• Welcome to the forums of Green & Gold Rugby.
    We have recently made some changes to the amount of discussions boards on the forum.
    Over the coming months we will continue to make more changes to make the forum more user friendly for all to use.
    Thanks, Admin.

NSW AAGPS 2025

F

fortheloveofthegame

Allen Oxlade (6)
PigSkin said:
This is a copy of a post RUL made in the wrong forum. Was written in the tipping forum. I found it interesting and thought to copy and paste in correct forum.

From RUL
“I started watching school boys rugby again recently, great to watch. Was watching Shore play at Scotts today and the Scotts clock on the scoreboard might need a service? I watched 4 games:

16a's - Shore in front when clock run down. Ref played an extra 5 odd minutes and Scotts scored on the death to win.

3rd's - Shore in front when clock ran down. Shore kicked the ball backwards and out thinking end of the game and ref played on for another 3 -4 minutes (apparently there was 2 seconds left when the ball went out). Scotts scored on the death but was 2 points short of a win.

At the end of this game a mum questioned why the clock ran down and several more plays were allowed in the game. A dad said 'the scoreboard clock keeps running and the ref's watch is what counts'. The ref was right in front of us during this conversation and he did not appear to have a watch?? But he somehow knew there were a few seconds left and yes, I understand that the game can often go longer than the scoreboard clock because of the ref can stop his watch for stoppage of play..

2nd's - Scotts in front with 3 minutes to full time (according to scoreboard clock). Ref called full time with 2.32 left on score board clock ... to give Scotts the win. I really don't understand how the scoreboard clock can still have time on it if it does not stop for play stoppage?

1st's - Shore in front when score board clock was frozen with 2.00 minutes left. I set my timer. Ref allowed another 6 minutes or so from then and Scotts was awarded a penalty in front of the goals - which they kicked and won the game by a point.

It felt like - Scotts behind, play overtime. Scotts in front, shut game down early. I expect the refs are independent (?) so not saying this is the case, but can anyone help explain this or is it just one of Rugby's mysteries.... like scrums.”
Click to expand...
i think we had a round of this last year. the ref is the sole keeper of tine, it doesn’t matter what the score board says. the refs are neutral but they are also human and make mistakes with calls and any other thing. Your own bias about the mistake effects how you perceive it. We also live in an age where we are used to video assisted decision making that isn’t available at schoolboy level.
 
TheRock

TheRock

Frank Row (1)
Ace Ventura said:
thanks SPY. We are completely in the hands of the well-intentioned members of this forum to report scores, and another member reported Kings 26-5. So do I toss a coin?
[I'll change it, but won't repost the corrected scores and tables until next week]
Click to expand...
Hi Ace,

I can confirm it was 15-5 to TKS. It could have been 30-0. The ref ran out of cards to give to TKS, they finished with 12 boys on the field.
In fairness to the TKS boys, one was a yellow; the rest were not even penalties.
 
Last edited:
Crashy

Crashy

Dick Tooth (41)
BigScrum21 said:
Anyone got a match report on Scots v Shore 3rds. Heard it was pretty tight

yours truly
bs21
Click to expand...
Shore took an early 14 nil lead and it looked to be over- but scots powered back to make it a good ding dong. Think shore 3rds will be the schools biggest chance of a prem this year. Think bass is back in 1s this week so they’ll see another player or 2 trickle down from the higher teams.
 
Joker

Joker

Moderator
Staff member
A new leader + a wipeout for many as this round was heartbreaking.
Congratulations on one tipper who correctly tipped the margin in Scots game.
Any issues please message me and I shall check and correct.

Round 2.jpg
 
Last edited:
twister29

twister29

Chris McKivat (8)
Jakeburner65 said:
Whilst we all get fired up, any objective analysis of yesterday’s results reveals an amazingly competitive and healthy comp in which at round 3 literally any of the six teams are conceivable premiership winners.

Hats off to all the teams involved for an absolutely scintillating round of rugby.

Joeys and Kings to be commended for their pitches as well - all others buy some ag pipe and fix your bloody drainage!
Click to expand...
Scots was looking good I will be honest…
 
Crashy

Crashy

Dick Tooth (41)
theruckingdead said:
Does anyone have a report on the Scots vs Shore 4ths? I was told it was a great game to watch.
Click to expand...
Not really a report but some insights.
Scots had a big team including a wrecking-ball in the front row.
Lets just say Shore had a lot of unforced errors which killed their chances and Scots took advantage of it. So much dropped ball but Shore's backs looked sharper this week.
Think the better team won but the teams were pretty evenly matched. As we saw in 3s, 2s and 1s.
5th and 6ths were cancelled. No idea about 7ths and 8ths.
 
jester23

jester23

Bob McCowan (2)
Crashy said:
Not really a report but some insights.
Scots had a big team including a wrecking-ball in the front row.
Lets just say Shore had a lot of unforced errors which killed their chances and Scots took advantage of it. So much dropped ball but Shore's backs looked sharper this week.
Think the better team won but the teams were pretty evenly matched. As we saw in 3s, 2s and 1s.
5th and 6ths were cancelled. No idea about 7ths and 8ths.
Click to expand...
I believe the 7ths game against shore was cut short due to a broken rib or something along those lines.
 
RuckReporter

RuckReporter

Stan Wickham (3)
theruckingdead said:
Does anyone have a report on the Scots vs Shore 4ths? I was told it was a great game to watch.
Click to expand...
The short summary:

Both sides looked strong - I would almost venture to say that Shore was the stronger team, particularly in the engine room and on offense. Scots ball carriers didn't appear to be running particularly hard (Obviously this is from an outside perspective so take this with a grain of salt, but I noticed that when tackles connected some of the Scots boys seemed to slow a little), but a lack of commitment in contact and some lazy defense failed to capitalise on this. Scots defense seemed patchy - Some players performed some remarkable tackles, others seemed a little softer - but Shore's frequent errors (including a knock on count I would venture to say was in excess of 20) meant that any progress made quickly stalled, once again failing to capitalise on this weakness.

In set piece, Shore began as the dominant side, with both Belli (c), Perkins and Morrow (3, 2, 1 respectively) seeming to overpower the ostensibly larger Scots front row in the scrums. Lineouts were slightly weaker to begin with, and if I had to summarise it I would say that Shore was rigid in their calls, not responding to obvious defense setups, but overall the Shore lineout seemed strong. However, once the (many) subs began coming on, Shore's strength rapidly declining, with a seemingly weaker push in the scrums and messier lineouts. Scots' stayed fairly consistent in terms of substitutions and as a result were able to leverage Shore's weaknesses with consistently powerful scrums and effective lineouts. I have to pass on my admiration for Scots number 3 - he was about as circular as they come, built like a tandoori oven, but managed to stay on his toes and in the fight for the majority of the game, with some catastrophic runs hurtling into Shore's defense. Bravo.

The Shore backs were a bit more coherent this week, and appeared more courageous in defense than those of Scots, but the consistensy of Scots in various areas was what set them apart. Shore showed promise off the edges with good hands, but some poor decision making in decisive moments really affected their performance. Scots had fast hands which helped them work around Shore's defense, and a particularly shifty winger proved very difficult for Shore to defend against.

Ultimately, Shore's one unconverted try wasn't enough to balance out the countless unforced errors and lack of response to weaknesses in Scots' attack and defense. I've mentioned it several times, but I think one word that defines Scots' win is consistency. As I said, I don't think you could call one team definitively the stronger team, but Scots clearly wanted the win more and that's what got them the game. Very excited to see them matchup once more later in the season, it will be a very different game.
 
T

TheGameTheyPlayinHeaven

Frank Row (1)
PigSkin said:
This is a copy of a post RUL made in the wrong forum. Was written in the tipping forum. I found it interesting and thought to copy and paste in correct forum.

From RUL
“I started watching school boys rugby again recently, great to watch. Was watching Shore play at Scotts today and the Scotts clock on the scoreboard might need a service? I watched 4 games:

16a's - Shore in front when clock run down. Ref played an extra 5 odd minutes and Scotts scored on the death to win.

3rd's - Shore in front when clock ran down. Shore kicked the ball backwards and out thinking end of the game and ref played on for another 3 -4 minutes (apparently there was 2 seconds left when the ball went out). Scotts scored on the death but was 2 points short of a win.

At the end of this game a mum questioned why the clock ran down and several more plays were allowed in the game. A dad said 'the scoreboard clock keeps running and the ref's watch is what counts'. The ref was right in front of us during this conversation and he did not appear to have a watch?? But he somehow knew there were a few seconds left and yes, I understand that the game can often go longer than the scoreboard clock because of the ref can stop his watch for stoppage of play..

2nd's - Scotts in front with 3 minutes to full time (according to scoreboard clock). Ref called full time with 2.32 left on score board clock ... to give Scotts the win. I really don't understand how the scoreboard clock can still have time on it if it does not stop for play stoppage?

1st's - Shore in front when score board clock was frozen with 2.00 minutes left. I set my timer. Ref allowed another 6 minutes or so from then and Scotts was awarded a penalty in front of the goals - which they kicked and won the game by a point.

It felt like - Scotts behind, play overtime. Scotts in front, shut game down early. I expect the refs are independent (?) so not saying this is the case, but can anyone help explain this or is it just one of Rugby's mysteries.... like scrums.”
Click to expand...
If RUL was at the 16A’s game, he would have clearly noticed that the scoreline was 17-17 and the scrum was from a Shore knock on before the clock went to 00:00. Shore was definitely not in front. Neither team was complaining as it looked like they were going for a win. Scots won the scrum and lost the ball to Shore in a jackal shortly after. If Shore wanted to end the game there and then, they could have kicked the ball into touch. They didn’t and were going for a win. Shore made a run for it and got past the 10 metre line before the ball carrier was isolated and penalised for not releasing with 2 Scots players immediately over him. This eventually led to the winning try very quickly after. It was a good contest and should not be marred by incorrect information like Shore being in front at full time and insinuating play went into extended time until Scots won.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top