Shute Shield 2017

[I like to watch]

Unfortunately I haven't seen the article. Can you provide a link.

However what I'm hearing from these pages is there's a problem but nothing needs to change. Also looking at the contributors to this forum it seems most is coming from the eastern side of the Bridge.

Manly is a strong Club doing, what seems to be, everything right. Sadly what works on the Beaches doesn't seem to be transferrable to a large section of Sydney. I played for Manly but live but live closer to the Hills these days.

The strong clubs have a steady stream of private school boys educated and indoctrinated with a love of Rugby Union. Gordon being the anomaly.Many of the multi-talented athletic kids west of the Pacific Highway are not.

This is the reason things need to change. While Rugby on the beaches is always fighting against AFL, League and Football, it is nothing compared to what western Sydney Clubs face.

The eastern Clubs have the base, the following and the strength to face almost any challenge thrown at them. Over time it will become an 8 team comp anyway as Penrith, Parramatta, Wests, and Southern all collapse under the weight of competition coming from the better established sports. Add to this, based on current participation trajectory, there will be fewer teams at all clubs as well.

Isn't it better to make the changes while you have the control rather than be a victim of circumstance and only able to react to events around you.

I love the game and if that means putting some of the comfortable clubs outside their box then it will be better in the long run for everybody.

Don't know who's saying there's a problem with SS.
It's the strongest its been for over a decade.
SS clubs have a problem with how BP treats them, big difference.

Anyway, playing 3/4 grades & colts 2/3 away from higher grades helps nothing, but will cause serious problems.
Scheduling SS games to be in direct competition with Super Rugby is daft.
If there are compelling reasons to change things, terrific.
But there have to be clear advantages to be gained, to justify changes.
I've seen nothing so far.

 

[OldColt]

Unfortunately I haven't seen the article. Can you provide a link.


The eastern Clubs have the base, the following and the strength to face almost any challenge thrown at them. Over time it will become an 8 team comp anyway as Penrith, Parramatta, Wests, and Southern all collapse under the weight of competition coming from the better established sports. Add to this, based on current participation trajectory, there will be fewer teams at all clubs as well.

.

I've stayed out of this discussion so far, but I'm not sure why Southern Districts got a mention here - we field 4 Grade teams and 3 Colts teams, and while our results haven't necessarily been what we'd hoped for in recent years, we've been consistently competitive in every grade. Last year 1st & 4th Grade made it to the finals, as did 2nd & 3rd Grade Colts. Our 4th grade team had sufficient numbers to allow us to field a 5th-grade side at one point, and while injuries can be a bit of a problem in Colts, we fielded 3 full sides every week.

Our prospects for 2017 are looking good at this stage, with a swag of juniors coming into Colts from school and junior club rugby.

We've been competing with other codes in the Shire & St George for a long time, but one of the real strengths of our club is the relationship between the players of all grades, which is evident in the support the higher grades give the lower grades during the early games, and vice versa as the afternoon wears on. There's no distinction between the guys who play 1sts and those who play 4ths at Souths (or 1sts and 3rds Colts), and the sense of friendship is palpable. And this link clearly extends through to our junior clubs as well.

You may not have experienced a winter's afternoon at Forshaw recently, with a packed house for a top-of-the-table 1st Grade clash, but I suggest you come down and watch a Grade game (or Colts - take your pick) next year and you'll see that we're very far from your predicted 'collapse'.

And what happens to all that support between the higher and lower grades if we split the competition, and the lower grades play in a 2nd tier comp? Under your model, they'll be playing elsewhere, and at the same time as the higher grades, so there'd be little chance of getting from one game to another. Where do you think the crowds come from, and where do you think the reserves come from? I have boys playing in lower grades, but with your suggested model, I'd have to decide between watching them, or watching 1st Grade, whereas I can watch all 4 grades now, on the same day and at the same place.

 

[Dave Beat]

You may not have experienced a winter's afternoon at Forshaw recently, with a packed house for a top-of-the-table 1st Grade clash, but I suggest you come down and watch a Grade game (or Colts - take your pick) next year and you'll see that we're very far from your predicted 'collapse'.

A long drive, and it doesn't just need to be the arvo - makes for a great day.
Spot on, and why Premier Rugby is good.

 

[Quick Hands]

Don't know who's saying there's a problem with SS.
It's the strongest its been for over a decade.
SS clubs have a problem with how BP treats them, big difference.

Anyway, playing 3/4 grades & colts 2/3 away from higher grades helps nothing, but will cause serious problems.
Scheduling SS games to be in direct competition with Super Rugby is daft.
If there are compelling reasons to change things, terrific.
But there have to be clear advantages to be gained, to justify changes.
I've seen nothing so far.

And I would also make the point that most subbies clubs field a number of grades. Imagine the response if subbies clubs were asked to play two of their grades at one location and the other two somewhere else. I suspect that they would object on the same grounds. (no pun intended)

 

[Rugby Central]

Thank you all for your responses.

Given your descriptions (and I have no reason to doubt you) I'd have to agree there's nothing wrong with Club rugby. So why aren't more people telling Papworth to shut the F up.

Given the level of complaining and threats he is and his supporters are making it sound like Club rugby is in it's death throws. From lower down on the food chain it has a ring of truth to it.

Juniors, Subbies and almost everything west of Sydney Uni seems to be struggling. Particularly for participation.

I see Club rugby as one big entity and it should all be integrated. My biggest issue is the quarantining of SS Clubs. Shielding SS Clubs doesn't help Clubs with ambition or the Clubs that are struggling. It says to every player who loves their Club that's not in the SS, "don't bother with ambition because you don't count."

It comes across as SS doesn't care about the damage caused by taking players from lower divisions but screams bloody murder at the thought of others coming into SS. The recent fight to crush Balmain's ambition is a case in point. Here was a club (flashy as its approach was) working hard to raise it's profile and player pool enough to get into SS but told not to bother. So someone with the resources and the ambition worked very hard to bring on the NRC just to get Balmain to be a part of it. Didn't work, but I wouldn't underestimate Balmain's part in relegating SS to tier 4.

I would definitely include Mosman and Colleagues as more than capable of competing consistently with the lower half of SS Clubs. It certainly doesn't help Subbies Rugby that they have nowhere to go, so dominate the competition regularly. Before you dismiss them as just Subbies Clubs, think about how well they would recruit if part of the SS.

But thank you again, so I will look for other ways to increase participation, expansion and revenue opportunities for the benefit of Club rugby in Australia.

P.S No disrespect intended Old Colt. When I lived in the Shire (admittedly a while ago) there was strong support for football and immense support for league. I was hard pressed to hear news about Southern without going to Southern directly. It was an example of the challenges faced by those clubs outside the private school strongholds of the eastern suburbs and the north shore.

 

[MACCA]

Have heard the draw for 2017 is out. does anyone know where it can be found on line? am trying to find out when the comp starts and finishes. Cheers

 

[amirite]

So why aren't more people telling Papworth to shut the F up.

It's the rule of the vocal minority I feel. It holds true in so many parts of life.

 

[Done that]

Unfortunately I haven't seen the article. Can you provide a link.

However what I'm hearing from these pages is there's a problem but nothing needs to change. Also looking at the contributors to this forum it seems most is coming from the eastern side of the Bridge.

Manly is a strong Club doing, what seems to be, everything right. Sadly what works on the Beaches doesn't seem to be transferrable to a large section of Sydney. I played for Manly but live but live closer to the Hills these days.

The strong clubs have a steady stream of private school boys educated and indoctrinated with a love of Rugby Union. Gordon being the anomaly.Many of the multi-talented athletic kids west of the Pacific Highway are not.

This is the reason things need to change. While Rugby on the beaches is always fighting against AFL, League and Football, it is nothing compared to what western Sydney Clubs face.

The eastern Clubs have the base, the following and the strength to face almost any challenge thrown at them. Over time it will become an 8 team comp anyway as Penrith, Parramatta, Wests, and Southern all collapse under the weight of competition coming from the better established sports. Add to this, based on current participation trajectory, there will be fewer teams at all clubs as well.

Isn't it better to make the changes while you have the control rather than be a victim of circumstance and only able to react to events around you.

I love the game and if that means putting some of the comfortable clubs outside their box then it will be better in the long run for everybody.

I agree with much of what you have to say,but not necessarily all.
I refer back to my previous post #272.
For those who believe that the SS competition is at it's strongest for many years,I suggest that what we have seen in 2016 is in effect,simply a shuffling of the usual positions occupied by the usual top teams.(Norths excepted in first grade).
To reiterate, some clubs are cannabilising other clubs to an extent not seen by me in previous years.
Whilst there has always been some player movement between clubs, recently the number of players offering their services to clubs other than their own, has increased significantly compered to previous years.And what is particularly worrying, is the current trend of some of the stronger clubs poaching existing colts players & juniors from less fashionable rival clubs.The result is to stifle any likely progress of the latter , with obvious consequences on their senior grades.This is particularly true of the clubs in Sydney's West,which historically have produced a lot of very good young players.
I believe that Parramatta are spending a significant amount on their colts this off season,in an attempt to counter this trend.But what happens the following year ?
Does this reflect a "healthy S.S. competition"?
Many contributors on this site, & officials from clubs in the "traditional" rugby areas of Sydney, profess a desire to see rugby flourish in Sydney's West. These are ultimately meaningless platitudes. It behoves all who honestly want rugby to not only develop & thrive ,even survive,to abandon the rhetoric & be involved in stopping this evolving self destruction.
Asking the ARU to give funds which are allegedly to provide development in the respective clubs, but which in fact are going to be spent on paying players , is laughable.
I, like most others on these pages , would prefer to see the current number of clubs & teams participating in the S.S. competition remain.
But the inevitable result of destroying the weaker clubs to benefit the stronger will inevitably result in fewer clubs & fewer teams , & presumably,fewer people playing the game at the traditional S.S. level.

 

[Quick Hands]

I would definitely include Mosman and Colleagues as more than capable of competing consistently with the lower half of SS Clubs. It certainly doesn't help Subbies Rugby that they have nowhere to go, so dominate the competition regularly. Before you dismiss them as just Subbies Clubs, think about how well they would recruit if part of the SS.

Mosman were given the opportunity to come up to SS over 20 years ago - they declined because they realised that geographically it wouldn't work. They also have a junior section which is affiliated with Northern Suburbs juniors. Thye'd effectively be working in competition with themselves.

Colleagues on the other hand, don't even have a junior club as far as I know, and again are geographically located so close to Easts that they would cannibalise eatch other.

I haven't read anyone on this thread dismissing any club as "just subbies clubs" this seems to be a straw man that you have set up to knock down.

I would have no objection to every subbies club affiliating with their local district club and working together for the common good. I suspect that you'll find that they each guard their autonomy more jealously than you might think.

It actually makes no sense to me to have so many governing bodies in such a small sport. Get rid of the NSW Suburban Rugby Union, everyone affiliates with their local district club and the district club affiliates with NSWRU. One lot of bureaucrats eliminated. I suggest that you run this idea over on the Subbies thread and see the reaction.

EDIT: It suits the narrative of many on these threads to have the SS as the great satan of the rugby universe. The thought of co-operating with SS may even bring meltdown over there.

 

[the coach]

I heard today that the NRL has increased funding to its grassroots by 65% from next year. Anyone know the equivalent increase (?) in rugby?
I've read the above posts with great interest. I think Pappy and his supporters are concerned for the future and, while I don't agree with their suggested approach (which I suspect is mainly bluff to bring the ARU to the discussion table), I do agree that the continuining neglect of the SS etc by the ARU whilst they also continue to impose levies on players and clubs at all levels is only going to put financial pressure on clubs at all levels.
Not all rugby supporters follow the game at all levels. My main interest is at SS level, and then the Wallabies. In spite of the "annointed private school ones" philosophy which seems to be the in thing these days I still believe that club rugby (SS etc) is vital for the long term health and growth of the code.
I've always believed that rugby at club level is a players' game. It's not all about progression to a higher level, which is why it's important to maintain 4 grades. I'm there every week in time for the 4th grade kickoff and will continue to do so as long as there are 4 grades.

 

[Dave Beat]

Coach - I thought it was a nightmare as i was in bed when i heard the same.
Also seen their add on Tele - and i'll pay complement when due, it is a great add, they even use our word "grass roots".

I'm not big on adds, but that add will attract the interest of parents and in turn kids.

 

[Dave Beat]

Coach, this one came up on my face book
https://www.ruck.co.uk/15-reasons-why-children-should-play-rugby-union/

 

[the coach]

Coach, this one came up on my face book
https://www.ruck.co.uk/15-reasons-why-children-should-play-rugby-union/

Well done UK rugby -- can't wait for the ARU to do something similar

 

[Rugby Central]

G'day QH,


So much of what you have written is from a view point of this is the things the way they were so let's not change it, or remotely consistent with the lived experience of people outside the stronger SS Clubs. Horses for courses, agreeing to disagree and all that so I will let it go.

However I will address directly

I haven't read anyone on this thread dismissing any club as "just subbies clubs" this seems to be a straw man that you have set up to knock down.

Firstly, every time someone says "but subbies is for different types of players" reflects a dismissal of all those players and Clubs. Yes they are different, because there is absolutely no scope for change.

More importantly, it is how the NSWRU thinks.


A number of years ago I met with NSW rugby regarding non-financial assistance in creating a 7's competition. That debacle is for another time and off-line if you're interested. However, at that meeting I asked about the potential for some Subbies clubs to move up into SS due to their dominance.



The NSWRU official actually used the words "we don't need Subbies Clubs". It is not a straw man, it absolutely reflects the administration's thinking.

EDIT: It suits the narrative of many on these threads to have the SS as the great satan of the rugby universe. The thought of co-operating with SS may even bring meltdown over there.

On the contrary, SS is not the great satan. SS simply hasn’t accepted that it’s importance in the rugby landscape has diminished significantly and is constantly pissing people off because they think everyone else is to blame and they should make no sacrifices or change to bring themselves back to where they used to be.

I believe SS should be the Third tier but the outright refusal to countenance any change meant the ARU had to make other arrangements.

 

[the coach]

G'day QH,


So much of what you have written is from a view point of this is the things the way they were so let's not change it, or remotely consistent with the lived experience of people outside the stronger SS Clubs. Horses for courses, agreeing to disagree and all that so I will let it go.

However I will address directly


Firstly, every time someone says "but subbies is for different types of players" reflects a dismissal of all those players and Clubs. Yes they are different, because there is absolutely no scope for change.

More importantly, it is how the NSWRU thinks.


A number of years ago I met with NSW rugby regarding non-financial assistance in creating a 7's competition. That debacle is for another time and off-line if you're interested. However, at that meeting I asked about the potential for some Subbies clubs to move up into SS due to their dominance.



The NSWRU official actually used the words "we don't need Subbies Clubs". It is not a straw man, it absolutely reflects the administration's thinking.




On the contrary, SS is not the great satan. SS simply hasn’t accepted that it’s importance in the rugby landscape has diminished significantly and is constantly pissing people off because they think everyone else is to blame and they should make no sacrifices or change to bring themselves back to where they used to be.

I believe SS should be the Third tier but the outright refusal to countenance any change meant the ARU had to make other arrangements.

RC, could you provide some examples of the types of changes that the SS has refused to contenance?
Since I started watching the SS (about 40 years ago) I've seen the following changes:
(1) reduction of teams ie 5th, 6th, 7th grades
(2) increase in clubs ie Canberra, Newcastle briefly then Penrith
(3) club kicked out eg Drummoyne
(4) player points cap
(5) reduction in number of rounds from full home-and-away
(6) introduction of NRC supported and partially finance by clubs
(7) introduction of super rugby
(8) change in playoffs from 4 teams, to 5, and now 6
(9) merger of St George and Port Hacking to form Southern Districts
(10) sponsorship on jumpers
(11) etc -- I'm sure there are many more

I may be misunderstanding your point, but the above list hardly supports any suggestion that the SS refuses to countenance change.

During this same period we've seen amost all clubs having to close their licenced clubs for a variety of reasons and relying on volunteers to raise enough money to put teams on the park every weekend and also pay ever increasing fees to the ARU.

 

[Quick Hands]

Firstly, every time someone says "but subbies is for different types of players" reflects a dismissal of all those players and Clubs. Yes they are different, because there is absolutely no scope for change.

No it's not a dismissal of those players and clubs at all. I've played subbies for two different subbies clubs and coached a subbies colts team. I've also had playing and coaching involvment at Manly.

For a variety of reasons, subbies rugby caters for a different rugby player than SS clubs. There's actually nothing wrong with that and it's not meant to be any sort of slight or insult on the players or the clubs.

In my experience, in general terms, most players who go to SS colts have some aspiration to play 1st grade colts in their final year and then go on to play grade afterwards - again many aspire to 1st grade. It's true that at the end of colts some boys decide that they don't have the same desire - often because of study or work commitments or some other time restraint - so they will keep playing rugby, but do so at a subbies club. Some boys bypass SS colts altogether and either play subbies colts or straight into a subbies open team - again there are multiple reasons for this, including the subbies club is their old junior club, or their mates are there or it's a school old boy team etc.

Subbies clubs fulfil an important and valuable role in the rugby framework and nothing that I have ever said indicates otherwise. Different does not mean better or worse, just difference. Interestingly, it's quite often the subbies people who like to emphasise the difference.

More importantly, it is how the NSWRU thinks.


A number of years ago I met with NSW rugby regarding non-financial assistance in creating a 7's competition. That debacle is for another time and off-line if you're interested. However, at that meeting I asked about the potential for some Subbies clubs to move up into SS due to their dominance.



The NSWRU official actually used the words "we don't need Subbies Clubs". It is not a straw man, it absolutely reflects the administration's thinking.

Anyone who has dealt with NSWRU could tell a similar tale, including the SS clubs. The incompetence and private school centric elitism of NSWRU blazer wearers doesn't reflect the thinking of SS clubs - in fact SS clubs have had more than their fair share of disputes with NSWRU.

Unfortunately, rugby in this country isn't blessed with world's best practice administration.

As an aside, and going on from something that I raised earlier and have raised before; rugby in NSW would have to be the most over-administered in the world, we have NSWRU, Sydney RU, Country RU, NSW Suburban RU, NSW JRU, Sydney JRU and the NSW Schools RU. In England, they have the RFU - one body to run the lot, with 2000 clubs running from Aviva premiership down to local clubs and over 2.5 million registered players.

Looks much better thatn the multitude of petty bureaucracies all squabbling over an ever-diminishing player pool in NSW. (And that's before you overlay the ARU, NRC, JGC etc over the top)

I can't help but think that the convoluted administrative structures pose far more of a hinderance to rugby than the attitude of SS clubs. (And it's also timely to point out that many SS fans have posted that they don't agree with everything that Brett Papworth and the clubs are doing)

The Rugby Football Union (RFU) is the governing body for rugby union in England. It was founded in 1871, and was the sport's international governing body prior to the formation of what is now known as World Rugby (WR (World Rugby)) in 1886. It promotes and runs the sport, organises international matches for the England national team, and educates and trains players and officials.
The RFU is an industrial and provident society owned by over 2,000 member clubs,[3] representing over 2.5 million registered players,[4] and forms the largest rugby union society in the world, and one of the largest sports organisations in England. It is based at Twickenham Stadium, London.
In September 2010 the equivalent women's rugby body, the Rugby Football Union for Women (RFUW), was able to nominate a member to the RFU Council to represent women and girls rugby. The RFUW was integrated into the RFU in July 2012.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rugby_Football_Union

 

[Rugby Central]

G'day Coach,

Firstly, I'm not going to argue for the fee hikes by the ARU. That is mismanagement on their part and punishing everyone else for their mistakes.

Many of the changes you list make no difference to whether SS would or could be 3rd Tier Rugby

But the moment rugby went professional and Super Rugby (not talking Super 10's) came in the SS should have positioned itself as the place to develop the players for the higher honours. Because the direct link to the Wallabies was removed instantly. Instead a mad scramble was undertaken to pay players to keep existing positions in place.

Promotion and relegation is one example. Without it there is no need for the weak to change their ways. The strong can feed off the weak safe in the knowledge there will be no consequences because nobody will be kicked out.

Conversely there's no motivation for the big fish in the small pond to move up. It's so much nicer to win championships against weaker Subbies Clubs.

Had the SS accepted that the social grades are not compatible with elite rugby then by 2007 nobody would have thought there was any need for an ARC or NRC. Instead the SS stayed and remains an albeit more organised and talented, yet entirely quarantined version of Subbies Rugby. That's not to say it's a copy as SS was here first, just that the playing structures are almost identical.

The argument about numbers and depth shows that SS is in no position to fill the role of 3rd Tier. I don't see the NRC teams demanding the need to field 5 grades so they have the numbers to support their Premier grade.

The SS could have organised themselves in the same way; but didn't. And had they been driving the change they could have made things more beneficial for the lower grades - and club rugby more broadly.

The interesting thing is the ARU has sown the seeds for the NRC's downfall, if SS does want to step up and be the Tier 3 competition. Without the funding, and to be honest, the complete disrespect from the ARU, the SS is in a position to do whatever the hell it wants.

However, broadcasters will not be falling over themselves to provide funding that will end up with 3rd Grade Colts. They will want an elite product that can be packaged and sold.

It comes down to this. Does SS want to be the nursery for elite rugby players or do they want to be a social enterprise using rugby for the benefit of the community. Both options have merit and nobody should be told that one choice is better than the other. You just can't effectively do both. Years of declining importance of Club rugby and the need to reintroduce a version of the failed ARC are proof of that.

We will continue to agree to disagree. Your position is the SS is great and doesn't need to change it's fundamental structure. My position is that change needs to happen.

The main thing is we would both like to see the primacy of the SS returned to what it should be as a Club rugby competition.

I guess my point is one side of the theory has been tested and the results are in, while the other side could do poorly, I guess we'll never know.

 

[the coach]

Hi RC,
I agree with a lot of your comments above.
I can't speak for all clubs but as far as Randwick are concerned I believe we see the club's role is to provide a vehicle for anyone good enough to play rugby across the 4 grade and 3 colt teams and, at the same time, produce players for higher honours if that's what they aspire to. Interestingly for the last few years the club's goal (not yet achieved) has been to win the club championship which obviously requires all grades and colts to do well. Winning individual premierships is seen as icing on the cake. I think there comes a time when everyone has to accept the inevitable and the advent of super rugby started the downward slide of club rugby ie declining crowds and interest due to the unavailability of the best players. The NRC's only negative impact on club rugby has been to entrench the move away from full home-and-away which I'd suggest is another nail in the coffin as we no longer have a level playing field.

I don't understand the argument that the SS could somehow have been re-organised to remain as the 3rd tier to avoid the need for the NRC. The NRC only lasts for a few weeks after the end of the super rugby season, whereas the SS runs in parallel to the super season. Let's not forget, as Dave Beat has reminded us, that there are many players (80% of the SS?) whose season ends at the end of round 18 in early August and that is way too early IMO.

I really believe that the SS (across all grades and colts) should be full home-and-away and the only impediment to doing this seems to be Bill Pulver's comment that the ARU is happy with the current arrangements. WHY? The season could easily start a 2-4 week's earlier, use one or both of the week's between the end of the SS and the start of the NRC and even reduce the number of playoff teams if necessary.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Hi RC,
I agree with a lot of your comments above.
I can't speak for all clubs but as far as Randwick are concerned I believe we see the club's role is to provide a vehicle for anyone good enough to play rugby across the 4 grade and 3 colt teams and, at the same time, produce players for higher honours if that's what they aspire to. Interestingly for the last few years the club's goal (not yet achieved) has been to win the club championship which obviously requires all grades and colts to do well. Winning individual premierships is seen as icing on the cake. I think there comes a time when everyone has to accept the inevitable and the advent of super rugby started the downward slide of club rugby ie declining crowds and interest due to the unavailability of the best players. The NRC's only negative impact on club rugby has been to entrench the move away from full home-and-away which I'd suggest is another nail in the coffin as we no longer have a level playing field.

I don't understand the argument that the SS could somehow have been re-organised to remain as the 3rd tier to avoid the need for the NRC. The NRC only lasts for a few weeks after the end of the super rugby season, whereas the SS runs in parallel to the super season. Let's not forget, as Dave Beat has reminded us, that there are many players (80% of the SS?) whose season ends at the end of round 18 in early August and that is way too early IMO.

I really believe that the SS (across all grades and colts) should be full home-and-away and the only impediment to doing this seems to be Bill Pulver's comment that the ARU is happy with the current arrangements. WHY? The season could easily start a 2-4 week's earlier, use one or both of the week's between the end of the SS and the start of the NRC and even reduce the number of playoff teams if necessary.

Why the need to move to a full 22 round schedule now compared to when they cut it 16 rounds in 2012 before going to the current 18 in 2013?

Saying that, I do agree if they feel that it is a must then why not start it 4 weeks earlier. Ground availability will be an issue for four of the clubs but clever scheduling could overcome that.

 

[the coach]

Why the need to move to a full 22 round schedule now compared to when they cut it 16 rounds in 2012 before going to the current 18 in 2013?

Saying that, I do agree if they feel that it is a must then why not start it 4 weeks earlier. Ground availability will be an issue for four of the clubs but clever scheduling could overcome that.

Because the current system is unfair. Some teams play the weaker teams twice and others only once so we don't have a level playing field. Plus the extra 4 rounds provides more rugby across all the grades and colts for us club rugby tragics.