Mininum age

[JDET]

I had the pleasure of reffing a friendly between two third teams. One team was the usual fifteen blokes 30-50 years, with faces that only a mother could love. However when the opposition turned up it was a mixture of some of the aformentioned but also 5 or 6 guys who looked 16 -18. I decide to check with there captain that they where 18, as I would not allow any one under 18 to take part in this game.Someone then chipped in that they could play at 17 as long as they did not play front row. He confirmed that they were indeed 18, and we got on with the match.
Although on this occasion the Captain confirmed they were all 18, was I right in my belief that 18 is the minimum age for senior rugby, and this "17 as long as they did not play front row", is one of these mythical laws that creep into the game :chin:

 

[dave_clark]

nope, 17 year olds can play senior rugby as long as they have been deemed ready by appropriate adults (safeguarding officer, parents, head coach, those sort of people). if any believe that the player is not ready, then they shouldn't be allowed to play.

at least that's how it is supposed to work

you're right about the 18 restriction on front row play, even if uncontested scrums.

 

[Dixie]

Game regulation 13.c:

13.8 Young players: Any Club playing a player below the age of eighteen in the adult game must adhere to the RFU's Policy and Procedures for the Welfare of Young People in Rugby Union and Schools & Youth Regulations 2.2 and 2.3

2.2 Players may only play adult rugby, or train with other adults, when they have reached their eighteenth birthday unless they comply with one of the following exceptions:
(a) players who are aged 17 may play adult (including Under 20) rugby and train with adults provided they have been assessed as capable of playing with adults. This exception does not apply to playing in the front row of the scrum during contested or uncontested scrummages either during training or in a match, where there is an absolute prohibition on players under the age of 18 playing in adult rugby; or
(b) players who have not reached their 18th Birthday who are England Academy Players and who may play adult rugby and train if the RFU Head of Elite Player Development has given his specific written consent. Such consent must be given for playing or training.
(c) Players of all sexes and of any age may train or play together in non-contact variations of rugby, providing the organizer has assessed the session as safe for all players.

2.3 Permission to play must be obtained from either the player's parent, guardian or head teacher before any person under the age of 18 plays adult rugby or plays with players who are not in the same annual age banding. When assessing whether a player under 18 is capable of playing adult rugby, those responsible for making the decision must take account of the guidelines at paragraphs 1.1 - 1.6 below.

Davet is right - this is not really an issue for you as referee. If the club fields an ineligible player, the problem gets sorted elsewhere. You'll see that England Academy players may play front row even if under 18 - we have no way of knowing whether they are in fact in the England academy, or whether the required permission has been given.

 

[Taff]

.... Davet is right - this is not really an issue for you as referee. If the club fields an ineligible player, the problem gets sorted elsewhere. You'll see that England Academy players may play front row even if under 18 - we have no way of knowing whether they are in fact in the England academy, or whether the required permission has been given.

Fair point Dixie, but if a player looked under 18 I assume it would be prudent for the ref to at least ask. Perhaps something along the lines of "Morning captain. Can you confirm that your players are over 18 as required". Of course they may lie, but if they do it's somebody elses problem, and at least JDET would have covered his arse. :chin:

 

[sgoat]

Fair point Dixie, but if a player looked under 18 I assume it would be prudent for the ref to at least ask. Perhaps something along the lines of "Morning captain. Can you confirm that your players are over 18 as required". Of course they may lie, but if they do it's somebody elses problem, and at least JDET would have covered his arse. :chin:

Not your problem. It is up the the captain to comply with the game regulations. You are just there to referee the Laws.

Compare with front row. It is up to the captain/player to decide who is STE to play inthe front row, not the referee.

 

[crossref]

What if you happened to *know* that one of players was 16
(let's say you reffed him jsut last week playing in the County U16s)
is it still not your problem?

What if you knew one of the front row was only 17?

 

[Taff]

Not your problem. It is up to the captain to comply with the game regulations. You are just there to referee the Laws. Compare with front row. It is up to the captain / player to decide who is STE to play in the front row, not the referee.

Ok Sgoat, I don't mean to be flippant but

3.5 SUITABLY TRAINED AND EXPERIENCED PLAYERS IN THE FRONT ROW.(b) Each player in the front row and any potential replacement(s) must be suitably trained and experienced.

how do we know if they are "suitably trained and experienced" unless we ask? :chin:

I honestly don't mean to be argumentative; I'm just an inexperienced ref trying to think of ways to head off any potential problems before we even get on the pitch.

 

[OB..]

You ask if a player is STE, and take the word of the captain/coach. However if you later see that he is not up to snuff, you let the captain know that you will have to go to uncontested scrums for safety reasons unless he has a suitable replacement.

 

[SimonSmith]

I think first off that you're worrying about the 05% thing.

I assume that they are all STE; when the scrum starts to deteriorate, then manage to that.

Easy as

 

[Taff]

You ask if a player is STE, and take the word of the captain/coach. However if you later see that he is not up to snuff, you let the captain know that you will have to go to uncontested scrums for safety reasons unless he has a suitable replacement.

I've got no issue with that at all - it makes perfect sense. So by the same principle, if we know that players in an adult game have to be at least 18, and we suspect that there is an underage player, why don't we just "ask if a player is [18+] and take the word of the captain / coach" in that case?

I appreciate that we would have to take the players / captains / coaches word for it, but as I assume the age restriction is there for safety reasons after all, if we saw something suspicious it seems a bit strange if we never even asked.

 

[Scarlet Al]

Stay out of admin issues is the best thing. Not your problem.

 

[Taff]

Stay out of admin issues is the best thing. Not your problem.

Thanks Alun. I'll shut up now.

 

[Dixie]

Reffing out of county last week, I recognised the bearded fullback as the son of a 1st XV coach at my local club. I sent him off for abuse when he was 15, and I know that he was at one time selected for a U.16 South West England tour to Munster.

Browsing my club's website the other day, I realised that that U.16 tour was last year. If the guy was 17, he had turned seventeen between September 1 and late November. Yet if asked to give his age without knowing him, I would have guessed between 23 and 25. it's not our monkey - the club holds his precise DOB in its records.

 

[stuart3826]

I have to say that if I knew a player to be younger than advertised, I would have to deal with it. If I had a 17 yr old prop playing in a senior game and he was injured, I couldn't have that on my conscience - any doubt, I want proof he's 18. If I could get done for selling him a drink, you can bet your cojones I could get done for allowing him to play knowing him to be under age!!!

 

[Simon Thomas]

I agree with the main comments - admin is not your issue and stay out of it.

But if you know a player is not 17 years old (unlikely but it does happen) then say so.

If you know for a fact, or even suspect, a FR is not 18 then ask the skipper a quiet and direct question before you start the match.

 

[MiniRef]

2.2 Players may only play adult rugby, or train with other adults, when they have reached their eighteenth birthday unless they comply with one of the following exceptions:
(a) players who are aged 17 may play adult (including Under 20) rugby and train with adults provided they have been assessed as capable of playing with adults....
2.3 Permission to play must be obtained from either the player's parent, guardian or head teacher before any person under the age of 18 plays adult rugby or plays with players who are not in the same annual age banding....

So, if 17 year olds want to train with seniors, is an assessment (by the U17 coach / seniors coach) sufficient – or is permission required from parent etc? Item 2.3 seems to indicate that permission is required only for a 17 year old to play with seniors. By implication, they can train with seniors subject to assessment (even if there are “game situations” as part of the training)?

 

[Ray TR]

My first post-hope I get it right! Is a player aged 17 in adult rugby then subject to the U19 requirement re squeezeball? If I ref colts-where SB is allowed-and one player is in fact under 18, even as a sub, I cannot allow squeezeball in that game by any player. So are we at risk of allowing squeezeball in the adult game with an under 18 player and negating this safety law? Could we be liable-as we would with a 17 year old squeezeball injury in colts?

Confusing, but then the longer I ref the more confused I get!

 

[Dixie]

Confusing, but then the longer I ref the more confused I get!

The point about U.17's playing adult is that a responsible person who has seen him train and play, and who knows his capability well, has to certify that the player has the physique and the skills to be able to cope with full adult laws, as well as with the physicality of adult hits. That's the coach's monkey - don't take it onto your own back.

 

[Ray TR]

I agree Dixie-I was just pointing out another pair of totally contradictory laws-the same coach cannot say he is similarly capable if he is 17 playing under 19 rugby

 

[Simon Thomas]

My first post-hope I get it right! Is a player aged 17 in adult rugby then subject to the U19 requirement re squeezeball? If I ref colts-where SB is allowed-and one player is in fact under 18, even as a sub, I cannot allow squeezeball in that game by any player. So are we at risk of allowing squeezeball in the adult game with an under 18 player and negating this safety law? Could we be liable-as we would with a 17 year old squeezeball injury in colts?

Confusing, but then the longer I ref the more confused I get!

17 and 18 year olds playing adult rugby can use squeezeball (and same requirement of immediate ball availability !).

If a formal U19 match then even f 17 and 18 yr olds playing squeezeball is allowed, but discouraged by some Societies (e.g. London). Take advice on how it is handled in Gloucestershire from your excellent Society Committee.