CAS Rugby 2023

[WLF3]

Board also let Jason Sangha (Waverley) play in the t20s that same year despite holding a professional cricket contract

Yes agree, he only played 1 game.

 

[WLF3]

From memory Bowen and a couple forwards were unavailable for that view v knox game and O’Donnell played 10 (someone please correct me if wrong). The truth is we will never no what the result of that game would have been

From memory Bowen and a couple forwards were unavailable for that view v knox game and O’Donnell played 10 (someone please correct me if wrong). The truth is we will never no what the result of that game would have been

Agree about Bowen, not sure about the forwards, regardless, the Waves wins were by plenty in every game, nothing close, including a very strong Knox and Cranbrook side in the first 2 CAS rounds. Also remember View beat Barker and I don't think Bowen played in that game either, could be wrong.

 

[JackJill]

Season format idea (may well have been touted previously)….

Easter holidays and first ~3 weeks of Term 2: friendlies/trials between any schools regardless of association (up to schools to organise, some great traditional matchups like Knox V Joeys on Gala Day)

~Weeks 4-8 Term 2: CAS, CHS, ISA, CCC, AICES, GPS etc run their (~5 game) inter Association Championships - first past the post wins, with table (of weighted points for each team; eg a win in 1st XV gets 50 points, win in 13DS gets 5 points) giving a ranking for Term 3 NSW Schools Championships Cup/Plate/Bowl

Mid Year Holidays: tours and camps

Term 3: using tables from the Term 2 Association Championships, schools get seeded into 32 school NSW Schools Championships that runs over 6 weeks (home and away rights drawn out of hat each week, losers week 1 go into bowl comp, losers week 2 go into plate comp etc)

Feel we need to do something different…

This is a really clever approach Mule. It's a great way to get the whole school involved, no matter whether it is the A or E teams, every point counts. I like it.

 

[Hankspank]

Hi Rod, I always admire your balanced view.
I do think though, you will say Barker regardless!

I will though disagree with you in 2021. That Waves side would have easily accounted for a good Barker side at Barker that year.
That Barker side had never really got close to that Waves side ever in the age groups, except in the 16as with a 25 - 2 penalty to Barker ( no joke), and a Waves certain try disallowed by a ref 30m behind the play, actually scored by my bloke without doubt.

Yep I know there were a few additions to that Barker team but they were still in year 11 boys and IMO would have struggled against an aggressive , HUGE forward pack, and super talented backline. Mates of boys from other schools believe the same.
They were all coming to watch at Barker, but alas.

Also as a comparison, Riverview beat Barker, Knox beat Riverview, and Waves thumped Knox 38-14 (Knox scored and converted in the last play of the day). That Waves side won 8 from 8 until covid hit, including beating a strong Kings side at Kings putting 50+ on them and same for a better than normal Shore age group. No one got close to this team in all the ages, I suspect my old mate from Knox, the AXE will back me up.

I have asked the same Waves coaches, that also coached this years team, which is the best team over the last 10, they have coached, and they both said without a doubt the 2021 side. That includes the side that had Ben Donaldson, Luca Moretti, and Finn Wright in 2017, so I recon they would know.
Anyway, we will never know.

The season is not over and there is a lot to play for still this season. A very interesting year, I do think though that there are some young superstars who will burn bright next year when in year 12.

Best WLF!

The trial game between Oakhill and Waves that year was a cracker as well. 2021 Waves team was the best Oakhill played that year & the 2022 Barker team was better than the 2021 edition.

 

[Snort]

In the same vane that every GPS school in Brisbane run a sports scholarship programe for rugby. Every school. You should see what Knox does in the CAS tennis. All these year 10 and 11 kids in the 1sts and 2nds. Is anyone complaining? Nope. It is how the world is.

Cranbrook has crunched everyone in the cricket the last few years. A Cranbrook parent told me the other day that last season's 1st XI contained seven scholarship boys. "It might have gone a bit far", was his comment.

 

[Snort]

Season format idea (may well have been touted previously)….

Easter holidays and first ~3 weeks of Term 2: friendlies/trials between any schools regardless of association (up to schools to organise, some great traditional matchups like Knox V Joeys on Gala Day)

~Weeks 4-8 Term 2: CAS, CHS, ISA, CCC, AICES, GPS etc run their (~5 game) inter Association Championships - first past the post wins, with table (of weighted points for each team; eg a win in 1st XV gets 50 points, win in 13DS gets 5 points) giving a ranking for Term 3 NSW Schools Championships Cup/Plate/Bowl

Mid Year Holidays: tours and camps

Term 3: using tables from the Term 2 Association Championships, schools get seeded into 32 school NSW Schools Championships that runs over 6 weeks (home and away rights drawn out of hat each week, losers week 1 go into bowl comp, losers week 2 go into plate comp etc)

Feel we need to do something different…

Not the worst idea ever.

 

[Snort]

Hey, there are games this Saturday.

There will be no upsets in Waverley v St Aloysius. Waverley will run up a lead at half time, then give a bunch of guys some 1st XV game time.

Objectively, Knox are too strong for Cranbrook. Could be close though, if Cranbrook plays at its best (and remembers to defend the lineout!). After a promising start against Waverley, Cranbrook could end up 0-4 after four rounds, which feels a bit harsh.

Trinity v Barker? Barker will be too strong at home, I suspect. Mind you, this Trinity side has exceeded expectations - and without (arguably) its best forward, Max Meagher, who has missed most of the season with injury. Still, you need to go back a very long time since Trinity won at Barker, and I don't think this is the year.

 

[WLF3]

Cranbrook has crunched everyone in the cricket the last few years. A Cranbrook parent told me the other day that last season's 1st XI contained seven scholarship boys. "It might have gone a bit far", was his comment.

Tis true Snort, my bloke played against the Cranbrook side, it was a terrific side with 5 imports out of 11.
This has been their strategy over the past few years, it's a bit OTT in my opinion and others, particularly long time Cranbrook parents as you would expect.

 

[WLF3]

Hey, there are games this Saturday.

There will be no upsets in Waverley v St Aloysius. Waverley will run up a lead at half time, then give a bunch of guys some 1st XV game time.

Objectively, Knox are too strong for Cranbrook. Could be close though, if Cranbrook plays at its best (and remembers to defend the lineout!). After a promising start against Waverley, Cranbrook could end up 0-4 after four rounds, which feels a bit harsh.

Trinity v Barker? Barker will be too strong at home, I suspect. Mind you, this Trinity side has exceeded expectations - and without (arguably) its best forward, Max Meagher, who has missed most of the season with injury. Still, you need to go back a very long time since Trinity won at Barker, and I don't think this is the year.

Spot on Snort in each case I think.

I can assure you the Waves will ensure they win but are not focused on an embarrassing score, never do, can't guarantee a big score won't eventuate but there will be a lot of year 12 boys given a chance to feel the emotion of wearing the jersey on Death Valley for the last time.

 

[Snort]

I watched the Barker/Cranbrook incident again. It's kind of hypnotic, because it's so unusual. You could set it as a question in a refereeing exam. I think the correct decision would have been to penalise Barker for using a flying wedge - you can't bind onto the ball carrier before contact, and Barker certainly did that. I don't, however, put that down to malfeasance on the part of the referee, assistant referee or Barker. It's just that everyone involved was confronted with a very, very unusual situation (who doesn't defend an attacking lineout in any way?) and in the heat of the moment, which is when these decisions are made, the focus was on obstruction and the flying wedge rule was overlooked. Which is understandable - when did you last see a flying wedge penalised?

 

[Lachie Goon]

Round 5 predictions
Cranbrook 20+
Barker 20+
Waverley vs Aloys at Death Valley The Public Park will be closer than people think, this is a matchup St Aloysius often gets up for. However, I think R.Stock will get up for this fixture, and as I will be in attendance it would be a delight to meet the young man. Good luck to both sides.

 

[Running_rugby_1954]

Round 5 predictions
Cranbrook 20+
Barker 20+
Waverley vs Aloys at Death Valley The Public Park will be closer than people think, this is a matchup St Aloysius often gets up for. However, I think R.Stock will get up for this fixture, and as I will be in attendance it would be a delight to meet the young man. Good luck to both sides.

Fun fact 3: Aloys have beaten Waverley at QP more times in the last 20 years than Cranbrook with 3 wins. Cranbrook has 2 - both in their great 2014 team who played Waverley twice at QP.

 

[Lachie Goon]

Fun fact 3: Aloys have beaten Waverley at QP more times in the last 20 years than Cranbrook with 3 wins. Cranbrook has 2 - both in their great 2014 team who played Waverley twice at QP.

How do you find your stuff RR1954? terrific CAS rugby knowledge!!!

 

[BarkerFan420]

Don't be surprised if Juan De Lange comes off the bench for Barker this Saturday. I've heard he's been running well for the 2nd xv! Big, hard-running South African boy, built like a rhino, they just breed them differently over there. After a stint back home in South Africa he will be rampaging, I'd be cautious if I was trinity. Also heard he causes a ruckus on and off the field

 

[RedOrDead]

I watched the Barker/Cranbrook incident again. It's kind of hypnotic, because it's so unusual. You could set it as a question in a refereeing exam. I think the correct decision would have been to penalise Barker for using a flying wedge - you can't bind onto the ball carrier before contact, and Barker certainly did that. I don't, however, put that down to malfeasance on the part of the referee, assistant referee or Barker. It's just that everyone involved was confronted with a very, very unusual situation (who doesn't defend an attacking lineout in any way?) and in the heat of the moment, which is when these decisions are made, the focus was on obstruction and the flying wedge rule was overlooked. Which is understandable - when did you last see a flying wedge penalised?

Hey Snort,

Definition of flying wedge is ambiguous. However, purely from experience, this would not constitute a flying wedge. The flying wedge is something I have specifically discussed with a couple of Shute Shield referees last year. They say that one player can bind before contact and that's fine, need more then 1 player bound to constitute a flying wedge. Additionally, the rule exists because the wedge creates too much force (three players or more players bound at full speed), and prevents a tackler from having a safe place to put head in tackle. Therefore, the action would need to be forceful for a "flying wedge" to be called. The flying wedge shape is something teams I have played in have used, so something we discussed in detail with Shute shield referees. In this scenario, we see that the players bind when stationery. Hence it is not forceful and from that conversation alone, I do not believe it would constitute a flying wedge.

Additionally, please see below an article I have just found:

Ask the Ref - 'The Flying Wedge' | Ospreys

www.ospreysrugby.com

With that said, I don't think this video constitutes a flying wedge, and at no point should Barker have been penalised... however... just to make this even more complicated then it already is... Cranbrook could have potentially been pinged for stepping away from the line-out before it was finished.

Because that's what we need here... More confusion.

 

[BarkerFan420]

Hey Snort,

Definition of flying wedge is ambiguous. However, purely from experience, this would not constitute a flying wedge. The flying wedge is something I have specifically discussed with a couple of Shute Shield referees last year. They say that one player can bind before contact and that's fine. Additionally, the rule exists because it creates too much force (three players bound at full speed), and prevents a tackler from having a safe place to put head in tackle. Therefore, the action would need to be forceful for a "flying wedge" to be called. This is also a tactic I have personally used (and not been pinged for). In this scenario, we see that the players bind when stationery. Hence it is not forceful and from that conversation alone, I do not believe it would constitute a flying wedge.

Additionally, please see below an article I have just found:

Ask the Ref - 'The Flying Wedge' | Ospreys

www.ospreysrugby.com

With that said, I don't think this video constitutes a flying wedge, and at no point should Barker have been penalised... however... just to make this even more complicated then it already is... Cranbrook could have potentially been pinged for stepping away from the line-out before it was finished.

Because that's what we need here... More confusion.

W opinion

 

[Snort]

Hey Snort,

Definition of flying wedge is ambiguous. However, purely from experience, this would not constitute a flying wedge. The flying wedge is something I have specifically discussed with a couple of Shute Shield referees last year. They say that one player can bind before contact and that's fine, need more then 1 player bound to constitute a flying wedge. Additionally, the rule exists because the wedge creates too much force (three players or more players bound at full speed), and prevents a tackler from having a safe place to put head in tackle. Therefore, the action would need to be forceful for a "flying wedge" to be called. The flying wedge shape is something teams I have played in have used, so something we discussed in detail with Shute shield referees. In this scenario, we see that the players bind when stationery. Hence it is not forceful and from that conversation alone, I do not believe it would constitute a flying wedge.

Additionally, please see below an article I have just found:

Ask the Ref - 'The Flying Wedge' | Ospreys

www.ospreysrugby.com

With that said, I don't think this video constitutes a flying wedge, and at no point should Barker have been penalised... however... just to make this even more complicated then it already is... Cranbrook could have potentially been pinged for stepping away from the line-out before it was finished.

Because that's what we need here... More confusion.

That's a valid view. It's a highly unclear situation, because you so rarely see a team not attempt to defend at all, and the Laws don't really contemplate the idea that players won't defend. This is why I say the video could be used in a refereeing exam - there's nothing but confusion here!

 

[BarkerFan420]

Cranbrook has crunched everyone in the cricket the last few years. A Cranbrook parent told me the other day that last season's 1st XI contained seven scholarship boys. "It might have gone a bit far", was his comment.

rugby forum champion

 

[RedOrDead]

rugby forum champion

It's relevant.

It's a rebuttal to the Barker "S word" debate.

The point being Cranbrook do it for cricket. Trinity for athletics and basketball (do they do it for vollyeball? or are Trinity genuinely just a volleyball powerhouse). Waverley for rugby. Knox for tennis and swimming. It's just business as usual.

I don't think Aloys do it for anything but could be wrong.

 

[james richards]

It's relevant.

It's a rebuttal to the Barker "S word" debate.

The point being Cranbrook do it for cricket. Trinity for athletics and basketball (do they do it for vollyeball? or are Trinity genuinely just a volleyball powerhouse). Waverley for rugby. Knox for tennis and swimming. It's just business as usual.

I don't think Aloys do it for anything but could be wrong.

the Assistant referee was the dad of the hooker ... sounds a bit sketchy to me having him making a decision like that at such a crucial point in the game the dad shouldn't be there at all he's a barker dad and shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a flag for a 1sts game