• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

CAS Rugby 2017

Not open for further replies.


Phil Hardcastle (33)
St Pats rumble over from close quarters. 24-10. St Pats could use a better goal kicker (though their 12, who just missed, is close to their best on field).


Phil Hardcastle (33)
Yellow for St Pats 14 for a high shot on Edmed. From the tap 5 bDriessen (good in the lineout today but quiet around the park) picks up a lazy five pointer in the corner. And it's 29-10 at full time.
  • Like
Reactions: Njr


Dave Cowper (27)
Knox 26 def View 19. Half time View was ahead. Knox probably won it in the forwards. A good open game with both sides moving the ball and having good defense. Knox looked a little lethargic at times and lost concentration which was dutifully taken advantage by View.
Knox won the 2nds 19-12


Back to the old days really.
Back when GPS was an 8 team comp (or including High and Grammar) the GPS comp was 7-rounds, and CAS was 5-rounds with most playing each other over Term2, much like this year

I assume all the schools will be trying, but there's only one prize given at the end of the day; the Henry Plume Shield.

Home-ground advantage will play a big role in results with only one round being played.


Herbert Moran (7)
Was at Summer Hill today - Trinity were certainly the better side (especially in the backs). Pats at time showed glimpses and did have much potential. I thought Pats 9 was much better than trinity's (whom I found out played NSW 16s), outside backs of trinity particularly 14 were strong and quick and ably backed up by the much larger forward pack. Trinity could be a surprise package in the CAS this year.


Jimmy Flynn (14)
Anyone got a match review from the Knox v View game yesterday?

Not a match review as such, just a few points. Knox probably should have won by 20 in my opinion. Their pack was very dominant. The View backs were pretty sharp. Made quite a few breaks through the centres with clever passes and good feet. Knox's defence was outstanding. Time and time again they scrambled well to recover. The scrum had Knox completely dominant. They either popped View immediately, or drove them back violently. View tried to counter by wheeling the scrum, which worked well once with the 1/2 using the ref's poor positioning to dart over from 20m out. View also scored an intercept from a blatant knock on with 2 mins to go to make the score line more flattering to them. For Knox, stand outs were, Frost(easy man of the match), the entire front row, the 6 was excellent, as was the 9 and the 15. For View, 7 (Rorke I think) was everywhere and menacing in defence, and the 2 centres and the left wing looked good.


Allen Oxlade (6)
Pretty much agree with Axel's take on the game. My only concern from a Knox perspective was the ease at which the View backs created overlaps. I reckon if they'd spun it wide every time it would have been interesting. Yes, Knox's scrambling defense was good, but I do think there will be a bit of work at training this week on the backs defensive structure.

Frost was freakishly good, and very impressed with Pavlakis at 15 - a really active and involved game from him rewarded with a nice try.

Oh, and from where I was watching that intercept try seemed like the View bloke got lucky and "dropped" the ball onto his foot so maybe not a knock-on?

Take the Points

Frank Nicholson (4)
Anyone at the barker v shore match got a review? What went wrong for shore? Are Barker proving to become a strong force in the CAS competition?


Ken Catchpole (46)
Anyone at the barker v shore match got a review? What went wrong for shore? Are Barker proving to become a strong force in the CAS competition?

Shore had much the better of the first half but only led 10-5 at oranges.
They had a much better attacking structure than Barker, whose own attack was nullified by giving away penalties when in sight of the try line. Lineouts thrown in by Shore included well executed decoy movements and the scrums were even. Barker forwards looked out on their feet leading into half time, with very little effort being made to get into position during phase play. This led to Shore going close to scoring on two further occasions only to be grounded on the blade of grass before the try line.

The second half was a reversal of form. Barker stopped giving away so many penalties and Shore was plagued with poor decision making during their attacking moments. They turned over too much ball in this stanza. Barker forwards stated to make good meters through heavy traffic, one such barnstorming run leading to the winning try.

In a 3-try each game, both sides seemed well matched in an equitable contest. Shore's 5/8 used his long pass wisely and on the one occasion he ran, he scored under the posts. His conversion slammed into the upright. No goal.

The question "is it a trial or a competition game" was answered in two ways. Shore turned down at least two sitters: penalties in front of the sticks were used to set a scrum or line out, while Barker moved to 15-15 on the back of a 3 pointer.

Barker has some size and speed and will be competitive all season as long as they bring their A game from the opening whistle 'till full time.


Syd Malcolm (24)

Waves were poor and Kings executed well. They definitely missed firepower in their backline.

They have a long way to go to compete against the stronger GPS schools.

Will be interesting to see how the come back from it at home on Saturday. I won't be at the game as my son is at a different venue.
Not open for further replies.