Shute Shield 2016

[the coach]

I assume Guildford and Daryl Gibson were together at the Crusaders and this influenced his signing by the Waratahs, but I would have thought there's probably a few players in the SS who could have been given a chance at the big time instead of him.

 

[Dave Beat]

I assume Guildford and Daryl Gibson were together at the Crusaders and this influenced his signing by the Waratahs, but I would have thought there's probably a few players in the SS who could have been given a chance at the big time instead of him.

Yeah i saw this guy bag 4 against the Wicks not long ago, he had good form in the Aus 20s as well, so could have added to our depth

 

[The Galah]

re yellow cards at TG - be very interested to see any stats HJ has available season to date and in comparison to 2015 . My quick - stress quick - check through all Marlins grades this season shows YC's in their games total 34 at an average of 5 per round with a high of 9 yesterday and a low of 2 v Souths and Penrith and 3 v Gordon. That there were 9 through the four grades yesterday suggests that the refs were maybe quick on the draw at least in a few of them.

Taking Souths as good boys on the above numbers their games in comparison have yielded 19 YC's for the first 7 rounds i.e.; average under 3 per round - interestingly their highest combined tally was v Woods at TG with 4 but all given in 4th grade.

Marlins aren't perfect and these numbers reflect game totals but on that cursory analysis 9 YC's in a day was high and in a close GF replay in first grade bound to irritate and frustrate supporters.

 

[Monty Python]

Yep, you see i don't see we lost that game, despite what the score board says.

That 10 - 12 point turn around, off set by a forward pass that that the Woods scored off and the Hilterbrand try that wasn't awarded = a very close game that should have had a 1 point difference.

Gross incompetence

Never seen that guy before in SS and hope I never see him again. Inconsistent and seemingly doesn't know the laws and/or how to apply them.

Refereeing at TG today was pathetic, why was Hilterbrands try disallowed? ref said the 5 disengaged, I watched the replay 4 times and still cannot see how he came to that conclusion . The sin bin of the 9 was rubbish.

The ref had a poor game in anlmost every aspect of it. Seemed out of his depth to be honest. Seemed to enforce some laws with a religious zeal, toatlly ignored or missed others and interpreted some laws in a way that I've never seen them interpreted. It makes for a frustrating game and when the rub of the green goes against you it magnifies it.

re yellow cards at TG -
[snip]
Marlins aren't perfect and these numbers reflect game totals but on that cursory analysis 9 YC's in a day was high and in a close GF replay in first grade bound to irritate and frustrate supporters.

Two questions anyone needs to ask themself to validate the legitimacy of criticism of a ref:

1. Did your team loose?
2. Would you be banging on about the ref's decision(s), with as much verve and passion, if you had won?

(Think about the answers honestly, impassionately, and without regard to whether your complaints would be proved correct or not with the aid of the Rugby League's Match Review Bunker).

If you answer 'yes' and 'no', in that order, then give it a rest. Most likely it's really all about being upset at the loss and looking for a scapegoat, and not so much about reffing at all.

The ref almost always has a terrible match when you loose, the more so if it is a close loss and/or decided close to full-time.

I reckon HJ would have some stats on that ;-)

 

[Dave Beat]

Two questions anyone needs to ask themself to validate the legitimacy of criticism of a ref:

1. Did your team loose?
2. Would you be banging on about the ref's decision(s), with as much verve and passion, if you had won?

(Think about the answers honestly, impassionately, and without regard to whether your complaints would be proved correct or not with the aid of the Rugby League's Match Review Bunker).

If you answer 'yes' and 'no', in that order, then give it a rest. Most likely it's really all about being upset at the loss and looking for a scapegoat, and not so much about reffing at all.

The ref almost always has a terrible match when you loose, the more so if it is a close loss and/or decided close to full-time.

I reckon HJ would have some stats on that.

That's a ballsy post, which referenced some pretty fair rugby posters.

I think when the score was 28 - 27 to the Woods it reflected the tightness off the game, and a fair result. (I said "I don't see we lost that game despite what the score board says" & " should have been a 1 point difference").

I've seen it live, and watched it on TV, and also listened to the commentators /- the commentators on watching the replay thought Hilterbrand scored a try, they also didnt think yellow for the 9.

It was a good game of rugby, both teams did some good things - ref had an impact - you can have a great game of rugby with ref having little impact.

 

[The Galah]

Two questions anyone needs to ask themself to validate the legitimacy of criticism of a ref:

1. Did your team loose?
2. Would you be banging on about the ref's decision(s), with as much verve and passion, if you had won?

(Think about the answers honestly, impassionately, and without regard to whether your complaints would be proved correct or not with the aid of the Rugby League's Match Review Bunker).

If you answer 'yes' and 'no', in that order, then give it a rest. Most likely it's really all about being upset at the loss and looking for a scapegoat, and not so much about reffing at all.

The ref almost always has a terrible match when you loose, the more so if it is a close loss and/or decided close to full-time.

I reckon HJ would have some stats on that.

 

[The Galah]

Two questions anyone needs to ask themself to validate the legitimacy of criticism of a ref:

1. Did your team loose?
2. Would you be banging on about the ref's decision(s), with as much verve and passion, if you had won?

(Think about the answers honestly, impassionately, and without regard to whether your complaints would be proved correct or not with the aid of the Rugby League's Match Review Bunker).

If you answer 'yes' and 'no', in that order, then give it a rest. Most likely it's really all about being upset at the loss and looking for a scapegoat, and not so much about reffing at all.

The ref almost always has a terrible match when you loose, the more so if it is a close loss and/or decided close to full-time.

I reckon HJ would have some stats on that.

1.Yes
2. Maybe and thanks Monty verve and passion is an important element of good writing - I think you'll find my posts do not say "we wuz robbed"but reflect a level of objectivity. Manly were not perfect and Eastwood won a tight one . That said it seemed to me (as I posted) the refs at TG on Saturday were far too visible as my little bit of analysis suggested

 

[thecow]

What was the lead that Manly had which Eastwood came back from?

I understand that some of the decisions were contentious, or incorrect, but I struggle to see why the 1st person blamed in some parts on this forum after this loss is the referee, after you give up a pretty good lead.

I'm sure there are people on this forum who are players, coaches, supporters, etc who might be thinking of becoming referees, and whilst referees, particularly at this level, shouldn't be unaccountable, to see criticism like this when other people (players) would have made mistakes during the game which would have had an impact on the result as well, doesn't bode well for the chances of those people to pick up the whistle.

 

[Dave Beat]

It seems to have gone the other way in colts - Manly got up and officials read had an impact on result. Win some you lose some.

Still say the tightness of the game it should have been a 1 point score line.

 

[boyo]

re yellow cards at TG - be very interested to see any stats HJ has available season to date and in comparison to 2015 . My quick - stress quick - check through all Marlins grades this season shows YC's in their games total 34 at an average of 5 per round with a high of 9 yesterday and a low of 2 v Souths and Penrith and 3 v Gordon. That there were 9 through the four grades yesterday suggests that the refs were maybe quick on the draw at least in a few of them.

Taking Souths as good boys on the above numbers their games in comparison have yielded 19 YC's for the first 7 rounds i.e.; average under 3 per round - interestingly their highest combined tally was v Woods at TG with 4 but all given in 4th grade.

Marlins aren't perfect and these numbers reflect game totals but on that cursory analysis 9 YC's in a day was high and in a close GF replay in first grade bound to irritate and frustrate supporters.

Playing devil's advocate - maybe the number of YCs in this round is not statistically relevant. Maybe Manly players, as a whole, infringed more often than their average.

 

[wamberal]

What was the lead that Manly had which Eastwood came back from?

I understand that some of the decisions were contentious, or incorrect, but I struggle to see why the 1st person blamed in some parts on this forum after this loss is the referee, after you give up a pretty good lead.

Eastwood were 14 points down at one stage, could have been a little bit more before that??

Without rehashing old ground, Eastwood had a second try for all money: the Manly winger tried a Hail Mary intercept when facing an impossible defensive situation, and it came off. In the previous few minutes the Woodies had been so far on top that they couldn't quite decide which final scoring option to take.


Fair enough, but any final analysis of the game has to accept that whiie there might have been some refereeing aberrations, both the intercept try and the attacking kick that Ayoub failed to clean up because of a wicked bounce did contain an element of good fortune. For mine, Eastwood scored a couple more good tries than the Marlins.


For some reason I keep thinking about the Scotland RWC semi-final.

 

[Dave Beat]

Deleted the game from 7two next week.

 

[Brian Westlake]

Deleted the game from 7two next week.

Which is Dave?

 

[Dave Beat]

Which is Dave?

Wests

 

[Monty Python]

From the local rag in Eastwood - report on the Manly v Eastwood match on the weekend at TGMilner.

 

[wamberal]

The "struggling" Two Blues?


We'll see.

 

[Match Day Burger]

Calling all followers of the Shute Shield. Check out this feature article on last weekend's Round 7 fixture between Sydney University and Eastern Suburbs. Match Day Burger https://matchdayburger.com/ turns its fresh eyes to Sydney's club rugby scene for a different perspective: http://bit.ly/1UALnAT
Enjoy.

 

[2bluesfan]

The "struggling" Two Blues?


We'll see.

The writer of that article might not be aware that it will be Back to Parra Day. There's been plenty of upsets on Back to Parra Day.

 

[Quick Hands]

Two questions anyone needs to ask themself to validate the legitimacy of criticism of a ref:

1. Did your team loose?
2. Would you be banging on about the ref's decision(s), with as much verve and passion, if you had won?

(Think about the answers honestly, impassionately, and without regard to whether your complaints would be proved correct or not with the aid of the Rugby League's Match Review Bunker).

If you answer 'yes' and 'no', in that order, then give it a rest. Most likely it's really all about being upset at the loss and looking for a scapegoat, and not so much about reffing at all.

The ref almost always has a terrible match when you loose, the more so if it is a close loss and/or decided close to full-time.

I reckon HJ would have some stats on that ;-)

Unfortunately what you have written here, does not match the posts that you have quoted. I'm not sure how long you have been on G&GR or how many threads you read. If you had read widely, you would have noticed that when I think a referee deserves criticism I set out why - regardless of whether my team wins or loses. When I think the referee has done a good job and I think he is worthy of praise, I comliment him - regardless of whether my team has won or lost.

You may have even noticed when selectively quoting that I also agreed with another poster (Wamberal I think), when it was observed that he didn't enforce the offside law either - which particuarly late in the game may have disadvantaged Eastwood.

The simple fact of the matter is that a fairly basic error in law meant that game remained at 27-14 (a 13 point margin - i.e within 2 converted tries), instead of being 32-14 (with a kick to come - i.e 3 tries needed to win). If you can't see how this changes the whole way the last 15-20 minutes was played, it probably explains your post. Eastwood then scored 2 deserved tries, which took the game to 28-27 to Eastwood instead of 32-28 to Manly with less than 5 minutes to go. It goes without saying that defending a 4 point lead is much easier than to try to score.

If you go back and read the posts again, you might notice

The ref had a poor game in anlmost every aspect of it. Seemed out of his depth to be honest. Seemed to enforce some laws with a religious zeal, toatlly ignored or missed others and interpreted some laws in a way that I've never seen them interpreted. It makes for a frustrating game and when the rub of the green goes against you it magnifies it.

 

[wamberal]

The writer of that article might not be aware that it will be Back to Parra Day. There's been plenty of upsets on Back to Parra Day.

I would love to see that, believe it or not!