School sporting scholarships/recruitment

[Spieber]

With the more recent rule of getting a scrum where you kicked it you cannot just rake down field and invite the leeward team to try and get out of their 22 from the dropout - it won't work.

Not so quick grasshopper - do not forget that God invented the drop kick for a reason - to take advantage of a gale force win - one simply takes speculative field goals shots from within your own half

 

[Inside Shoulder]

standing on the sideline looking into the breeze

If you were standing on the sideline looking into the breeze that would tend to contradict your argument.

 

[Gobstar]

If you were standing on the sideline looking into the breeze that would tend to contradict your argument.

Which argument? That all 8 tries were scored at one end - by whichever team had the wind behind them? Or that 3 to 4 penalty kicks into the breeze from inside the 20 metre line failed to find touch?
Or the argument that the halftime score was due to the Scots boys being psyched out by newspaper and Green And Gold Rugby reports that they don't read? Oh - that was your argument, made without any factual basis whatsoever.
And, because you seem to lack perspective having watched the game (or just a small part thereof) on a screen rather than at the ground, by standing in the north-east corner just in line with the goal line, I was in a position to know where the breeze was coming from and have a slightly more informed view of any effect it may have had (although, by being irrelevantly pedantic, you have correctly pointed out that I wasn't looking EXACTLY into the breeze for most of the match - well done to you).

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Which argument? That all 8 tries were scored at one end - by whichever team had the wind behind them? Or that 3 to 4 penalty kicks into the breeze from inside the 20 metre line failed to find touch?
Or the argument that the halftime score was due to the Scots boys being psyched out by newspaper and Green And Gold Rugby reports that they don't read? Oh - that was your argument, made without any factual basis whatsoever.
And, because you seem to lack perspective having watched the game (or just a small part thereof) on a screen rather than at the ground, by standing in the north-east corner just in line with the goal line, I was in a position to know where the breeze was coming from and have a slightly more informed view of any effect it may have had (although, by being irrelevantly pedantic, you have correctly pointed out that I wasn't looking EXACTLY into the breeze for most of the match - well done to you).

It may have been a small screen but I wasn't looking at it with, either, 1 eye or rose coloured glasses.

 

[Quick Hands]

Which argument? That all 8 tries were scored at one end - by whichever team had the wind behind them? Or that 3 to 4 penalty kicks into the breeze from inside the 20 metre line failed to find touch?
Or the argument that the halftime score was due to the Scots boys being psyched out by newspaper and Green And Gold Rugby reports that they don't read? Oh - that was your argument, made without any factual basis whatsoever.
And, because you seem to lack perspective having watched the game (or just a small part thereof) on a screen rather than at the ground, by standing in the north-east corner just in line with the goal line, I was in a position to know where the breeze was coming from and have a slightly more informed view of any effect it may have had (although, by being irrelevantly pedantic, you have correctly pointed out that I wasn't looking EXACTLY into the breeze for most of the match - well done to you).

I think his comment was meant to be humourous.

 

[Gobstar]

It may have been a small screen but I wasn't looking at it with, either, 1 eye or rose coloured glasses.

C'mon IS - you're smarter than this. Unfounded responses which are so remote from the original point (whether the breeze or whether the effect of the week's commentary getting into the Scots players' minds influenced the halftime score) aren't up to your usual informed and coherent banter.
I'm the father of a uni student who went to a CAS school for the past 6 years (and Scots & Riverview were the enemy when I played GPS rugby decades ago) so my view is fairly disinterested.
An Iggies old boy standing next to me commented after the first 20 minutes that he thought it was a three try breeze. I hadn't really thought about it up to that point but certainly noticed the little things subsequently.
There's little argument that Scots played poorly in the first half and I've rarely seen a schoolboy attack as composed, controlled and self-assured as View in the first 35 minutes. But the home team started to run out of petrol in the 2nd half and the difficulty they had getting field position drained them further. And the wind was a factor.
Speak to some spectators who were there. You're original hypothesis that the Scots boys were adversely effected by the previous week's press remains highly speculative, at best.
Let's get back to discussing rugby.

 

[Quick Hands]

There's little argument that Scots played poorly in the first half and I've rarely seen a schoolboy attack as composed, controlled and self-assured as View in the first 35 minutes. But the home team started to run out of petrol in the 2nd half and the difficulty they had getting field position drained them further. And the wind was a factor.

It seems from all reports that View came out and new they had to put points on early and play at their absolute best to win the game. Clearly the prevailing wind played some role in that. As I said in the week before the game - very difficult to keep this Scots side contained as to do so requires 70 minutes of well-organised defence and high speed attack. This Scots team are in peak physical condition as well as being well-prepared tactically. It shouldn't surprise anyone that they finished more strongly than their opponents.

Although we are on the wrong thread to be talking about the rugby match.

 

[Gobstar]

It seems from all reports that View came out and new they had to put points on early and play at their absolute best to win the game. Clearly the prevailing wind played some role in that. As I said in the week before the game - very difficult to keep this Scots side contained as to do so requires 70 minutes of well-organised defence and high speed attack. This Scots team are in peak physical condition as well as being well-prepared tactically. It shouldn't surprise anyone that they finished more strongly than their opponents.

Although we are on the wrong thread to be talking about the rugby match.

Especially running into a "three try wind" in the second half!

 

[leagueman]

Especially running into a "three try wind" in the second half!

Certainly the wind was a factor but the fact Petterson was binned for 10 minutes cost View the game . Scots scored 4 tries whilst he was off . When he returned it was a dogfight until Scots took an intercept on the hooter .

 

[Gobstar]

Certainly the wind was a factor but the fact Petterson was binned for 10 minutes cost View the game . Scots scored 4 tries whilst he was off . When he returned it was a dogfight until Scots took an intercept on the hooter .

No doubt the binning was the turning point. But it's unusual for a team reduced to 14 players to concede 4 tries in 10 minutes. Especially in such a close fought match. As I've said earlier, it just seems the Riverview boys were out of gas and couldn't relieve any pressure because the breeze kept them pinned. They deserved better!

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Or the argument that the halftime score was due to the Scots boys being psyched out by newspaper and Green And Gold Rugby reports that they don't read?

A disinterested observer? or

You're original hypothesis that the Scots boys were adversely effected by the previous week's press remains highly speculative, at best.

Which is it to be?
I mean, if you are disinterested then you could not know whether they read the papers or not. Of course its now on websites and it was on the radio as well.
They may even have friends at others schools - and its been something of a topic with them on twitter and Facebook.
More importantly the justification for hooking into me is that there would have been no effect on the boys: what if there was, though? Isn't the risk of that more important than the game and whether it was a 21 point - or in other hands a 31 point - breeze?
And this thread is not for talking about rugby as such - but I think you have the distinction of being the first poster on it to suggest we return to it!

 

[Jasdec]

No doubt the binning was the turning point. But it's unusual for a team reduced to 14 players to concede 4 tries in 10 minutes. Especially in such a close fought match. As I've said earlier, it just seems the Riverview boys were out of gas and couldn't relieve any pressure because the breeze kept them pinned. They deserved better!

I agree. View No5 was given a yellow card for a deliberate knee to the head of the Scots 12. I thought he was lucky to return at all. View 15 was sailing close to the wind at times and his "haymaker/handbag shot" in the first half luckily for him didn't connect, although it looked impressive.
And yes the absence of the No5 coincided with the empty tank light coming on. Still, a great game and extra blood pressure tablets required for the supporters of both sides.

 

[Brian Westlake]

A disinterested observer? or


Which is it to be?
I mean, if you are disinterested then you could not know whether they read the papers or not. Of course its now on websites and it was on the radio as well.
They may even have friends at others schools - and its been something of a topic with them on twitter and Facebook.
More importantly the justification for hooking into me is that there would have been no effect on the boys: what if there was, though? Isn't the risk of that more important than the game and whether it was a 21 point - or in other hands a 31 point - breeze?
And this thread is not for talking about rugby as such - but I think you have the distinction of being the first poster on it to suggest we return to it!

Ne perdez pas votre temps, mon ami

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Ne perdez pas votre temps, mon ami

Dieu merci pour google translate

 

[Brian Westlake]

After that, I can only order 4 beers a steak and ask where the brascoe is hahaha

 

[cyclopath]

After that, I can only order 4 beers a steak and ask where the brascoe is hahaha

I can only tell someone that Jean-Paul and Marie-France are in the kitchen. Limited utility, so I have adopted the Gallic shrug and "hmmmmphh" which gets better traction.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[cyclopath]

"Better". Merde iPad!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Rugby Mum 3]

Like it or loathe it. There is no doubt that TSC now have the number one pathway for a boy to become a professional rugby player. That is provided they are in the A team, and to be in the A’s in the senior school, it is most likely they are not a full paying student.

If you look at the results for TSC on the weekend, in the main, out of all their senior teams, only their A teams won. 40% of the total games where against SGS, of which they only won 25%. It therefore begs the question. Why would you pay the highest school fees in Australia, for a pathway you are never going to be on and be satisfied to bask in someone else’s glory, and to enjoy a school HSC ranking of 88? Is that a good ROI? It is when the denominator is much less than everyone else.

How smart are these TSC parents?

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I can only tell someone that Jean-Paul and Marie-France are in the kitchen. Limited utility, so I have adopted the Gallic shrug and "hmmmmphh" which gets better traction.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Maybe we're closer in age than I thought: those two have joined Dick and Dora in the great educational trash heap, with Samuelson et al and AJP Taylor and amo, amas, amat.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Like it or loathe it. There is no doubt that TSC now have the number one pathway for a boy to become a professional rugby player. That is provided they are in the A team, and to be in the A’s in the senior school, it is most likely they are not a full paying student.

If you look at the results for TSC on the weekend, in the main, out of all their senior teams, only their A teams won. 40% of the total games where against SGS, of which they only won 25%. It therefore begs the question. Why would you pay the highest school fees in Australia, for a pathway you are never going to be on and be satisfied to bask in someone else’s glory, and to enjoy a school HSC ranking of 88? Is that a good ROI? It is when the denominator is much less than everyone else.

How smart are these TSC parents?

To be fair TSC Cs, mostly, were playing SGS As and so on.