NSW AAGPS 2025 (banter and commentary)
- Thread starter Joker
- Start date
Jakeburner65
Chris McKivat (8)
Garbage re View. I think you threw that in for colour.
I have been to each View match this year including Trials and stand near to them.
They are well supervised and would be in major, serious shit if they did that, this year or any year.
Last edited:
Jakeburner65
Chris McKivat (8)
Same with 1s and 2nds, oddly. I think maybe they all trained for the wet weather game plan?
Footyhead23456
Frank Row (1)
Shore v Scots today
Last edited by a moderator:
The reality is Newington is not a rugby school as much as Joeys, View etc. They do push rugby but they also push AFL and Soccer very heavily so they don't have the numbers, depth or quality at junior levels. The new DOR is focused on shifting things from trying to buy premierships but it will take 3-5 years to turn it around. He is big on building better coaching and development through all years and grades and bringing a better culture back that was undone by the previous DOR.
Anyway, it was a great win by the 1st XV and we will celebrate it. And rightly so.
Anyway, it was a great win by the 1st XV and we will celebrate it. And rightly so.
Warwick Wilson
Allen Oxlade (6)
Not sure it was 10 but deffo hit him a few times whilst both on the ground. Scots played a man down for the last 20. TBH the game management from both sides could and should have been better.
The President
Ward Prentice (10)
Scots No.5 will most likely receive a multiple week suspension. Shore No.6 (Stock) handled the situation very well. No stomping or punching like we saw from the Scots lad. Well done Shore. Still unsure why the Scots No.5 retaliated like he did. It was a clean tackle and he decided lash out on Stock. Hopefully he is rightfully charged
The 6 Seat
Allen Oxlade (6)
A man difference doesn’t make much difference in the end Subbies when you can walk the length of the field 3 times off penalties alone and not attacking footy…
The Chairman
Nev Cottrell (35)
Well i’ll let my thoughts on this be known later.
For now stats should come out later tonight after I gather myself.
For now stats should come out later tonight after I gather myself.
twister29
Ted Fahey (11)
Let’s not say that mate…
Although I am disappointed with many & most calls in the game (going both ways), it was a high standard and a great game to watch.
Special shout-out to D’Almeida (E) who had Lemoto on lock for the entire game. Also thought Galligan (E) and Clout (E) led the Shore forwards pack very well, those Shore forwards as a collective played fantastic. Unfortunately Galligan went down in the last 5 minutes and although there is no diagnosis yet, I hope to see him back with positive news as he is definitely one of my favourite boys in the Stirling squad.
From Scots I thought the fullback played a superb game, looking dangerous with the ball.
I will definitely rewatch it tomorrow and find some clarity in the refereeing that I couldn’t today, but all in all I thought it was a good day on the hill.
Twister.
Edit: All those unhappy with the calls today, express it, but do it in a respectful way. The referee and TSC no5 cannot defend themselves here…
NedKelly
Chris McKivat (8)
Very costly. 2 very kickable conversions missed plus a penalty from right in front and 15m out. The Newington kicker was superb, nailing 2-3 conversions from the sideline.
Mungo1866
Herbert Moran (7)
His father went to St Gregory’s ( the other Marist school) and played for Souths. He was renowned as one of the quickest players in league.
I have absolutely no doubt he is paying for the privelige of his boys education.
Can't believe he is only in year 10. Some talent. The 9 and 10 in Joeys 2ndXV also excellent. Also like the 13 for Joeys 1st XV. He looks the goods.
RuckReporter
Frank Nicholson (4)
The Controversial Penalty: A frame by frame analysis
In this presentation I will conduct a frame by frame analysis of the recent controversial advantage which resulted in the defeat of SHORE at full time. I will refer to three claims as a part of this investigation:
Claim A: A Shore player interfered with the ball, impairing the placement/ability for the Scots' 9 to continue play
Claim B: Shore players were offside, resulting in the advantage call
Claim C: A Shore player came in through the side during the clear out.
The Analysis
The Verdict
It is very tough for me, as a biased SHORE supporter, to make a call. I can find no infringement of the rules in my perusal of the footage, and all 3 of the major claims I saw on G&GR appear to be unsubstantiated. I will leave it up to the reader to decide their opinion, but I find it very hard to believe that in the brief moments where the camera was obstructed by players/the ref an infringement was made - though it is possible.
If you believe I have made an error in this brief analysis, please don't hesitate to let me know and I will amend my post if necessary.
In terms of the three claims I presented at the beginning, the following is my verdict on those:
Claim A: Very likely false (due to the quality of the footage, and the blockages of view, I cannot debunk this claim entirely)
Claim B: Definitively False
Claim C: Definitively False
If you believe I have made an error in this brief analysis, please don't hesitate to let me know and I will amend my post if necessary.
Thank you,
RuckReporter
In this presentation I will conduct a frame by frame analysis of the recent controversial advantage which resulted in the defeat of SHORE at full time. I will refer to three claims as a part of this investigation:
Claim A: A Shore player interfered with the ball, impairing the placement/ability for the Scots' 9 to continue play
Claim B: Shore players were offside, resulting in the advantage call
Claim C: A Shore player came in through the side during the clear out.
The Analysis
The Verdict
It is very tough for me, as a biased SHORE supporter, to make a call. I can find no infringement of the rules in my perusal of the footage, and all 3 of the major claims I saw on G&GR appear to be unsubstantiated. I will leave it up to the reader to decide their opinion, but I find it very hard to believe that in the brief moments where the camera was obstructed by players/the ref an infringement was made - though it is possible.
If you believe I have made an error in this brief analysis, please don't hesitate to let me know and I will amend my post if necessary.
In terms of the three claims I presented at the beginning, the following is my verdict on those:
Claim A: Very likely false (due to the quality of the footage, and the blockages of view, I cannot debunk this claim entirely)
Claim B: Definitively False
Claim C: Definitively False
If you believe I have made an error in this brief analysis, please don't hesitate to let me know and I will amend my post if necessary.
Thank you,
RuckReporter
Yes. Appears all the chat pre game was nonsense. He did a few nice things but there were many other New boys who were better. Great win for the team.
BITTA_footy
Peter Burge (5)
I’m glad New are doing something about this. Great to see not for Newington, but the rest of the gps aswell. Would love to see some more competitive New games in juniors
Where's the beef
Ward Prentice (10)
I fully agree with this, but also point out that its completely unfair to the schools that don't. It's easy to see it on the depth. Hats off to New, they were just in front most of the game. A lot of things did not go right for joeys today, but, you make your own luck too. New were enormous.
