Sydney Colts - 2017

[Dave Beat]

I haven't read over the points thing.
I don't think it has been signed off yet, it sounds like the clubs pushing the boundaries first said front rowers shouldn't be included in the points and offered the increase and changes to 40 as a second option.

The points are put in place to spread the talent, not to be doctored to allow more.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

The points are put in place to spread the talent, not to be doctored to allow more.

Now that's just defeatist talk

 

[Dave Beat]

Now that's just defeatist talk

I'm not sure what than means

The points are in place for a reason - and everything has a fault.

I still think there should be far more work put into growing the numbers so there are more players pushing the quality higher - growing grass is far more important than fighting about the points.

 

[Done that]

I'm not sure what than means

The points are in place for a reason - and everything has a fault.

I still think there should be far more work put into growing the numbers so there are more players pushing the quality higher - growing grass is far more important than fighting about the points.

"Growing the grass" is much easier when talent is evenly spread .How many boys are in teams which are , effectively ,regarded as being there to make up the numbers in their competition, or at best being there to be vaguely competitive, feel that they have a strong chance of real success at the season's end? "Growing the grass" is fine , but maintaining the existing grass is also very important. There is plenty of evidence that in recent seasons, that many good colts & juniors, from less favorable clubs are being wooed to clubs in the more .This can only lead to stagnation in the former clubs & potentially gradual demise of rugby in their particular area.
The points system,as described above, is less efficient in it's objectives than that which was used last year, which itself was the object of deserved criticism.

 

[Done that]

Now that's just defeatist talk

I can't understand how such a pessimistic view could possibly arise.

 

[Dave Beat]

"Growing the grass" is much easier when talent is evenly spread .How many boys are in teams which are , effectively ,regarded as being there to make up the numbers in their competition, or at best being there to be vaguely competitive, feel that they have a strong chance of real success at the season's end? "Growing the grass" is fine , but maintaining the existing grass is also very important. There is plenty of evidence that in recent seasons, that many good colts & juniors, from less favorable clubs are being wooed to clubs in the more .This can only lead to stagnation in the former clubs & potentially gradual demise of rugby in their particular area.
The points system,as described above, is less efficient in it's objectives than that which was used last year, which itself was the object of deserved criticism.

I think we are agreeing.
My post was saying grwoing the grass is important.
And systems need to ensure that this happens.

My intel tells me the eletist clubs but up 2 up 2 options;
1 Front row isnt included at all.
2 and increase in points so they can have more school boy stars.
With number 1 being stupid they got what they were really afer and that was increased points. When clubs are already flexing there muscles with the points why give them even more space.

Thoughts on colts being u21?
There are alot of league players that stop playing all together becuase their rep honours dont convert into one of the NRL clubs. Increasing to 21 could have players follow a path bck into rugby through colts and onto grade.

 

[OldColt]

I think we are agreeing.
My post was saying grwoing the grass is important.
And systems need to ensure that this happens.

My intel tells me the eletist clubs but up 2 up 2 options;
1 Front row isnt included at all.
2 and increase in points so they can have more school boy stars.
With number 1 being stupid they got what they were really afer and that was increased points. When clubs are already flexing there muscles with the points why give them even more space.

The notion that front rows not be included in a revised points system was stupid in the extreme, as well as transparently self-serving. One of the clubs proposing it tried to bring on a front-row sub in a game last year which would've put them over the team points limit. They'd have known well ahead of time that they were close to the limit and that using a particular reserve would put them over. To suggest their proposed changes to the system were motivated by their concern for 'player safety' just shows how arrogant they really are, and how they must think the rest of us are complete mugs.
Sadly, any points system that puts the responsibility for monitoring it onto the opposition clubs each week is either destined to fail, or open to widespread rorting, or both.

 

[the baz]

The notion that front rows not be included in a revised points system was stupid in the extreme, as well as transparently self-serving. One of the clubs proposing it tried to bring on a front-row sub in a game last year which would've put them over the team points limit. They'd have known well ahead of time that they were close to the limit and that using a particular reserve would put them over. To suggest their proposed changes to the system were motivated by their concern for 'player safety' just shows how arrogant they really are, and how they must think the rest of us are complete mugs.
Sadly, any points system that puts the responsibility for monitoring it onto the opposition clubs each week is either destined to fail, or open to widespread rorting, or both.

I think the scenario i heard dave was that if a front rower had played a full half if the prior game, he could sub as an injury replacement and not send the team over fhe points cap. But i do agree that some clubs are using player safety as an issue to gain a free replacement, and yes, it will be rorted.

 

[sidelineview]

I think more so will be the challenge to get these guys onto the park at the same time and keep under 40 points.

Take Randwick (and am happy to be corrected) with no reduction for playing juniors in the Randwick district.
Pietsch (Gordon jnr) @ 6 pts,
Wilkinson (Cowra jnr) @ 6 pt,
Jaffer-Williams (Norths jnr) @ 6 pts,
Orpen (Eastwood jnr) @ 6 pts
Schoupp (Hunter jnr) @ 4 pts
Matthews (Blue mtns) @ 6 pts

That's potentially 34 points in just 6 players - Plus i don't know how the points are allocated to the other NSW U20's players, but i imagine they are worth more than 2 pts each?

Will take some creative accounting to field all these lads in 1st colts together.

And as you've mentioned, that's only accounting for 6 players, but I assume Randwick's not the only Club that will have difficulty trying to fit their playing roster under this ''cap'' on game day.

My question is: has this player points system been officially approved for 2017 and where is it published?

 

[Dave Beat]

And as you've mentioned, that's only accounting for 6 players, but I assume Randwick's not the only Club that will have difficulty trying to fit their playing roster under this ''cap'' on game day.

My question is: has this player points system been officially approved for 2017 and where is it published?

No i dont believe it has been yet

 

[The Honey Badger]

GaryOwenIII or anyone else, is there a complete compilation of all the clubs colts squads? Who is playing where and how many points they all carry?

Think Randwick & Gordon are pretty well known, havent seen too many other proposed team list. Surely they are in all in full trial mode by now.

 

[Dave Beat]

GaryOwenIII or anyone else, is there a complete compilation of all the clubs colts squads? Who is playing where and how many points they all carry?

Think Randwick & Gordon are pretty well known, havent seen too many other proposed team list. Surely they are in all in full trial mode by now.

I do believe that one has to be provided by a certain date, date hasnt arrived yet.

 

[The Honey Badger]

I do believe that one has to be provided by a certain date, date hasnt arrived yet.

Yes, I am sure thats right, but that would be the official team list of players as provided by the clubs.

I am looking for the Green & Gold knowledge base to provide the same ahead of that time,

 

[the coach]

The above discussion assumes that all of these school leavers play colts this year, of course. Several clubs / players have bypassed colts and gone straight from school to grade and I think about 70% of 2015 colts moved up to grade in 2016 at the Wicks. It will be interesting to see what happens this year.

 

[Dave Beat]

The points cap was 35 points in 2015, and increasd to 40points in 2016 with the accumulation of points brought in for subs.
Whilst this was set up with good intent this allowed teams to field teams with even more points, and they just made fewer subs, and young colts want to stay out there going the full 80 anyway.
What has been proposed is that the clubs that are already pushing the boundaries, get an extra 5 points and also gives them the ability to use all 8 substitutes in a game.
Reducing the points for the Aus school barbarians also allows more players to fit under the cap, some of these players may have missed out on the rockstar status at school but have been noticed and may even be more gifted - these players are often targeted first for the scholarships and end up at the clubs referred to above.
Whilst safety is key for our kids, it is being used to influence desisions to adjust points and thus allowing clubs to be even stronger and possibly increase the injury risk on the weeker clubs. Teams need to ensure that their 23 players sit under the points inclusive of the madatory front row replacements - if that lessons the points in the starting 15 well - your opponent is playing under the same rule.
Example - Randwick already have 2 full front rows of state or national standard (gee they bread them well, or they offer something????) - late in the game they bring on a fresh front row of similar ability to finish off a game against a fatigued front row / or second grade front row - is that safe.
Is there a way to stop players grafitating towards clubs that can offer scholarships - i dont know?
Is it the club paying the uni fees?
I.e. can the scholarships be sought & offered by NSWRU, having NSWRU step up and beinvolved in these important age groups - engaging in key areas to foster the development of rugby players and NSWRU can place the players.
Maybe NSWRU can start this work starts in the highschools when Tafe is now starting to be included (uthe 15, u16 age brakets).

 

[Inside Shoulder]

This points stuff is being rorted and doing long term harm to the game

 

[The Honey Badger]

This points stuff is being rorted and doing long term harm to the game

And your solution?

 

[Dave Beat]

And your solution?

A points system that works

All clubs know what it is trying to acheive, work together to acheive that as we are not getting any help from above.

If we have a strong thriving colts comp, with the rep points spread, and we have clubs working on pathways our game will prosper.

 

[I like to watch]

It's been said before.
Apply the points to registrations, not to the match day sides

 

[sidelineview]

It's been said before.
Apply the points to registrations, not to the match day sides

It's also been mentioned that some U20s play Grade not Colts.

It becomes a messy argument to try to stop Clubs signing players to strengthen their overall playing roster with a view of producing a Premiership winning 1st Grade team down the track.

I assume some U20s players play both Grade and Colts during the one season and have to play a certain number of games to qualify for the Finals for either.

Clubs will always look after themselves instead of ''working together to achieve...... whatever''.

Hard and fast rules need be applied and monitored but it's obviously easier said than done.
I'm new to this discussion.
It's probably like Groundhog Day for some of you.