• Welcome to the forums of Green & Gold Rugby.
    We have recently made some changes to the amount of discussions boards on the forum.
    Over the coming months we will continue to make more changes to make the forum more user friendly for all to use.
    Thanks, Admin.

NSW CAS Rugby 2021

Hector

Hector

Peter Burge (5)
Snort said:
I couldn't disagree more. For three reasons: first, a dominant scrum can win tight heads, and secondly, even with pushing to 1.5m you can seriously disrupt the quality of possession the team with the loose head obtains. There's an enormous difference between clean ball from a channel of your choice and messy ball squirting out the side of a splintering scrum. You can attack with one, whilst the other has you scrambling to regroup. Thirdly, of course, a dominant scrum tends to win penalties.

Mind you, I played at Sydney University in the 1980s, where the scrum was a religion. I remember one night at scrum training (1sts v 2nds), the scrum kept moving a foot sideways and no-one could figure out why. By the time we packed the last scrum of the night there were about twenty scrum doctors looking at it trying to work out what was happening. We always knew we gave away size and weight to the other sides we played, so technique was everything.
Click to expand...

That second half CAS penalty where they opted for the scrum, 5m out from the GPS line, when the score was 5-12, that resulted in a GPS tight head, would be exhibit A to this comment.
 
Snort

Snort

Nev Cottrell (35)
Well, GPS deserved it: they ran harder and straighter and with great determination, and they defended well. My man of the match, by a mile, was the GPS 15, who I guess was Jorgensen - what a game he played.

We'll never know what would have happened if the try had been given to King (it looked fair to me), but that's life. CAS just didn't make the most of their chances, and the GPS forwards never let them get on top.

Serious question: if King was playing 8, why wasn't Slack-Smith there?
 
aussiefooty

aussiefooty

Bob McCowan (2)
Snort said:
Well, GPS deserved it: they ran harder and straighter and with great determination, and they defended well. My man of the match, by a mile, was the GPS 15, who I guess was Jorgensen - what a game he played.

We'll never know what would have happened if the try had been given to King (it looked fair to me), but that's life. CAS just didn't make the most of their chances, and the GPS forwards never let them get on top.

Serious question: if King was playing 8, why wasn't Slack-Smith there?
Click to expand...

I think you can guess why Slack - Smith wasn't there. Some sook on the GPS thread took up a complaint with the ARU regarding his blue card which he was medically cleared from.
 
WLF

WLF

Arch Winning (36)
Snort said:
Well, GPS deserved it: they ran harder and straighter and with great determination, and they defended well. My man of the match, by a mile, was the GPS 15, who I guess was Jorgensen - what a game he played.

We'll never know what would have happened if the try had been given to King (it looked fair to me), but that's life. CAS just didn't make the most of their chances, and the GPS forwards never let them get on top.

Serious question: if King was playing 8, why wasn't Slack-Smith there?
Click to expand...


Yep couldn't agree more Snort, GPS deserved to win.

They took their chances, handled the wet better, and played better wet weather footy.
CAS bombed several tries and I think the wet weather actually stuffed our forwards running game.

I made a point when this team got picked that a number of selections were poor.
It's not the boys fault, the selectors need the bullet.
Our scrum was disgraceful early, we lost 4 tight heads, it was supposed to be the other way around, but we didn't pick either of the 2 best set piece front rows, thus was the result, and it appeared to take us a lot of time to get our mojo back.

The GPS 15, Yes Jorgensen was superb, boy what a player.

Unfortunately IMO the weather destroyed this game for both sides, not sure why we can't play it on a Sat afternoon rather than at night, like it used to be, a la this Sat as there is nothing on but school is still in.

Congrats to the GPS.
 
Running_rugby_1954

Running_rugby_1954

Ron Walden (29)
Snort said:
Well, anyone can guess, but does anyone actually know?
Click to expand...

He was given a blue card. Rugby Aus stepped in and said he couldn’t play because you have to wait 19 days. Despite Rod’s best efforts to say otherwise, Barker did not do the right thing at all in this instance.

Barker and the head of CAS should be held accountable for what happened this evening as a result of the way this situation was handled and the lack of care shown for the student and the significant impact it had on the CAS teams as a result.

I imagine St Aloysius will also have something to say about it as well as he should not have been in the game last week.
 
WLF

WLF

Arch Winning (36)
Running_rugby_1954 said:
Still stand by this Rod?

Heard you may be wrong mate and Aus Rugby have taken significant action as a result. Barker should be held to account for this. Ned was not cleared to play against St Aloysius, so shouldn’t the points be taken off then for that game as well?
Click to expand...


RR, I agree completely that every boy's best interest is absolutely priority no 1. Full stop.

Clearly I have no idea what happened here, but I do think you have made your point, but NO Barker should not have their points from last week taken away. That would effect ALL the Barker boys in the 1sts, and that is overkill, and I am not a Barker supporter, trust me, feel free to ask other G&G posters to back me up here.

Maybe the school hierarchy has something it needs do, but never the boys!

Hopefully it's a lesson going forward for everyone.

July 17 at Barker will happen soon, and the best team WILL win, from the East!
 
Hasbeen

Hasbeen

Bob Loudon (25)
Watched the game on cluch. To say the GPS played better in the set pieces is a bit of a cliche but was demonstrated last night. The GPS no 15 was quite a Guy on the evening and the GPS backline was outstanding given the mongrel conditions. Quite a game for all that and thanks to the Boys from both teams for the tenancity and the show. The CAS forwards seemed a bit sluggish and I noticed a few missed tackles here and there by the big fellows which was a bit odd. The conditions were atrocious but would have been fun to play in eh. Just like the old days when rain and mud were played in and you could half drown down the bottom of the ruck and precious school and council grounds men did not exist.
 
WTF?

WTF?

Tom Lawton (22)
The much vaunted CAS pack were pushed off the ball numerous times until a few subs came on late in the second half. I think we lost the first 5 scrums on our feed and any ball we got was not clean. Too many pushed and glory passes for such a wet night, Isy had no space and the GPS defense was just too good.

I will admit I thought CAS would win, but after 5 minutes I thought that unlikely. Not sure the selections were right for the conditions, GPS seemed to be able to get it right not sure why we couldn't.

Hats off to GPS, they played very well, kept it in tight and went wide on occasions making plenty of meters.

Not much fun standing in 8 degrees and being rained on, F%#K it was cold....
 
Number 7

Number 7

Darby Loudon (17)
Running_rugby_1954 said:
He was given a blue card. Rugby Aus stepped in and said he couldn’t play because you have to wait 19 days.
Click to expand...


A Blue card does not mean you are concussed. It means (From RA's site): when "a player leaves the field due to signs and symptoms of concussion or suspected concussion, the referee will show the player a Blue Card".

The player is then compulsorily referred to a medical doctor within 72 hours. The doctor then assesses the player to confirm if there was a concussion OR provide clearance per section 3 of the form (all on RA's website).

So if a doctor deems a player to be ok, a player can return to play within the 19 day period.

Schools and club are being super cautious with this issue at present and there are examples of players being removed from games with no symptoms of concussion after a head knock but having to go to a doctor simply because they were removed from play because of how the Blue Card is defined above. Happened to my daughter.
 
Snort

Snort

Nev Cottrell (35)
Number 7 said:
A Blue card does not mean you are concussed. It means (From RA's site): when "a player leaves the field due to signs and symptoms of concussion or suspected concussion, the referee will show the player a Blue Card".

The player is then compulsorily referred to a medical doctor within 72 hours. The doctor then assesses the player to confirm if there was a concussion OR provide clearance per section 3 of the form (all on RA's website).

So if a doctor deems a player to be ok, a player can return to play within the 19 day period.

Schools and club are being super cautious with this issue at present and there are examples of players being removed from games with no symptoms of concussion after a head knock but having to go to a doctor simply because they were removed from play because of how the Blue Card is defined above. Happened to my daughter.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's correct. A blue card does not mean an automatic 19 day break. Which means I'm still wondering why, having been cleared by a doctor, the Barker 8 wasn't able to play last night.
 
rod skellet

rod skellet

Desmond Connor (43)
Snort said:
Yes, that's correct. A blue card does not mean an automatic 19 day break. Which means I'm still wondering why, having been cleared by a doctor, the Barker 8 wasn't able to play last night.
Click to expand...

That is a question that RA really needs to answer and do so publicly.
 
Snort

Snort

Nev Cottrell (35)
Well, if RA did intervene it should explain why - otherwise there’s too much scope for (probably unwarranted) criticism of the school and doctor involved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top