Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
One of the worst examples I've heard, and from a district club which likes to set themselves apart from north shore and eastern suburbs types.
Perhaps you had better provide details of the time played on the field in their preferred position for the blow ins versus the boys who played the requisite 4 club games. My information is that some locals were bumped from starting positions to the bench, got less game time in their selected position than the blow ins and were played out of position for much of the game time they did get.5. The three players all filled places that Souths were short in. ----
7. The district players and parents all knew of the inclusion of the Scots lads well in advance - there were no surprises.
8. I have heard NO complaints from anyone in the district about these players "taking the spots of hard-working long standing club players" - because of the points noted above.
Inside Shoulder - it was no "amazing piece of good fortune". Like I said Souths were approached by Easts specifically with those 3 kids. There was no choice involved, other than take them or leave them.
Every kid got ample game time. Ask them. The coaches made sure that every player got to start games, and EVERY player who started on the bench got on the field in EVERY game. Compare that to other districts where players were left to wither on the bench - I know of one case where a player left the tournament on Saturday after getting 5 minutes on the field all day.
Your contention that some club players who play in the specific positions and wanted to play reps were left at home simply shows that you only read the parts of my previous post that suit your argument - there is one halfback in the district, there are not enough props to meet the club requirements, and forwards have had to play in the backs every week..
As for the notion that this was somehow constructed in an effort to win at all costs, rubbish. The primary aim was always to give as many capable kids a great rugby experience as possible. Is it possible to please everyone ? No. Was the communication perfect ? No. Were some errors made ? Yes.
Please just know that there were never any sinister ulterior motives as some forum contributors seem to suggest.
Every kid got ample game time. Ask them. The coaches made sure that every player got to start games, and EVERY player who started on the bench got on the field in EVERY game. Compare that to other districts where players were left to wither on the bench - I know of one case where a player left the tournament on Saturday after getting 5 minutes on the field all day.
Your contention that some club players who play in the specific positions and wanted to play reps were left at home simply shows that you only read the parts of my previous post that suit your argument - there is one halfback in the district, there are not enough props to meet the club requirements, and forwards have had to play in the backs every week..
As for the notion that this was somehow constructed in an effort to win at all costs, rubbish. The primary aim was always to give as many capable kids a great rugby experience as possible. Is it possible to please everyone ? No. Was the communication perfect ? No. Were some errors made ? Yes.
Please just know that there were never any sinister ulterior motives as some forum contributors seem to suggest.
Team lists?Sydney 17's and 18's playing Country 17's and 18's at Boronia Park on Sunday. The 17's kick off at 10.30am with the 18's underway at 11.50am.
Should be some good rugby played by the grass roots rugby players.
Then that ruling ("has indicated an intention of playing 4 games at some stage this season") should be enshrined in the next iteration of the rules. I guess that they have to commit to playing 5 games if they want to make Sydney JRU reps and 6 games if they want to try out for the NSW JRU team. Hope there are lots of byes, forfeits, and washouts.Yes, correct. Half the year go for Term 1 & 2, the other half go in Term 3 & 4.
I gather that these boys were unable to play in Term 2 as they were at Glengarry, but have committed to playing for a club for Term 3 so they have been given leave to accrue their 'minimum 4 games' AFTER the State Champs.
Then that ruling ("has indicated an intention of playing 4 games at some stage this season") should be enshrined in the next iteration of the rules. I guess that they have to commit to playing 5 games if they want to make Sydney JRU reps and 6 games if they want to try out for the NSW JRU team. Hope there are lots of byes, forfeits, and washouts.
SJRU Finals eligibility has this little gem at 7.3.(D) iii regarding eligibility for the SJRU Finals series:
the Registered Player must have played 50% or more of the Regular Season Matches scheduled while the Registered Player was not attending a long term school event and have written documentation from their school that the Registered Player had attended a long term school event (such as Glengarry at The Scots College) during the Regular Season Matches.
http://juniors.rugby.com.au/Portals/1/Images/Sydney Juniors - Competition Playing Rules - 2014 - Version 11 - 20140303 - Final.pdf
Great concession to the Scots folk. How many Scots kids repay this concession by playing in the SJRU U16's competition the following year?
Souths did in fact do exactly what you suggest - went to the players who trialled and wanted to play reps first. To my knowledge of all the players who wanted to play Southern Districts reps and were capable of doing so only 2 or 3 missed out (and they were almost all flankers..!)
Wow, they seriously have that in their playing rules.
They even use Scot/Glengary as their example. I wonder how many other "Long term school events" that exist?
I guess it confirms in a paragraph a lot of what's wrong with junior rugby in this city and why we just can't connect with the population at large. My kids play a range of different sports and you'd be struggling to find a similar exemption anywhere.
Do you mean kids from other districts? Because that is what I am talking about.
But the other problem is that you did not need strengthening in at least 2 of the positions in question and in at least one of them an incumbent suffered.
As a matter of interest there were plenty of other kids in that Easts team who accepted that there would be no Easts Rep side (as usual) and no Wallaroos side (as usual) and were therefore confined to playing school rugby - and most of those kids were club stalwarts since the under 6s.