Shute Shield 2013

[Dave Beat]

Rather than have the players trying to cope with extended trips throughout the ever growing nightmare of Sydney traffic, I still believe that the best means of assisting Penrith would be for the ARU to make a commitment of at least three years to employing an experienced professional coach to base himself there as Director of Rugby. He would need to have a reasonable budget for support services but there should be no leakage of the ARU expenditure for player payments. The Director's total emphasis should be on player and team development.

To the extent that expenditure on paying players is thought necessary it should be the responsibility of the Club itself.

It would be entirely appropriate for the ARU to make such an investment in order to avert the permanent loss to rugby of such an important catchment area. It's time for Penrith to be Pulverised.
.

Yep

 

[lily]

What happens when the 3 or 5 years is up? Do Randwick or someone else inherit a new forward pack or backline?

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Get a good GM in there as well, like Belly at Parramatta, and you can build a culture at the club that people want to stay there and grow it.

 

[the coach]

All good suggestions about assisting Penrith.
However, there's one question that still remains unanswered IMO.
Does the Penrith area want a rugby team?
Does anyone know how much support they get from the local newspaper, radio station, businesses etc?
I noticed last Saturday that the major sponsor for the day was a local restaurant. Not sure that will ever compete with Buildcorp etc.

 

[wamberal]

Coach, I know we are all economic rationalists these days. But, for the sake of the game in Greater Sydney, we need to put resources into areas like Penriff whether or not they (whoever "they" are, incidentally) want a team.

I suspect that there would be thousands of potential players, of all ages, but very few potential sponsors or volunteers.


So, we can make a choice. Leave the area to the predations of loig and the AFL, or do something about it.


I played junior loig in the Parramatta District when I was in my late teens. There were a dozen substantial so-called junior loig clubs, all supported by poker machine palaces, and all with their own grounds - all the way west to Penriff. Not sure what it looks like now, probably several times more developed. That is what we are up against.


The millionaire clubs with all their wonderful facilities, and self-satisfied supporters, can continue to revel in their little triumphs, but rugby lovers would like to think that there is a better way forward for the game in Greater Sydney. A way forward that might involve a little bit of self-sacrifice.

When the Waratahs squad is demographically representative of the whole catchment area we will all gain something. The fatcats might start to drop down the SS ladder (wouldn't that be great!), but the Tahs - and even the Wallabies - might start winning consistently, and drawing crowds. Rugby is allegedly a game for all shapes and sizes. It needs to be a game for all suburbs, that is far more important.

 

[the coach]

Wamberal, I don't dsagree with your comments.
I was just trying to make the point that it's really hard to establish, develop and grow a product (let alone a sporting team) if the target audience don't want it.
I noticed on Saturday that across the 4 grades there were only 4 non-islanders in the club. Maybe this is the way forward. If there is a strong islander population in the catchment area maybe the NSWRU and SRU (do they do anything?) should be assisting Penrith to target itself to that audience.

 

[wamberal]

Coach, I totally agree that it is hard to grow a rugby club. Not sure what your background is in Sydney, but a few years ago Penrith was thriving (or appeared to be), they were captained by Peter Besseling, and had a core of very good players. They were a hard team for anybody to defeat.


That was on the back of some sort of financial support from head office, IIRC. But as soon as the support went, so did the club.


I suppose I come down to thinking that if the money is provided, the kids will play the game out there, and yes, they will all be PIs. We need to put up the dosh to win the hearts and minds, and it needs to go on pretty much constantly. Our opponents are doing it, we have to. I would hate to think how many loig development officers there are in the Penriff area, and back towards Parramatta.


Hasten the day when the Tahs have their share of these kids.

 

[the coach]

Wamberal, I remember the Peter Besseling days well and if memory serves me correctly they had another tall lock who played some rep football and Fab Fenton was their coach. Henry Shaaf was also there for many years and no team looked forward to the trip to Penrith. I had a look at their honour boards last Saturday and they have a long list of players who have played 100 games (before and after they entered the SS) and I recognised many of the names.
However, unless somebody does something the club will continue to struggle in spite of the efforts of Teki Tuipulotu and his extended family (good to see Teki turning out in the 4s still) and players will continue to go elsewhere if the opposition keeps running up cricket scores.
I remember the dying days of Drummoyne in the SS when on too many occasions their players resorted to thuggery in frustration.
As I've said before, the NSWRU needs to either shit or get off the pot.

 

[Eyes and Ears]

Their first grade coach was Scott Johnson and their successful year was 1999 where I believe they won 10 games that season. Fab was also involved with the coaching set-up. I think the other lock's name was something like Gordon McQueen.

 

[Dave Beat]

I noticed on Saturday that across the 4 grades there were only 4 non-islanders in the club. Maybe this is the way forward. If there is a strong islander population in the catchment area maybe the NSWRU and SRU (do they do anything?) should be assisting Penrith to target itself to that audience.

Coach, you just raised a point and I thought you were going to take it a different direction.
Islanders.
What about getting rid of the Emu's as they are not competing - or attracting talent. And then replacing it with a Pacific Island team in a similar geographic area - Players may change clubs and also change codes. Just a thought.

 

[the coach]

Coach, you just raised a point and I thought you were going to take it a different direction.
Islanders.
What about getting rid of the Emu's as they are not competing - or attracting talent. And then replacing it with a Pacific Island team in a similar geographic area - Players may change clubs and also change codes. Just a thought.

Worth a try Dave!
Not sure if it would breach any anti-discrimination laws but I'm sure there'd be a way around them if it does.

 

[Late Starter]

Good to see Michael Hooper back in action for the Marlins.

I'd have to say Souths are favourites over Uni this weekend. Douglas and Timani x2 might just be a bit too much through the middle.

 

[Dave Beat]

Good to see Michael Hooper back in action for the Marlins.

I'd have to say Souths are favourites over Uni this weekend. Douglas and Timani x2 might just be a bit too much through the middle.

Yep, very timely with Kotoni hurting his ankle last week

 

[the coach]

Good to see Michael Hooper back in action for the Marlins.

I'd have to say Souths are favourites over Uni this weekend. Douglas and Timani x2 might just be a bit too much through the middle.

Pretty hot Uni backline though!

 

[thecow]

IMO many of the calls for an early engagement are totally unnecessary as no advantage has been gained, especially given the fractions of a second we are talking about. Sure it's a breach, but if no advantage why not play on. The referee could always signal an advantage but play on anyway, instead of that they blow the whistle immediately. To make it more frustrating for the spectators the non-offending team then very frequently calls for another scrum anyway.

IMO many of the calls for an early engagement are totally unnecessary as no advantage has been gained, especially given the fractions of a second we are talking about. Sure it's a breach, but if no advantage why not play on. The referee could always signal an advantage but play on anyway, instead of that they blow the whistle immediately. To make it more frustrating for the spectators the non-offending team then very frequently calls for another scrum anyway.

To give my perspective I'll give you the story of one of my games earlier this season.

As a 19-year old new referee with NSW, quite rare to get a Grade game in subbies, mainly been getting Subbies colts and the occasional Premiership 3rd colts. Alas, about 2 months ago, I was given 2nd Div 4th Grade UNSW v Petersham. We come to the first scrum, and to my chagrin and error in reviewing my game, I reset the first scrum about 3 times before we got the ball out. Guess what. I had problems with the scrum, and other communication all day. The reason: rather than setting an early standard that I wasn't gonna tolerate illegal play, I showed that I was going to try and talk them out of it after they did it. So the reason there might be an early FK for an early engagement if its contentious - is that if we get compliance early in the game at the scrum - more than likely we are going to get compliance when we try to manage a situation at the breakdown.

Also it has been statistically proven that the slower calls are providing better outcomes.

 

[the coach]

To give my perspective I'll give you the story of one of my games earlier this season.

As a 19-year old new referee with NSW, quite rare to get a Grade game in subbies, mainly been getting Subbies colts and the occasional Premiership 3rd colts. Alas, about 2 months ago, I was given 2nd Div 4th Grade UNSW v Petersham. We come to the first scrum, and to my chagrin and error in reviewing my game, I reset the first scrum about 3 times before we got the ball out. Guess what. I had problems with the scrum, and other communication all day. The reason: rather than setting an early standard that I wasn't gonna tolerate illegal play, I showed that I was going to try and talk them out of it after they did it. So the reason there might be an early FK for an early engagement if its contentious - is that if we get compliance early in the game at the scrum - more than likely we are going to get compliance when we try to manage a situation at the breakdown.

Also it has been statistically proven that the slower calls are providing better outcomes.

Great to get some insight from the referees point of view!!
Do you think you could achieve the same outcome by signalling an advantage for an early engagement and waiting to see whether the offending team gained any advantage rather than immediately awarding a free kick?

 

[wamberal]

Their first grade coach was Scott Johnson and their successful year was 1999 where I believe they won 10 games that season. Fab was also involved with the coaching set-up. I think the other lock's name was something like Gordon McQueen.

And it might be worth us remembering that 1999 was the year that Eastwood won its first first grade premiership, after 50 years of trying, and almost going broke - in fact I think they did go broke, with debts of a mill or so, before they were bailed out by North Ryde RSL Club.


So a good funding source is invaluable, as we all know. But obviously Eastwood had a reasonable cadre of volunteers, supporters, and sponsors.

 

[Eyes and Ears]

Great to get some insight from the referees point of view!!
Do you think you could achieve the same outcome by signalling an advantage for an early engagement and waiting to see whether the offending team gained any advantage rather than immediately awarding a free kick?

Coach, I think playing advantage is quite impractical in this situation. Firstly, if the feeding team engages early then the non-feeding team is almost never going to get an advantage given that they are unlikely to win the ball since they are not putting the ball in and they lost the hit as well. If the non-feeding team engages early, then it is likely to compromise the ball for the feeding team and makes it more difficult for the feeding team to gain advantage which means that there is a significant chance that advantage will not be achieved. IMO, playing advantage and then coming back for the free kick only to play another scrum will be very awkward and frustrate the viewer even more than the current situation. Playing advantage to the feeding team will also require the referee to make a judgment on whether the non-feeding's team potential dominance at that scrum came from an early hit or their supposed dominace in that game which will be very subjective.

 

[Wazza2013]

To give my perspective I'll give you the story of one of my games earlier this season.

As a 19-year old new referee with NSW, quite rare to get a Grade game in subbies, mainly been getting Subbies colts and the occasional Premiership 3rd colts. Alas, about 2 months ago, I was given 2nd Div 4th Grade UNSW v Petersham. We come to the first scrum, and to my chagrin and error in reviewing my game, I reset the first scrum about 3 times before we got the ball out. Guess what. I had problems with the scrum, and other communication all day. The reason: rather than setting an early standard that I wasn't gonna tolerate illegal play, I showed that I was going to try and talk them out of it after they did it. So the reason there might be an early FK for an early engagement if its contentious - is that if we get compliance early in the game at the scrum - more than likely we are going to get compliance when we try to manage a situation at the breakdown.

Also it has been statistically proven that the slower calls are providing better outcomes.

Agree with the coach,good to get a ref's input.

You have a tough job , and ref's cop a lot.

But our game couldn't run without you guy's

For your efforts, I say Thank you.

 

[the coach]

Coach, I think playing advantage is quite impractical in this situation. Firstly, if the feeding team engages early then the non-feeding team is almost never going to get an advantage given that they are unlikely to win the ball since they are not putting the ball in and they lost the hit as well. If the non-feeding team engages early, then it is likely to compromise the ball for the feeding team and makes it more difficult for the feeding team to gain advantage which means that there is a significant chance that advantage will not be achieved. IMO, playing advantage and then coming back for the free kick only to play another scrum will be very awkward and frustrate the viewer even more than the current situation. Playing advantage to the feeding team will also require the referee to make a judgment on whether the non-feeding's team potential dominance at that scrum came from an early hit or their supposed dominace in that game which will be very subjective.

I understand and accept your point.
But I have seen many scrums where both teams appeared to engage early or where the difference in engagement is so slight and it is CLEAR that neither side has gained any advantage. I think there's an opportunity for the referee in these cases to delay the put in of the ball (as they already do on some occasions) until the scrum steadies and / or play an advantage.

Anyway the new scrum calls are going to fix all this so the problem will no longer exist