Sydney Colts - 2016

[RelaxedRugby]

Clean sweep for the Beasts today

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Round 4 Results

W. McMahon Memorial Shield - Colts 1
Eastwood 31 Northern Suburbs 26
Sydney University 31 Manly 13
Parramatta 19 Warringah 5
Randwick 51 Penrith 12
Eastern Suburbs 41 Southern Districts 10
Gordon 59 West Harbour 15

Shell Trophy - Colts 2
Eastwood 3 Northern Suburbs 29
Sydney University 54 Manly 0
Parramatta 5 Warringah 37
Randwick 118 Penrith 0
Eastern Suburbs 36 Southern Districts 7
Gordon 41 West Harbour 14

Bill Simpson Shield - Colts 3
Eastwood 29 Northern Suburbs 19
Sydney University 36 Manly 14
Parramatta 27 Warringah 12
Randwick 36 Penrith 14
Eastern Suburbs 18 Southern Districts 5
Gordon 19 West Harbour 21


Round 5 Games - 16 April
Parramatta v Eastern Suburbs
Warringah v Gordon
Penrith v Manly
Eastwood v Randwick
Northern Suburbs v Southern Districts
West Harbour v Sydney University

Edit: Incorrect Scores reported on Sat Night corrected.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

2016 Eric Spilsted Shield (Colts Club Championship) Table:
(after Round 4)
There are a maximum of 55 points available to a club each week, based on all 3 colts teams winning with a 4 try BP.

Sydney University, 197 points
Gordon, 180 points
Eastwood, 167 points
Eastern Suburbs, 151 points (up 1 place)
Randwick, 136 points (up 4 places)
Southern Districts, 113 points (down 2 places)
Northern Suburbs, 102 points (down 1 place)
West Harbour, 92 points (down 1 place)
Warringah, 83 points (up 1 place)
Manly, 81 points
Parramatta, 50 points
Penrith, 6 points


How the Colts Club Championship table is calculated.
The competition points from the individual competitions are multiplied by the following factors and then added together.
Colts 1 - 6
Colts 2 - 3
Colts 3 - 2

http://rugby.fusesport.com/rugby/results/external/summaryladder.asp?ladder=1168&OrgID=010100

 

[Quick Hands]

I reckon they need to introduce a points cap in the registration process.
No club can register more than X points in any one year.
You could even fine tune it by permitting higher points for clubs which finished lower in the previous season.

How many points for movie stars?

I see the Rats have one Rhett Butler playing half back.

 

[Norfolk & Chance]

Round 4 Results

W. McMahon Memorial Shield - Colts 1
Eastwood 31 Northern Suburbs 26
Sydney University 31 Manly 13
Parramatta 19 Warringah 5
Randwick 51 Penrith 12
Eastern Suburbs 41 Southern Districts 10
Gordon 59 West Harbour 15

Shell Trophy - Colts 2
Eastwood 29 Northern Suburbs 3
Sydney University 54 Manly 0
Parramatta 5 Warringah 37
Randwick 118 Penrith 0
Eastern Suburbs 36 Southern Districts 7
Gordon 41 West Harbour 14

Bill Simpson Shield - Colts 3
Eastwood 29 Northern Suburbs 19
Sydney University 36 Manly 14
Parramatta 27 Warringah 12
Randwick 36 Penrith 14
Eastern Suburbs 18 Southern Districts 5
Gordon 19 West Harbour 21


Round 5 Games - 16 April
Parramatta v Eastern Suburbs
Warringah v Gordon
Penrith v Manly
Eastwood v Randwick
Northern Suburbs v Southern Districts
West Harbour v Sydney University

Colts 2 Northern Suburbs 29 Eastwood 3 is the correct score line.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

How many points for movie stars?

I see the Rats have one Rhett Butler playing half back.

Well if Movie Stars are worth extra "points", this bloke should push The Corporation over the points cap, unless he has been using the Invisibility Cloak.
Harry Potter was Sydney University Colts 2 Fullback in Round 3.

 

[Dave Beat]

Could anyone share more info on the Uni V Manly game - obviously the above suggest Uni had a whole heap of movie stars.

I bumped into a very proud coach last night and apparently there was only a couple in i for most of the game against a 14 man Manly side who took it to the Hollywood stars.

 

[Hugie]

In yesterdays SD vs Easts Colts 1 game SD were pushing Easts line hard in the 2nd half when the Easts hooker was yellow carded for "repeated". Scrum 5m out in front of the posts. SD had the dominant scrum and now Easts are down to 7 (pushover time), noooooo, Easts call "uncontested".

I could see a number of very experienced and good front rowers in the Easts camp and so made respectful enquiries. The story I got was that Easts couldn't sub without going over the points cap. Surely not, "uncontested" is a safety issue and has nothing to do with points caps. They had not subbed any front rowers surely they are obliged to have 3 on the bench (it looked like they did).

I think this was really unfortunate as the game was a great game, 2 teams of Colts going at each other at full tilt and played in very good spirit. There was no chance they were going to loose at this point. Probably a call made by the coach not the boys, still very disappointing attitude.

What do GAGRs think of this, what seems like a technicality?

 

[the coach]

As I understand it, the points cap this year is cumulative ie all players who take the field are added into the total. So if the starting lineup is "x" points then a sub with "y" points results in a total of "x+y" points even if the sub has fewer points than the player he replaces.

I can understand the logic behind it as teams in the past have exploited the previous loophole by starting games with a low points player to remain under the cap and then quickly replacing him with a higher points player who, as long as he had played (ie run on for a few seconds) in a lower grade, didn't count towards the cap.

Clubs can't really complain about the new protocol as several of them didn't follow the spirit of the rule in the past.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

^^^^Sounds a bit dodgy... ... ... but
Most policy changes have unintended consequences. It seems that the continual tinkering of the Player Points System has not worked.

The target for the Player Points system seems to be the Clubs that actively recruit Talented Players as opposed to developing them from within their junior club ranks, on the basis of some accident of a residency decision made by a family. Study the playing history of most clubs and you will find a variety of anomalies if you look hard enough. Snow is seldom white as many claim it to be.

The papers are reporting that a family is pursuing a $1m law suit against Penrith Junior RL because six or so years ago a 10 year old boy was played in the Under 12's, allegedly without parental consent, and that child was injured during that game.

Is there any surprise that Coaches, not boys (young men), are erring on the side of safety and risk avoidance, and calling uncontested scrums.

 

[Dingasden]

^^^^Sounds a bit dodgy. . . but
Most policy changes have unintended consequences. It seems that the continual tinkering of the Player Points System has not worked.

The target for the Player Points system seems to be the Clubs that actively recruit Talented Players as opposed to developing them from within their junior club ranks, on the basis of some accident of a residency decision made by a family. Study the playing history of most clubs and you will find a variety of anomalies if you look hard enough. Snow is seldom white as many claim it to be.

The papers are reporting that a family is pursuing a $1m law suit against Penrith Junior RL because six or so years ago a 10 year old boy was played in the Under 12's, allegedly without parental consent, and that child was injured during that game.

Is there any surprise that Coaches, not boys (young men), are erring on the side of safety and risk avoidance, and calling uncontested scrums.

This has nothing to do with safety. .I'm sure there would have been at least one hooker amongst the 8 fresh reserves but to avoid going over player points they call uncontested. This makes a mockery of the game

 

[Bismarck]

Could anyone share more info on the Uni V Manly game - obviously the above suggest Uni had a whole heap of movie stars.

I bumped into a very proud coach last night and apparently there was only a couple in i for most of the game against a 14 man Manly side who took it to the Hollywood stars.

31-13, 1 red card for Manly prop. 3 yellows for Syd Uni. Tough game in first half and opened up in 2nd. Missing Clements, Girdler, Porter, O'Shea, Declan Moore and Luke Lough.

 

[I like to watch]

^^^^Sounds a bit dodgy. . . but
Most policy changes have unintended consequences. It seems that the continual tinkering of the Player Points System has not worked.

The target for the Player Points system seems to be the Clubs that actively recruit Talented Players as opposed to developing them from within their junior club ranks, on the basis of some accident of a residency decision made by a family. Study the playing history of most clubs and you will find a variety of anomalies if you look hard enough. Snow is seldom white as many claim it to be.

The papers are reporting that a family is pursuing a $1m law suit against Penrith Junior RL because six or so years ago a 10 year old boy was played in the Under 12's, allegedly without parental consent, and that child was injured during that game.

Is there any surprise that Coaches, not boys (young men), are erring on the side of safety and risk avoidance, and calling uncontested scrums.

The targets are those clubs that recruit high concentrations of Schoolboy rockstars.
3 clubs in a 12 club Comp cornering the market in rockstars is fucked.
It weakens the comp,and stifles the rockstars development cos they playing with and not against players that might test them.

The case of the 10yo has absolutely nothing to do with Easts signing more rockstars than they can use at one time.

As a few of us have been saying,put the restriction on who the clubs can register,not who they can play in particular game.

 

[the coach]

The targets are those clubs that recruit high concentrations of Schoolboy rockstars.
3 clubs in a 12 club Comp cornering the market in rockstars is fucked.
It weakens the comp,and stifles the rockstars development cos they playing with and not against players that might test them.

The case of the 10yo has absolutely nothing to do with Easts signing more rockstars than they can use at one time.

As a few of us have been saying,put the restriction on who the clubs can register,not who they can play in particular game.

Maybe we need both, but I've liked the idea of separate total Grade and Colts registration caps for some time with maybe even a negative offset for players who have come through the junior clubs in the area.

 

[Dave Beat]

31-13, 1 red card for Manly prop. 3 yellows for Syd Uni. Tough game in first half and opened up in 2nd. Missing Clements, Girdler, Porter, O'Shea, Declan Moore and Luke Lough.

heard it was 17 - 13 with not long to go?

 

[Hugie]

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.

 

[the baz]

Round 4 Results

<snip>

Shell Trophy - Colts 2

Eastwood 29 Northern Suburbs 3

<snip>

woods v norths in colts 2 - incorrect, woods lost.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

^^^ Noted. Thanks. Incorrect scores have been amended in the OP.

 

[Shadow]

Maybe we need both, but I've liked the idea of separate total Grade and Colts registration caps for some time with maybe even a negative offset for players who have come through the junior clubs in the area.

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.

 

[The Butts]

I signed hopeful that someone "up there" will listen.

http://www.rugbynews.net.au/grassroots-rugby-petition/