White line fever
Fred Wood (13)
RC, SPOT ON!!!
Everyone can be a winner if constructed properly.
A no brainer.
Everyone can be a winner if constructed properly.
A no brainer.
I'm really interested in the possibility of Schools playing outside their association. With all due respect to the passion of those who don't like the idea, but lift your head out of the scrum and look around.
Firstly, the discussion suits this thread as GPS Rugby all but drives the schoolboy game.
Now for a reality check.
- One round was the status quo for nearly a century, so I'm not sure why such resistance.
- Having a divisional set-up for first round amongst all interested schools will make for more even matches and goals for achievement with promotion relegation.
- This is Schoolboy Rugby, not life & death stuff. Surely more exposure to other schools will provide a better experience for the kids
The ARU (mostly GPS alumni) are constantly accused of living in an ivory tower and ignoring the opportunities to expand the game and develop players. Surely a change in attitude from the GPS will benefit all schoolboy rugby, and subsequently the Wallabies.
- Keeping everything in house ensures rugby is seen as an elitist sport which the riff raff of the masses should be no part of.
- Junior Rugby Union (including schools) is dying because people are being actively excluded.
- To win the GPS (or any association) competition and then claim to be the best is arrogance bordering on the absurd.
There are signs that rugby no longer has full support at Shore. That is, AFL posts on the main oval, impressive number of reps in 2016 but only 1 win.....no good junior rugby player would want to attend Shore if they want rugby to be a big part of their schooling. To be fair, I think the school is abandoning its roots to please short sighted parents.I wonder if he will apply the same logic to those who wish to train for rowing in winter? (yea right)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
There are signs that rugby no longer has full support at Shore. That is, AFL posts on the main oval, impressive number of reps in 2016 but only 1 win...no good junior rugby player would want to attend Shore if they want rugby to be a big part of their schooling. To be fair, I think the school is abandoning its roots to please short sighted parents.
Pulver has a history with Shore. Perhaps someone with roots to Joeys should be running the ARU.
Wow Brumbie J,
Clearly evident is that I too am a CAS parent and old boy.
I share your beliefs about the historical CAS contribution to our sport.
But you know what, more importantly is the need for us all to join and get this right for the longer term benefit/survival of the sport.
Rugby Central summed it up very precisely.
I think our first step is to start thinking outside the square and UNITE, we must!
Otherwise start liking blokes who kick a round ball, hug each other when they win the toss, and it's BYO flairs and bring gutless group violence to the ground.
If we spend our energy as a group,then we stand a chance.
A combined first up comp, with the right schools and grades,and probably relegation system, I think achieves many many benefits.
Not to mention the thing that the other codes do better much, PROMOTE THEMSEVES.
There are signs that rugby no longer has full support at Shore..... Pulver has a history with Shore. Perhaps someone with roots to Joeys should be running the ARU.
Not all CAS supporters are in favour of the change.
It's ONE CAS supporter mainly who is ringing the bell loud and often.
There are signs that rugby no longer has full support at Shore. That is, AFL posts on the main oval, impressive number of reps in 2016 but only 1 win...no good junior rugby player would want to attend Shore if they want rugby to be a big part of their schooling. To be fair, I think the school is abandoning its roots to please short sighted parents.
Pulver has a history with Shore. Perhaps someone with roots to Joeys should be running the ARU.
There are signs that rugby no longer has full support at Shore. That is, AFL posts on the main oval, impressive number of reps in 2016 but only 1 win...no good junior rugby player would want to attend Shore if they want rugby to be a big part of their schooling. To be fair, I think the school is abandoning its roots to please short sighted parents.
Pulver has a history with Shore. Perhaps someone with roots to Joeys should be running the ARU.
AFL was played at Northbridge, at the end of the season, after shore had finished all their home rugby games. Whilst, Shore's struggle with rugby have been documented on this thread it pales in comparison to their inability to be competitive in AFL. It makes their rugby programme look good.There are signs that rugby no longer has full support at Shore. That is, AFL posts on the main oval, impressive number of reps in 2016 but only 1 win...no good junior rugby player would want to attend Shore if they want rugby to be a big part of their schooling. To be fair, I think the school is abandoning its roots to please short sighted parents.
Pulver has a history with Shore. Perhaps someone with roots to Joeys should be running the ARU.
AFL was played at Northbridge, at the end of the season, after shore had finished all their home rugby games. Whilst, Shore's struggle with rugby have been documented on this thread it pales in comparison to their inability to be competitive in AFL. It makes their rugby programme look good.
PLEASE don't tell me Shore are good at soccer.
WLF. Man, you are persistent. But seriously. This thread has become like ground hog day.
Every day you make the same or a similar case for a COMP involving teams from different associations. And, every day, when you don't get the support you are hoping for, you accuse GPS supporters of, to quote you, "having difficulty in embracing a new order" or "pushing back about change".
While I can't speak for everyone, most of the GPS supporters I have spoken to don't think, to quote you again, that "GPS schools are the only schools who can play solid rugby". Nor do most of them think that "we must have a home and away GPS comp".
But as far as I am aware, a comp between schools from different associations is NOT the model that is being considered by the school's decision makers. And I think you need to understand that alot of the resistance you are seeing from GPS supporters is not resistance to the model you are proposing. It's resistance to the model the school decision makers are considering. They are two quite different propositions.
From what I understand, the school decision makers are considering a model that comprises essentially 2 parts.
The first part is a reduction in the number of COMP games that GPS schools play from 10 to 5. I think this is a regressive step because, at least in the old one round model, they played 7 comp games. So 5 games is a step in the other direction.
The other part is replacing the second round of 5 COMP games with trial games with schools from different associations. With this part, I think that including other schools is progressive. But i think that making them trial games, at the expense of comp games (see above) is regressive.
So when I take a balanced view of the proposed model, I think the bad (only 5 comp games) outways the good, (playing more games against non GPS schools).
I also think that while the current system is not perfect, and there are other models like the one you advocate that may be better, the current system is better than the proposed system. I also think it is better than the previous one round of 7 games system for a range of reasons others in this thread have explained over and over.
I can understand how you might think that my position shows resistance to change of any form. Hopefully you can now see that it is not that. Hopefully you can now see that it is resistance to a change that I don't agree with.