<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title>Girls U19 Pool 1 Preview</title>
		<description>Discuss Girls U19 Pool 1 Preview</description>
		<link>http://www.rugbymag.com/girls/892-girls-u19-pool-1-preview.html</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Jun 2013 23:26:51 --500</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://www.rugbymag.com/component/jcomments/feed/com_content/892/10.html" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>chris gaither says:</title>
			<link>http://www.rugbymag.com/girls/892-girls-u19-pool-1-preview.html#comment-2424</link>
			<description><![CDATA[so the one team that has handed the Amazons a loss (motherlode) not once but twice this year(1 time in tournament 1 time regular season) is shut out because kent was unwilling to show some class and work with the opponet to get the game in. But if I was kent I wouldn't have wanted to play Motherlode either and ruin a fre ride to nationals]]></description>
			<dc:creator>chris gaither</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 20 May 2011 14:02:09 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.rugbymag.com/girls/892-girls-u19-pool-1-preview.html#comment-2424</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>chris gaither says:</title>
			<link>http://www.rugbymag.com/girls/892-girls-u19-pool-1-preview.html#comment-2423</link>
			<description><![CDATA[kent has no right to be there .... they flatly refused to work with motherlode to get the game in..... if klast years return to nationals was "tainted" then this years must be stained. Nationals should be earned, and like so many other sports there should be a requirement to play to advance]]></description>
			<dc:creator>chris gaither</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 20 May 2011 13:58:28 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.rugbymag.com/girls/892-girls-u19-pool-1-preview.html#comment-2423</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Alameda Rugby says:</title>
			<link>http://www.rugbymag.com/girls/892-girls-u19-pool-1-preview.html#comment-2326</link>
			<description><![CDATA[That's such baloney that Kent gets to go to nationals. They did not win a regional playoff. They were stubborn and refused to move their game against Motherlode, who probably would have beaten them, and now they get a chance at nationals? Bad look for the PCRFU!]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Alameda Rugby</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 19 May 2011 19:34:30 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.rugbymag.com/girls/892-girls-u19-pool-1-preview.html#comment-2326</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>RenoRugger says:</title>
			<link>http://www.rugbymag.com/girls/892-girls-u19-pool-1-preview.html#comment-2296</link>
			<description><![CDATA["Even though teams have every right to be frustrated with the lack of transparency thus far, they also know that being a champion means being able to beat every team in the competition." This was perfectly stated. I have a question for the reporter. Are you now working to get to the bottom of the seeding issue in the PCRFU? Was this left up to the PCFRU, who then let the ball drop, or was it a scheduling issue between the teams that created a circumstance by which they could not play to determine the seeding? It seems to this observer that the order of finish, by LAU, from the territorial tournament in Medford last year could have been used as an equitable method to determine the seeding, or finish in the national championships. Either way, the NorCal team finished higher and so have a legitimate claim to the higher seeding this year.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>RenoRugger</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 19 May 2011 15:58:15 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.rugbymag.com/girls/892-girls-u19-pool-1-preview.html#comment-2296</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
