Sydney Colts - 2016

[OldColt]

Where I was thinking with the front row replacement and points thing, is that "uncontested" is purely a safety issue and is not available as a player points management tool. ie you have to sub a front rower if you have one. If that takes you over the points limit, so be it, that's down to player points management and has nothing to do with safety. I'm always concerned when something that is designed out of a genuine concern for player safety is gamed. It diminishes us all in our genuine concern for each other.

Completely agree, H - calling uncontested scrums because of concern about exceeding the points is totally unacceptable, and Easts should be ashamed of themselves!

 

[the coach]

If you check Easts 1st colts points they still had room to put a front rower on to cover the yellow card so there excuse of points is not valid.

East's listing shows the run on team totalled 38 points v the allowance of 40. Their are 2 subs listed (1 point each) which, if they had taken the field at some point, would have moved Easts to 40 points and therefore unable to make any more subs. Not sure why the 2 subs haven't been included in the total -- did they take the field?

 

[Hugie]

They did sub but I didn't pay any attention who. They didn't sub any front rowers, and neither did SD so both front rows had a big day at the office.

For all the talk about the points system I didn't think there was much difference between the players ability or fitness (which made it a great game), the difference was the coaches. East where clearly much better coached (without any really dominant individuals), they knew what they wanted to do when, and they had a strategy to play to their strengths.

 

[7083]

The points for club champ and standings will change once Randwick correct their mistaken entry v Gordon. They mistakenly added a try and mistakenly changed one conversion to one penalty..... mistakenly of course.

 

[Brian Westlake]

The points for club champ and standings will change once Randwick correct their mistaken entry v Gordon. They mistakenly added a try and mistakenly changed one conversion to one penalty... mistakenly of course.

And your manager signed off on it...Mistakenly of course.
If you go through the proper channels and stop bleating about it here your little world will get back on its axis.
Just remember, you have to knock SEVEN times.

 

[redblack]

East's listing shows the run on team totalled 38 points v the allowance of 40. Their are 2 subs listed (1 point each) which, if they had taken the field at some point, would have moved Easts to 40 points and therefore unable to make any more subs. Not sure why the 2 subs haven't been included in the total -- did they take the field?

Interestingly 1 of the subs was worth 2 points in 2nd grade and only 1 point in 1sts...Hopefully it gets resolved soon...It looks like there maybe a few more than 3 teams in contention this year

 

[the baz]

the points system seems difficult, in that, if the player incorrectly informs the club of the level he played, he may be attributed the wrong points. I know the hooker for woods played nsw schools last year, and is only attributed 2 points, whereas he should be 4. But if he does not inform the club, how are they to know? it will be interesting to see how the PP change as the season progresses.

 

[7083]

And your manager signed off on it.Mistakenly of course.
If you go through the proper channels and stop bleating about it here your little world will get back on its axis.
Just remember, you have to knock SEVEN times.

Actually the Gordon manager signed off on 3 tries and 1 conversion.
The data entered by Randwick was 4 tries and 1 penalty. Gordon have "knocked" more then 7 times to both Randwick and Sydney/NSW

 

[sarcophilus]

the points system seems difficult, in that, if the player incorrectly informs the club of the level he played, he may be attributed the wrong points. I know the hooker for woods played nsw schools last year, and is only attributed 2 points, whereas he should be 4. But if he does not inform the club, how are they to know? it will be interesting to see how the PP change as the season progresses.

really...... ??? that would be down there with bond loosing his memory and Shane warnes mum

 

[forwards4ever]

They did sub but I didn't pay any attention who. They didn't sub any front rowers, and neither did SD so both front rows had a big day at the office.

Easts actually subbed 2 front rowers-one went off concussed and then his replacement had a broken wrist!

 

[I like to watch]

the points system seems difficult, in that, if the player incorrectly informs the club of the level he played, he may be attributed the wrong points. I know the hooker for woods played nsw schools last year, and is only attributed 2 points, whereas he should be 4. But if he does not inform the club, how are they to know? it will be interesting to see how the PP change as the season progresses.

I'm quite sure that a player points audit would make quite a few clubs squirm.
But in the case quoted, a player accrues 4 points for making NSW Schools, however it is then discounted by a point for each year they have played jnrs to a max 50%.
Pretty sure that one is legit.

 

[OldColt]

I'm quite sure that a player points audit would make quite a few clubs squirm.
But in the case quoted, a player accrues 4 points for making NSW Schools, however it is then discounted by a point for each year they have played jnrs to a max 50%.
Pretty sure that one is legit.

An audit of player points sounds like a great idea, and perhaps financial penalties or the loss of competition points where breaches are identified should be factored in.

Re the Easts vs Souths 1st grade game - as the coach pointed out, the run-on team for Easts totalled 38 player points, with the two reserves being allocated 1 point each. Forwards4ever reports that both subs were used, taking Easts to the maximum of 40 points for the game - which would be fine, if they didn't use any more subs (and if they had included the PP for the subs in the total!). Unfortunately, it seems that the points allocated to the subs were incorrect, because they were given 2 points each in the 2nd grade team sheets, and so the Easts 1st grade total should actually be 42. But what happens now?

By way of comparison, the team lists showed a total PP of 25/40 (should have been 26) for Souths in 1st grade, and in 2nd grade Easts had a PP total of 33/35 vs Souths 15/35.

Rather than allowing clubs to stockpile the superstars, the NSWRU might consider implementing a secondment system, so that the players with 5 or 6 points can spend a season with one of the less-well off clubs, sharing their skills and knowledge and providing some on and off-field leadership, before taking their place among the star-studded line-ups.

 

[the baz]

I'm quite sure that a player points audit would make quite a few clubs squirm.

But in the case quoted, a player accrues 4 points for making NSW Schools, however it is then discounted by a point for each year they have played jnrs to a max 50%.

Pretty sure that one is legit.

well he did play for avoca beach rugby last season, and was a junior there, so no discount available.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Could it be that the hooker for the Woodies just happens to have the same name as the Former Avoca Beach junior.

Discounts are also available if a sibling was at the club the previous year, or if they are the son of a former player.

"How is a club to know if a player was at DIV I Schoolboys tournament the previous year?"
In my experience nearly all clubs know who was at National Champs the previous year. Most clubs have at least one representative there. Secondly, the list of players is published on any number of web sites, and a Google search would turn up the various squad lists pretty quickly. It isn't hard to run a quick google check of any new players schoolboy rockstar status.

And on the subject of player points cap calculation changes,it seems to have had an impact on the ability of some clubs to develop some depth by giving some second and third graders a cameo in a higher grade. Instead of being able to give up to 8 lower grade players from the bench some time in a higher grade, many team sheets are reporting only two or three subs have been used, when last year those clubs would have "blooded" a full bench.

Some may say that this is achieving the intent of the player points cap, however it does lead to situations that the Beasties faced on the weekend.

 

[Dexter]

Yes it is starting to achieve the intent of the points cap. I think we are on the right track. Already this year we have seen top schoolboy players go to 3 clubs instead of 2 due to their want to play 1st grade. We need to understand this mind set. They want to play 1st grade in their first year out. In future years the spread across clubs will only be enhanced by the fact that better players likely cannot even be played from the bench at the stronger clubs with this new system in place.

Where to from here? Stand by a policy for once... Audit the points cap and penalise heavily for breaches:

1) If a team can't make an injury substitution because of a player points breach then they play the remainder of the match with 14 men as if they had made their 8 subs already.

2) In the case of Easts with a yellow card to a front row player then they would have to play with 13 by removing the player they would have subbed for the front row replacement.

3) If a team breaches the cap then the result is a forfeit to the opposing team regardless. Financial, competition & club championship penalties remain the same as if they forfeited the match on the day.

This places the accountability back onto the clubs where it should be. Not being able to blood players from the bench is not the issue. The issue is not having the best players in the state playing 1st grade each week where they would be accelerating their development. This would also allow a greater number of 'middle of the range' players to be blooded from the bench at all clubs. Another win for rugby.

 

[Brian Westlake]

Yes it is starting to achieve the intent of the points cap. I think we are on the right track. Already this year we have seen top schoolboy players go to 3 clubs instead of 2 due to their want to play 1st grade. We need to understand this mind set. They want to play 1st grade in their first year out. In future years the spread across clubs will only be enhanced by the fact that better players likely cannot even be played from the bench at the stronger clubs with this new system in place.

Where to from here? Stand by a policy for once. Audit the points cap and penalise heavily for breaches:

1) If a team can't make an injury substitution because of a player points breach then they play the remainder of the match with 14 men as if they had made their 8 subs already.

2) In the case of Easts with a yellow card to a front row player then they would have to play with 13 by removing the player they would have subbed for the front row replacement.

3) If a team breaches the cap then the result is a forfeit to the opposing team regardless. Financial, competition & club championship penalties remain the same as if they forfeited the match on the day.

This places the accountability back onto the clubs where it should be. Not being able to blood players from the bench is not the issue. The issue is not having the best players in the state playing 1st grade each week where they would be accelerating their development. This would also allow a greater number of 'middle of the range' players to be blooded from the bench at all clubs. Another win for rugby.

Great theory Dexter. Unfortunately a tragic reality is not aligned with this theory. If it were serious, NSW and Qld Country would still be strongholds for Rugby.

 

[Brian Westlake]

Actually the Gordon manager signed off on 3 tries and 1 conversion.
The data entered by Randwick was 4 tries and 1 penalty. Gordon have "knocked" more then 7 times to both Randwick and Sydney/NSW

Take it to the secret door. Not here.

 

[forwards4ever]

Yes it is starting to achieve the intent of the points cap. I think we are on the right track. Already this year we have seen top schoolboy players go to 3 clubs instead of 2 due to their want to play 1st grade. We need to understand this mind set. They want to play 1st grade in their first year out. In future years the spread across clubs will only be enhanced by the fact that better players likely cannot even be played from the bench at the stronger clubs with this new system in place.

Where to from here? Stand by a policy for once. Audit the points cap and penalise heavily for breaches:

1) If a team can't make an injury substitution because of a player points breach then they play the remainder of the match with 14 men as if they had made their 8 subs already.

2) In the case of Easts with a yellow card to a front row player then they would have to play with 13 by removing the player they would have subbed for the front row replacement.

3) If a team breaches the cap then the result is a forfeit to the opposing team regardless. Financial, competition & club championship penalties remain the same as if they forfeited the match on the day.

This places the accountability back onto the clubs where it should be. Not being able to blood players from the bench is not the issue. The issue is not having the best players in the state playing 1st grade each week where they would be accelerating their development. This would also allow a greater number of 'middle of the range' players to be blooded from the bench at all clubs. Another win for rugby.

The issue here is the availability or the desire of staff in SRU to police the player points. There just doesnt seem to be that want or ability to do so!

 

[Dave Beat]

Actually the Gordon manager signed off on 3 tries and 1 conversion.
The data entered by Randwick was 4 tries and 1 penalty. Gordon have "knocked" more then 7 times to both Randwick and Sydney/NSW

In good merit Gordon v Manly - points are on the board - could we possibly hear more about Pulver growing rugby through high schools and into colts.

I hear that is his plan.
But am to busy at present to find out how he wants to execute it.

 

[Shadow]

With the points system there has to be a better way to do this. The system is full of holes to exploit it and it is making clubs dob in other clubs and is that the true essence of colts rugby?
just seems a shame that all the work needed to collate the players points, the weekly going ons about which club did this and that plus the extra work put onto the very limited staff at nswru because of 1 club initialy
Who makes up the rules each season? Is the club presidents or club GM? Most of these guys are newbies, maybe they should ask the people in charge of the colts programs who are at the coalface.