Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
One of the worst examples I've heard, and from a district club which likes to set themselves apart from north shore and eastern suburbs types.
NSW JRU State Championships & Representative Teams 2015
- Thread starter Hugh Jarse
- Start date
- Status
Tractor
Bob McCowan (2)
Gents, it seems there are a number of assumptions being made regarding "phantom" players at the Junior State Championships. Here's an assumption of my own - you are specifically referring to the three Scots lads who played for Southern Districts.
If so, let me help clear up a few possible misconceptions....
1. Souths were approached at the end of last season by Easts who knew that they would have neither a club nor a rep team in 2015 - largely due to the number of players who would be away at the annual Scots "Glengarry" sabbatical.
2. All three registered with a local Southern Districts club side.
3. All three have committed to playing for that club side after their return from Glengarry.
4. The decision to accept them at Souths was not taken lightly, due to the sort of concerns raised in this forum. It went to the Committee, and was only agreed after lengthy investigation and discussion.
5. The three players all filled places that Souths were short in. There are only two club sides in the district (approximately 30-32 players each week) and, as has been well noted in this forum earlier, both teams are struggling - both for numbers and quality players. The longstanding Burraneer rep halfback opted to play only league in 2015, and there are no other experienced halfbacks in the district outside of the Oatley halfback who played in Mudgee. Both club sides are very short in the backs, particularly play-making inside backs, and have played forwards in the backs for most club games this season (this might help explain the season's results....). And of course everyone is short of front rowers !
(note : if any of the Scots players were, say, back-rowers, they would NOT have been included as the district has many strong back rowers)
6. One of the considerations in the inclusion of these boys was NSW Juniors decision to increase the number of JSC players allowed from 23 to 25.
7. The district players and parents all knew of the inclusion of the Scots lads well in advance - there were no surprises.
8. I have heard NO complaints from anyone in the district about these players "taking the spots of hard-working long standing club players" - because of the points noted above.
9. All three players were indeed cleared by NSW Juniors to play for Souths in the JSC tournament.
Now I am not saying that some of the points raised are not valid concerns - they are. But these are the facts gentlemen.
If Souths did not include them they would in all likelihood have taken only 21 or 22 players - as they are all the players in the district deemed capable of playing at the level in their respective positions.
Hope this helps....
If so, let me help clear up a few possible misconceptions....
1. Souths were approached at the end of last season by Easts who knew that they would have neither a club nor a rep team in 2015 - largely due to the number of players who would be away at the annual Scots "Glengarry" sabbatical.
2. All three registered with a local Southern Districts club side.
3. All three have committed to playing for that club side after their return from Glengarry.
4. The decision to accept them at Souths was not taken lightly, due to the sort of concerns raised in this forum. It went to the Committee, and was only agreed after lengthy investigation and discussion.
5. The three players all filled places that Souths were short in. There are only two club sides in the district (approximately 30-32 players each week) and, as has been well noted in this forum earlier, both teams are struggling - both for numbers and quality players. The longstanding Burraneer rep halfback opted to play only league in 2015, and there are no other experienced halfbacks in the district outside of the Oatley halfback who played in Mudgee. Both club sides are very short in the backs, particularly play-making inside backs, and have played forwards in the backs for most club games this season (this might help explain the season's results....). And of course everyone is short of front rowers !
(note : if any of the Scots players were, say, back-rowers, they would NOT have been included as the district has many strong back rowers)
6. One of the considerations in the inclusion of these boys was NSW Juniors decision to increase the number of JSC players allowed from 23 to 25.
7. The district players and parents all knew of the inclusion of the Scots lads well in advance - there were no surprises.
8. I have heard NO complaints from anyone in the district about these players "taking the spots of hard-working long standing club players" - because of the points noted above.
9. All three players were indeed cleared by NSW Juniors to play for Souths in the JSC tournament.
Now I am not saying that some of the points raised are not valid concerns - they are. But these are the facts gentlemen.
If Souths did not include them they would in all likelihood have taken only 21 or 22 players - as they are all the players in the district deemed capable of playing at the level in their respective positions.
Hope this helps....
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Perhaps you had better provide details of the time played on the field in their preferred position for the blow ins versus the boys who played the requisite 4 club games. My information is that some locals were bumped from starting positions to the bench, got less game time in their selected position than the blow ins and were played out of position for much of the game time they did get.
At a minimum the blow ins could not have expected more than equal time and should not have displaced locals from starting positions.
Unless you spoke to each and every parent you cannot know if 7 is correct: I know of at least 2 you did not speak to and he/she tells me that other parents were similarly unaware of the position.
Funny that you have heard none and yet I have heard the complaints in circumstances where I have no involvement in SJRU rugby or politics any more, no connection with either Burraneer or Oatley and no connection with Souths.
All of which is besides the point: there is ample room for transparent dispensation to bring in kids who are playing club but who miss the cut in other district's rep sides. SJRU/NSWJRU should not be giving dispensations of this type in any case where there are kids playing club who wanted to play in the JSC and missed their home District's side. One wonders why if you were short you did not go down this route and rather opted for 3 kids who all played NSWPSSA - an amazing piece of good fortune that they were the only 3 you needed.
Get with the plan @InsideShoulder. Eligibility criteria - who needs it. Winning is everything.
If others get burnt along the way, then that is their problem. Little Oliver must be given the best chance to get the trinket he clearly deserves.
The same people who moan about the size of the big boy from the other club in their district, and pass snide remarks about the validity of said child's proof of age documentation, are the first people to ask if that same man-boy is in the District Representative team with their offspring Phillip.
If NSW SRU ran their eligibility criteria this way, anyone who had attended an open day at Scots College could apply for a dispensation to be able to represent AAGPS.
Perhaps it is a wise thing that the National U16 tournament, with its two pathway selection options for NSW players, has been canned.
If others get burnt along the way, then that is their problem. Little Oliver must be given the best chance to get the trinket he clearly deserves.
The same people who moan about the size of the big boy from the other club in their district, and pass snide remarks about the validity of said child's proof of age documentation, are the first people to ask if that same man-boy is in the District Representative team with their offspring Phillip.
If NSW SRU ran their eligibility criteria this way, anyone who had attended an open day at Scots College could apply for a dispensation to be able to represent AAGPS.
Perhaps it is a wise thing that the National U16 tournament, with its two pathway selection options for NSW players, has been canned.
Tractor
Bob McCowan (2)
Inside Shoulder - it was no "amazing piece of good fortune". Like I said Souths were approached by Easts specifically with those 3 kids. There was no choice involved, other than take them or leave them.
Every kid got ample game time. Ask them. The coaches made sure that every player got to start games, and EVERY player who started on the bench got on the field in EVERY game. Compare that to other districts where players were left to wither on the bench - I know of one case where a player left the tournament on Saturday after getting 5 minutes on the field all day.
Your contention that some club players who play in the specific positions and wanted to play reps were left at home simply shows that you only read the parts of my previous post that suit your argument - there is one halfback in the district, there are not enough props to meet the club requirements, and forwards have had to play in the backs every week....
As for the notion that this was somehow constructed in an effort to win at all costs, rubbish. The primary aim was always to give as many capable kids a great rugby experience as possible. Is it possible to please everyone ? No. Was the communication perfect ? No. Were some errors made ? Yes.
Please just know that there were never any sinister ulterior motives as some forum contributors seem to suggest.
Every kid got ample game time. Ask them. The coaches made sure that every player got to start games, and EVERY player who started on the bench got on the field in EVERY game. Compare that to other districts where players were left to wither on the bench - I know of one case where a player left the tournament on Saturday after getting 5 minutes on the field all day.
Your contention that some club players who play in the specific positions and wanted to play reps were left at home simply shows that you only read the parts of my previous post that suit your argument - there is one halfback in the district, there are not enough props to meet the club requirements, and forwards have had to play in the backs every week....
As for the notion that this was somehow constructed in an effort to win at all costs, rubbish. The primary aim was always to give as many capable kids a great rugby experience as possible. Is it possible to please everyone ? No. Was the communication perfect ? No. Were some errors made ? Yes.
Please just know that there were never any sinister ulterior motives as some forum contributors seem to suggest.
5 minutes on field - luxury. I've known of kids who have had zero time all weekend at the U13 JSC.
In a delicious irony that boy later made NSW schoolboys 1st XV, and continues to play rugby at a high level, while at least 20 others from that District Squad have given the game away, most at U16 level.
In a delicious irony that boy later made NSW schoolboys 1st XV, and continues to play rugby at a high level, while at least 20 others from that District Squad have given the game away, most at U16 level.
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
I think you've missed the point - there is an NSWJRU/SJRU rule which says that if a district is short of players then they are allowed to use players from other districts who didn't make their own rep team. The JSC is meant for players who are actually playing village club rugby, not boys who are intending to play later in the season.
History suggests that boys who are aspirational to play 16As and 1st XV at a GPS school rarely play club beyond 15s and almost never play club beyond 16s. Hope you guys haven't sent a few more local kids back to "concentrate on league" only to find that the imports aren't really interested in playing for your club into the future.
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
You misread my post: and QH has made the point. London to a brick that Gordon (just as an example) did not pick all the players who trialled - you should go there first to give those loyal to the club system a chance at JSC. Its odds on that the kids left out did not play NSWPSSA, of course.
In terms of speaking to the kids: what do you think is my source for my information - most of which you seem to accept, including that you may not have communicated perfectly to the parents which was one of the main defences you were running.
I don't actually blame Souths. I am very curious as to what the boys who came in hope to get out of this - but I suspect I know that. Some thing about having your cake and eating it too as my mum used to say.
But most of my frustration is directed at NSWJRU and SJRU: they got rid of the grandfather clause for a reason and that reason was not so that they could ring in poor little rich kids with rep pedigrees.
Team lists?
Freddo Frog
Ward Prentice (10)
Inside Shoulder, I feel for any kids who are relegated to the bench in favour of stronger players, particularly ones who have been brought in at late notice to 'bolster the ranks'. However, you would have to acknowledge that this happens frequently, even in your own rugby backyard.
You may well remember a certain well-stocked North Shore U16's club team did this just last year. Four or five U15's players stayed after their own match and were called on to play for the 16's. And guess what, all 'happened' to be State-level players. Sadly for junior rugby, it doesn't always even need to be a Rep team for those in charge to stretch the rules in order to win.
First phase
Allen Oxlade (6)
When do these kids go to Glengarry? Do half the year go in Term 1 and 2 and the other half in terms 3 and 4? If it is the latter they can play SC and rounds 1-9 of SJRU comp. If it is the former they can play round 10 -GF of SJRU comp. So if they played in the SC I don't see how they can miss out on r1-9 , play the SC and then play the remainder of the season with their SD club side???
Freddo Frog
Ward Prentice (10)
Yes, correct. Half the year go for Term 1 & 2, the other half go in Term 3 & 4.
I gather that these boys were unable to play in Term 2 as they were at Glengarry, but have committed to playing for a club for Term 3 so they have been given leave to accrue their 'minimum 4 games' AFTER the State Champs.
I gather that these boys were unable to play in Term 2 as they were at Glengarry, but have committed to playing for a club for Term 3 so they have been given leave to accrue their 'minimum 4 games' AFTER the State Champs.
First phase
Allen Oxlade (6)
So if they were there in Term 2 how did they play the SC as this was on it term2? and they don't give holiday leave form Glengarry?
Tractor
Bob McCowan (2)
IS - I understand the point, and I agree with it. Seriously. I too have been critical of this sort of thing in the past. I believe these circumstances warrant the decision taken.
Souths did in fact do exactly what you suggest - went to the players who trialled and wanted to play reps first. To my knowledge of all the players who wanted to play Southern Districts reps and were capable of doing so only 2 or 3 missed out (and they were almost all flankers....!)
When you have just 32 kids playing in the whole district, with a VAST range of playing capability, selecting a squad of 23 or 25 reps (with specific positional requirements in mind) is not easy. As I posted earlier, if the Scots boys had been turned away Souths would most likely have simply taken three less players to Mudgee.
At club level, our teams are damned if they play C Grade where they win by cricket scores each week, and damned if they play A/B Grade where they lose by cricket scores each week.... such is life when you have brand new players and one end of the spectrum and Sydney reps at the other.
Our intention is always on keeping players engaged in rugby whatever their capability - the comp framework and the player numbers don't often make that task easy.
I suspect that Souths will in 2016 be the subject of outrage again - for building a "super team" that enters the club competition. The reality is that both Oatley and Burraneer barely have enough players to field a team now, and will almost certainly not next season. Survival will depend on combining the sides under a "Southern Rebels" banner.... which will piss some people off mightily amidst claims of attempts to win at all costs.... Bullshit.
This is of course already happening in most districts - Parramatta is Blacktown, Eastwood is Beecroft,
BTW the three Scots lads have been club "stalwarts" since the under 6s. It is not their fault that Easts can field neither a club nor a rep team. Burraneer's and South's decision to "accept" them keeps them in club rugby - which helps Burraneer's struggle to field a team each week, and helps the Scots lads too. Or would some prefer we leave them out simply because they go to Scots ?
Final point IS - I agree that NSW & Sydney Juniors are responsible. But I am sure they considered all of the points I've raised in making their call.
Souths did in fact do exactly what you suggest - went to the players who trialled and wanted to play reps first. To my knowledge of all the players who wanted to play Southern Districts reps and were capable of doing so only 2 or 3 missed out (and they were almost all flankers....!)
When you have just 32 kids playing in the whole district, with a VAST range of playing capability, selecting a squad of 23 or 25 reps (with specific positional requirements in mind) is not easy. As I posted earlier, if the Scots boys had been turned away Souths would most likely have simply taken three less players to Mudgee.
At club level, our teams are damned if they play C Grade where they win by cricket scores each week, and damned if they play A/B Grade where they lose by cricket scores each week.... such is life when you have brand new players and one end of the spectrum and Sydney reps at the other.
Our intention is always on keeping players engaged in rugby whatever their capability - the comp framework and the player numbers don't often make that task easy.
I suspect that Souths will in 2016 be the subject of outrage again - for building a "super team" that enters the club competition. The reality is that both Oatley and Burraneer barely have enough players to field a team now, and will almost certainly not next season. Survival will depend on combining the sides under a "Southern Rebels" banner.... which will piss some people off mightily amidst claims of attempts to win at all costs.... Bullshit.
This is of course already happening in most districts - Parramatta is Blacktown, Eastwood is Beecroft,
BTW the three Scots lads have been club "stalwarts" since the under 6s. It is not their fault that Easts can field neither a club nor a rep team. Burraneer's and South's decision to "accept" them keeps them in club rugby - which helps Burraneer's struggle to field a team each week, and helps the Scots lads too. Or would some prefer we leave them out simply because they go to Scots ?
Final point IS - I agree that NSW & Sydney Juniors are responsible. But I am sure they considered all of the points I've raised in making their call.
Then that ruling ("has indicated an intention of playing 4 games at some stage this season") should be enshrined in the next iteration of the rules. I guess that they have to commit to playing 5 games if they want to make Sydney JRU reps and 6 games if they want to try out for the NSW JRU team. Hope there are lots of byes, forfeits, and washouts.
SJRU Finals eligibility has this little gem at 7.3.(D) iii regarding eligibility for the SJRU Finals series:
the Registered Player must have played 50% or more of the Regular Season Matches scheduled while the Registered Player was not attending a long term school event and have written documentation from their school that the Registered Player had attended a long term school event (such as Glengarry at The Scots College) during the Regular Season Matches.
http://juniors.rugby.com.au/Portals/1/Images/Sydney Juniors - Competition Playing Rules - 2014 - Version 11 - 20140303 - Final.pdf
Great concession to the Scots folk. How many Scots kids repay this concession by playing in the SJRU U16's competition the following year?
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
Wow, they seriously have that in their playing rules.
They even use Scot/Glengary as their example. I wonder how many other "Long term school events" that exist?
I guess it confirms in a paragraph a lot of what's wrong with junior rugby in this city and why we just can't connect with the population at large. My kids play a range of different sports and you'd be struggling to find a similar exemption anywhere.
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Do you mean kids from other districts? Because that is what I am talking about.
But the other problem is that you did not need strengthening in at least 2 of the positions in question and in at least one of them an incumbent suffered.
As a matter of interest there were plenty of other kids in that Easts team who accepted that there would be no Easts Rep side (as usual) and no Wallaroos side (as usual) and were therefore confined to playing school rugby - and most of those kids were club stalwarts since the under 6s.
And some of them had brothers who benefited from the grandfather clause and some had brothers who had to scrounge together their 4 games while being forced to play 15 games in 21 days in order to do so.
Wow, they seriously have that in their playing rules.
They even use Scot/Glengary as their example. I wonder how many other "Long term school events" that exist?
I guess it confirms in a paragraph a lot of what's wrong with junior rugby in this city and why we just can't connect with the population at large. My kids play a range of different sports and you'd be struggling to find a similar exemption anywhere.
I can't even think of anything comparable - except perhaps the kids who spend a
There are enough sharp lawyers around here.
Could it be possibly argued that the AAGPS Rugby competition is a "long term school event" during "the Regular Season Matches", and thus a phantom player could qualify for a dispensation to play in SJRU Finals under under SJRU rule 7.3(D)iii?
Could it be possibly argued that the AAGPS Rugby competition is a "long term school event" during "the Regular Season Matches", and thus a phantom player could qualify for a dispensation to play in SJRU Finals under under SJRU rule 7.3(D)iii?
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
You beat me too it, I was going to ask how it was possible that Easts (who don't even have a village club in the age group) were able to tell souths that they could only have 3 boys as Tractor seems to say in an earlier post.
Like I said Souths were approached by Easts specifically with those 3 kids. There was no choice involved, other than take them or leave them.
In fact how are Easts involved in this scenario at all? Could it in fact be that it was Souths who were only interested in the 3 and none of the others? It seems a far more likely explanation.
First phase
Allen Oxlade (6)
were not these kids all in the South Harbour u15's JGC team as well or just the initial squad? If they were they were playing JGC, SC and at Glengarry as well?
- Status