School Rugby 2025
-
@mikedogz said in School Rugby 2025:
TBH, after listening to that not sure he made any great or unique points. Kids have been moving schools for rugby since before I was in school.
I'm unsure why this is all of a sudden an issue now.
In fact, with NZR actively destroying a level of development in rugby (NPC), the "professional" schools comps are likely needed more for the health of NZ pro rugby than they were in the past.
-
@Bovidae said in School Rugby 2025:
CNI (Round 1)
Whanganui Collegiate 22 – 20 St John’s Hamilton
St Paul’s Collegiate 10 – 19 Lindisfarne College
FDMC 19 – 26 Feilding High School
Wesley College 7 – 31 St Peter’s Cambridge
St John’s Hastings - bye (Rathkeale College appears to have withdrawn from the competition)Rathkeale have joined the Wgtn comp, I believe that the travel factor appears to have played a part in the decision. Wgtn Coll beat Hastings 18-17, Stream beat Napier 31-5 over the weekend in preseason games, the reverse fixtures the week before saw the HB get the wins. Coll travel to Hamilton for a Moascar challenge, and Stream have a traditional v Palmy. While the comp starts next week. Interestingly Scots look to be weak at the moment, so they must have run out of money for scholarships (well over half the team in recent years) and returned to being very average at rugby again.
@Boourns said in School Rugby 2025:
Interestingly Scots look to be weak at the moment, so they must have run out of money for scholarships (well over half the team in recent years) and returned to being very average at rugby again.
Ouch!
In Strathmore earlier in the day, Scots College’s wretched start to 2025 continued when they were hammered 97-7 by Napier Boys’ High School. Scots have conceded 344 points in their last four games.
-
@Boourns said in School Rugby 2025:
Interestingly Scots look to be weak at the moment, so they must have run out of money for scholarships (well over half the team in recent years) and returned to being very average at rugby again.
Ouch!
In Strathmore earlier in the day, Scots College’s wretched start to 2025 continued when they were hammered 97-7 by Napier Boys’ High School. Scots have conceded 344 points in their last four games.
@Bovidae said in School Rugby 2025:
@Boourns said in School Rugby 2025:
Interestingly Scots look to be weak at the moment, so they must have run out of money for scholarships (well over half the team in recent years) and returned to being very average at rugby again.
Ouch!
In Strathmore earlier in the day, Scots College’s wretched start to 2025 continued when they were hammered 97-7 by Napier Boys’ High School. Scots have conceded 344 points in their last four games.
Sheesh, what a hiding. Hard to feel sorry for them, their behaviour with the game against Feilding a few years ago was bang out of order. Feel for the lads in the team now, but if a school just had a 1st XV and no rugby programme outside of the 1st team it was Scots. Pity Town didn't turn over Coll.
-
CNI
Whanganui Collegiate 50 - 12 St John’s Hastings
St Paul’s Collegiate 24 - 20 Wesley College
Feilding High School 36 - 37 St Peter’s Cambridge
Lindisfarne College 61 - 19 St John’s HamiltonI went along to watch St Paul's vs Wesley. Wesley have some big, athletic players but make too many mistakes.
-
CNI
Whanganui Collegiate 50 - 12 St John’s Hastings
St Paul’s Collegiate 24 - 20 Wesley College
Feilding High School 36 - 37 St Peter’s Cambridge
Lindisfarne College 61 - 19 St John’s HamiltonI went along to watch St Paul's vs Wesley. Wesley have some big, athletic players but make too many mistakes.
@Bovidae said in School Rugby 2025:
Wesley have some big, athletic players
Shit yeah they do. My first xv played them last year in the northern schools tournament in Pukekohe and our boys are also quite big but a bunch of them sacked their nuts and we got cooked 45-0
-
There have been some Super 8 games played last Sat and today.
New Plymouth BHS 15 - 24 Hastings BHS
Gisborne BHS 8 - 51 Palmerston North BHSRotorua BHS 14 - 29 Tauranga BC
Traditional Exchange (Wed)
Auckland Grammar 19 - 32 Hamilton BHSAn interesting try in today's live game between Nelson College and Marlborough BC. I'll post the highlights video if Sky uploads, but MBC had a penalty in front of the goal posts so all of the NC players were in a huddle behind the posts. The MBC kicker then kicks the ball deliberately to the left corner where a teammate manages to score before the ball goes out. I can only assume they told the ref it wasn't going to be a shot at goal even though the ARs were behind the posts. After discussion between the officials the try stood. MBC held on to win 28-26 in Nelson.
-
@Chris said in School Rugby 2025:
@gt12 said in School Rugby 2025:
That's a grub play.
Yeah the ref should not of allowed the try.
What a fucking muppet, his assistant is quoting the right law at him.
-
-
8.18A penalty goal can be scored only from a penalty.
8.19The kicking team must indicate their intention to kick for goal without delay.
8.20If the team indicates to the referee the intention to kick at goal, they must kick at goal. The intention to kick can be communicated to the referee or signalled by the arrival of the kicking tee or sand, or when the player makes a mark on the ground.
-
8.18A penalty goal can be scored only from a penalty.
8.19The kicking team must indicate their intention to kick for goal without delay.
8.20If the team indicates to the referee the intention to kick at goal, they must kick at goal. The intention to kick can be communicated to the referee or signalled by the arrival of the kicking tee or sand, or when the player makes a mark on the ground.
@Trig said in School Rugby 2025:
8.20If the team indicates to the referee the intention to kick at goal, they must kick at goal. The intention to kick can be communicated to the referee or signalled by the arrival of the kicking tee or sand, or when the player makes a mark on the ground.
I read this law differently to how many have been interpreting it. Firstly, I feel this is worded to stop a situation where a team may say they are kicking for the posts but will instead tap the ball and play because they have seen space. This wording allows the law to sanction teams that will do this and instead once they have indicated they will kick for posts, the have to commit to that decision and the shot clock will begin. This law doesn't actually state that the kick at goal has to be a genuine attempt which allows the play above to be completed. I believe the player was in the right according to these laws but if they had seen the same space and had picked the ball up to kick it to there then this law would come into effect.
-
@Trig said in School Rugby 2025:
8.20If the team indicates to the referee the intention to kick at goal, they must kick at goal. The intention to kick can be communicated to the referee or signalled by the arrival of the kicking tee or sand, or when the player makes a mark on the ground.
I read this law differently to how many have been interpreting it. Firstly, I feel this is worded to stop a situation where a team may say they are kicking for the posts but will instead tap the ball and play because they have seen space. This wording allows the law to sanction teams that will do this and instead once they have indicated they will kick for posts, the have to commit to that decision and the shot clock will begin. This law doesn't actually state that the kick at goal has to be a genuine attempt which allows the play above to be completed. I believe the player was in the right according to these laws but if they had seen the same space and had picked the ball up to kick it to there then this law would come into effect.
@Trig the difficulty with that interpretation are the words "they must kick at goal". Hence why refs mention genuine attempt.
-
@Duluth said in School Rugby 2025:
@Bovidae It has to be a genuine attempt at goal right?
I thought so, but apparently not. Read the first comments as the relevant law is listed. I've seen this done before and the ref wouldn't allow it.
@Bovidae said in School Rugby 2025:
@Duluth said in School Rugby 2025:
@Bovidae It has to be a genuine attempt at goal right?
I thought so, but apparently not. Read the first comments as the relevant law is listed. I've seen this done before and the ref wouldn't allow it.
The law is clear on this, it's under law 8.
