Competitive Festivals at u6

[davidgh]

Didds - totally sympathise with that - senior folk in clubs need to work VERY hard to ensure that over competiveness 'WIN AT ALL COSTS' does not blur the vision of year group the coaches and managers who enthuse the kids and set the pace for the parents. It leads to LOTS of unpleasant problems on and off the pitch.

Generally where things are getting out of control, either within or without it is down to over enthusiasm and getting carried away, this can be easily fixable, or can be intractable, particularly if not nipped in the bud.

This is a key and root cause of many of the worst things that junior rugby refs are suffering from today, it needs very careful management.



Absolutely don't agree that u8s can't play as a team, but it is more difficult to achieve, this certainly doesn't mean it isn't worth teaching them. In my experience true teamwork really only emerges at around 12-13 and takes time to mature.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

My experience of festivals at a young age (not me) is coloured by the Nottingham Festival (Gullivers) where the successful teams end up at Twickenham playing prior to the Eng vs Barbarians game.

I remember at U9 when in my son's team a kid had a 3 on one and went himself and knocked on. "Some" parents turned on the father of the greedy player and berated him for his son's mistake.

You would see some teams at Nottingham with coaches, parents and kids loving the day and others with a sadistic twat trying to wring one last game out of 8 year olds who had run their blood to water.

We got to Twickenham (in the bowl or summat) and took 15 boys for a nine a side game. We were drawing 0-0 at half time and took six off and put six on. Again some parents wanted to keep the same team so we'd "win". We lost! :biggrin: Well done Amersham and Chiltern U9s :clap:

U6 competition. What a load of bollocks - whichever way you slice it competition can bring out the worst in people. That's not to say I think uncompetitive sport is something to aspire to

My lad still has his photo of the team with Gareth Chilcott - 75% all red eyed because they'd been crying because they'd lost! Not him though he was arsing about with his daft mate at the front.:biggrin:

U6 is far too young I'd suggest.

 

[Phil E]

Much bettter to reward the ethos of rugby, rather than winning.

Teamwork: Respect: Enjoyment: Discipline: Sportsmanship.

Send the team that achieves the 5 elements to Twickenham.

 

[crossref]

Much bettter to reward the ethos of rugby, rather than winning.

Teamwork: Respect: Enjoyment: Discipline: Sportsmanship.

Send the team that achieves the 5 elements to Twickenham.

I am not so sure the children would enjoy that better.

 

[baftabill]

This is a really difficult issue where I don't believe it is so black and white.

Yes, some people act appallingly around Mini rugby. My WORST experience reffing was the 5th-6th playoff at the London Irish festival - at U7....
Yes, 5th-6th at U7. I was abused, a man with a Guinness in one hand came on the field during the game, and a mother screamed at me while the kids were doing the 3 cheers. I was so new I took it....

But I have a real problem with this:

It probably comes from the fact that at U8 cooperative play is beyond the comprehension of the majority of the participants. The "players" are simply incapable of teamwork. Without teamwork there is no TEAM and so team competitions in this age range is an exercise in futility.

My favourite team, after taking my son through from 4 to 15, was an U7 team who were the most focussed bunch of kids I ever came across. Mine was playing a year up and this was in touch rugby days. Their discipline would shame many of the U15s I now see.

Now above you allow a slight get-out with "the majority" but I strongly feel we assume kids are useless when the are not. Our U8 side (with son playing in correct age now) won everything. We won the Middlesex trophy that year with a try that went through every pair of hands on the team bar one. I can name them all. To say they were incapable of teamwork is utterly laughable.

So, should competition be largely removed when they are young? I don't have an answer, but I do have a point to make: the competitive, committed ones have rights too. They have a right to be allowed to fulfil their potential.
I'm aware that all this sounds boastful, but we have produced 10 Middlesex squad members and 3 players pushing for England U16 places.

It hasn't been perfect. Being competitive is tough on everyone - we all know that good players are playing tough rugby on Saturday for school and tough rugby on Sunday for club...
And I have no doubt we could name a few who have left for less competitive clubs because they wanted more game time. (But don't forget the players who leave the uncompetitive clubs to come to ones like ours)

So I don't think there is a perfect answer.

Lee, you say that 75% of the players had red eyes having lost? I can name the 4 players who I did not play in 5 County finals in 5 years. We won them all.
They are smiling in the pictures.

I've never been certain that I did the right thing, but I'm not ashamed of it.

I also get really misty eyes about the dad who when I said his boy might not get on in the final said "No quite right. They're playing so well I wouldn't change it." But they were just lovely people.

 

[gillburt]

....To say they were incapable of teamwork is utterly laughable....

It has been proven with research that until children get to about 11/12 years of age they don't play team games the way adults do (i.e. their view of "team" is very different to an adult's view of "team")

What this means isn't that they should not play team games, but that OUR expectations of what we would expect to see should be seen through the eyes of the children. And this is primarily aimed at the notion of *tactics*, rather than wanting to play for each other, looking out for your team mates, etc etc.

I coach many teams, and on some days they play together brilliantly, passing the ball, supporting each other and so on - but they don't *think* team (e.g. the ability to visualise how their movements will impact the opposition in, for example, a 2v1 - they just do it and sometimes it comes off, sometimes it doesn't). On other days they play as a bunch of individuals who all run with the ball until stopped.

It is a huge area of research and investigation.
So long as OUR expectations are kept realistic then the kids can have a great time.
I don't have a problem with competition - it has a place. But when parents and coaches are winding up the kids so much (and we've all seen it), then you have to wonder if the parent/coach is motivated by what's good for the game, or by their own personal agenda.

 

[Rit Hinners]

Parallel and cooperative play are not terms that I've simply made up. As Gillburt confirms, it has been proven that at the ages being discussed here, team play is quite rare.

It is possible that parallel play can result in something that resembles cooperative play but that doesn't mean it is.

As it was a few decades ago that I was in college I don't remember the researcher's names nor the exact age grades that children develop the ability to play cooperatively but it is a fact. The ages Gillburt posted seems to be about correct from my recollection.

Demanding cooperative play before those ages can be harmful to the child's psyche and, due to the frustration, drive them away from the very activities that you are attempting to promote.

 

[Taff]

My experience of festivals at a young age (not me) is coloured by the Nottingham Festival (Gullivers) where the successful teams end up at Twickenham playing prior to the Eng vs Barbarians game. ... We got to Twickenham and took 15 boys for a nine a side game. We were drawing 0-0 at half time and took six off and put six on. Again some parents wanted to keep the same team so we'd "win". We lost! :biggrin:

A wise man (I forget who) once said "the memories those 15 kids have will outlast any tacky plastic trophy". :clap:

 

[baftabill]

I need to go away and refresh my mind but I think you're way out. Our view of kids used to be based on Piaget until people realized his experiments were poor. They were designed by adults from an adults perspective. When they were redesigned it turned out that Piagets view - pretty much "kids ate useless till 6" was wrong.
A lot of our ideas derive from that view. We now live in a post Piaget world where a sentence from an F A coaching manual "don't try to teach tactics to a child under 12" are seen as enlightened as "women are stupid."

 

[crossref]

i think children LIKE playing in competitive tournaments. They are fun, they are exciting.

when kids get together to play football in the park... they keep score, they try and win. It's fun

 

[dave_clark]

I also get really misty eyes about the dad who when I said his boy might not get on in the final said "No quite right. They're playing so well I wouldn't change it."

you're lucky. my club lost a player over the same thing.

 

[crossref]

you're lucky. my club lost a player over the same thing.

the secret here is communicating with the parents and players properly at the start of the season.

Our policy for U7-U12 is
- squad policy: all players get game time

U13 upwards is
- for league games, we play to win, and until the game is won or lost for certain, we put the best team on the pitch
- for friendlies we are a squad and everyone gets game time.

last season we played seven league games and about 14-15 friendlies, so all the boys still get plenty of game time. At U13 when leagues start we talk to all our parents and players, so they all know what to expect and they all buy in to this.

Our A team and our B team are both in the league.

 

[baftabill]

No perfect answer.

Two scenarios: the starting team are winning. We sub lots of players so everyone can get a game and we lose.

The starting team are winning and we don't sub players and we win

Both scenarios have 'losers'. Don't tell me a really good player who is subbed for a much worse player (they may be young but they are not stupid) Hasn't lost something.

There is no right answer.

What there is, much like reffing, is management. Policy, principles, talking to people and explaing.

You can do what you do badly, or well.

 

[Phil E]

From the continuum regulations.

IT IS IMPORTANT FROM THE OUTSET to promote the “spirit of rugby” with both
children and their parents/guardians. These wider values of the game include enjoyment, teamwork
and respect for the efforts of others. All activities should be directed to encouraging all children to
participate and progress. The club should also encourage adults to become involved and provide
those that volunteer with practical support.

Through the RFU Continuum, the RFU wishes to promote the ‘spirit of rugby’. This means the enjoyment of learning a challenging team sport that values effort as much as achievement. In the past, some adults involved in developing Mini-Midi Rugby promoted a ‘win at any cost’ culture to the exclusion of the wider values of the game including enjoyment, teamwork and respect for the efforts of others. The Continuum includes Codes specifically designed to overcome such negative attitudes for the greater good of the game.

 

[baftabill]

I hate the phrase "win at all costs"

What does that mean?

It will be a sad day when we a have to pretend the purpose of a game is not to score more points than the opposition.

Four year olds get that.

 

[Phil E]

I hate the phrase "win at all costs"

What does that mean?

I guess it might mean something like:

The starting team are winning and we don't sub players and we win

In a contradiction of:

All activities should be directed to encouraging all children to
participate and progress.

 

[baftabill]

It's not that simple and you know it. So stop pretending it is.

 

[PaulDG]

I hate the phrase "win at all costs"

What does that mean?

It will be a sad day when we a have to pretend the purpose of a game is not to score more points than the opposition.

Four year olds get that.

They do.

And the ones that lose week in week out get it more than the ones that win.

They get it, they get fed up with it and they stop playing.

And then, when they're 14 and the hormones cut in, they develop into 6'2" bruisers who, had they still been even remotely interested in rugby, would have had a chance to play in the Championship at least.

Meanwhile the 7 year olds who were winning all the time have found that now they're the same size or smaller than their opposition that they lose all the time and they stop playing too.

The point of mini rugby is to get the kids interested and keep them all in the game.

Because if you push the losers away at 7, you don't have a team by the time the others are 16.

 

[OB..]

My 6-year old grandson can tell you how many goals he scored, but not how many his team scored (playground pick-up games).

 

[baftabill]

Yes but once again it ain't that simple.
The three most competitive clubs in our area have 1500 minis between them. My club is at capacity.
I think we average 50 per age group.

I can name children who won't play tag rubgy because it's rubbish.
But I don't think that proves anything.