NSW AAGPS Rugby 2013

[Snort]

I'm an outsider (no GPS connection), but I have to say, my impression is that this is a competition in trouble.

For some time, I have advocated a complete overhaul of private school Rugby so that schools are matched according to their Rugby aspirations and not historical associations. At the same time, I know this will never happen (because centuries of tradition demand that Grammar play against the Shore Thirds, while Scots put 80 points on the Shore Firsts). Still. It seems to me that you have two schools who have approached their Rugby by deliberately inducing good players to attend (I don't accuse anyone of offering scholarships - I don't know how it's done and I'm happy for you debate it in that other thread). So you have two powerhouse teams who thump everyone else. Well, OK. But everyone I have spoken to about it says that Newington plays its games in front of next-to-nobody - so who is this for? On the other hand, Shore is a school with a long, proud and distinguished Rugby history - it has lost all eight games this year. King's, one of the great nurseries of Australian Rugby, is one from eight. And Joey's, the great nursery of Australian Rugby, leaked 54 points on the weekend.

All of this seems to produce a result that nobody (except, maybe, Scots) likes. Even after two schools have been relegated to the Thirds, this is still a grotesquely mismatched competition. And Newington has assembled a team consisting almost entirely of representative players, whom nobody at the school seems to want to watch.

It's easy, and perhaps comforting, to say that tradition requires that all these schools continue to play together and that the cycle will turn in time. Those are cosy excuses for doing nothing. But wouldn't it be nice for the headmasters (or sportsmasters) to get together, talk openly about how and why they approach the game in the way they do, and try to find some constructive change?

 

[Rugby from the backrow]

I'm an outsider (no GPS connection), but I have to say, my impression is that this is a competition in trouble.

For some time, I have advocated a complete overhaul of private school Rugby so that schools are matched according to their Rugby aspirations and not historical associations. At the same time, I know this will never happen (because centuries of tradition demand that Grammar play against the Shore Thirds, while Scots put 80 points on the Shore Firsts). Still. It seems to me that you have two schools who have approached their Rugby by deliberately inducing good players to attend (I don't accuse anyone of offering scholarships - I don't know how it's done and I'm happy for you debate it in that other thread). So you have two powerhouse teams who thump everyone else. Well, OK. But everyone I have spoken to about it says that Newington plays its games in front of next-to-nobody - so who is this for? On the other hand, Shore is a school with a long, proud and distinguished Rugby history - it has lost all eight games this year. King's, one of the great nurseries of Australian Rugby, is one from eight. And Joey's, the great nursery of Australian Rugby, leaked 54 points on the weekend.

All of this seems to produce a result that nobody (except, maybe, Scots) likes. Even after two schools have been relegated to the Thirds, this is still a grotesquely mismatched competition. And Newington has assembled a team consisting almost entirely of representative players, whom nobody at the school seems to want to watch.

It's easy, and perhaps comforting, to say that tradition requires that all these schools continue to play together and that the cycle will turn in time. Those are cosy excuses for doing nothing. But wouldn't it be nice for the headmasters (or sportsmasters) to get together, talk openly about how and why they approach the game in the way they do, and try to find some constructive change?

 

[Rugby from the backrow]

We are talking about the same thing on two different threads?

 

[College E]

I'm an outsider (no GPS connection), but I have to say, my impression is that this is a competition in trouble.


It's easy, and perhaps comforting, to say that tradition requires that all these schools continue to play together and that the cycle will turn in time. Those are cosy excuses for doing nothing. But wouldn't it be nice for the headmasters (or sportsmasters) to get together, talk openly about how and why they approach the game in the way they do, and try to find some constructive change?

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

im not sure of your sources although ive heard the forwards dominated to grammar pack and as for the 7 i am unaware. any other information on the game?

Of the 2 versions yours is closer to the mark.
I would describe it as a clear victory to SIC in the pigs but the SGs backs seemed to find a few holes in the backs.
I thought that there was insufficient pressure from Grammar on the inside shoulder and this enabled SIC to get over the gain line very reliably - a pity because because this aspect of Grammar's defence this year has been good.

 

[Snort]

We are talking about the same thing on two different threads?

Well, I'd rather not go into that other thread, since it seems to be where the mudslinging and heated accusations occur. I'd prefer to ask the questions: is what we have now what people want? And if not, how can it be improved?

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Im not talking him up i am a old boy who is very keen on watching good rugby and is not afraid to give out praise when it is needed and Hayson (Number 6) defiantly deserved it bright future for this young lad!!

Would you care to review your statement? Reviewing your posting history, I'd beg to differ.

Issue praise by all means, but be aware that there is very little point in talking up boys on these threads.

If the selectors browse what is on here, it is seldom reflected at selection times.

It can be rather embarrassing for the boy in question to read so much love and hyperbole, and a little unbecoming if you are related to the lad, or a good mate.

If your posts are to be believed, then I am surprised that the lad hasn't been called up by Link to solve all the Wobs issues.

 

[random2]

Whilst I do agree with what most people are saying about the behaviour of Scots and Newington, I also believe this will not be the case next year. Riverview and Joeys will be the two powerhouses next year with the bulk of both sides being at the school since year 7. Newington will be the cellar dwellers next year but along with Shore will
be competitive with the top sides. I really hope the 2014 is as close as I think it will be and that the trend continues for the years that follow.

 

[DaveyPocock #legend]

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

i.e The Wallabies

 

[footy5]

It will be interesting to see if kings 16s follow their wins through to the opens in the next two years

 

[The Spectator]

It will be interesting to see if kings 16s follow their wins through to the opens in the next two years

So do all the Joeys supporters! The 16s have lost two games to date and hopefully No 3 after this weekend.

 

[footy5]

So do all the Joeys supporters! The 16s have lost two games to date and hopefully No 3 after this weekend.

I know Kings have got a few scholarship boys but they were just an average team last year, i think the reoccurring affect on 16s teams with boys going to opens has helped them a lot with maybe only Richard's playing a few games in the twos, interesting to see what they'll be like in year 12 when there are no boys missing from original age group teams

 

[The Spectator]

I know Kings have got a few scholarship boys but they were just an average team last year, i think the reoccurring affect on 16s teams with boys going to opens has helped them a lot with maybe only Richard's playing a few games in the twos, interesting to see what they'll be like in year 12 when there are no boys missing from original age group teams

I thought Richards had a gig in 1sts over the last two weeks? But the same applies to all schools pushing boys up from 16s to 1sts and 2nds. Long comp, more injuries to cover, more time to shine in Opens.

 

[Gary Owen III]

I'd like to think that the fact the GPS schools have tried something new this season with the 3rd comp etc is in fact the beginning of an effort to produce a competition that ALL schools can participate in equally.

But it does concern me that the same problems have been moved to a different set of kids. The 3rd's comp itself seems to be going ok, but in the lower age groups the insertion of A grade sides from SBH, TAS and SGS into the C grade comps have created the exact reverse of the problem they were trying to solve. Big lop-sided scorelines where one team gets belted.

Some big wins by these schools A teams over their C grade opponents has finally gone full circle where i heard on the weekend that Shore C's forfeited against SBH A's in the U13's and U14's. Correct me if i am wrong but isn't this the reverse situation that the GPS was trying to fix when SBH etc were forfeiting?

End result is both teams miss out on playing and no-one wins - but massively lop-sides scores help no-one's rugby either. The MIC of rugby at these schools needs to "grade" each age group individually and make sure we are avoiding this situation in the future. For example, take the SGS U15A's - they are one of the best sides coming thru that school and could compete in the A comp quite easily instead of belting C grade teams and the occasional B grade side (they beat Shore B's by about 40 last weekend, even without their No. 10 who's been moved up to the 1st XV).

The fact that SBH, SGS and TAS are now viewed as being competitive in rugby again under this structure is quite unfair on the C and F grade teams they are pitted against - and remember these C grade players and their paying parents deserve a decent competition as much as the A graders.

 

[SonnyDillWilliams]

Thanks Lee and Jasdec for match reports ... great pics too

although Jasdec no mention of Fotukava ... you must have been a back, to not appreciate his skills

oh well .... at least you got Rudolf's name spelt right, otherwise you might be the one with a red nose, care of Mamma Rudolph

I'll get some early predictions away ... Newington is going to crush Scots in front of a crowd of around 20 Newington supporters

and it will be through the front row that Newington win ... as Fotukava has softened up at least 2 of the Scots players

and this is going to make the last round very interesting, with a Joeys team ready to throw the kitchen sink at them

 

[Freddo Frog]

Interesting to hear there is an U15's player in the SGS 1's. I thought there would be a big outcry about this but it doesn't seem to have even caused a ripple.

I think the A's vs C's in the lower age groups need to be looked into - surely a system can be created where kids aren't on the receiving end of a belting each week or in a situation where it's so lopsided it's too dangerous to play.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Interesting to hear there is an U15's player in the SGS 1's. I thought there would be a big outcry about this but it doesn't seem to have even caused a ripple.

Whyy did you think that?

 

[Hugh Jarse]

There is the ARU two year window policy for Age group footy, which allows for Under 16's to play in open schoolboy (U18) footy, provided there is parental/guardian consent and the boy has been assessed by a ARU Level 2 Coach.

Pretty sure that three years up is specifically excluded in that policy. I may need to check it again. It is on the ARU website.

I'd be very surprised if a 14 year old boy could foot it with 18 year olds, even if he is a "early developer". A lot of the game is about mental maturity as well as physical size.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

There is the ARU two year window policy for Age group footy, which allows for Under 16's to play in open schoolboy (U18) footy, provided there is parental/guardian consent and the boy has been assessed by a ARU Level 2 Coach.

Pretty sure that three years up is specifically excluded in that policy. I may need to check it again. It is on the ARU website.

I'd be very surprised if a 14 year old boy could foot it with 18 year olds, even if he is a "early developer". A lot of the game is about mental maturity as well as physical size.

Not more than 3 years but beyond 2 you need ARU approval - HJ I'm sure you've quoted that before

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Bugger. I'm pretty sure that Juniors is limited to 2 years up and no more.

I'm going to have to reread the bloody policy again.

I know with Senior Rugby, ie schoolboys playing colts, that there is no limit to the number of grades a kid can play up. It is all around the assessment by the Level 2 Coach and parental sign off.

Edit:

It is all here:
http://www.rugby.com.au/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=2hjJABFRanE=&tabid=1970

A player shall not participate in an age grade competition more than two years above his or her age on 1 January in the year which the competition is run. This two year period is known as the two-year window.

The policy applies to all junior/school age grade competitions/ matches (up to and including U19’s) played in Australia.

In exceptional cases, a player’s physical development, skill level and experience may be such that he or she may be allowed to participate in an age grade competition that is more than two years and no greater than three years above his or her age.
Players are only be permitted to participate above the two-year window in a junior/school age grade competition in the following circumstances:
(a) where the player will not play age grade rugby in the front row (prop or hooker)
– he or she must comply with the procedure described in Schedule A - Exception to the
Two-Year Window Policy, including completion of the Consent Form; or
(b) where the player will play age grade rugby in the front row (prop or hooker)
– he or she must comply with the procedure described in Schedule A - Exception to the Two-
Year Window Policy, including completion of the Consent Form;
and
– he or she must also apply to ARU for approval play in the front row (prop or hooker), as outlined in Schedule B - Exception for Front Row, including completion of the Submission Form. Such consent will be given on a case by case basis.

ARU approval to play in the Front Row must be received before the player participates in age grade rugby as an exception to this Policy.