Shute Shield 2016

[Eyes and Ears]

36 to 17. 8 to go


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Seymour Butz]

Penrith v Eastwood
4s 0-48
3s 0-108
2s 7-72
1s 0-73

 

[Eyes and Ears]

Rats 43 Manly 17. Full Time


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[I like to watch]

Gee 5 for a 4n20 meet pie with no sauce whilst watch 3s.

that would have been just about the highlight of the day for you wouldn't it?
Marlins just making up the numbers now.
Very disappointing.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Round 16 Results​

Intrust Shute Shield (1st Grade)
Eastern Suburbs 41 Sydney University 43
Parramatta v Gordon (In Progress - Late Kick off)
Penrith 0 Eastwood 73
Southern Districts 24 Randwick 28 (Randwick win the Sir Roden Cutler VC Shield - Next challenge will be round 18)
Warringah 43 Manly 17
West Harbour 8 Northern Suburbs 40

Colin Caird Shield (2nd Grade)
Eastern Suburbs 26 Sydney University 17
Parramatta 59 Gordon 33
Penrith 7 Eastwood 72
Southern Districts 17 Randwick 40
Warringah 41 Manly 21
West Harbour 7 Northern Suburbs 99

Henderson Shield (3rd Grade)
Eastern Suburbs 3 Sydney University 27
Parramatta 15 Gordon 18
Penrith 0 Eastwood 108
Southern Districts 12 Randwick 34
Warringah 16 Manly 3
West Harbour 0 Northern Suburbs 63

Henderson Cup (4th Grade)
Eastern Suburbs 14 Sydney University 10
Parramatta 38 Gordon 5
Penrith 0 Eastwood 48
Southern Districts 25 Randwick 19
Warringah 20 Manly 10
West Harbour 5 Northern Suburbs 38




Round 17 Games - 9 July
Eastwood v Randwick
Manly v Gordon
Parramatta v Northern Suburbs
Southern Districts v Penrith
Warringah v Eastern Suburbs
West Harbour v Sydney University

 

[Hugh Jarse]

2016 Gregor George Cup (Club Championship) Watch:
(after Round 16)

There are a maximum of 215 points available to a club each week, based on all 7 club teams winning with a 4 try BP and the target to win is >3000 points which was achieved by 3 clubs in 2014 and the 2015 winner was on 2905 points. In 2014 the difference between 1st and 2nd was only 33 points, with 3rd only 52 points further back. In 2015 there was only 49 points between 1st and 2nd, with 3rd place 113 points further back.


Sydney University, 2689 points
Randwick, 2559 points
Northern Suburbs, 2385 points
Eastwood, 2308 points
Eastern Suburbs, 2265 points
Warringah, 2114 points
Southern Districts, 2112 points
Manly, 1942 points
Gordon, 1158 points*
Parramatta, 1016 points*
West Harbour, 773 points
Penrith, 114 points

How the Club Championship table is calculated.
The competition points from the individual competitions are multiplied by the following factors and then added together.
First Grade - 15
Second Grade - 8
Third Grade - 5
Fourth Grade - 4
Colts 1 - 6
Colts 2 - 3
Colts 3 - 2

The 49 point difference between Gold and Silver in 2015 could have been made up from an extra 3 BP in Shute Shield and an extra BP in 4th Grade, or an extra victory with a BP in 2nd Grade and an extra BP in Colts 1 and Colts 2.
http://rugby.fusesport.com/rugby/results/external/summaryladder.asp?ladder=1167&OrgID=010100


* Result from M2B v Gordon in 1st Grade to come.

 

[2bluesfan]

Parra 28 Gordon 11

 

[formerflanker]

that would have been just about the highlight of the day for you wouldn't it?
Marlins just making up the numbers now.
Very disappointing.

We lost in all 4 grades to Warringah. Grrr.
However, the beauty of rugby is that it's on again next week.

 

[The Galah]

The only saving grace today was colts 1's for MMM's faithful. Rats clearly turned up at their home patch motivated ready to rumble and Marlins were not up for it. Lower grades weakened by a very questionable fresh reserves selection policy - good luck with that .....

On the subject of the Rat's home patch - "Rat Park" is now right up there as a first rate Shute Shield venue IMO.

 

[I like to watch]

......Lower grades weakened by a very questionable fresh reserves selection policy - good luck with that ...

They threw the 2's & 3's under the bus with that policy.
And then didn't have the courage to empty the bench until it was too late.

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

I wish I could cash out my bet that they would win this year.......

 

[The Galah]

I think we could add Tim Lane's legacy too.

 

[Dave Beat]

They threw the 2's & 3's under the bus with that policy.
And then didn't have the courage to empty the bench until it was too late.

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

I wish I could cash out my bet that they would win this year...

The team that played the better rugby won, but gee this comp is outrageously close. First 3 tries (a penalty, and 2 from 50 out against the run of play), meant catch up rugby. First time the 12 / 13 combined, and combo's take time to gel.

 

[John S]

Penrith v Eastwood
4s 0-48
3s 0-108
2s 7-72
1s 0-73

Well, I was living in hope at the start of the season that we were able to put points on the board all season, after a long string of 0 to billions results last season. I guess it's all caught up with us

 

[the coach]

The scrum situation in Wicks v Souths 4s was weird. Souths started the game with unconstested scrums but throughout the 2nd half Souths packed only 6 or 7 in the scrum. The ref called them twice to pack 8 in the scrum but missed many scrums with fewer than 8 packed. At one stage Souths packed a scrum on the Randwick line with only 6 in the scrum and 9 backs --- not surprisingly they scored a try. I've never seen this before and although law 20.1 (e) allows for this where the opposition has fewer than 15 players on the field (Wicks had a player in the bin) it is only allowable when the team with fewer than 15 packs less than 8 in the scrum. Not the case today. Can't help thinking it was all a plan by the Souths coach ie call uncontested scrums and then see if they could con the ref into stacking the backline knowing that Wicks could not push them off the ball in the scrum. Hope someone from the SRU investigates this as it's definitely not in the spirit of the game IMO.

 

[Knuckles]

The scrum situation in Wicks v Souths 4s was weird. Souths started the game with unconstested scrums but throughout the 2nd half Souths packed only 6 or 7 in the scrum. The ref called them twice to pack 8 in the scrum but missed many scrums with fewer than 8 packed. At one stage Souths packed a scrum on the Randwick line with only 6 in the scrum and 9 backs --- not surprisingly they scored a try. I've never seen this before and although law 20.1 (e) allows for this where the opposition has fewer than 15 players on the field (Wicks had a player in the bin) it is only allowable when the team with fewer than 15 packs less than 8 in the scrum. Not the case today. Can't help thinking it was all a plan by the Souths coach ie call uncontested scrums and then see if they could con the ref into stacking the backline knowing that Wicks could not push them off the ball in the scrum. Hope someone from the SRU investigates this as it's definitely not in the spirit of the game IMO.

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?

 

[JFT]

Coach you are correct the situation with the numbers in the scrum while Randwick had 2 players yellow carded was a farce and should not have happened.

It came about as the referee allowed Randwick to pack six players (to match up numbers in the backline) and then had no issue with souths also packing six which was surprising. This happened in 2 scrums in the game. He later corrected this and made souths pack the full compliment of 8 v Randwicks 6. At no stage did souths pack less than 8 people when Randwick had the full 15 on the field.

I think you're giving a fourth grade coach a lot of credit in being so forward thinking as to prepare for an eventuality which came about as a result of Randwick having two players yellow carded at the same time!

As a side note, this was at odds with a decision of another referee, who in a game a few weeks ago which Manly took to uncontested scrums, after conceding a number of scrum penalties, forced Souths to pack a full scrum when a winger had been carded, with his reasoning being that if uncontested scrums have been called, both teams must pack the full compliment of 8 at all times.

I am unsure which is the correct interpretation or if neither are correct, but i can't see that letting the team with a full compliment pack less than 8 would be correct.

 

[the coach]

JFT, my understanding of law 20.1(e) is that a side with less than 15 players on the field may pack fewer than 8 players in the scrum and, if they do, the opposing side may match the number of players in the scrum, but are under no compulsion to do so. I believe the 6 man Souths scrum occured when Wicks had a winger and a forward yellow carded and were defending their own line with 7 players in their scrum --- so Souths had 9 backs to Wicks 6. I agree with Knuckles (above) that teams who call uncontested scrums before the game starts should have to play without the supposed non front rowers they intended to play in the front row. Wicks had about 4 props on the bench none of whom got a game as there was no point in trying to exploit what has been a Wicks advantage in the scrums in many games this year. The fact that both teams were playing for berths in the playoffs just made the situation worse. BTW, the Wicks coaching staff brought the situation to the attention of the Souths assistant ref who refused to speak to the ref.

 

[Knuckles]

[quote="BTW, the Wicks coaching staff brought the situation to the attention of the Souths assistant ref who refused to speak to the ref.[/quote]


Did the AR have white hair by any chance?

 

[the coach]

[quote="BTW, the Wicks coaching staff brought the situation to the attention of the Souths assistant ref who refused to speak to the ref.

Did the AR have white hair by any chance?[/quote]

Yes, but it was the thin one not the bulky one

 

[JFT]

That 20.1 (e) is interesting, for what its worth I thought it was a bit ridiculous that there was 15 on the field for Souths and not 8 in the scrum. Just my two cents.

It is a shame if players missed out on getting a run because of there not being contested scrums.

I can understand an AR not reporting comments from a teams coaching staff to the referee.