Lineup14
Stan Wickham (3)
It's funny this is the first time I've heard the words big and Aloys used in the same sentence
CAS Rugby 2015
- Thread starter Hugh Jarse
- Start date
- Status
sidesteppa
Watty Friend (18)
Different moments, you are referring to the 'handbags' at 2:38, SonnyDill is referring to an incident at 6:24
Aloys out to 12 nil lead early. First try a long range effort off the back of a long run from Winger Diamond (14). Second try set up by Dainton (10) putting centre through poor Cranbrook defence. Aloys down to 14 men 15 minutes into second half after No.8 sent off for high shot on Cranbrook 15. Two penalty goals to Brook cut the lead to 6.
Cranbrook try from maul late in game but unconverted from out wide - leaving Aloys up by 1. Aloys then closed out with a penalty in final minutes. Cranbrook had one final chance with late penalty deep in Aloys territory - but lost the lineout off their own throw.
3 points - Aloys 9.
2 points - Aloys 13
1 point - Cranbrook 3
Cranbrook scrum and backline didn't perform well at all.
S
sidelineview
Guest
SonnyDill referred to two different incidents:
So why then is he in the thick of the skirmish on the footage and then he chucks a ball (from the ground)at a trinity player, after a perfectly legit tackle!!
In the first incident ('handbags') the number 10 went in to pull his players away. He showed no aggression to escalate the situation.
In the second incident he was forced back after the whistle blew and was injured in that tackle. It wasn't a legit tackle. He reacted and as you pointed out the Ref let it go.
Waverley's number 10 has grown into a much more mature player this season, as have the other Year 11 players who played 1sts last season as U16s.
The Cranbrook side was well below par on their home soil. They are lacking some serious mongrel, particularly in the breakdown and the one-on-one tackling from the backs was really poor. Something coach Boyd i think will address at training this week.
Aloys on the other hand were impressive. The 1st XV experience across the park clearly did them well. And they seemed to have that mongrel that you just can't coach. I like the look of their 13 (Slaven) who has beefed up in the off season. Hitting holes at pace and looking dangerous out wide.
Sounds as though Waverley and Knox are the juggernaughts this year. Should be a cracker at Queens Park this saturday
WavesToWin
Chris McKivat (8)
Knowing the kid, he's not the type to break up a fight but to keep it going and niggle and niggle for the rest of the game. I agree with Sonny and say he needs to not be so arrogant and not be the aggressor of the on-field disputes, because one day he'll bite off more than he can chew. Hes a major part of the backline and needs to have his mind on the game and the game only if we want a chance at the shield this year. Just my opinion..
S
sidelineview
Guest
You obviously don't know the kid, or not as well as you think you do. As I said, he has matured a lot as a player. Kids do mature as they grow older; I know you already knew that.
He has pushed the boundaries with his niggle in the past, but he had his mind well and truly on the job yesterday. A bit of niggle is OK if it results in a penalty to your team but a player needs to know how far to go and keep control himself, otherwise it backfires on you.
Don't get mixed up about the difference between arrogance and confidence. Sometimes it can be a fine line especially with young people but there is a difference.
He's been punching above his weight for a while now (metaphorically speaking). He's not the biggest kid on the field and never has been but he isn't scared, so the 'one day he'll bite off more than he can chew' has already come true. He still competes. As a smallish 15 year old he competed against well developed 18 year olds all last season; and he wasn't stuck out on the wing somewhere. He played fly half where a lot of the traffic is. I didn't see him take any backward steps.
If he wasn't willing and aggressive to a certain extent you'd be bagging him for not having a go.
Anyway, have a look at the video and work it out yourself. If he was an aggressor in that skirmish yesterday I'll eat my hat. I'll eat yours too.
I thought he had a good game yesterday. He played smart. So did all the Waverley backs.
SonnyDillWilliams
Nev Cottrell (35)
Ok ok .. Enough ...the ironic thing here is we are all waverley supporters.
I am the first to admit being possibly wrong ... Say for example on the Leo Bosch ... Think he was 15.. As I watched Auggies game , and as an outsider I don't watch the game on who has made rep teams in the past , and didn't pay much attention until late in the game ... By which stage Luke lough and Hopoate had terrorised the knox backs ... And my take was the edge with stenning and the rep outside centre was good , whereas the other edge which seemed to include the 15 was weak.
Either way hate bagging schoolboys ...everyone has a bad game or possibly just a bad 10 minutes.
Augies should of won that game, but they played dumb and knox played courageously to clinch the draw on the dying minute, with input (correctly) from linesman .
Either way all I was trying to say re discipline was a hope that the team (in general) didn't allow themselves to either be baited or do something silly
As at least 1 of the knox players ... And I will suggest he will make Aussie schoolboys, is quite capable of riling the waverley lads ... Who clearly have great comoraderie (sic)
Either way sideline I will def agree that the 10 played out of his skin ... His ball handling was exemplary and he was hungry for defensive work
In any event , on this one , more worried about being proved right than wrong
Go waves
I am the first to admit being possibly wrong ... Say for example on the Leo Bosch ... Think he was 15.. As I watched Auggies game , and as an outsider I don't watch the game on who has made rep teams in the past , and didn't pay much attention until late in the game ... By which stage Luke lough and Hopoate had terrorised the knox backs ... And my take was the edge with stenning and the rep outside centre was good , whereas the other edge which seemed to include the 15 was weak.
Either way hate bagging schoolboys ...everyone has a bad game or possibly just a bad 10 minutes.
Augies should of won that game, but they played dumb and knox played courageously to clinch the draw on the dying minute, with input (correctly) from linesman .
Either way all I was trying to say re discipline was a hope that the team (in general) didn't allow themselves to either be baited or do something silly
As at least 1 of the knox players ... And I will suggest he will make Aussie schoolboys, is quite capable of riling the waverley lads ... Who clearly have great comoraderie (sic)
Either way sideline I will def agree that the 10 played out of his skin ... His ball handling was exemplary and he was hungry for defensive work
In any event , on this one , more worried about being proved right than wrong
Go waves
RugbyFan14
Herbert Moran (7)
Interesting tactics at the lineout in the Knox Barker match. Knox were much bigger and taller than Barker. Knox scored their first try late in the first half – forming a maul from a lineout about 15m out from the try line, they steamrolled in for a try. It was impressive and very dominant. At Knox’s first attacking lineout of the second half Barker did not contest and stood back with arms in the air. As the maul moved forward Barker retreated, arms in the air, shouting (I guess at the ref). Eventually a penalty was awarded to Barker. At the next iteration, Barker stood back, Knox formed the maul but did not advance, seemed like a stalemate and the ref would not give a penalty (interested if anyone knows the rule here); Knox man at the back of the maul eventually handed it off to the halfback who passed etc.
The Knox forward pack is very big and strong so not contesting a maul from the lineout is an interesting tactic. Does anyone know the exact rules?
The Knox forward pack is very big and strong so not contesting a maul from the lineout is an interesting tactic. Does anyone know the exact rules?
S
sidelineview
Guest
Ok ok .. Enough. I am the first to admit being possibly wrong.
Yeah, you were wrong Sonny; a bit too quick on the draw I'm afraid. Watching the game and the video clip clears the 10 of being an aggressor in the skirmish and gives him some sort of an excuse for throwing the ball after a tackle that Trinity could have been penalised for. He was injured in that tackle.
The other bloke obviously didn't watch the game or the video clip closely enough. He just decided to pigeon hole the kid and claim that he knows him well.
I would suggest the player in question is a good learner and knows when to pull back with the aggression and will be encouraging his team mates to play smart.
He was also silly enough to start talking about winning the Shield at this early stage. i guess the Coaches would be advising the boys to take it one game at a time and to improve each week. Don't get ahead of yourselves and don't focus on all the hype. Maybe Knox got ahead of themselves last season; they will be wary of making that mistake again, and next Saturday will be a grudge match for them. They might be nervous.
But I absolutely agree with you about discipline. Waves gave too many penalties away on Saturday and will need to be wary of being baited next week.
Just one penalty can be the difference between winning and losing a close game and getting a player yellow carded or worse, red carded, can mean curtains.
We're on the same page there and it should be a very interesting game next Saturday at Death Valley. There should be a very big crowd there as well if the weather's good. The atmosphere should be electric.
Yeah, you were wrong Sonny; a bit too quick on the draw I'm afraid. Watching the game and the video clip clears the 10 of being an aggressor in the skirmish and gives him some sort of an excuse for throwing the ball after a tackle that Trinity could have been penalised for. He was injured in that tackle.
The other bloke obviously didn't watch the game or the video clip closely enough. He just decided to pigeon hole the kid and claim that he knows him well.
I would suggest the player in question is a good learner and knows when to pull back with the aggression and will be encouraging his team mates to play smart.
He was also silly enough to start talking about winning the Shield at this early stage. i guess the Coaches would be advising the boys to take it one game at a time and to improve each week. Don't get ahead of yourselves and don't focus on all the hype. Maybe Knox got ahead of themselves last season; they will be wary of making that mistake again, and next Saturday will be a grudge match for them. They might be nervous.
But I absolutely agree with you about discipline. Waves gave too many penalties away on Saturday and will need to be wary of being baited next week.
Just one penalty can be the difference between winning and losing a close game and getting a player yellow carded or worse, red carded, can mean curtains.
We're on the same page there and it should be a very interesting game next Saturday at Death Valley. There should be a very big crowd there as well if the weather's good. The atmosphere should be electric.
M
M squad 2015
Guest
Will depth be tested this weekend at DV? if the Knox juggernaut find themselves looking for fresh legs from the bench will they be able to do so? The strong depth at Waverley has seen a formidable rise in a few players edging at spot in the double V - the likes of Pat Mullane who has been dynamic in his first appearance in the 2nd XV has kept those above him on their Toes. This competitiveness has gone astray over the past few years at the college which is why this week I'm backing the double V this week. The competitiveness alone within the year 11 and 12 cohorts is a reason that the double V should not be overlooked.
rtd32
Larry Dwyer (12)
This is fantastic coaching!! About 6 years ago I recall witnessing the same thing at a Riverview vs shore game. The riverview pack were having difficulties defending the shore maul and, after half time, started to employ the same tactic - I believe Riverview, at this time, had the same coach as barker do now.
I was as perplexed at the time as you were, however, a nearby spectator explained to me that if, in general play, a player was to shield himself with or advance in a forward direction running behind his own player, the referee would penalise him for shepherding. The same rule applies in this situation.
Essentially, a maul is meant to form by a ball carrying player entering into contact, staying on his feet, and his fellow team mates joining to push forward - it is only at this point (when maul is called) that the ball may be passed backward so there is players shielding the ball carrier. However, the formation of a maul off the lineout set play makes for a different context and therefore makes it trickier to police.
Essentially the same rules apply if you set a maul up in general play, as to setting one off a set play having not directly entered contact. You are allowed to pass the ball back in the set formation, to distance the ball carrier from the defending players. However, you are not allowed to advance forward unless a player of the opposition engages in contact so as to create a maul. This is because advancing forward before a maul has been formed would be a shephard. In a nutshell, the defensive team has the decision in engaging in a maul (when you're heavily outsized and getting steamrolled it is obvious what this decision should be).
Please note this is hear say and I haven't picked this out of a rule book
Great coaching. Unfortunately the barker boys are a little short of talent this year. That said, the first half was some of the best schoolboy rugby I have ever seen. Barker were genuinely on top and camped in the Knox half. Knox defended extraordinarily and made barker work hard for their points. There was a big momentum shift after Knox got on the board and unfortunately there was no going back from there. I think Knox are clear favourites after that match and I wouldn't totally write off barker to do all that poorly. The good news for me was that the majority of the Barker team are year 10 and 11 which explains why they were so heavily outsized. Good luck for the rest of the season to both teams, I'll be interested to see the score at barker
William88
Syd Malcolm (24)
They have changed the laws to ensure teams can't do this anymore - as the players that don't join the ruck are considered to be in an offside position therefore the penalty should go to the team that has set up the driving maul.
- section 19.14 (i)
A player taking part in the lineout must either join the ruck or maul, or retire to the offside line and stay at that line, otherwise that player is offside.
Lee Grant
John Eales (66)
If the Knox players, with the ball carrier in front, lets call them a "tank", did not contact a Barker player it is not a maul because you need an defender to make it such. They could have walked up to the Barker goal line and dotted down.
If the ball had been moved back it is still a tank, as no Barker player was in contact with it. They can still proceed up the field, and even score. BUT if this tank with the ball at the back, should meet a Barker player trying to stop it, it is obstruction and a penalty to Barker - because the ball carrier was not in front.
When defenders stand away from the tank they are hoping that the ball will be moved back, and the tank move forward - then they can contact the tank and earn a penalty from obstruction.
Alternatively, if it is still a tank, they can run around to the back of if and politely remove the ball, or the ball carrier. There is no maul, no ruck, no tackle, no offside line - it is open play.
Why did the Knox tank (it was never a maul) not advance? They probably smuggled the ball back prematurely and knew the law of contacting a defender in that situation - and dished it out. Had the ball been in front they could have advanced until contact was made. It would then be a maul and the ball could be smuggled back.
.
RugbyFan14
Herbert Moran (7)
I'm guessing this must have been what happened when Barker was awarded the penalty. It was in the very far side corner so difficult to see. The ref signaled obstruction so i believe you are spot on. In light of your last paragraph the subsequent attempt makes sense - Knox had the ball at the back etc.
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Lee Grant
John Eales (66)
The flying wedge law is loosely defined - or was the last time I looked. It looks OK and swims OK but it doesn't quack in practice.
Hands up those who have seen a flying wedge pinged recently.
There are laws and there are conventions of referees, which are quasi-law. The convention of referees is not to invoke the flying wedge law - maybe because it is loosely defined.
Maybe Eyes and Ears can help there.
.
Hands up those who have seen a flying wedge pinged recently.
There are laws and there are conventions of referees, which are quasi-law. The convention of referees is not to invoke the flying wedge law - maybe because it is loosely defined.
Maybe Eyes and Ears can help there.
.
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Your recollection is, as usual, correct, Lee.
In fact its not really defined:
It was outlawed because it is dangerous so there is no reason for refs to be squeamish about calling it. there is no safe way to stop it (or rolling mauls) so they should be policed strictly. IMO.
In fact its not really defined:
Because it is defined, to the extent it is, by an example any other activity that gives rise to the same issues could fall within it.
It was outlawed because it is dangerous so there is no reason for refs to be squeamish about calling it. there is no safe way to stop it (or rolling mauls) so they should be policed strictly. IMO.
Have to agree with you Sonny Dill re: Waverley's discipline...although the 10 is not the main offender. Waverley's 6 gives away far too many penalties and then invariably gets caught up sledging the opposition. Then the 11 and 13 join in and the finger pointing and the push and shoves develop. These 3 players use a lot of energy questioning Referee's calls, appealing for penalty reversals & sledging. Potentially, this can impact the teams focus & game plan. All 3 need to shut up and concentrate on their own game. Captain & PC need to nip this in the bud now...before it starts costing them games.
Waverley should keep playing with a hard edge but need to learn how to "manage" the Referee....& work with them in a game...not against them.
This week's game v Knox will be a great test of Waverley's discipline and ability to keep focussing on the game plan. Knox will remember how they lost their discipline last year at Q.PK and are unlikely to lose focus again.
Go Waves.
Waverley should keep playing with a hard edge but need to learn how to "manage" the Referee....& work with them in a game...not against them.
This week's game v Knox will be a great test of Waverley's discipline and ability to keep focussing on the game plan. Knox will remember how they lost their discipline last year at Q.PK and are unlikely to lose focus again.
Go Waves.
- Status