Boundaries - Fair or unfair?

When did this re-zoning of Norwood/Sturt/West Adelaide occur? and is that it for the next 5 years or can the SANFL rezone whenever they fill fit to?

They re-zone every 3 years, I think, SE. The process is taking place now and will be completed after the census figures are available in a few months.

They may have a discretion to do it more often, but they've stuck to that time scale for a fair while now.

redandblack wrote:They re-zone every 3 years, I think, SE. The process is taking place now and will be completed after the census figures are available in a few months.

They may have a discretion to do it more often, but they've stuck to that time scale for a fair while now.

I was under the understanding that the review had been brought forward 1 yr -to this year ; at the insistence of one particular club.

So Norwood losing the top of the Parade ect happened 2-3 years ago or just this month?..i noticed the boundary map is up to date with this change. The club is sturt or is it confidential?

It's not confidential as far as I know?

I think the maps are available, but Mods may know more than me about that.

I meant the club that has requested a boundary change..is this confidential?

The map is found at

sanfl.com.au/the_sanfl/sanfl_club_boundaries/

I believe so.

Boundaries are officially updated every five years in line with updated census data.

Census data taken in August 2011 should be released approx June/July 2012.

In 2007 (for 2008 start) Sturt were given an eastern part of Norwood's metro zone as compensation for losing area around Blackwood to West which was compensation for losing part of southern Happy Valley / Reynella to South which was .......

The premlin process to finalise boundary mapping for 2013-17 has now begun.

Thanks Phil..explained very well...i do however think that each club should have a 5km radius around there oval which is untouchable..with Glenelg stretching down the coast as 5km is out to sea on the west side. This would save alot of agruements.

Steady Eddy wrote:Thanks Phil...explained very well...I do however think that each club should have a 5km radius around their
oval which is untouchable...with Glenelg stretching down the coast, as 5km is out to sea on the western side.
This would save a lot of arguements.

STEADY ON THERE EDDY !!!

You can’t say things like that my friend! Good lord, please remember that common sense is supposed to be extremely UN-common.
Do you realise that what you’re suggesting could seriously undermine and question the intelligence of past and present senior SANFL officials ?

I’m very sorry, but what you’ve espoused with your exceptionally perceptive solution could very well mean the end of half baked,
half @rsed, inept, non-traditional SANFL zone policy as we know it !

‘Eddy’, you’ve gone too far! If you don’t retract your post at once, I’ll dedicate the rest of my life to hunting you down in order
to shake your hand, congratulate you and perhaps take up a collection to have a statue built in your honour !

I trust I’ve made myself clear.

Luv,
Sabre.

From Ronnies blog , on the SAFC website.....

Just for your reminder the current system is based on population via the census, although it is stated that it ought to be based on population and participation of male youths between 13 and 18 in the clubs zone.

The recent participation stats say that South is last with only 60 teams from clubs or schools.

For your information this is the list in order of participation.



Glenelg 112 teams from clubs or schools.

Norwood 110

West 95

Sturt 93

Eagles 83

Port 77

North 68

Central 62 &

South 60.

That's correct, B&W, but it's only part of the sitaution.

A lot depends on the type of clubs, the SANFL team's input and participation rates are still very important.

There is also a lot of 'doubling up' in some country zones.

Yeah pretty amazing stat..but doesnt really tell the whole story. South may have 60 clubs & schools where each boy only plays 1 game each week..wheres Glenelg may have 112 c & s where 1 boy plays twice a week (ie for both club & school) so could be decieving. We need to see the actual population of boys that play in each zone, not how many clubs & schools are in the zone.

Centrals have almost exactly the same number of teams as South. Do we need to help them out a bit with zones too?

I wonder how the number of clubs and schools in the list above relates to the national AFL draft. Would anyone have the figures on that?

@howthewestwaswon

Are you asking which zone has produced the most AFL footballers? - i'm pretty sure the Eagles Zone has but i think that includes there country zone..so not really helping you there

Steady Eddy wrote:@howthewestwaswon

Are you asking which zone has produced the most AFL footballers? - i'm pretty sure the Eagles Zone has but i think that includes there country zone..so not really helping you there

Yeah, in a way, I guess I was asking how many draftees come from each zone and whether the ranking of each club in that respect mirrored the rankings of the number of clubs in each zone.

Or perhaps, as you suggested earlier, get the population numbers of boys that play in each zone and compare it to the number of draftees.

Its an intereasting read

http://www.safc.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=42&Itemid=39

South really did get shafted in those days..

Ron should post on internet forums nothing like telling half the story to justify an argument.

AS I 've stated before pretty sure half the kids zoned to Immanual School, PHOS Camden and Westminster would be Westies kids. Just becasue those schools/clubs are located just within the Glenelg zone doesn't mean all the "participants" are Glenelg's.

Undeniably the fairest methods is population based - # of 15 year old males at the time of census. The clubs that work their zone get the reward.