A superb kick by Western Force captain Kyle Godwin, converted into an 80th minute try by a flying Julian Olowofela, must have felt like a dagger to the heart of the bonus-point-seeking Crusaders.
But by the end of the weekend, with the result in Canberra falling their way, surgeons had deemed it to be no more than a flesh wound.
As a result, with one round remaining, odds have now shortened on a Blues versus Crusaders final to Super Rugby’s fledgling Trans-Tasman competition.
Of their resting players, it was the no-nonsense work rate of Sam Whitelock that the Crusaders missed the most, stuttering their way to a 29-21 win. That scoreline, closer than most predictions, was also due in large part to the Force playing a lot of the rugby, and having the better of the second half, more evidence that even if the win/loss tally doesn’t reflect it, the gap between the two sets of franchises has closed somewhat over the last month.
In Brisbane, the Reds had a lot of things to overcome: the loss of key backs James O’Connor and Bryce Hegarty, and the powerful, heavy-grinding bulldozer that is the Blues’ forward pack. Getting out to 31-14, the Caterpillar men always seemed to have enough in reserve, despite the Reds never relenting, and the final score closing to 31-24.
For the home side, most impressive was the sustained effort and intensity of players like Hunter Paisami and rock music royalty, Angus Scott-Young. While more finesse would be welcome, the Reds will go to Wellington next week believing that a second competition win is possible.
(Photo by Albert Perez/Getty Images)
Their comeback featured a 48th minute close-in try to Brandon Paenga-Amosa, that had the whiff of a knock-on all over it, the ball spilling forward from a ruck immediately prior to Paenga-Amosa taking possession.
For a knock-on to occur the ball must, in the first instance, be propelled forward from the hand or arm. In this case the ball clearly came out backwards from the hand of Ryan Smith, and while it subsequently rolled forward, referee Mike Fraser, who had a strong match, was right to rule play on.
It was business as usual for the Waratahs in Dunedin, where some promising ball movement was undermined by sieve-like defence, particularly in first-phase situations within their own 22.
With squad depth severely tested by injury, there were excuses to be made, but after 12 straight losses, conceding a whopping 70 tries along the way, the end of this wretched season can’t come quickly enough.
The Highlanders meanwhile stayed in the race for the finals, but will be under no false illusions, knowing that they face a far sterner physical test next week in Canberra.
Indeed, Brumbies coach Dan McKellar proved to be a man of his word after promising that his side would compete hard at the breakdown and collision areas against the Hurricanes. With Ardie Savea never one to back away from a breakdown scrap, this highly competitive slugfest was a breath of fresh air after the low-intensity fare served up beforehand in Dunedin.
As he has done all year, Rob Valetini provided great energy on both sides of the ball, with Henry Stowers barely a step behind. After a series of matches punctuated by Australian sides dancing to the tune of the New Zealand franchises, it was fascinating to see the Brumbies take the ascendancy, dragging the Hurricanes into a street fight, and seeing it through the whole 80 minutes to close out a narrow 12-10 win.
(Photo by Mark Kolbe/Getty Images)
It could have been two points more, with Len Ikitau doing all the hard work to break through for his 52nd minute try, only to commit the cardinal sin of focusing on his dive instead of the business of running around towards the posts to improve the angle for his kicker.
It could also have been less, with Jordie Barrett missing three penalties – one from a very handy position – any one of which would have given the visitors the win. In such a tight contest, that was really the winning and losing of the match, although the Hurricanes have a genuine grievance over the manner in which a 73rd minute try to Alex Fidow – the only time in the match where they managed to breach the Brumbies’ centre-field defence – was disallowed.
Forget for a moment arguments over whether Ardie Savea knocked the ball on or not. Every match is full of subjective or 50/50 calls, which flow for and against every side. Such is rugby’s beautiful imperfection.
But rugby also has black and white, absolute matters of law that are not open to interpretation, such as protocols for use of the TMO. In try-scoring situations, referees and TMOs are permitted to review play back to the previous stoppage, in this example, a penalty awarded to the Hurricanes.
Savea’s fumble occurred before the penalty. The match officials simply had no business looking at it. As for claims that the penalty wouldn’t have been awarded if the knock-on had been blown? Sure, but where do you stop? Would play have been in that part of the field if any other matter – say a dubious lineout throw, or a contentious scrum penalty – been ruled differently upon review?
One cannot take the view that justice was done for the Brumbies without accepting that the officials can and should stop play to review all potentially contentious decisions.
Not a couple of hours earlier, the Highlanders versus Waratahs match was halted, and players and fans were robbed of two minutes of their lives, waiting for a TMO review of something that proved to be nothing at all. Is this a blueprint of how we wish rugby to be played?
Surely not. Restricting TMO use to instances of serious foul play and try-scoring movements is the limit of intrusion that rugby – which has at its heart dynamic and continuous movement – must allow.
By the way, if the Hurricanes learned anything from the weekend’s events, it is the value of TJ Perenara to their franchise. You can bet your house that had Perenara been on the field, he would have been right in referee Paul Williams’ ear, reminding him of the law, and Fidow’s try would have stood.
(Photo by Michael Bradley/Getty Images)
The Rebels succumbed to the disappointment of not being able to visit Hamilton by letting the Chiefs skip away to a 19-point lead in the first quarter. Yet by halftime, scrum issues had been turned around to such an extent that they went into the break unexpectedly locked up at 19-19.
A class edge saw the Chiefs able to convert more of their second-half opportunities to run out 36-26 winners, leaving the Rebels to ponder yet another ‘what could have been’ match.
Four lineouts lost or spoiled in their attacking 22, and too many soft penalties given away for high tackles, stunted the Rebels’ ability to sustain pressure and in turn, transferred pressure back onto themselves. No matter the effort and intent, attention to detail and skill execution to enable ball retention in the attacking zone are paramount at this level.
Commentator Drew Mitchell was quick to contrast the improved showing of the Rebels in the last two weeks, scoring eight tries, with their early season accumulation of penalty goals, and simplistically sheet this home to a change in coaching philosophy.
In truth, it’s much easier to play cohesive attacking rugby with front-foot ball. The Rebels have struggled to recycle the ball quickly all year, and have lacked the punchy ball runners, back and forward, to bend the advantage line to create meaningful space. Here, Isi Naisarani made an impressive 17 carries, most of them effective, and demonstrated just how much his presence was missing earlier in the season.
Regular readers of this column will know how Alan Jones’ weekly utterings, featured in The Australian every Friday, are a regular source of bewilderment and amusement. In keeping with some of the weekend’s unusual and unexpected events, it was as if Halley’s Comet had arrived 40 years early, to discover Jones writing with rare clarity about the unsatisfactory situation that has arisen in Sydney club rugby.
(Photo by Don Arnold/WireImage via Getty Images)
A cabal of northern beaches and eastern suburbs clubs, deigning themselves perpetually Shute Shield worthy, are in the process of seeking to impose participation criteria that will effectively force the Penrith, Parramatta and West Harbour clubs to withdraw from the competition or merge.
For anyone whose vision extends no further than ring-fencing an exclusive semi-professional competition, geographically centred around Sydney’s money belt, the proposed changes make perfect sense.
For others with a wider view, taking a budding nursery of players in Sydney’s western suburbs and effectively telling them to move east, or go and play rugby league, borders on criminal.
No-one begrudges any rugby club looking after its own players, members and finances. But for a handful of clubs to routinely pick the eyes out of the talent in the western Sydney clubs, entice them across the city, then demand of those clubs that they meet cutely constructed on-field and off-field performance benchmarks or face exclusion is a bit too rich.
At the core of the issue is the same problem that has beset Australian rugby for years – certainly since the advent of professionalism – which continues to hamstring progress today: that is the conflict between the aspiration of the Shute Shield clubs to be Australia’s elite domestic rugby competition versus the desire to clearly delineate professional and amateur/club rugby and to develop and grow pathways into professional rugby beyond this one competition.
Jones has it right when he says in The Australian: “whatever else may come to pass under a ‘professional’ game, clubs should not be allowed to pay their players”, and “Rugby Australia must step in here with the NSW Rugby Union to find a solution to growing our game in Western Sydney.”
Rugby Australia is largely impotent because it doesn’t have the money to fund a national domestic professional or semi-professional competition, such as the recent NRC.
Further, Sydney club rugby has, since 1874, been Australia’s predominant rugby competition, and source of elite players. With rugby struggling for traction, the Shute Shield is popular, and despite distaste over the selfish insularity of clubs drunk on their own self-importance, Rugby Australia cannot afford to be adversarial.
On the other hand, these clubs, through their actions, have shown that they have no regard for changing demographics nor any willingness to be part of a wider solution for the development of Sydney, New South Wales and Australian rugby.
This is the same parochialism that former Rugby Australia CEO Bill Pulver famously declined to feed, saying that he wouldn’t allocate scarce funds to clubs for them to “piss it up against a wall”, or bid against each other for players.
Dancing with the devil is never an attractive proposition. But neither is the NSW Rugby Union and Rugby Australia passively staring into the ‘too hard basket’ while allowing rugby in western Sydney to wither.
Muglair
Roar Rookie
Hi Jez. I did follow up on this and I am surprised if anyone is getting much pay from most of the clubs. My example of the young Penrith star wanting to move to a city club, not caring which, but wanting some compensation for time and transport still seems feasible to me and I would not rule that out. Apart from that players move for the same reasons as before; personality clashes, loss of faith in the coach (or vice versa :laughing: ) , logistics for travel between work and home, team attitudes to training , ambitions for success etc.
Muglair
Roar Rookie
No, he would have just played for another club. Anyway Jez, I don't think we will agree on this. Thanks for the workout though, it has forced me to do a lot of digging. These clubs are no where near as functional or big as many sub district clubs. I just wonder what pressure has been placed on the SS clubs to keep them in the fold. Maybe there were enough concerned about their own future to not start the ball rolling on excluding clubs. However the logical conclusion for me is that the majority have now decided the greater risk is letting them stay. The other issue is the incompetence of the governing bodies is again on display as well as the dysfunction of the current governance structures. Lets resume on the next topic which will no doubt be something to with the Waratahs.
Muglair
Roar Rookie
Jez, these are all your assumptions. Take your club Souths, they pay a head coach and also part time coaching and support positions, not that well paid. There may be some reimbursements for expenses but players are not paid to play. That is the position at at least three other clubs. For example in our discussion case of a young western suburbs player paid $20k to attend 3 training sessions a week for 40 weeks in the east, that does not cover car expenses and time. That is a reimbursement. They played Penrith at home recently with hardly anybody there. Nobody is winning with this. The more I think about it, this is the egos of the clubs to be excluded, they have done nothing to attract players to their clubs, they just don't have the resources and nothing to offer. Your assumptions are just that, I have made a lot of enquiries to confirm mine. If anything this is just a blame shifting exercise and I would not be surprised if RA/NSW fingers are in it somewhere. I will post again if I can establish how subbies are doing in the west. It has been suggested that might be where the players are going.
jeznez
Roar Guru
No. The salary cap is in the participation agreement. The payments are there with rugby costs 6-9 times what amateur comps are spending. My position is they should be amateur and maintain social grades. If they are going to head professional instead then they will kill the social grades in time. That will be their choice and using social grades as a lever to reduce competition is heinous.
jeznez
Roar Guru
They are specifically implementing a salary cap even as some clubs rort the system with uni scholarships (Randwick’s 88K spend there stands out). Meanwhile levering teams out for not having Social grades.
Muglair
Roar Rookie
Salaries for players is in your head Jez. Your initial claim was that instead of excluding Penrith et al, the SS clubs should shed grades, claiming that was what equivalent competitions had fewer grades. As I said above these clubs have no right to be in the SS. Subbies clubs appear to have more grades and that is where these clubs need to head.
Muglair
Roar Rookie
Pretty much as the SS is Jez. All of this has shown that the administrations of the western clubs are totally incompetent and/or there has not been sufficient attention to western Sydney from RA and NSWRU. Moreso the latter I expect. These clubs belong in the sub-districts competition so that they can win some games and attract some players. Maybe even have some fun. Those clubs need to have the courage to make the call and rebuild, not keep complaining and never delivering.
jeznez
Roar Guru
What has replacing artificial turf got to do with salaries for players?
jeznez
Roar Guru
It’s got a full breakdown on page 12 of the report. 14 of the pdf. I’m not surprised it’s similar to Drummoyne. That’s what it will be if you aren’t paying players. My question was if you head the professional path with a salary cap, then name a comp with lower grades. My whole point here is NZ club has remained amateur and with 50 Premier clubs in Oz it should be staying amateur and keeping the lower grades.
Muglair
Roar Rookie
http://www.collegerifles.co.nz/asset/downloadasset?id=7ea8d674-199b-4a9d-8469-10ef66f93b8e http://www.collegerifles.co.nz/ Not the same level of detail as Ponsonby but I note ground maintenance of $85,000 predicted. It is also a substantial operation. I don't think we are comparing apples with apples here.
Muglair
Roar Rookie
http://www.ponsonbyrugby.co.nz/ The only thing is Jez, what is it indicative of? That is not the complete picture of the workings of Ponsonby. If you look at the website it has to be at least as substantial as any of the SS clubs. Either there are other financial entities in the mix or the whole financial and cost model of Auckland rugby and Sydney rugby is different. Which should be no surprise. No doubt the amount of volunteer labour and expertise is on a different planet. I looked at the Drummoyne site for comparison, the most recent report being for 2009, expenses $125k. That does not surprise, and is probably pretty typical of many subbies club. Now picking on different financial structures of NZ premier clubs is a step away from the initial objection that these elite NZ clubs would only field a couple of sides, and so should Penrith. Drummoyne fields five grades in the suburban competition. I don't know where the failings lie, but my view now is that it has been a ridiculous position enabling these clubs to keep playing in the premiership competition in the vain hope that they might attract some players. This is starting to look like an ego issue in the western clubs, rather than an ego issue in the eastern clubs. I also note that Ponsonby has almost $1m in investments and $1.2m shareholder funds. That also sets them apart from our humble Sydney clubs. Except for Eastwood of course.
jeznez
Roar Guru
https://www.sporty.co.nz/asset/downloadasset?id=a24450e9-4ee6-40cb-b41a-fc907a3defee Here it is again, could only find 2015 but that should be indicative.
Muglair
Roar Rookie
Sydney Uni is probably understating their expenses because a lot of their admin will be in the sports association. One of the wealthy clubs though. A good rule of thumb is the eligibility criteria of $500k, that seems to be the settlement of the minimum expenses to run a full program including professional coaching and support, and probably revenue functions such as sponsorship. You will have to send a link to the Ponsonby document showing their expenses of $71k. Looking at their website I would not be surprised if they are up around the Sydney Uni mark.
jeznez
Roar Guru
You see the salary cap as an intention to take the competition semi professional. I don’t, and it does not make any financial sense. You know that as you have looked at the financials of several clubs too. We've both looked but we interpret things quite differently. Sydney Uni spending 450-600K AUD on Rugby operations vs Ponsonby spending 71K NZD is pretty telling to me.
Muglair
Roar Rookie
Not a chance it seems. I still think you are building fantasy castles on quicksand. :silly: You see the salary cap as an intention to take the competition semi professional. I don't, and it does not make any financial sense. You know that as you have looked at the financials of several clubs too. The silence from NSW and RA is the sound of them running into hiding. They probably don't know what to do or how to do it. The neglect of RA of western Sydney is in line with their approach to the whole Australian rugby scene. Everyone is a potential customer only. It appears the NRC is dead. That is brain dead thinking, only exceeded by their fundamentally stupid way of approaching it. Two purposes was to provide "professional" "content" for TV, and to trial players. Whether anyone attended the games or not was of no interest. The timing of the competition and the lack of interest generated meant low ratings for the one game televised. Teams outside the Sydney region have never provided a full set of teams and they never will. There will not be the interest in their districts and the financial costs would kill it anyway. Away games for the Sydney clubs will create a whole lot of availability problems in their own ranks. Changing the eligibility rules to accommodate them will create a furore the clubs do not need. RA promoting the Sydney and Brisbane comps as a substitute NRC is a furore they don't need, especially as NSW and Qld are now a minority. I was suggesting you speak to SD about their views on reducing their club to two grades and a Colts team. You might find their views align with mine. I am not sure they want any involvement in a semi-professional competition either. SD has four grades and two colts and are thereabouts the financial qualifications. I daresay all of the clubs will improve their revenues without the drag of the weaker clubs. The last suggestion does not stack up. Players with genuine prospects are not going to go to WA to play in the club competition. What we really need is a NRC that runs in conjunction with the club season and dovetailing with the needs of the local competitions. In my view only WA club players should be eligible for WA SR and NRC teams (as for the other states). Therefore young players will move to WA competition with minimal financial incentive to play for a local club in the hope of getting a professional contract. A bit like NZ players who cannot crack a SR contract coming to Sydney.
jeznez
Roar Guru
Yeah, we aren't going to see eye to eye are we? As far as I'm concerned setting a salary cap and at the same time maintaining social grades as a lever suggests very strongly they are up to something. They are inconsistent behaviours. The silence from RA and NSWRU, leads me to believe this is all approved from the top. Step 1. Kill NRC Step 2. Trim the number of Premier teams in Sydney Step 3. Recruit Vikings, the Heavies and Filth to implement the national club champioship. No need for me to speak the SD - I doubt they know, unless Marinos has clued them in. They as far as I am aware are just fighting for their own survival given the 7 have the numbers. Anyway, hope I'm wrong and we'll just watch and see. If I'm right then I'd love Twiggy to tip funding into WA Premier clubs and see them outbid the eastern clubs for talent. That would make me laugh.
Muglair
Roar Rookie
You have twisted this a long way Jez. As far as I am concerned this idea that SS styling themselves as an elite club competition in the SH equates to an EPL or something like it is just a Roar construct. You have looked at the same P&Ls as me, there is no hidden war chest of money. They want to raise the quality of the SS competition and protect the future of their clubs. If somebody wants to start a sustainable competition in the west then there is no obstacle. That could be RA, NSWRU, Forrest, other SR franchises etc. As you can see none have stepped up to risk their organisation. I think your next step is to contact SD yourself and get some facts.
jeznez
Roar Guru
Sorry mate, I misunderstood - since I'd asked you about Elite competitions I assumed you were talking about the Auckland NPC team and not the Auckland club competition in general. I realise now you were talking about the Auckland club competition so went and took a look at one of the leaders, Ponsonby. Yes, they have Prem, a Womens, a Prem Dev team, one colts team, a 1st grade which is really social 3rds, an over 35's and a gay/inclusive team But by definition this is a local club competition - the elite players go to NPC, how many grades are they running there? I could only find Ponsonby's statements from 2015 but have a look at their rugby expenses - 71K and that includes the director of rugby's salary, ground hire, tournament fees etc. No payments of players there. https://www.sporty.co.nz/asset/downloadasset?id=a24450e9-4ee6-40cb-b41a-fc907a3defee I'll stand by for your example of an elite competition with a salary cap that requires four opens teams and three under 21's.
Muglair
Roar Rookie
Hilarious Jez, you just ignored the other grades in the NZ competitions. I suggest you write to the leading clubs in those competitions telling them they should abandon those teams. This is how these clubs have operated for over a hundred years. I didn't play colts, started in fifths and played every grade, learning so much from older players as they played out their careers in lower grades. A lot of this poaching and playing payers talk is BS anyway. The western clubs cannot provide a pathway. For some players it is logistical. Every time I write something out here it just becomes an increasingly ridiculous discussion. RA and NSWRU need to do something about it, have not done for years, and probably won't do anything now. The resources required are now just too great. Nothing ever got turned around without new capital and/or new management. Even if there is enough PE money after all other calls on it have been met, I do not think we are going to see any rugby administrators with the drive and imagination required to fix it.
jeznez
Roar Guru
The fact they list Premier, Development, U21 first seems consistent with how pro/elite teams around the globe work - across codes and countries. So it comes down to what should our Sydney Premier clubs be? Are they seeking to be elite? By their own statement the goal is to be the top club competition in the southern hemisphere. If that is their goal providing social grades is completely superfluous. Using a lack of social grades to eliminate clubs smacks of finding an excuse to get rid of them. If they are 'village' clubs (and I think they should be) then sure, have lower grades but lets stop this poaching from other sides and then complaining that the poached upon aren't strong enough.