H
HarveyColon
Guest
not sure who won between grammar and armidale but i know that the score was 68-14 up in armidale......i'm hoping grammar won
Shore 15 Joeys 31 [Halftime 15-17]
Joeys scored 4 tries to 2 at Northbridge to win their final GPS trial, but they wouldn't be completely satisfied with their performance.
Shore were the better team at the start and had a try on the board early, but at 10 mins. Joeys broke out and scored a brilliant try after the ball went through about 6 pairs of hands for 14. Newsome to score. Then Joeys' 13. Barclay scored an individual try when nothing was on. With the wind behind them, yet 5-17 down, Shore looked due for an uncomfortable afternoon. Then just before oranges a nicely placed kick for touch put them near the Joeys goal line and they broke through for a try soon after.
There was no scoring in the scrappy 3rd quarter but the Shore boys flagged in the 4th and Joeys finished over the top of them. 8. Watts scored a try through traffic and 13. Barclay finished them off with a 2nd individual try from nothing.
It was a bitter windy day and and a lot of the lads had trouble passing long with cold hands. Handling errors compromised attacking chances, but the loose ball offered break out opportunities for defenders. Holding onto the pill in the collisions was not easy either. Both teams should be congratulated for how they dealt with the weather - and the tacky surface, which made footwork difficult, especially around the cricket pitch area.
9. Pulver was not available for Shore, nor was the Joeys 6/8 O'Donahue, with a cork, nor their 9. Makasini. It was good to see 5. Schwager back for Joeys. It looks like he has put on some pork, but hasn't lost his skill, as he started the move that led to the Watts try in the 2nd half.
For Shore
• 15. Davies was hard to stop most times he had the ball and was almost too successful because whilst escaping from defenders he ran away from his supporting players also.
• 14. Oldham did some smart things and none better than setting up 12. Koukoulis with a perfect pass for a beautifully worked try.. that wasn't - because it was called back for an earlier incident. It deserved 5 points that effort.
• 10. Clancy was dangerous when taking on the line and drawing players so he could pass short, but his long passes in the wind with cold hands was often ropey. His tactical kicking in the wind was good except when he gave up 50 metres when kicking the ball dead in goal.
• 12. Kououlis was hard to stop in traffic and once I thought he should have passed near the Joeys goal line, but proved me wrong by forcing his way through for the try.
For Joeys
• The front row of 1. Robertson, 2. Carolan and 3. Sandell was dominant in the scrums and when Sandell had to be replaced after oranges and Carolan moved to THP, the Joeys scrum was just as imposing. Carolan had a great day individually and was always diligent in getting into position to do stuff, which sounds simple until you watch a lazy fatty doing the opposite and see the effect of the difference. Like Robertson he also made his mark with ball in hand.
• 4. Bartlett earned his promotion to the Ones for his work in the lineout alone. He bullied the Shore throwers and diverted some of their ball to his team.
• 6. Goldie was a complete pain in the arse all day- and I say that in a complimentary way. He made a nuisance of himself and spoiled many little endeavours of the Shore boys, not always lawfully, but in total, effectively.
• 12. Pay had a strong debut in the Ones and should hold his place on that showing. The nuggety inside centre is fast and elusive and made a few significant breaks. The fellow he replaced, the robust 15. Kay, made a good fist of the fullback role and broke a couple of tackles on attack, though he has more work to do in his role as a custodian.
Shore will have to improve their handling to take advantage of more of their chances. Their set piece work will have to get better also. Their forwards put in good efforts at the breakdown but they weren't as co-ordinated as the better drilled Joeys' forwards were, both with and without the ball. They have to be more alert against surprise moves by players like Barclay of Joeys. They also must not doze off in supporting their own ball runners.
Joeys will have to improve their goal defence because both Shore tries were scored from close quarters and too easily. They also have to make do with fewer players at the ruck as they have wanted defenders wide out in every trial game this year. A better back line that that of Shore would have punished them more.
Their discipline has to improve also. They were pinged too often for going off their feet, especially in the first half.
.
It surely depends on the offence.
It used to be the school's decision as to the punishment.
Subject to the spear tackle having been deliberate I would have thought kicking someone was in a much more serious category but I didn't see the incident.
they did notnot sure who won between grammar and armidale but i know that the score was 68-14 up in armidale..i'm hoping grammar won
Surely there must be some forum for a player to defend such a serious charge and either refute or offer mitigating circumstances - or something? An undefended "kicking" charge is not something you would want hanging around on your record - it's not " the good old days "!
I agree with your summary IS - and I didn't see it either. Just interested in the players options.
they did not
For a kicking charge, even without seeing it myself, would definitely be a season ending suspension for the offender. As HJ said no headmaster would want to attach themselves to this stigma.In one sense it is the good old days: he may have blown the privilege of playing for a few weeks - its not meant to be win at all costs: it is just a game.
Joeys View predictions for this weekend?
The GPS judiciary contains members of the AAGPS Executive & the Rugby Convener. Players sent off provide a written statement of their action; a referee report is tabled and video evidence is viewed. This system does penalise offenders on the severity of their offence - not a system that sweeps under the carpet on field incidents.Surely there must be some forum for a player to defend such a serious charge and either refute or offer mitigating circumstances - or something? An undefended "kicking" charge is not something you would want hanging around on your record - it's not " the good old days "!
I agree with your summary IS - and I didn't see it either. Just interested in the players options.
The GPS judiciary contains members of the AAGPS Executive & the Rugby Convener. Players sent off provide a written statement of their action; a referee report is tabled and video evidence is viewed. This system does penalise offenders on the severity of their offence - not a system that sweeps under the carpet on field incidents.
The GPS judiciary contains members of the AAGPS Executive & the Rugby Convener. Players sent off provide a written statement of their action; a referee report is tabled and video evidence is viewed. This system does penalise offenders on the severity of their offence - not a system that sweeps under the carpet on field incidents.
The penalty is given in matches that are scheduled - not just created to fill the penalty.Is the penalty given in weeks or games?
The GPS judiciary contains members of the AAGPS Executive & the Rugby Convener. Players sent off provide a written statement of their action; a referee report is tabled and video evidence is viewed. This system does penalise offenders on the severity of their offence - not a system that sweeps under the carpet on field incidents.