CAS Rugby 2015

[james777]

thought that the forwards for knox except for the number 1 looked fragile under the pressure of the bigger Auggies lads. The knox backrow looked tame. 4 and 5 were invisible and flankers similar.

backs looked slick and played with composure. No 14 and 15 in the backs for Knox were very very good. MOM performance from number 15

Auggies deserved their win .

 

[SonnyDillWilliams]

thought that the forwards for knox except for the number 1 looked fragile under the pressure of the bigger Auggies lads. The knox backrow looked tame. 4 and 5 were invisible and flankers similar.

backs looked slick and played with composure. No 14 and 15 in the backs for Knox were very very good. MOM performance from number 15

Auggies deserved their win .

For a second I thought this was referring to the 1sts ... Where stenning at 11 looked good and scored 2 good tries

Knox is weaker on right edge and that is where I think augies blew it, the augies captain (at 2) didn't read the game got too caught up in the heat of the battle...

Can't underestimate having a good leader ... Who can direct the attack

Augies used to have this bloke ... With a spikey hair do ... Who use to run on with instructions ... Older bloke ... He was absent

On the 16s knox v Waverley really shaping up to be a cracker ... Altgh Mail is that Cornish out with acl ... Not sure when he will be back.

Knox firming as favourites in that age too

 

[RugbyFan14]

Agree Barker are in for a tough year. This year and next especially there is very little depth. When a few boys are out sick (like this weekend) it will be tough. Remember these are trials so fair enough that the new coaches try a few of the u16s to see what they have. Also remember that Barker doesn't have rugby training as a summer sport and the team doesn't usually come together until the short tour at the end of Term 1.

The comments re the yr9 boy are off the mark. He's an outstanding rep player who handled himself well. The way he directed traffic and was calling team mates into position was impressive. It's always hard for a half back when the forwards are going backwards. Very early on there was a penalty for a late hit on him by one of the big Stannies second rowers - so they were clearly targeting him and to his credit he never flinched.

Overall a very poor day for Barker. Undersized forwards pushed off almost every scrum and generally going backwards; zero penetration in the backline. Late try not much of a consolation. On the positive side they were well organised and never gave up. Looking ahead to Knox i fear we don't have the strength upfront or speed out wide. Anyway too early in the season for gloom, trials are trials.

 

[SonnyDillWilliams]

Cranbrook you would have to say looking ok ... And particularly as were missing a few key forwards ... Any Mail on that game... Was pius just weak or ?

 

[Brainstrust]

<Mod: some content removed>

On another matter - I am still amazed at how many boys do not wear headgear. The games are getting more and more physical and so many issues around concussion - would love to see a school take an initiative and make in mandatory

It has nothing to do with the parents. Same as concussion protocols, its an ARU directive designed to protect players not being promoted ahead of their physical and overall maturity levels. I would also say that ARU or school insurances would struggle to see the sense of it if there was a serious injury to the boy. Under 16's playing up is a push in terms of physicality, but yr 9's?.

 

[Lineup14]

Cranbrook you would have to say looking ok . And particularly as were missing a few key forwards . Any Mail on that game. Was pius just weak or ?

Aloys play Pius next week so we could get a rough guide how they compare though a lot can change in a week

 

[Brainstrust]

<mod: Some content deleted>

On another matter - I am still amazed at how many boys do not wear headgear. The games are getting more and more physical and so many issues around concussion - would love to see a school take an initiative and make in mandatory

I get where you are coming from but there has been quite a bit of research done in NZ which shows there is absolutely no evidence that head gear stops or even reduces concussion. Just look at the NFL and the concussion and brain injury problems that they are having over in the US with the helmets they are wearing. It certainly reduces lacerations to the heads and a few bump and rub bruises, but not concussion ( which is basically the brain impacting against the skull, i'm not a doctor). In fact there have been some suggestions made that there has been some increase in neck injuries at the tackle which can be put down to boys with head gear feeling a bit invincible and accordingly using bad technique. In addition there is a lot of rugby played on the fringes of winter in Australia, where the conditions can be incredibly hot. Your head is one of the main outlets for body heat, and running around in 25-30+ heat with head gear on is not going to help with overheating and associated health conditions. I've watched more years of junior rugby than I care to remember, and I can honestly say that my personal experience has been that I've seen more concussions with kids wearing head gear than not. Others experiences may be different, but that's certainly been mine.

 

[Pilfer]

St Aloysius defeated a weak canberra (I think Marist) team on Saturday at willoughby. The game was broken down into 4 x 20 minute quarters, with a lot of subs. There was a clear distinction between a first squad playing the last 40 minutes and a 2nd's squad playing the opening 40.

In the first 40 minutes the canberra team scored three tries against aloys, with 2 tries coming from over 80 meter breaks; one from a turnover and the other from a regathered kick, both originating from within the canberra defensive 22. However whilst Marist were the stronger team, the scored board didn't fullly represent the game as a whole, with aloys coming close to the try line mutilple times, only to be let down by pour ball handling, and lapses of concentration. Definitely some improvement needed from the team, but it's only the first hit out, so I wouldn't worry too much

The next forty minutes saw the games intensity definitely step up a notch. A full team substitution occurred for aloys (including change of jerseys), whereas I would approximate only about a half to 3/4 of the canberra team changed. From there aloys dominated, scoring 6 unanswered tries, four in the twenty minutes of the third quarter. The back line looked classy particularly the the strong centre and five eight combinations, setting up numerous breaks in the midfield. However it was the wings that were the starts of the show. A sheil-dick in red headgear (not sure which one their twins) performed outstanding making many meters and palming of many opponents. The man of the match in my eyes was the other wing Alec diamond (that guy is a unit) setting up tries and racking up massive distances, and putting on one of the largest don't argues I have ever seen. The forwards performed strongly as well, turning over the ball and winning some defensive a scrums! However to Canberra's credit they scored to consolidation tries at the end, which points to worry signs over aloys ability to play a full 80 minutes.

Overall good game by aloys 1's, however against an ordinary opposition. I think the end score line was 33 -28 seeing as it was only technically one game.

Disclaimer - as you can probably tell I support aloys, as I am old boy of the school. Also sorry about any bad grammar, English was never my strong point

 

[RugbyFan14]

Commenting on the parents when you do not know them or the boy or the situation is just malicious gossip. (Mod Note: Source Comment has been deleted)

It's a well run school program, with a coach who knows what he is doing, parents who know rugby and their boy very well; and a 15 year old boy who handles himself wonderfully on and off the field.

We could take a different tack and instead of finding fault, marvel that a boy is capable of playing at that level at a such young age.

 

[RedBlue]

Commenting on the parents when you do not know them or the boy or the situation is just malicious gossip. (Mod Note: Source Comment has been deleted)
It's a well run school program, with a coach who knows what he is doing, parents who know rugby and their boy very well; and a 15 year old boy who handles himself wonderfully on and off the field.

We could take a different tack and instead of finding fault, marvel that a boy is capable of playing at that level at a such young age.

I have watched this particular boy play in many of my sons teams and in other teams for many years and I agree with your what you are saying. I think he has put in a lot of time into practicing especially for a young boy. I watched the 1st XV game on the weekend and he did not look out of his depth. He got hit late and hard a few times but got straight up, I think he did very well with no go forward from his pack and not much communication from other players. If physicality is a question people are having for him. He was awarded a penalty for the other player holding on, so he can compete at rucks and he tackled just about anything that came at him.

 

[Bad boy]

Agree Barker are in for a tough year. This year and next especially there is very little depth. When a few boys are out sick (like this weekend) it will be tough. Remember these are trials so fair enough that the new coaches try a few of the u16s to see what they have. Also remember that Barker doesn't have rugby training as a summer sport and the team doesn't usually come together until the short tour at the end of Term 1.

The comments re the yr9 boy are off the mark. He's an outstanding rep player who handled himself well. The way he directed traffic and was calling team mates into position was impressive. It's always hard for a half back when the forwards are going backwards. Very early on there was a penalty for a late hit on him by one of the big Stannies second rowers - so they were clearly targeting him and to his credit he never flinched.

Overall a very poor day for Barker. Undersized forwards pushed off almost every scrum and generally going backwards; zero penetration in the backline. Late try not much of a consolation. On the positive side they were well organised and never gave up. Looking ahead to Knox i fear we don't have the strength upfront or speed out wide. Anyway too early in the season for gloom, trials are trials.

Who are the new coaches?

Because if the coach from last year is still there he is employed as the man in charge of strength and conditioning (and paid very well mind you as I mentioned last year) and developing the whole program so Barker has depth and strength in all grades.

This year and coming years will show that he failed in this area and if he is still there he should be moved on as he has done nothing over the years for Barkers development. In 2004, 2005 and 2006 Barker won the CAS in the first and beat the big rivals such as Waverley and Knox in more than 20 of the 30 games. In 2007 they might not have won the 1st XV but we're still dominant in more than half the teams in year 7 through to 12.

God I hope he has moved on but if not he should be given a BIG SHAKE UP!!!!!

 

[William]

Agree Barker are in for a tough year. This year and next especially there is very little depth. When a few boys are out sick (like this weekend) it will be tough. Remember these are trials so fair enough that the new coaches try a few of the u16s to see what they have. Also remember that Barker doesn't have rugby training as a summer sport and the team doesn't usually come together until the short tour at the end of Term 1.

The comments re the yr9 boy are off the mark. He's an outstanding rep player who handled himself well. The way he directed traffic and was calling team mates into position was impressive. It's always hard for a half back when the forwards are going backwards. Very early on there was a penalty for a late hit on him by one of the big Stannies second rowers - so they were clearly targeting him and to his credit he never flinched.

Overall a very poor day for Barker. Undersized forwards pushed off almost every scrum and generally going backwards; zero penetration in the backline. Late try not much of a consolation. On the positive side they were well organised and never gave up. Looking ahead to Knox i fear we don't have the strength upfront or speed out wide. Anyway too early in the season for gloom, trials are trials.

disagree totally - he was hammered at least twice and just physical size - not a good thing. That he was probably targeted and not protected by a decent pack was not good

shame on school for picking him and putting him in this position in the first place

 

[William]

I have watched this particular boy play in many of my sons teams and in other teams for many years and I agree with your what you are saying. I think he has put in a lot of time into practicing especially for a young boy. I watched the 1st XV game on the weekend and he did not look out of his depth. He got hit late and hard a few times but got straight up, I think he did very well with no go forward from his pack and not much communication from other players. If physicality is a question people are having for him. He was awarded a penalty for the other player holding on, so he can compete at rucks and he tackled just about anything that came at him.

i think that the point is this boy and we know him well through club and jgc - loves his rugby and would never say no to this opportunity. However there comes a time and place where schools use their common sense and do not put boys in these positions. Dont put this pressure on the boy whose true passion is rugby and couldnt say no
disgraceful school administration

 

[M squad 2015]

Who are the new coaches?

Because if the coach from last year is still there he is employed as the man in charge of strength and conditioning (and paid very well mind you as I mentioned last year) and developing the whole program so Barker has depth and strength in all grades.

This year and coming years will show that he failed in this area and if he is still there he should be moved on as he has done nothing over the years for Barkers development. In 2004, 2005 and 2006 Barker won the CAS in the first and beat the big rivals such as Waverley and Knox in more than 20 of the 30 games. In 2007 they might not have won the 1st XV but we're still dominant in more than half the teams in year 7 through to 12.

God I hope he has moved on but if not he should be given a BIG SHAKE UP!!!!!

Word on the grape vine is that barker backs coach used to coach riverview (1st XV 2008 premiership year - not Barry Smith). He has also been mentored (as a coach) by dave rennie. Barker although have been quiet on this forum can still like previous years have some dominant performances

 

[rugbynut2010]

The ARU Policy is that no player can play more than 2 years up an age.

To play 2 years up an age eg 16 year old in 18s comp, the player most complete a two year window policy form which must be signed off by a parent, and competition manager and most importantly a level 2 accredited coach.

The level 2 coach assesses the player against skill level, physical development, level of experience and competition standard.

This is the same for a player who wants to play senior under the age if 18.

There is a even longer process if they wish to play in the Front Row.

I have signed off on a number for players as a level 2 coach in the past.

 

[William88]

Who are the new coaches?

In 2004, 2005 and 2006 Barker won the CAS in the first and beat the big rivals such as Waverley and Knox in more than 20 of the 30 games.

!

Waverley won in 2004.

(Joint)

 

[Bad boy]

Waverley won in 2004.

No they didn't....both ended up on same points Barker was undefeated and because CAS had attempted to introduce a CAS bonus point system both ended equal but both sports master and head master agreed Barker won as they were undefeated and had beaten Waverley. The bonus point system was then dropped as you could end up with a farcical system where a team who lost 2 games could still win the comp against an undefeated side.

 

[William88]

No they didn't..both ended up on same points Barker was undefeated and because CAS had attempted to introduce a CAS bonus point system both ended equal but both sports master and head master agreed Barker won as they were undefeated and had beaten Waverley. The bonus point system was then dropped as you could end up with a farcical system where a team who lost 2 games could still win the comp against an undefeated side.

It was a joint win by both schools according to the rules that were applied at that time.

 

[Bad boy]

It was a joint win by both schools according to the rules that were applied at that time.

Naaaaa...Shield only has Barkers name on it as agreed by those mentioned

 

[William88]

Naaaaa.Shield only has Barkers name on it as agreed by those mentioned

http://www.cas.nsw.edu.au/home/winter-sports/rugby/previous-winners/