Shute Shield 2016

[Eyes and Ears]

Rugby is for all shapes and sizes, 7's isn't.
22 round comp would be the most sensible.

How would you achieve this? Scrapping the NRC?

 

[Dave Beat]

How would you achieve this? Scrapping the NRC?

I'll think about it but it is reducing the amount of rugby being played. Reducing does not promote growth.

 

[Quick Hands]

I don't think that there's a perfect solution to this issue. I think that one of the problems is that, other than with the Rays, there isn't a progessive link between SS clubs and the NRC club covering respective geographic areas.

One solution could be some sort of knock out or round robin competition - maybe restricted to players 23 and under? Some played as NRC curtain raisers, others as stand alone fixtures?

 

[Wazza2013]

Rugby is for all shapes and sizes, 7's isn't.
22 round comp would be the most sensible.

Agree , 22 round comp is the way to go.
Have to start season earlier. But we get two full rounds.

 

[Wazza2013]

Coach, this is exactly what is wrong with this competition. There's plenty of people out there who insist on calling it Premier Rugby, yet we ask clubs to field 7 grades every week, of let's be honest here, the majority of those grades are NOT of Premier standard. Then when they do field those teams, we have clubs calling uncontested scrums or coaches exploiting comp rules like what you mention above. And it's always the same clubs pulling the same stunts. And interestingly, it's not usually you're traditional 'weaker' clubs who do such things. As far as I'm aware (happy to be corrected here) for all of Parra's struggles for example, they've never gone uncontested scrums in the last few years and probably since their resurrection began 6 or 7 years ago, Penrith too, as we all know have guys playing 3 and 4 games a week, West Harbour did it on Saturday, but the 4s for example still all played contested scrums. I personally think it is an embarrassment that in this competition we have uncontested scrums at all.

Isn't it interesting that the rule for calling uncontested scrums that forces that team to play with one less player does not apply to 4th Grade and 3rd Grade Colts, yet those grades are the only ones they call uncontested in?

Apply the rule to all grades and watch them 'find' props in a real hurry.

I'm told Manly 3rd Grade Colts have forfeited 3 games this year. They have also called uncontested scrums in atleast 3 more. Why are they still in the competition? If that was Penrith or Parramatta or Gordon, would they have been afforded the same freedom to embarrass the competition?

I'm even informed by a snout out at the foot at the mountains that late last year SRU told Penrith that their acceptance into the 2017 competition is conditional that in 2016 they do not forfeit games at all...in any grade. Will the same conditions be imposed on the clubs who this year, seem happy to forfeit matches or call uncontested scrums in the competitions the sanctions do not apply too?

No rugby supporter really wants to see uncontested scrums.
If I wanted to watch uncontested scrums I would would go watch a rugby league game.

 

[Quick Hands]

Not that it matters,they are a shadow of the squad that Blake left them.
big changes required in the off season.

I've been saying this since round 2. I've been hoping against hope that those saying that they were going to improve, would be proved right and I was going to be wrong. Alas, not to be.

Keeping fresh reserves for 1sts is usually either a sign of desperation or lack of confidence (or both). Not on at club level - and it usually backfires anyway.

Sometimes a bad year can be the catalyst for change in a club - hope it proves to be the case.

 

[Quick Hands]

I'm told Manly 3rd Grade Colts have forfeited 3 games this year. They have also called uncontested scrums in atleast 3 more. Why are they still in the competition? If that was Penrith or Parramatta or Gordon, would they have been afforded the same freedom to embarrass the competition?

In respect of the games forfeited, IIRC Manly foreited the first two rounds and then has played all other fixtures. The other forfeit was a deferred match, which neither side wanted to play as they were both out of the running. One side has to go down as a forfeit - assume that we volunteered to do so in light of earlier forfeits.

What's your solution? If they are kicked out as you advocate, then the 3rd grade colts of every other club misses out on a game every week - is that a better outcome? While I'm not involved at colts at the moment, I was for quite a few years and just about every club has been through this at the bottom grade of colts (there used to be 4 grades). They were never kicked out of the competition, because you end up with a treatment which is worse than the illness. It's an amateur competition, and while it's not desireable, it's just the way it is.

I don't see it as an embarrassment to the competition - and in answer to your question - every other club has been afforded the same leniency at some point in the past. They have no chance of making semi finals, the only thing that their continued presence does is give 30 odd kids a game of rugby every week. The game isn't going so well that we can afford to lose any more of those kids. Kick them out and they'll probably go to another sport and possibly never come back.

 

[Dave Beat]

I'm told Manly 3rd Grade Colts have forfeited 3 games this year. They have also called uncontested scrums in atleast 3 more. Why are they still in the competition? If that was Penrith or Parramatta or Gordon, would they have been afforded the same freedom to embarrass the competition?

Dude you seem to float around on here with posts that are designed to stir the pot, rather than encourage good communications and contributions.

Your continual reference to snouts, is that suppose to suggest you know / have influential people in key areas that can have an impact or know what is happening – but on more occasions than not you snouts haven’t come through with accurate intel.

So unless you are prepared to spend the time finding out the what’s and why’s, keep it to yourself.

I write this after reading your post at about 11:30 last night – just getting back from 4 hour catch up with some of the people involved in those games you have referenced. Yeah nobody likes forfeiting, especially the boys, but understand the what’s and whys before going to town on a club.

Your snouts have no doubt told you about the fragile state of our game – care to share what initiatives you have taken to start restoring it?


In club land it is even more fragile, and as with all clubs very reliant on supporters, volunteers, and passionate parents – you take away the enjoyment and lob bombs as you often like to do will have supporters and players go elsewhere.

As we have recently seen at Manly, a team of great parents spent allot of hours with their kids and a very strong age bracket came through with a number of them going on to higher achievements here and abroad.
The colts have a lean year due to a number of 1%er's, and you suggest what............


Might just leave it there so I don’t start rambling.

Seriously dude, look at ways to grow, promote, and encourage the grass roots rather than spray them round up.

 

[BillyBlack]

Uncontested scrums - let's give everybody the benefit of the doubt, and assume that a coach would never "use and abuse" the rule, and call uncontested scrums to gain and advantage. But it does happen.

Call uncontested and your scrum stops going backwards at a rate of knots. Call uncontested and the opposition can't get any more tight heads.
Call uncontested and repalce big, lumbering props with fast, nippy flankers, you have an advantage that you aren't entitled to have.

For consideration and feedback.
The feed goes to the team that DIDN'T call uncontested.
So every feed goes to the "contesting" team, not the uncontested.
This would ensure that the coaches MUST find a real time solution.
If a team call uncontested scrums then they don't deserve to win the scrum.
Thoughts ??

 

[Eyes and Ears]

It is a delicate issue. The more punitive the measures that are taken, the more chance there is that clubs will put unsuitable or untrained players into the front row. When this happens, there is more potential for a serious injury.

 

[BillyBlack]

It is a delicate issue. The more punitive the measures that are taken, the more chance there is that clubs will put unsuitable or untrained players into the front row. When this happens, there is more potential for a serious injury.

No potential for serious injury if there is no pushing in the scrum

 

[BillyBlack]

The one player off in every grade !!
Uncontested shouldn't be allowed in finals

 

[I like to watch]

It was a good point that E&E made.
If there are substantial penalties for non contested scrums.
Some coaches might be tempted not to call non contested,& risk the well being of unsuitable/untrained players to avoid these sanctions.

 

[Quick Hands]

Uncontested scrums - let's give everybody the benefit of the doubt, and assume that a coach would never "use and abuse" the rule, and call uncontested scrums to gain and advantage. But it does happen.

Call uncontested and your scrum stops going backwards at a rate of knots. Call uncontested and the opposition can't get any more tight heads.
Call uncontested and repalce big, lumbering props with fast, nippy flankers, you have an advantage that you aren't entitled to have.

For consideration and feedback.
The feed goes to the team that DIDN'T call uncontested.
So every feed goes to the "contesting" team, not the uncontested.
This would ensure that the coaches MUST find a real time solution.
If a team call uncontested scrums then they don't deserve to win the scrum.
Thoughts ??

Agree with your first 2 paragraphs. The law changes would need to go through WR (World Rugby).

The problem at the lower levels of the game is that there just aren't a pool of players out there who can suddenly be trained as front rowers.

 

[OldColt]

Uncontested scrums - let's give everybody the benefit of the doubt, and assume that a coach would never "use and abuse" the rule, and call uncontested scrums to gain and advantage. But it does happen.

Call uncontested and your scrum stops going backwards at a rate of knots. Call uncontested and the opposition can't get any more tight heads.
Call uncontested and repalce big, lumbering props with fast, nippy flankers, you have an advantage that you aren't entitled to have.

For consideration and feedback.
The feed goes to the team that DIDN'T call uncontested.
So every feed goes to the "contesting" team, not the uncontested.
This would ensure that the coaches MUST find a real time solution.
If a team call uncontested scrums then they don't deserve to win the scrum.
Thoughts ??

Having given everyone the benefit of the doubt, it would be interesting to know exactly what reason was given for not contesting the scrums in last week's 4th grade match - was it because Souths didn't have the requisite trained & prepared props, or was it part of an extremely cunning (and prescient) coach's plan to take advantage of the 'wicks when they lost two players to yellow cards at some time in the game? Did they call uncontested scrums because they were going backwards at a rate of knots? Hardly, considering the call was apparently made before the game started. And did Souths use 'fast, nippy flankers' in place of their 'big, lumbering props'? I'm not sure they have any in 4th grade even if they'd wanted to use them!

Separately, I'm not sure why the 'wicks coach wasn't able to give any of his props a run during the game. The fact that the scrums were uncontested shouldn't have led to their exclusion, unless the 'wicks coach himself saw it as an opportunity to go with a lighter & faster pack of forwards. The 4th grade coach may be one of those people who favours running forwards over decent scrummagers?

The referee sounds like he wasn't on top of things, and so far this season, having watched mostly Colts but some Grade games as well, that seems to be the norm (sadly).

 

[Brian Westlake]

Having given everyone the benefit of the doubt, it would be interesting to know exactly what reason was given for not contesting the scrums in last week's 4th grade match - was it because Souths didn't have the requisite trained & prepared props, or was it part of an extremely cunning (and prescient) coach's plan to take advantage of the 'wicks when they lost two players to yellow cards at some time in the game? Did they call uncontested scrums because they were going backwards at a rate of knots? Hardly, considering the call was apparently made before the game started. And did Souths use 'fast, nippy flankers' in place of their 'big, lumbering props'? I'm not sure they have any in 4th grade even if they'd wanted to use them!

Separately, I'm not sure why the 'wicks coach wasn't able to give any of his props a run during the game. The fact that the scrums were uncontested shouldn't have led to their exclusion, unless the 'wicks coach himself saw it as an opportunity to go with a lighter & faster pack of forwards. The 4th grade coach may be one of those people who favours running forwards over decent scrummagers?

The referee sounds like he wasn't on top of things, and so far this season, having watched mostly Colts but some Grade games as well, that seems to be the norm (sadly).

Are you trying to turn around your issue to blame the opposition?
Really? Get a mirror out and have good hard look at yourself old mate. The players know, the coaching staff know and the crowd know when they are getting jammed up the pooper. Some things never change do they?

 

[Dave Beat]

Fare way off the Shute Shield but grass roots and Mini Marlins keeping out of the rain and doing it J Train style.

Training with the boss - Kotoni - giving back to the kids

 

[OldColt]

Are you trying to turn around your issue to blame the opposition?
Really? Get a mirror out and have good hard look at yourself old mate. The players know, the coaching staff know and the crowd know when they are getting jammed up the pooper. Some things never change do they?

Not my issue 'old mate' - just trying to bring some reason to a nonsense argument - no-one here has managed to explain why the scrums were uncontested but that didn't stop a couple of you from frothing at the mouth and ranting about underhanded tactics - it's 4th grade for fuck's sake, and some clubs just don't have the stocks of props that others do - simple as that 'old mate'

 

[the coach]

Not my issue 'old mate' - just trying to bring some reason to a nonsense argument - no-one here has managed to explain why the scrums were uncontested but that didn't stop a couple of you from frothing at the mouth and ranting about underhanded tactics - it's 4th grade for fuck's sake, and some clubs just don't have the stocks of props that others do - simple as that 'old mate'

As I'm the person who raised the issue I would really like to know why when I arrived at the ground at about 10:15am Souths had aleady notified Wicks that the scrums would be uncontested. That explanation needs to come from someone at Souths.

Sure it's only 4th grade, but the result was close (25-19 to Souths), both teams are fighting to make the playoffs and the fact remains that Souths won the game as the result of a try scored when they had 9 backs (illegally IMO) agst 6. So in spite of the OHS issues, and why the game started with uncontested scrums, Souths cheated (again IMO) by not packing 8 in the scrum and the ref let them get away with it.

Old Colt, I'd be happy for you to find out from the powers-that-be at your club why the scrums were uncontested and what their explanation is for packing only 6 in the scrum. If there is a valid reason I'll be happy to pull my head in, but none has been forthcoming so far and it was 6 days ago.

Over to you

 

[Shadow]

I would think notifying a club before 10.15am that they have to go uncontested scrums is giving the opposition plenty of notice. Usually clubs declare going uncontested scrums during the warm up.
If you check this weeks team lists i think you will see chubb and one of the brothers eho play play prop in 2nd grade are out. This would show there are injuries in the front row. Didnt Chubb go off at halftime last weekend?
There is no conspiracy to cheat
I am not sure on the rules but if a team has 2 players in the bin and pack 6 players in a scrum does the opposition have to have 6 or 8 in the scrum?
One stage didnt Randwick try and pack 5 into the scrum until they were caught out?
If Randwick had won the game would this still be going on?