Some years ago, we used to always have an entertainment act of some sort before all SCG games (can't remember exactly when - all the years blur in my memory). It was often the cast from whatever show was in town at the time. I remember American marching bands, once - that was fun.Originally Posted by Conor_Dillon
But really, we go for the footy, not other stuff.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke
All these conditions because of a certain club who is not as old, won as many premierships, etc.
The AFL is the only league in the world where club are not allow to have the same colours, or black and white.
About time the VFL grew up!
doof-doof
Are you kidding? Finally Matt80 is talking sense!
Only improvement I can suggest is that our pre-game entertainment be referred to as "The Maguire Show"
That is because it is the US and they expect it.
Who would pay for it here? From most RWO responses, and we know they are indicative of the wider community :-P , I believe most would prefer cheaper tickets/membership than paying for pre game entertainment that is only paying to part of a crowd, filling time until the real show starts.
Unless it is to farewell a champion, or reserves/celebrity game.
Ahhhh, you are learning MattI can't enter this discussion otherwise I will be smashed by peddling Corporate America.
"Fortunately, this is the internet, so knowing nothing is no obstacle to having an opinion!." Beerman 18-07-2017
Of course the football is the centre piece , but The Port match day experience is pretty bloody good. I'm sure there would be a similar atmosphere at crows games but I'll try to get to a Port game every year, I love the pre game 'never tear us a part' rendition, its great! Also , Did anyone venture into the village pre game? Food trucks selling gourmet street food, some music, sangria stalls, beers etc. obviously this wouldn't be as viable in Melbourne with so many games on here every weekend but something like that in the other two club towns could work. Nice touch I though.
That's it then, I'm going back to my Ol hometown for the Port game next year to see what's happened to transform them from The Sound of Music to They will Never Tear us Apart .
Do they still walk out at three quarter time if they are being
- - - Updated - - -
Bloused ?
Actually the AFL has asked all clubs to 'enhance their home game experience' as part of the push to broaden spectator appeal (along with abandoning differential ticket prices, cheaper pies etc.). I seem to recall I read someone from the Swans (Pridham perhaps?) say that the Swans were planning a couple of things but mainly they would focus on the football.
'The AFL will monitor the upgraded match-day experiences of all clubs, in a bid to ease fears an "arms race" could eventuate. All clubs have embraced the need to provide supporters with more excitement and a more tribal nature on game day, but some have privately expressed concerns this could turn into another "contest".'
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-new...28-13rgtl.html
Decent beer perhaps???
Before we leave the topic of last Saturday night's match, I would be grateful if someone could tell me what Mike Pyke was penalised for in a ball-up down the southern end of Adelaide Oval. Our Swans' seats were at the northern end so I couldn't see what happened but Mike was certainly upset about it. The resultant free kick led to a 'gimme' goal. I'm not saying the umpire's decision was wrong, I'm just interested to know what happened.
The umpire indicated that he had blocked Ryder's run at the ball in a ruck contest. Pyke was arguing that he was contesting the contest himself - quite legitimately, one would think, given he is a ruckman and he did get hand to ball. There was no other Swans ruckman contesting the throw-up.
Some of the ruck contest rules are very technical and I can't say for sure the umpire got this wrong. But Mike did seem to have a point. Possibly why the umpire adjudicated the way he did was that Pyke took his eye off the ball and looked to see where Ryder was as the ball was being bounced. It has always seemed dumb to me that a player is considered to be blocking another when they take their eye of the ball, even where they are clearly in the ruck or marking contest themselves and not primarily there to shepherd for a team mate. But it is an interpretation umpires quite often apply.
Surely the fundamental interpretation, whether it be a mark or ruck, should be that it can't be a block if you get your hand to the ball. Pyke's contact was a legitimate shepherd to protect the space where the ball was dropping. Ruckmen throw their bodies against each other to do this all the time. It only looked bad because Ryder wasn't prepared for it.
This interpretation was backed up on Whistleblowers regarding the Hurley-Franklin contest the week prior (who, by the way, were absolutely gaga this week over the unquestionable legitimacy of the Reid 50-metre penalty for the world's softest hand in the back).
A classic example of a block was Schultz on Reid, where there was no intention at all to contest for the ball.
What is this " Whistleblowers" thing of which you speak and where can it be viewed?
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks