Shute Shield 2016

[Done that]

Assuming the NSWRU website is correct, and I can add up, West Harbour exceeded the player points cap in 1sts today by quite a margin. Their starting lineup totalled 88 points and they ran on the veteran Tom Hikila (16 points) and several other replacements.

Wonder what the penalty will be, given that they lost the game anyway and didn't score any bonus points?

I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the number of points allowed to each team applies to the points allocated to the players who are on the field at any one time,i.e. 100 points in first grade.If you add up all the points of all the Wests players who were on the field throughout the match ,then that exceeds the permitted 100.However if you take into account the allocated player points who are on the field at any one time then this is less than 100.
In this respect a number of players who had some of the higher allocated points at the beginning of the game,(cumulatively 88)were replaced,mostly by players with less points.

 

[the coach]

I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the number of points allowed to each team applies to the points allocated to the players who are on the field at any one time,i.e. 100 points in first grade.If you add up all the points of all the Wests players who were on the field throughout the match ,then that exceeds the permitted 100.However if you take into account the allocated player points who are on the field at any one time then this is less than 100.
In this respect a number of players who had some of the higher allocated points at the beginning of the game,(cumulatively 88)were replaced,mostly by players with less points.

That used to be the way the points worked, but I believe it changed this year so that all players who take the field during a game have their points included in the total. I understand this was partly to stop clubs abusing the fresh player rule by running on players in lower grades for a few minutes so their points didn't count.

 

[Dave Beat]

I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the number of points allowed to each team applies to the points allocated to the players who are on the field at any one time,i.e. 100 points in first grade.If you add up all the points of all the Wests players who were on the field throughout the match ,then that exceeds the permitted 100.However if you take into account the allocated player points who are on the field at any one time then this is less than 100.
In this respect a number of players who had some of the higher allocated points at the beginning of the game,(cumulatively 88)were replaced,mostly by players with less points.

I do believe it accumulates with the reserves.

 

[wamberal]

It's the same old story about referees.


Rule 1. The referee is always right.


Rule 2. See Rule 1.

 

[Dave Beat]

It's the same old story about referees.


Rule 1. The referee is always right.


Rule 2. See Rule 1.

And we also need to accept, one can never be perfect, and one can not always be right, but the way they handle themselves earns them respect.

I still say I enjoyed the game, thought it should have been a 1 point game either way.

 

[Done that]

You might be correct Coach, but I'm not suggesting that the bench players points don't count,as they did not under the previous system which was open to rorting.What I'm saying ,perhaps in my ignorance, is that the bench players who come on , are retaining their points,but if players are also leaving the field,then the latters points are then replaced at that time by the points of the players coming off the bench.Thus at any one time during a game the total number of points of the players on the field should not exceed 100. e.g. Tommy Hikala,16 points, ran on yesterday , but Taylor Adams ,10 points, had come off & subsequently Cameron Orr,10 points, also came off.At no stage in my opinion,did the total number of points accrued by Wests exceed 100.

 

[Seymour Butz]

No loss of bind by anyone. Same maul. Hasn't been deemed to obstruction in that context for a least 20 years.

Watch it again. Hilterbrands has the ball clutched tightly in both arms as he burrows for the line. Left hand isn't bound for the last metre or two at least.

 

[the coach]

You might be correct Coach, but I'm not suggesting that the bench players points don't count,as they did not under the previous system which was open to rorting.What I'm saying ,perhaps in my ignorance, is that the bench players who come on , are retaining their points,but if players are also leaving the field,then the latters points are then replaced at that time by the points of the players coming off the bench.Thus at any one time during a game the total number of points of the players on the field should not exceed 100. e.g. Tommy Hikala,16 points, ran on yesterday , but Taylor Adams ,10 points, had come off & subsequently Cameron Orr,10 points, also came off.At no stage in my opinion,did the total number of points accrued by Wests exceed 100.

The relevant point under "Guidelines" is:
2. Cap applies to all players taking the field in each grade.

I think it was "BellyTwoBlues" who pointed out earlier in the season that this meant that what you are suggesting did not apply ie all players are counted into the total and there is no provision for subtracting the points of the player being replaced. I think he described it as an "unexpected consequence" that this could impact on a team's ability to run on replacements. It really means that clubs have to ensure the total points of the run on team plus replacements is less than the cap. But maybe common sense has been applied and the interpretation has been clarified. Does anyone know for sure?

 

[Quick Hands]

The relevant point under "Guidelines" is:
2. Cap applies to all players taking the field in each grade.

I think it was "BellyTwoBlues" who pointed out earlier in the season that this meant that what you are suggesting did not apply ie all players are counted into the total and there is no provision for subtracting the points of the player being replaced. I think he described it as an "unexpected consequence" that this could impact on a team's ability to run on replacements. It really means that clubs have to ensure the total points of the run on team plus replacements is less than the cap. But maybe common sense has been applied and the interpretation has been clarified. Does anyone know for sure?

HJ is our resident expert on the points system I think?

 

[Done that]

The relevant point under "Guidelines" is:
2. Cap applies to all players taking the field in each grade.

I think it was "BellyTwoBlues" who pointed out earlier in the season that this meant that what you are suggesting did not apply ie all players are counted into the total and there is no provision for subtracting the points of the player being replaced. I think he described it as an "unexpected consequence" that this could impact on a team's ability to run on replacements. It really means that clubs have to ensure the total points of the run on team plus replacements is less than the cap. But maybe common sense has been applied and the interpretation has been clarified. Does anyone know for sure?

Yes it's confusing & seemingly open to interpretation.
If we accept your suggestion,that would mean a team which takes the field with the allowable 100 points,& who for example had a prop taken off with injury in the first few minutes or later,would not be able to replace that player,or if they did ,would have to play the rest of the game with no more than 14 players.Or if the available prop caused the team to then have more than 100 points,so he could not come on,then the rest of the game would be played with no replacement prop & uncontested scrums.This of course would also be open to rorting.

The cap applying to all players taking the field as you highlight ,would also apply in the interpretation which I am suggesting,i.e. so long as the total number of points of all the players of a team who are on the field at one time does not exceed 100 ,then they are playing within the rules.

 

[wamberal]

And we also need to accept, one can never be perfect, and one can not always be right, but the way they handle themselves earns them respect.

I still say I enjoyed the game, thought it should have been a 1 point game either way.

I still do not understand why we played the way we did in the first half, it was almost as though we believed we could absorb everything that you threw at us (and you threw a lot, both offensively and defensively) and then outlast you.


I guess Ayoub was the difference in the end.

 

[Spewn]

Ayoub was excellent although I still maintain that the difference in the last 30 in particular was the ability of Eastwood to get turnovers. Manly had no one. There is always a debate about 7s being off their feet. Point is that the Eastwood 7 was hard over the ball and couldn't be dislodged. He got a number of critical defensive turnovers. Manly couldn't get the ball back when Eastwood maintained possession. As I said yesterday, same thing happened in the grand final.

 

[I like to watch]

anyway what a cracker of a game!
So much better than 10 v 12 last week.(as a result,we missed another cracker in wicks v manly)

Let's stop taking turns, and just show the best game

 

[Dave Beat]

Yes it's confusing & seemingly open to interpretation.
If we accept your suggestion,that would mean a team which takes the field with the allowable 100 points,& who for example had a prop taken off with injury in the first few minutes or later,would not be able to replace that player.

Yup - Check the colts thread - a huge debate there - a prop went off and then uncontested scrums in first colts.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

HJ is our resident expert on the points system I think?

Discussion here (including the full disclosure of 2016 Player Points Calculation methodology).
http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/community/threads/the-player-points-system.15788/

My understanding is that the 2016 variation to the Player Points Calculation is that the Cap applies to the Run On Squad AND any replacements who take the field.

In this instance the following sanction should be applied to the Pirates:

Sanctions
Exceeding the Cap in one Competition Round
Penalty will be the loss of 5 competition points and respective club championship points for each and every grade the breach occurred in irrespective of the actual result of the game.

The Pirates First Grade Team are currently on 19 Points from 4 wins and 3 x 4T BPs.
Pirates Club Championship Points are currently 550.

If SRU apply the sanctions as per the Competition Rules:
Pirates First grade should drop to 14 points.
Pirates Club Championship points should drop to 475 points ( 5 x 15 = 75), or 545 (only 5 points). I think it would be the former rather than the latter.

 

[the coach]

Not sure how many replacements West Harbour used agst Penrith but the run on team totalled 88 points in that game as well so they might have gone close or over again. As I said above the new rule means that teams have to make sure their run on team plus replacements total no more than the points cap.

 

[The Galah]

Bloody hard to have a sense of humour when everyone is abusing you

Goes with the territory - a bit of the former defuses the latter

 

[The Galah]

Ayoub was excellent although I still maintain that the difference in the last 30 in particular was the ability of Eastwood to get turnovers. Manly had no one. There is always a debate about 7s being off their feet. Point is that the Eastwood 7 was hard over the ball and couldn't be dislodged. He got a number of critical defensive turnovers. Manly couldn't get the ball back when Eastwood maintained possession. As I said yesterday, same thing happened in the grand final.

Ayoub was indeed excellent

 

[Quick Hands]

anyway what a cracker of a game!
So much better than 10 v 12 last week.(as a result,we missed another cracker in wicks v manly)

Let's stop taking turns, and just show the best game

Maybe they thought that last week was their only chance to get Penrith on TV?

I agree, Manly v Randwick was a much better option.

Only thing that really came out of the Wests v Penrith game was that it confirmed Zac Guidlford's standard.

 

[the coach]

Maybe they thought that last week was their only chance to get Penrith on TV?

I agree, Manly v Randwick was a much better option.

Only thing that really came out of the Wests v Penrith game was that it confirmed Zac Guidlford's standard.

He dropped an up-and-under cold yesterday (knock forward), with no pressure from chasers.