Continued decline in Sydney Junior Rugby

[Dingasden]

Great first post.
Another loophole that I hadn't thought of - sign them on then don't make them play, despite not being able to field a full team.

This is against the Competition rules too. They must be in gear and willing & able to play before signing on. If they are injured then they can get dispensation with a medical certificate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Quick Hands]

This is against the Competition rules too. They must be in gear and willing & able to play before signing on. If they are injured then they can get dispensation with a medical certificate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's what I thought. Sounds like the SJRU President might have to answer for his role in this. But I suppose that would be too much to ask.

 

[Open Side]

Don't hold your breath for SJRU or the President to do anything about this.He and they did nothing in 2012 about the Sylvania v Coogee U16 debacle. Oh that's right ...the 2 Sylvania players that were cited got off scot free. The badly injured Coogee player hasn't played Rugby since that day.
Get rid of SJRU asap......an embarrassment.

 

[S'UP]

Don't hold your breath for SJRU or the President to do anything about this.He and they did nothing in 2012 about the Sylvania v Coogee U16 debacle. Oh that's right .the 2 Sylvania players that were cited got off scot free. The badly injured Coogee player hasn't played Rugby since that day.
Get rid of SJRU asap..an embarrassment.

here is the rule, what a joke imagine doing that in a 15A's game or 16A's


6.7 SHARING AND MATCHING THE NUMBER OF PLAYERS IN EACH TEAM DURING A MATCH

C: For the Under 13 to Opens Age Groups a Team that does not have the maximum number of players on the field (15) may at any time during the Match request additional players from the opposition. If after sharing players in accordance with this Competition Rule the Team playing short may also request the opposition team to match player numbers at any time. Player numbers may be adjusted by sharing if a player is injured or in blood bin but not if a player is Sent Off or Sin Binned. You must share players before you match player numbers so that the maximum number of players are involved in the Match. If an opposition team refuses to share and then match player numbers as requested then they are deemed to have forfeited the match.

 

[Quick Hands]

here is the rule, what a joke imagine doing that in a 15A's game or 16A's


6.7 SHARING AND MATCHING THE NUMBER OF PLAYERS IN EACH TEAM DURING A MATCH

C: For the Under 13 to Opens Age Groups a Team that does not have the maximum number of players on the field (15) may at any time during the Match request additional players from the opposition. If after sharing players in accordance with this Competition Rule the Team playing short may also request the opposition team to match player numbers at any time. Player numbers may be adjusted by sharing if a player is injured or in blood bin but not if a player is Sent Off or Sin Binned. You must share players before you match player numbers so that the maximum number of players are involved in the Match. If an opposition team refuses to share and then match player numbers as requested then they are deemed to have forfeited the match.

Let me get this straight, team A turns up short of players and instead of forfeiting they can demand players from the opposition and if the opposition refuse, team A win on forfeit?

That is the most absurd rule that I have ever seen in any competition, in any sport with which I have been involved.

In any other sport it goes like this: team A is short of players, they can forfeit the game or they can play short and hope for the best. If they forfeit the match the opposition quite often lend team A some players so that everyone gets a run around.

The more I discover about the way junior rugby is run in this city, the more I understand why it is in terminal decline.

I note however, that there is nothing there about the team short of players having the choice of which opposition players they want. So you're playing the best team, you turn up with 13 and demand the opposition's two best players. Alice in Wonderland stuff.

 

[sarcophilus]

Did the hosting team invite el'presidente along to add to the intimidation help with the interpretation of that rule.

almost straight from benjamin spock's less known book
"how to enhance a sense of entitlement in privileged children"
I found a well thumbed copy in a Milson's point school jumble sale with the initials BH written on the inside cover.

 

[Boof]

Let me get this straight, team A turns up short of players and instead of forfeiting they can demand players from the opposition and if the opposition refuse, team A win on forfeit?

That is the most absurd rule that I have ever seen in any competition, in any sport with which I have been involved.

In any other sport it goes like this: team A is short of players, they can forfeit the game or they can play short and hope for the best. If they forfeit the match the opposition quite often lend team A some players so that everyone gets a run around.

The more I discover about the way junior rugby is run in this city, the more I understand why it is in terminal decline.

I note however, that there is nothing there about the team short of players having the choice of which opposition players they want. So you're playing the best team, you turn up with 13 and demand the opposition's two best players. Alice in Wonderland stuff.

Same rule was brought in for up to U15 4-5 years agi in the hunter to benefit those clubs who had two teams in one age group ( most clubs only have 1team per age grade ) a lot of these teams had bare numbers so the rule was put in place to encourage growth, worked very well initially without the issues you speak of players were generally shared in good spirit. Team numbers have grown in the younger age groups and the rule doesn't appear to be used very oftene anymore. The negatives - my oldest sons team missed the finals one year by one point after coach lent best players resulting in a loss for us, needless to say that never happened again - bench players game time was expanded !

 

[Dingasden]

Earlier in the year we turned up to Dural with 13 players. Dural coach noticed we were a bit short & asked how many players we needed & what positions (I didn't even have to ask). They gave us 2 forwards (great lads) who warmed up with us & learnt our line out calls. 10 min into the game we lost another player & Dural came over to ask what we needed. 10 before FT we were up 14-12 in a great game before Dural ran in 2 late tries. I was so impressed with the spirit the Dural players & team management showed & that's when I realised why the rule was there. It's not always about winning but rather playing the game we & our boys love in true rugby spirit & hopefully teaching our players some basic ethics & principals to live their life by.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Good to see pockets of resistance exist to the win at all costs culture that seems to prevail in many areas.

 

[Thomo77]

Earlier in the year we turned up to Dural with 13 players. Dural coach noticed we were a bit short & asked how many players we needed & what positions (I didn't even have to ask). They gave us 2 forwards (great lads) who warmed up with us & learnt our line out calls. 10 min into the game we lost another player & Dural came over to ask what we needed. 10 before FT we were up 14-12 in a great game before Dural ran in 2 late tries. I was so impressed with the spirit the Dural players & team management showed & that's when I realised why the rule was there. It's not always about winning but rather playing the game we & our boys love in true rugby spirit & hopefully teaching our players some basic ethics & principals to live their life by.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sounds like a great game, and that has been my experience typically with situations like this, where teams are short. We carry a squad of 23, so it is always our preference to have as many of the lads playing as possible...

Just for clarity, I have absolutely no issue with the rule... I think it is great and have been involved in many examples of its application that have resulted in good, solid matches played in the spirit of the game... I've just never encountered another coach or parent ripping in to one of the boys that was helping out and I was surprised that the SJRU president injected himself into the situation given that the two coaches had already made arrangements... the sign - on issue, I think everyone would agree, is just plain ordinary.

 

[Thomo77]

That is disgraceful behaviour by anyone involved in junior sport or really society in general. All clubs should parents on notice that if you can't leave your egos and agendas at the gate you will not be granted entry. Obviously these parents see your boys as a threat to their little Johnys right of passage like his Pa.
Opposition should be looking at your team as a challenge and rise to it and in doing so enjoy all that rugby has to offer. Good luck to your boys for the rest of the season.

Thanks Boof... totally agree. The saddest part is that the 'opposition' - as in the kids, have typically relished the challenge of playing our side... they see the challenge and in every case have shown up to play us and done their best... it's been the parents and coaches unfortunately. Every team we have played have given it their all and, despite some fairly one sided score lines, have muscled up. We haven't had a game that wasn't played in good spirits on the field - it's the sideline action that appals me and, in fairness, some of our parents get just as embroiled in the nonsense as the opposition.

 

[Quick Hands]

Earlier in the year we turned up to Dural with 13 players. Dural coach noticed we were a bit short & asked how many players we needed & what positions (I didn't even have to ask). They gave us 2 forwards (great lads) who warmed up with us & learnt our line out calls. 10 min into the game we lost another player & Dural came over to ask what we needed. 10 before FT we were up 14-12 in a great game before Dural ran in 2 late tries. I was so impressed with the spirit the Dural players & team management showed & that's when I realised why the rule was there. It's not always about winning but rather playing the game we & our boys love in true rugby spirit & hopefully teaching our players some basic ethics & principals to live their life by.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is how it is supposed to work. Stark contrast to the situation described earlier by Thomo77. What's actually worse is the role that the SJRU President seems to have played.

 

[S'UP]

Sounds like a great game, and that has been my experience typically with situations like this, where teams are short. We carry a squad of 23, so it is always our preference to have as many of the lads playing as possible.

Just for clarity, I have absolutely no issue with the rule. I think it is great and have been involved in many examples of its application that have resulted in good, solid matches played in the spirit of the game. I've just never encountered another coach or parent ripping in to one of the boys that was helping out and I was surprised that the SJRU president injected himself into the situation given that the two coaches had already made arrangements. the sign - on issue, I think everyone would agree, is just plain ordinary.

Unfortunately i have had the complete opposite experience, the club we were playing did give us a player which was great, the player elected to play on the wing. No problems, unfortunately after building a nice 3 on 1 overlap 10 meters out from the oppositions line the loan player was presented with a nice pass to his chest to which he put both hands in the air and watch sail over the sideline. oops There were some ugly moments after that, which wasn't a credit to any of the people involved, hence we played one short for the rest of the game.

 

[Quick Hands]

To me, the old rule was better. If you are short of players you have 2 options:

1. Play short and take your chances, or
2. Forfeit the match

If the team takes option 2, then by all means have the team with greater numbers lend their oppenents some players and have a game.

IMHO, it's bizarre that a team can turn up short, be lent players by the opposition and still win the game. I've never heard of this concept anywhere before and I've been involved in a few different sports at different levels.

 

[mangled]

You still have to have 12 players otherwise it is still a forfeit. . I liked the old rule as well but problem was that teams wouldn't bother playing if they are near top and didn't want to risk injury. .. doesn't matter what rule you have. . Some over zealous coach will ruin the reasoning

 

[Hugh Jarse]

2014 SJRU Competition Rules state in part:
5.5 Forfeits

H) The Competition Manager may disqualify any Team that forfeits three (3) or more Matches in a season. If a Team forfeits three (3) or more Matches in a season, they will be required to furnish an explanation to the Competition Manager as to why they should remain in the Competition. In this instance the Team will be deemed to have withdrawn from the Competition and Competition Rule 3.13 will apply and / or the Team will become ineligible to participate in the Final Series.

Buddha tells us that there have been 48 games recorded as being forfeited this season.
Of those 48 forfeits, 28 are one off events.

5 teams are responsible for the remaining 20 forfeited games. These are:
Petersham, Under 12F, 7 Forfeits, Rounds 6-12
Coogee, Under 15A, 2 Forfeits, Rounds 5 and 6
Killara West Pymble, Under 15A, 2 Forfeits, Rounds 6 and 8
Chatswood Stags, Under16A, 6 Forfeits, Rounds, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, and 12
Manly Roos, Opens, 3 Forfeits, Round 1,3,4 (round 2 was a Bye). They were removed from the draw in round 5.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

2014 SJRU Competition Rules state in part:
5.5 Forfeits

H) The Competition Manager may disqualify any Team that forfeits three (3) or more Matches in a season. If a Team forfeits three (3) or more Matches in a season, they will be required to furnish an explanation to the Competition Manager as to why they should remain in the Competition. In this instance the Team will be deemed to have withdrawn from the Competition and Competition Rule 3.13 will apply and / or the Team will become ineligible to participate in the Final Series.

Buddha tells us that there have been 48 games recorded as being forfeited this season.
Of those 48 forfeits, 28 are one off events.

5 teams are responsible for the remaining 20 forfeited games. These are:
Petersham, Under 12F, 7 Forfeits, Rounds 6-12
Coogee, Under 15A, 2 Forfeits, Rounds 5 and 6
Killara West Pymble, Under 15A, 2 Forfeits, Rounds 6 and 8
Chatswood Stags, Under16A, 6 Forfeits, Rounds, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, and 12
Manly Roos, Opens, 3 Forfeits, Round 1,3,4 (round 2 was a Bye). They were removed from the draw in round 5.

so the lesson is don't forfeit the first 3 - sprinkle them through the season and you can get away with 6

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Anyone got a copy of the latest revision of the SJRU Constitution?

While there is some underlined text on the SJRU Website purporting to be a link to the constitution, there is nothing to click onto when I visit the page. Perhaps it is because I an visiting via a Mac instead of a PC.

I am interested to understand the constitutional requirements and procedure for election of SJRU officials at the AGM.

Still no copy of the 2013 Annual Report on their Web site either. I guess that must have been distributed on a "need to know" basis.

 

[S'UP]

Anyone got a copy of the latest revision of the SJRU Constitution?

While there is some underlined text on the SJRU Website purporting to be a link to the constitution, there is nothing to click onto when I visit the page. Perhaps it is because I an visiting via a Mac instead of a PC.

I am interested to understand the constitutional requirements and procedure for election of SJRU officials at the AGM.

Still no copy of the 2013 Annual Report on their Web site either. I guess that must have been distributed on a "need to know" basis.

Only the one posted #750 from 2007. Maybe you could email Kerry Brady i'm sure she would send you the most recent version and the annual report.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Kerry Brady is NSW JRU President, not SJRU President. Think she is the SJRU Past President.

I may have to go through the local Village Club to try and get a copy.

Just seems a little slack to not have those rather important documents not published on the Website, particularly when there is provision for such, and a good past history of doing so.