Bruce Ross
Ken Catchpole (46)
You're hypothesising a degree of rationality, Ryan? It's possible I suppose.
.
Sydney Colts - 2014
- Thread starter Hugh Jarse
- Start date
- Status
.
2bluesfan
Nev Cottrell (35)
Bruce, if you ever write a book I'll be buying a copy!
Blackers13
Syd Malcolm (24)
Agree with you Cattledog, Grade and Colts together makes for a great atmosphere for the spectators and players and builds club spirit. It also gives game day volunteers a break on the return fixtures.
The Butts
Herbert Moran (7)
Just because I haven't seen this "points for players" rule before, I thought I'd have a look to see how it works in reality 
Went through the First Colts' scores from the weekend, and it was interesting.
Added up the player points for run-on team then added points for reserves.
Math is a funny thing - and I know you can't use it to predict a winner - but . . . . interesting just the same.
Eastern Suburbs 28 (0+0) beat Randwick 14 (0+0)
Eastwood 32 (26+3) beat Northern Suburbs 29 (25+5)
Parramatta 51 (27+7) beat Gordon 22 (13+6)
Uni 71 (38+22) beat Penrith 0 (18+2)
Southern Districts 24 (10+4) beat Manly 21 (34+10)
West Harbout 24 (37+5) beat Warringah 10 (24+2)
* Can't form an opinion on Easts/Randwick because player points aren't up yet.
* Woodies and Norths should have been this close, as their player points are close.
* Score in Two Blues/Stags should have been about 39 to 22. So Parra played above themselves
* Uni should have beaten Penrith by 71 to 24
* Manly should have beaten Souths by 21 to 10
* The score in the West/Rats game should have been a bit closer
All this doesn't make a pile of crap really. Did this because I was bored, with nothing to do - so I definitely have to get out more
Covering up now, ready for the fan to start diverting the "stuff".
Went through the First Colts' scores from the weekend, and it was interesting.Added up the player points for run-on team then added points for reserves.
Math is a funny thing - and I know you can't use it to predict a winner - but . . . . interesting just the same.
Eastern Suburbs 28 (0+0) beat Randwick 14 (0+0)
Eastwood 32 (26+3) beat Northern Suburbs 29 (25+5)
Parramatta 51 (27+7) beat Gordon 22 (13+6)
Uni 71 (38+22) beat Penrith 0 (18+2)
Southern Districts 24 (10+4) beat Manly 21 (34+10)
West Harbout 24 (37+5) beat Warringah 10 (24+2)
* Can't form an opinion on Easts/Randwick because player points aren't up yet.
* Woodies and Norths should have been this close, as their player points are close.
* Score in Two Blues/Stags should have been about 39 to 22. So Parra played above themselves
* Uni should have beaten Penrith by 71 to 24
* Manly should have beaten Souths by 21 to 10
* The score in the West/Rats game should have been a bit closer
All this doesn't make a pile of crap really. Did this because I was bored, with nothing to do - so I definitely have to get out more
Covering up now, ready for the fan to start diverting the "stuff".
Player Points as Club regulated seems to have been misinterpreted by many clubs.
This "rule":
Discounts cannot index players below 50% of their points.
means that no player can ever be rated at 0, no matter how loyal they have been with the club.
So looking at the PP for First Grade Colts
Rats have registered 9 players at 0. These should be at least 1 point, so the Team points are more accurately 33 (24 points declared and 9 extra at 1 point minimum)
Emus have registered 4 players at 0 and 4 at - points. Assume that - is a new player = 2 points + 4 at minimum 1 point, the real figure for Penrith is 30 (18 declared and 12 extras)
Norths have declared 5 at 0 points. These are at minimum 1 point so their points should be 25 + 5 = 30.
Souths have declared 11 players at 0, 1 Schoolboy has been discounted to 2 (minimum of 3), and one NSW State plaver has been discounted to 1 (should be 2). Southe 2014 player points is 24 (10 declared + 11 + 1 + 1)
Two Blues have one player at -. Their points should be adjusted up by either 1 or 2. Assume 1, so their 2014 score was 28.
Gordon have listed 8 players at 0 points and 3 at -. the 8 players at 0 are minimum 1 point, and the 3 at - are either 1 or 2 points. Assuming that - is a new player and 2 points, their score should be 27 (13 declared + 8 @ 1 + 3 @ 2).
The other clubs seem to have not reduced anyone to 0 points, so while they may have discounted players to less then 50% due to loyalty, without investigating the individual CV's, it is not immediately obvious.
Bottom line, some clubs may need a reminder to read the fine print on the 2014 player points calculations.
I wonder if the "trend" is being repeated across Colts 2 and 1st and 2nd Grade?
This "rule":
Discounts cannot index players below 50% of their points.
means that no player can ever be rated at 0, no matter how loyal they have been with the club.
So looking at the PP for First Grade Colts
Rats have registered 9 players at 0. These should be at least 1 point, so the Team points are more accurately 33 (24 points declared and 9 extra at 1 point minimum)
Emus have registered 4 players at 0 and 4 at - points. Assume that - is a new player = 2 points + 4 at minimum 1 point, the real figure for Penrith is 30 (18 declared and 12 extras)
Norths have declared 5 at 0 points. These are at minimum 1 point so their points should be 25 + 5 = 30.
Souths have declared 11 players at 0, 1 Schoolboy has been discounted to 2 (minimum of 3), and one NSW State plaver has been discounted to 1 (should be 2). Southe 2014 player points is 24 (10 declared + 11 + 1 + 1)
Two Blues have one player at -. Their points should be adjusted up by either 1 or 2. Assume 1, so their 2014 score was 28.
Gordon have listed 8 players at 0 points and 3 at -. the 8 players at 0 are minimum 1 point, and the 3 at - are either 1 or 2 points. Assuming that - is a new player and 2 points, their score should be 27 (13 declared + 8 @ 1 + 3 @ 2).
The other clubs seem to have not reduced anyone to 0 points, so while they may have discounted players to less then 50% due to loyalty, without investigating the individual CV's, it is not immediately obvious.
Bottom line, some clubs may need a reminder to read the fine print on the 2014 player points calculations.
I wonder if the "trend" is being repeated across Colts 2 and 1st and 2nd Grade?
Seconds Colts Points review.
Same clubs seem to have misintrepreted the rules as in 1st Grade Colts.
Norths have 6 listed at 0 with two of those discounted to 0 being NSW State reps and minimum of 2 points (with max loyalty discount). This takes their total to 29 (21 declared, 4 at 1 point, 2 at 2 points, and they have had to put a 4 point player in 3rd grade and use them as a reserve for the 2's.
Uni scrape in at 30 points, but there looks like a couple of 1 point players that are new to the club in the list. Must have played Uni Juniors a long time ago.
Penrith have 5 at - and 4 at 0. Their Hugh PP score is probably 29 (15 declared, 4 @1 and 5 @2 point). At that rate they should be looking good to go close to Norths and just lose in a close on to Uni (as if!).
Souths have listed 9 players at 0. These are minimum 1 point so their Hugh PP score is calculated at 25 (16 declared and 9 @1).
Rats have declared 15 players at 0. These are minimum 1 point therefore their Hugh PP score is 22 (7 declared and 15 @1).
Gordon have listed 7 at 0 and 6 at -. Their Hugh PP score is 31 (14 declared, + 6 @ assumed 2 points and 7 @1).
Summary. Same clubs should review their assessments. Norths and Uni are sailing very close to the wind. Gordon may be close to being in breach. Some high point players are being warehoused in 3rd grade and being run on as a zero point reserve for the 2's. How is the Penrith team rated at a possible 29 points? There appears to be some unintended consequences of the 2014 adjustment to the Player points system.
No analysis of Beasts or Wicks in Colts 1 or Colts 2 because the team lists have not been published.
Same clubs seem to have misintrepreted the rules as in 1st Grade Colts.
Norths have 6 listed at 0 with two of those discounted to 0 being NSW State reps and minimum of 2 points (with max loyalty discount). This takes their total to 29 (21 declared, 4 at 1 point, 2 at 2 points, and they have had to put a 4 point player in 3rd grade and use them as a reserve for the 2's.
Uni scrape in at 30 points, but there looks like a couple of 1 point players that are new to the club in the list. Must have played Uni Juniors a long time ago.
Penrith have 5 at - and 4 at 0. Their Hugh PP score is probably 29 (15 declared, 4 @1 and 5 @2 point). At that rate they should be looking good to go close to Norths and just lose in a close on to Uni (as if!).
Souths have listed 9 players at 0. These are minimum 1 point so their Hugh PP score is calculated at 25 (16 declared and 9 @1).
Rats have declared 15 players at 0. These are minimum 1 point therefore their Hugh PP score is 22 (7 declared and 15 @1).
Gordon have listed 7 at 0 and 6 at -. Their Hugh PP score is 31 (14 declared, + 6 @ assumed 2 points and 7 @1).
Summary. Same clubs should review their assessments. Norths and Uni are sailing very close to the wind. Gordon may be close to being in breach. Some high point players are being warehoused in 3rd grade and being run on as a zero point reserve for the 2's. How is the Penrith team rated at a possible 29 points? There appears to be some unintended consequences of the 2014 adjustment to the Player points system.
No analysis of Beasts or Wicks in Colts 1 or Colts 2 because the team lists have not been published.
The Butts
Herbert Moran (7)
OK . . . can of worms . . . and I thought I was onto a good thing to pay off my mortgage through SportsBet. But I am a bit confused.
Just taking Colts 2nds for example:- if they have a maximum total loading of 30 points, and we take
This means that EVERY team would be on maximum points immediately. 15 players by 2 points.
But then we have discounts . . .
So we take:-
So - in my confusion - I think that some players CAN be at zero points?????? I'm quite prepared to be shown the errors of my ways. Although the elephant in the room is the only one type of discount may apply to a player.
Huge says that " Norths and Uni are sailing very close to the wind", when I get Uni at 30 points and 10 on the bench - and Norths are 21 and 9 on the bench.
And . . . "Gordon may be close to being in breach"? 14 points and 0 on the bench. If you give a 1 for the 0 and - players you still only get 23.
My confusion . . . . Norths and Uni players seem to have played together for some time now, yet are sailing close to the wind. While the majority of the Gordon players didn't even know each others name up to about a month ago, and they are close to being in breach.
Something is terribly wrong in Sydney Rugby, and I can't work out what it is. How are teams supposed to build up their Colts?????
Just taking Colts 2nds for example:- if they have a maximum total loading of 30 points, and we take
F (2 points)
All other players
All other players
This means that EVERY team would be on maximum points immediately. 15 players by 2 points.
But then we have discounts . . .
So we take:-
6. Discounts cannot index players into a negative score.
Which is a bit different to
Discounts cannot index players below 50% of their points. means that no player can ever be rated at 0, no matter how loyal they have been with the club.
So - in my confusion - I think that some players CAN be at zero points?????? I'm quite prepared to be shown the errors of my ways. Although the elephant in the room is the only one type of discount may apply to a player.
Huge says that " Norths and Uni are sailing very close to the wind", when I get Uni at 30 points and 10 on the bench - and Norths are 21 and 9 on the bench.
And . . . "Gordon may be close to being in breach"? 14 points and 0 on the bench. If you give a 1 for the 0 and - players you still only get 23.
My confusion . . . . Norths and Uni players seem to have played together for some time now, yet are sailing close to the wind. While the majority of the Gordon players didn't even know each others name up to about a month ago, and they are close to being in breach.
Something is terribly wrong in Sydney Rugby, and I can't work out what it is. How are teams supposed to build up their Colts?????
2bluesfan
Nev Cottrell (35)
I pity the coaches and managers who have to deal with this mess. I think it would be useful if an explanatory document (perhaps even some sort of spreadsheet or webpage with an appropriate calculator) could be issued from the powers that be. But I'm not holding my breath, I suspect the one remaining office coffee boy already has his hands full.
My read on the recent player points calculation amendment is that NO player ever be discounted to zero, no matter how loyal, or how low their previous representative honours may have been.
I take that to mean that Colts 2 are on maximum points if they are a brand new team, with none of the players having never played in the district before from U10 - U18 or colts.
The Team sheets submitted so far show plenty of players listed as "-". I take this to be a "I don't know what this player is worth because they have just rocked up and we haven't done the maths on them" i.e. most likely they are worth 2 points. With that scenario Gordon in my counting is close to going over. With no 3rds colts players to bench as "tired players" all the Gordon and Penrith bench are considered "fresh reserves" and therefore full points score applies for these players. A double whammy for Gordon who are so close to raising a 3rd grade colts team.
Player points caps is just one thing that is having unintended consequences in Sydney Rugby across the board.
Your second question. Yep, the latest points revision does make it very difficult to raise a Colts 2 team if there is no previous years colts 3's coming through the club, or retain a young team in Colts 1 for a second year. Playing more than 50% of the 2013 games for Colts 1 last year at your club is seen as being at the same skill level as a one of the 46 NSW State Schoolboy Reps the previous year (a few more play Combined States).
I take that to mean that Colts 2 are on maximum points if they are a brand new team, with none of the players having never played in the district before from U10 - U18 or colts.
The Team sheets submitted so far show plenty of players listed as "-". I take this to be a "I don't know what this player is worth because they have just rocked up and we haven't done the maths on them" i.e. most likely they are worth 2 points. With that scenario Gordon in my counting is close to going over. With no 3rds colts players to bench as "tired players" all the Gordon and Penrith bench are considered "fresh reserves" and therefore full points score applies for these players. A double whammy for Gordon who are so close to raising a 3rd grade colts team.
Player points caps is just one thing that is having unintended consequences in Sydney Rugby across the board.
Your second question. Yep, the latest points revision does make it very difficult to raise a Colts 2 team if there is no previous years colts 3's coming through the club, or retain a young team in Colts 1 for a second year. Playing more than 50% of the 2013 games for Colts 1 last year at your club is seen as being at the same skill level as a one of the 46 NSW State Schoolboy Reps the previous year (a few more play Combined States).
It is very easy to sit in a comfy office chair with a spreadsheet and dream up all these fancy calculations.
Try being a time poor volunteer manager chasing up on player subs, registrations, handing gear out, helping as tackle bag holder, it is raining, cold, and the doofus player forgets to tell you stuff about his background, someone has forgotten their mouthguard, "Who has the tape for my boots", the pie warmer is not working in the canteen, where are the the drink bottles, and so on, and so on, and then you have to square the cosine of the hypotenuse and take the tangent of the universal gravitational constant g, subtracting how many years since your last tetenus booster injection and finally add in the number of complete weeks since you last telephoned your mother to tell her that you loved her and all of this is to be copied on a team score sheet with a pen and no ipads or spreadsheets with all the fancy fonts, calculation formulas and formatting and it is understandable how the sheets and calculations can be a little out in the opening few rounds.
2bluesfan
Nev Cottrell (35)
And therein, Your Honour, lies the reason I was no great shakes as a coach. Mind you, we did have some fancy, yet simple, line out calls that no one seemed to crack.
Brian Westlake
Arch Winning (36)
FIBONACCI NUMBERS!!!!! I knew it!!!!
All last year you had me... Pollard calling the line out!
Damn you>
Just to ensure that all are covered equally when I fling excreta about, the Randwick v Easts sheets are now on the NSW Site, and confusion over the points calculations continue:
Colts 1
Wicks.
One 6 point player has played for Wicks for at least 2 years, possibly more. Katsoukis was in SJRU U16 and U17 rep teams. He should be at 4 or morelikely 3 points.
The team played with no second rower or fullback, yet had players on the bench. Yeah right. Another former scots player (Scots College Old Boys anyone?) played at "-" points, as did Crafts .
Vasilis was a NSW II rep last year and should be minimum 2 points, as he has played previously with Coogee before moving to Newington. He has been listed as 1 point. They declared 30 points but Hughs Calculator has them at 36 (30 declared - 3 for loyalty + 1 for NSW Rep + 4 @2 for "-" points), unless they played Schoolboy Hanigan at the unnamed lock position, then they will be very close to the wind.
Colts 2:
Randwick - no flyhalf - yeah right. Declared points - 19, Hughs assessment = 21.
Easts. Declared 20 points. In doing so, they have ignored the points of two fresh reserves who were not listed in the 3rd grade colts scoresheet. In a surprising move, a Scots Aust A Schoolboy and Roosters SG Ball player Crichton has not followed the rest to Randwick. More surprising to see a Aust Schoolboy rep starting off the bench in Colts 2's. Apparently they also played with one less in the forward pack at "-" points. Hughs Adjusted points score is 27 (20 declared + 5 fresh players on the bench, and one "-" at 2 points.
Colts 1
Wicks.
One 6 point player has played for Wicks for at least 2 years, possibly more. Katsoukis was in SJRU U16 and U17 rep teams. He should be at 4 or morelikely 3 points.
The team played with no second rower or fullback, yet had players on the bench. Yeah right. Another former scots player (Scots College Old Boys anyone?) played at "-" points, as did Crafts .
Vasilis was a NSW II rep last year and should be minimum 2 points, as he has played previously with Coogee before moving to Newington. He has been listed as 1 point. They declared 30 points but Hughs Calculator has them at 36 (30 declared - 3 for loyalty + 1 for NSW Rep + 4 @2 for "-" points), unless they played Schoolboy Hanigan at the unnamed lock position, then they will be very close to the wind.
Colts 2:
Randwick - no flyhalf - yeah right. Declared points - 19, Hughs assessment = 21.
Easts. Declared 20 points. In doing so, they have ignored the points of two fresh reserves who were not listed in the 3rd grade colts scoresheet. In a surprising move, a Scots Aust A Schoolboy and Roosters SG Ball player Crichton has not followed the rest to Randwick. More surprising to see a Aust Schoolboy rep starting off the bench in Colts 2's. Apparently they also played with one less in the forward pack at "-" points. Hughs Adjusted points score is 27 (20 declared + 5 fresh players on the bench, and one "-" at 2 points.
couldabeen
Alfred Walker (16)
see my #653 in the Magners Shute Shield Thread
the baz
Alfred Walker (16)
Great points summery Huge. Now for the big question... what are the ramifications for teams that do go over their allocated points?
It doesn't happen often. Typically the game is recorded as a forfeit with the offending team getting zero points and the win arrarded to the opposition.
Not saying it has happened this year, because there are many unknowns and mistakes throughoout the declarations so far.
All I can say at this stage is that some teams need to be very careful about who they play where, and that the "selling" of the "new and improved" process for 2014 has not been implemented particularly well at Grade or Colts.
One way or other about 1/2 the clubs have got it wrong. That is a pretty poor batting average.
Not saying it has happened this year, because there are many unknowns and mistakes throughoout the declarations so far.
All I can say at this stage is that some teams need to be very careful about who they play where, and that the "selling" of the "new and improved" process for 2014 has not been implemented particularly well at Grade or Colts.
One way or other about 1/2 the clubs have got it wrong. That is a pretty poor batting average.
couldabeen
Alfred Walker (16)
It's bloody farcical! Who is responsible for this and do you know an email address? I want to launch a rocket. Just need the right target.
It can't run this way for another week.
It can't run this way for another week.
Best to give the ammunition to your Club president, or team coach/manager, and unleash them on the guilty bastards.
By all means rant on here, but the unpaid interns generally listen to rants officially endorsed by Club officials "submitted through the right channels". The amount of support you will get from your club will be directly proportional to how closely they have been "doing the right thing".
By all means rant on here, but the unpaid interns generally listen to rants officially endorsed by Club officials "submitted through the right channels". The amount of support you will get from your club will be directly proportional to how closely they have been "doing the right thing".
couldabeen
Alfred Walker (16)
OK thanks for the advice. Taken.
- Status