I have a bigger problem with people erroneously calling the sport AFL than I do with grounds around the country being different sizes

ARF just sounds weird though doesn't it?

That decision was made over 150 years ago when the game was played in parks. Personally I say respect tradition.

We also used to line hats with mercury. That was stupid too. Using tradition as an excuse seems like a cop out to me considering the grounds barely resemble what they once we're anyway.

 

[kneecapper]

My eyes tell me otherwise, the wings are wide at the SCG, but the distance post to post seems way shorter.

Can't argue with that idiocy.

 

[J_Moore]

My eyes tell me otherwise, the wings are wide at the SCG, but the distance post to post seems way shorter.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

Cricket, Baseball, Aussie rules, Motor Racing, Golf, Rugby are all played on grounds of various shapes and sizes and are one of the key elements to the game. Hell even a FIFA tourny allows for a variety of ground sizes.