NSW JRU State Championships & Representative Teams 2014

[Quick Hands]

I am sure that there are some well intentioned folk in the SJRU.

Just not sure who the bad eggs are that are in charge of the wheel on the Good Ship SJRU: the chasps are influencing the good eggs away from doing what is right and proper.

At some point in time the good folk need to wrest control of the organisation from the vainglorious.

It's so removed from the grass roots that it purports to represent it's not funny. Like most volunteer organisations in this time poor age, those who agitate and manoeuver for the own advancement simply outlast everyone else.

I fear that the good ship SJRU is much like the Costa Concordia - it's run aground while it's vainglorius leadership bask in their own self-importance.

It's actually amazing what the thought of strutting around in some sort of representative jacket/coat/blazer/tracksuit does to certain adults. I've seen it up close with people whose sons made a 10 year old rep team and now dad can't be seen without wearing one of the aforementioned jackets (his son is the rep player, not him)

 

[S'UP]

It's so removed from the grass roots that it purports to represent it's not funny. Like most volunteer organisations in this time poor age, those who agitate and manoeuver for the own advancement simply outlast everyone else.

I fear that the good ship SJRU is much like the Costa Concordia - it's run aground while it's vainglorius leadership bask in their own self-importance.

It's actually amazing what the thought of strutting around in some sort of representative jacket/coat/blazer/tracksuit does to certain adults. I've seen it up close with people whose sons made a 10 year old rep team and now dad can't be seen without wearing one of the aforementioned jackets (his son is the rep player, not him)

A little harsh, maybe Dad put his hand up and took on a role with the team and received his polo, jacket etc. Unless he displayed some type of attitude while wearing said clothing maybe he was proud of his son and wanted to show support.

 

[Dingasden]

This is the bit I don't get. How do you enter a team in a 15 a side competition when you only have 14 players? To me it's totally irresponsible to the boys on the other teams in the competition.

Put yourself in the position of a coach or manager that has 13 or 14 players at the start of the season. You get the club to enter the team and do everything you can to recruit more players. You keep positive and tell your players "we will have a team" cause if you show signs there's not then there goes your team. I've dealt with teams in this position. Our clubs offered rewards or even free rego for teams signing up players where short. Sometimes it works sometimes it doesn't. But to give up cause you only have 14 players is not an option I'd consider. Sorry but I'd rather fight for those 14 players right to play rugby even if its at the expense of forfeiting a few games. I'm not talking about any specific cases mentioned above but I am saying there is a strong case to enter a team even when you haven't got 15 players initially


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[lincoln]

Put yourself in the position of a coach or manager that has 13 or 14 players at the start of the season. You get the club to enter the team and do everything you can to recruit more players. You keep positive and tell your players "we will have a team" cause if you show signs there's not then there goes your team. I've dealt with teams in this position. Our clubs offered rewards or even free rego for teams signing up players where short. Sometimes it works sometimes it doesn't. But to give up cause you only have 14 players is not an option I'd consider. Sorry but I'd rather fight for those 14 players right to play rugby even if its at the expense of forfeiting a few games. I'm not talking about any specific cases mentioned above but I am saying there is a strong case to enter a team even when you haven't got 15 players initially


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Basically agree. I think there was some debate earlier about a neighbouring club that couldn't get the numbers for a team, maybe they could have merged if motives are purely altruistic.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Basically agree. I think there was some debate earlier about a neighbouring club that couldn't get the numbers for a team, maybe they could have merged if motives are purely altruistic.

I think they did not want to merge because they did not want to play A grade and if they merged they would be re graded to A grade.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

With one party to the merger having 10 of their 14 players deemed SJRU U16, Presidents XV or NSW Schools U16 level players, it wouldn't be too hard to "hide" a few non A division players in a merged squad and still be competitive.

How many State rep level players do the other teams in SJRU U16A competition have?

One suspects the reluctance to merge was more than just "we aren't capable of playing in A Grade". Perhaps the potential mergees ascertained that the rockstars would only be present for the minimum number of games to qualify for their representative "entitlements", and leave the heavy lifting in the U16A competition to the "other boys".

Several years ago the U15 State Championships was won by a District team that only had one village club team in the SJRU competition, and that Village Club team played in U15B division. For some unknown reason that Village Club team struggled to perform competitively week by week in the U15B SJRU competition, but somehow, from the 41 registered players on their Buddha team sign on sheet, they were able to win the State Championships, and have a stack of kids play SJRU and NSW JRU Under 15's.

Rorting the representative eligibility criteria is a well established and polished practice, and it is not just Gordon who do it. Whatever criteria that SJRU and NSW JRU come up with, aspirational coaches and parents will manage to find and exploit loopholes to ensure that the rockstars get their "entitlements".

 

[Inside Shoulder]

It was aired in this thread - as you know HJ I have no connection to this club.
My experience has been that there are many kids extremely unwilling to play A grade - even when they have previously done so and even when they have done so for the very club they are being asked to play A grade for.
I have a feeling that some adults on this thread are not quite as in-tune with adolescent male egos as they would like to think.
You then have added to the mix 10 years of animosity between the village clubs.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

<snip>
You then have added to the mix 10 years of animosity between the village clubs.

Most, if not all, of that animosity fostered by Adults not the players themselves.

No surprises that Shute Shield Colts numbers struggle when the very feeder clubs to that pathway can not see beyond the end of their own nose self interest.

 

[10to12]

With one party to the merger having 10 of their 14 players deemed SJRU U16, Presidents XV or NSW Schools U16 level players, it wouldn't be too hard to "hide" a few non A division players in a merged squad and still be competitive.

How many State rep level players do the other teams in SJRU U16A competition have?

One suspects the reluctance to merge was more than just "we aren't capable of playing in A Grade". Perhaps the potential mergees ascertained that the rockstars would only be present for the minimum number of games to qualify for their representative "entitlements", and leave the heavy lifting in the U16A competition to the "other boys".

Several years ago the U15 State Championships was won by a District team that only had one village club team in the SJRU competition, and that Village Club team played in U15B division. For some unknown reason that Village Club team struggled to perform competitively week by week in the U15B SJRU competition, but somehow, from the 41 registered players on their Buddha team sign on sheet, they were able to win the State Championships, and have a stack of kids play SJRU and NSW JRU Under 15's.

Rorting the representative eligibility criteria is a well established and polished practice, and it is not just Gordon who do it. Whatever criteria that SJRU and NSW JRU come up with, aspirational coaches and parents will manage to find and exploit loopholes to ensure that the rockstars get their "entitlements".

The 16s conundrum. At this stage a high percentage of the players also play saturday school footy. I talked to some of the 5 players that left and asked them why and it was all about not needing /wanting 2 very tough games every weekend and they thought it was better management of their rugby needs.
We all know you need at least 25 boys in your squad to get through the season and at times you will still be short on numbers as we are seeing again this year.
If you want the 16s to stay viable, the districts will have to take over,allowing a graded A,B,C competition. Play home and away where your reserves come from the lower grade.
So many of the schools are elevating their 16s into opens now, you don't know who you'll get back in January when you're trying to put your team together.
If all the school boys leave the club land who are the strong Penrith and Hills teams going to play??? They are doing a great job creating their teams and I'm sure the boys and the coaches want to be tested when they run out

 

[Quick Hands]

Put yourself in the position of a coach or manager that has 13 or 14 players at the start of the season. You get the club to enter the team and do everything you can to recruit more players. You keep positive and tell your players "we will have a team" cause if you show signs there's not then there goes your team. I've dealt with teams in this position. Our clubs offered rewards or even free rego for teams signing up players where short. Sometimes it works sometimes it doesn't. But to give up cause you only have 14 players is not an option I'd consider. Sorry but I'd rather fight for those 14 players right to play rugby even if its at the expense of forfeiting a few games. I'm not talking about any specific cases mentioned above but I am saying there is a strong case to enter a team even when you haven't got 15 players initially


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But did the 14 players (and/or their parents) really want to play a full season of village club rugby?

I've been in that postion too and we got there in the end, but we only had 2 or 3 rep players and our team wanted to play in and go as well as possible in the village club season. An important difference was that we played in a Saturday competition (remember them?), so we were able to pick up a few leaguies - many of whom went on to play colts and grade. That is not an option with Sunday club rugby as 16s junior league also play on Sundays.

"Fight for their right to play rugby?" - All of these boys (according to what we have been told by one of their own) play private school rugby every week. So I think, respectfully, that is the reddest of red herrings.

 

[Quick Hands]

The 16s conundrum. At this stage a high percentage of the players also play saturday school footy. I talked to some of the 5 players that left and asked them why and it was all about not needing /wanting 2 very tough games every weekend and they thought it was better management of their rugby needs.
We all know you need at least 25 boys in your squad to get through the season and at times you will still be short on numbers as we are seeing again this year.
If you want the 16s to stay viable, the districts will have to take over,allowing a graded A,B,C competition. Play home and away where your reserves come from the lower grade.
So many of the schools are elevating their 16s into opens now, you don't know who you'll get back in January when you're trying to put your team together.
If all the school boys leave the club land who are the strong Penrith and Hills teams going to play??? They are doing a great job creating their teams and I'm sure the boys and the coaches want to be tested when they run out

We need to agree to disagree about the schoolboys doubling up issue. You think it's the solution, I think it's the problem.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

We need to agree to disagree about the schoolboys doubling up issue. You think it's the solution, I think it's the problem.

Im afraid I agree

 

[Uncle-Iroh]

What you folks don't understand is that some of the kids in this Chatswood under 16 team play their under 16s school match then back up for their respective first 15 team and that night are so sore they struggle to walk around. Then you expect them to wake up in the morning excited to play another game of rugby? How could they when they feel as though if they play they are inevitably going to end up in an ambulance, because they aren't physically capable of playing another 60 minutes of rugby on top of the 80 played the prior day. I'm sorry but the boys who are brought up in the north shore of Sydney are certainly not as tough as those brought up out west or in fact not as tough as some of you old folks 'back in my day'.

If you are wondering why the number of players from under 15s upwards is on the decline, it is because the game gets twice as physical and far more demanding than the years before. Why else do you believe club rugby has lost players such as Luke Loughs or Harry Goddards in this current under 16s age group. Players of this caliber weren't lost back in the day when club rugby wasn't a necessity to play rep rugby. Take the likes of Michael Hooper, Tom Kingston and Nick Stirzaker for examples. They all played reps and their school footy, but because they didn't have to play club their bodies weren't so battered and bruised that they didn't want to play.

If this rule wasn't brought into Sydney junior rugby then the comp would be exactly the same as it is today with the exclusion of that Chatswood under 16s team you all despise so much.

By making players play that extra tormenting game of rugby you're taking some of the private school boys love for the game away. So thank you Sydney junior rugby for making me hate playing club rugby, and thank you old people for having the audacity to discriminate against children you have never met personally in a disgusting manner where they can't defend themselves. This isn't constructive, it's just a bunch of old men having a bitch about a club and the 'kids' that play within it.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

In simple terms, if you are not playing in a competition (or association) then you are ineligible to represent that competition (or association).

Who are the people making the kids play too much rugby? It is not SJRU, or the School.

It is the quest for another trinket to hang on the Wall of Focker.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

In simple terms, if you are not playing in a competition (or association) then you are ineligible to represent that competition (or association).

Who are the people making the kids play too much rugby? It is not SJRU, or the School.

It is the quest for another trinket to hang on the Wall of Focker.

Small problem with that HJ. U16s will very quickly resemble u17s about which you were complaining a few posts back.
The only reason that hasn't happened this year is because it's a transition year and no one knew what to expect.
Many of these kids would have been aiming for 16s since they played their first state champs: one group of power brokers changed the rules on them at the last minute. For 5 years they had aimed for it thinking that they could be eligible if they played 15s. What should have been announced was that when u11s got to 16s they and all coming after them would have to be playing club to be eligible. Then expectations could have been adjusted. But what do you think that might do to numbers in 15s?
Presumably being teenagers the implications of the rule change might not have been considered as deeply as it could have been by the parents or the players.
This is a product of the dysfunctional junior rugby set up not a few ambitious kids who had the rules changed just as they got there.
SJRU is rightly worried that they cannot survive without private school players in all age groups and so everything has to be a compromise but because they are amateur administrators with vested interests nothing is looked at in the medium to long term: the u 11s father is unlikely to be on the SHRU committee and the u16 father has ceased caring.

 

[Quick Hands]

What you folks don't understand is that some of the kids in this Chatswood under 16 team play their under 16s school match then back up for their respective first 15 team and that night are so sore they struggle to walk around. Then you expect them to wake up in the morning excited to play another game of rugby? How could they when they feel as though if they play they are inevitably going to end up in an ambulance, because they aren't physically capable of playing another 60 minutes of rugby on top of the 80 played the prior day. I'm sorry but the boys who are brought up in the north shore of Sydney are certainly not as tough as those brought up out west or in fact not as tough as some of you old folks 'back in my day'.

If you are wondering why the number of players from under 15s upwards is on the decline, it is because the game gets twice as physical and far more demanding than the years before. Why else do you believe club rugby has lost players such as Luke Loughs or Harry Goddards in this current under 16s age group. Players of this caliber weren't lost back in the day when club rugby wasn't a necessity to play rep rugby. Take the likes of Michael Hooper, Tom Kingston and Nick Stirzaker for examples. They all played reps and their school footy, but because they didn't have to play club their bodies weren't so battered and bruised that they didn't want to play.

If this rule wasn't brought into Sydney junior rugby then the comp would be exactly the same as it is today with the exclusion of that Chatswood under 16s team you all despise so much.

By making players play that extra tormenting game of rugby you're taking some of the private school boys love for the game away. So thank you Sydney junior rugby for making me hate playing club rugby, and thank you old people for having the audacity to discriminate against children you have never met personally in a disgusting manner where they can't defend themselves. This isn't constructive, it's just a bunch of old men having a bitch about a club and the 'kids' that play within it.

For your information, playing club rugby has always been a prerequisite to play representative rugby. A grandfather clause was brought very recently and was deleted this year. Things have simply returned to what they have always been.

The prerequisite to play club to be eligible for rep is hardly a novel concept - it actually applies to just about every sport that I know.

If the boys are playing too much rugby, there would seem to be a simple solution.

Also, on you point about decline in the older age groups - this has actually increased exponentially since the advent of Sunday club rugby. This scheme was brought in to allow private school players to double up and thus bolster numbers. In fact it has had the opposite effect.

Finally - we don't despise the boys - you need to read the posts. The criticisim has been of the adults who have engineered a situation where a team seems to have been entered, not to compete in the village competition, but solely for the purpose of qualifying players for rep rugby. Hardly fair on the other boys in the competition who are subjected to regular forfeits.

 

[I like to watch]

Small problem with that HJ. U16s will very quickly resemble u17s about which you were complaining a few posts back.
The only reason that hasn't happened this year is because it's a transition year and no one knew what to expect.
Many of these kids would have been aiming for 16s since they played their first state champs: one group of power brokers changed the rules on them at the last minute. For 5 years they had aimed for it thinking that they could be eligible if they played 15s. What should have been announced was that when u11s got to 16s they and all coming after them would have to be playing club to be eligible. Then expectations could have been adjusted. But what do you think that might do to numbers in 15s?
Presumably being teenagers the implications of the rule change might not have been considered as deeply as it could have been by the parents or the players.
This is a product of the dysfunctional junior rugby set up not a few ambitious kids who had the rules changed just as they got there.
SJRU is rightly worried that they cannot survive without private school players in all age groups and so everything has to be a compromise but because they are amateur administrators with vested interests nothing is looked at in the medium to long term: the u 11s father is unlikely to be on the SHRU committee and the u16 father has ceased caring.

There is little I agree with here.
Anyone who plays their kid in the U11's with a view to what happens in the U16"s is a fuckwit.
Registering a kid not so that he can play Rugby,but so that he may receive awards/selection is poo.
The grandfather clause was a bullshit rule that has rightly been removed.
It's ludicrous to pick rep players that don't participate in the comp they purport to represent.

 

[Druid]

I have a 12 yr old who has played reps for 2 years. Does he dream about being a Waratah or Wallaby, absolutely, does he express dreams about playing for rep for his district in U16's, no... Maybe the structure at Gordon encourages the boys to dream about playing for Gordon later in life from U11s and I think this is fantastic, but we all know that Gordon colts struggles for numbers and quality players. Maybe the rep players in Chatswood will prove me wrong and all be playing for Gordon colts in 2-3 yrs, which would be good for Gordon Colts but based on history will not happen.

I agree with HJ, if a player went to a GPS school up until Yr10 and then left and went to a State School, I am pretty sure the GPS school wouldn't allow him to play 1st XV for that GPS school because he has played and dreamed about playing for 1st XV since Yr7. Henry Speight could not represent Australia until he played in Australia for a length of time, he was not entitled to a spot in the Australian team just because he was a good player, he had to abode by the rules at the time whether they be right or wrong and I don't think he made a big fuss about it..

 

[10to12]

For your information, playing club rugby has always been a prerequisite to play representative rugby. A grandfather clause was brought very recently and was deleted this year. Things have simply returned to what they have always been.

The prerequisite to play club to be eligible for rep is hardly a novel concept - it actually applies to just about every sport that I know.

If the boys are playing too much rugby, there would seem to be a simple solution.

Also, on you point about decline in the older age groups - this has actually increased exponentially since the advent of Sunday club rugby. This scheme was brought in to allow private school players to double up and thus bolster numbers. In fact it has had the opposite effect.

Finally - we don't despise the boys - you need to read the posts. The criticisim has been of the adults who have engineered a situation where a team seems to have been entered, not to compete in the village competition, but solely for the purpose of qualifying players for rep rugby. Hardly fair on the other boys in the competition who are subjected to regular forfeits.

For you younger folk, there was a time when club and CHS were the premier rugby pathway. Chatswood ,Matraville, Epping and James Ruse high to name a few were the best schoolboy teams playing (and Joeys)

Private schools then became businesses and grew twice their size at the same time that the state system put less emphasis on interschool sports.
It appears that a high percentage of parents who liked interschool sport left the state system to enter into the private system thus reversing the norm.

@ Quick Hands , there was no need to have the Gandfather clause because most boys were in the state system and most parents expected them to play a sport on saturday. we had a few players in those days from the private schools who simply ran on for 5mins on their way to the school game to qualify for GF and reps. It wasn't many and they had been playing in the team since 6 or 7yo so it wasn't considered rorting but in fact it was 60s ,70s version of what we are seeing today.
"Despise the boys". I accept that most don't, but the diatribe coming out of a particular Beecroft Dad and his Wahroonga mate, both of whom have an axe to grind over non selection of their boys has tainted the discussion.
As HJ has said the boys can only go by the rules that are there at the moment and it appears they have met those.
Good luck to club rugby I hope they get it right for next year. The coaching at schools in the younger years is pretty poor and needs club footy to develop the kids

 

[Inside Shoulder]

There is little I agree with here.
Anyone who plays their kid in the U11's with a view to what happens in the U16"s is a fuckwit.
Registering a kid not so that he can play Rugby,but so that he may receive awards/selection is poo.
The grandfather clause was a bullshit rule that has rightly been removed.
It's ludicrous to pick rep players that don't participate in the comp they purport to represent.

Did you actually read it?

Anyone who plays their kid

Where's that in my post?

Registering a kid not so that he can play Rugby,but so that he may receive awards/selection is poo.

Where's that in my post?
Seems "the little you agree with" came out of your imagination.
I am talking about kids who see theca state champs program for the first time read about the pathway and are struck with ambition to follow it: that's why I used the word "since" - it means after: it does not suggest they signed up for their first one because of the pathway.
They formed their ambitions (in the case of this group of 16s) on the basis of the grandfather clause.
That was my point.