U13 yellow Card

[crossref]

Who makes THOSE decisions... the players? or the adults?

same arguments all around I suspect...

didds

yes, good question.
those problem fixtures seem to come more in minis when every age group from U7 to U12 play the same fixture. If you happen to have a weak (or strong) age group you can find it difficult to opt out (because you can't find an alternative fixture so easily as every other club works the same way)

once you get to U13s each age group has its own fixtures, so any mismatch is our own fault..

but leagues are a great way to avoid mismatch!

- for instance : we have a touring team coming this season from Warwickshire, where there are no leagues, so it's very hard to work out how good they are, and hard for us to work out whether we should be putting up our A team or our B. We are taking a guess.

- We also have a team coming from Kent. That's much easier : look them up, division 1, who do they play in Div 1 ? it's on the web, ah they have played this team who we know, and that one.... It's easy to see its an A team fixture.

 

[Dixie]

Those kids stop playing rugby.. They discover more interesting things to do on a cold Sunday morning like playing FIFA 2012 on the xbox networked into half a dozen mates from school. Or they discover the delights of a "walk" in the countryside with the class hottie.

Hang on a minute. We are constantly reminded to have the best interests of the child at the forefront of our minds. If the options are a game of rugby on the one hand, and a priapic fumble with the class hottie on the other, by what possible justification do we shepherd them towards the rugby?

 

[Mike Selig]

Darwinian selection at work?

Is that why SA NZ AU are - generally - stronger at the top level?

Which begs the question, why do we want kids to play rugby - for their enjoyment or for our eventual greater glory?

Or is that a false dichotomy?

Could it be related to the commercial desire to grow the game, increasing youth and grass root participant numbers to drive up interest and develop future consumers of professional rugby?

There's a sports degree dissertation in there somewhere.

All very pertinent and interesting points, which as you say could be debated for hours.

My two-pennies worth:
What is the overall goal? Well the overall goal is to balance the high performance and the grass-roots side of things, and create clear pathways from grass-roots to high performance available for everyone. Without any grass-roots structure you won't have a high performance one. A point I would make about the survey: those 7 who DID say that winning trophies was important to them, are they the 7 you want to identify as mentally (without even talking about talent/fitness) those who are capable of making it at the top level. I would suggest you do, and I would suggest that at best 1 of those 7 will also have the necessary physical attributes to make it.

The question is then, how early can we afford to make this selection. As Paul touched on, we should be wary of excluding those whose physical attributes aren't (yet?) upto scratch. In particular in this sense, lumping players together purely based on their age is IMO incredibly daft (but possibly less daft than any other alternatives). It IS important then to keep everyone's enjoyment levels sufficiently up that they return the following week, or we could "lose" some "talented" (whatever that means) players because (to put it bluntly) they're not big enough.

In that respect I genuinely believe that selection in most sports (rugby, soccer, cricket for 3 that I know of) is made far too soon, and far too often based on the "now" rather than the "later". Football apparently are beginning to understand this, and speaking to a few guys who work in the FA, participation levels are hugely down, a fact they attribute to (amongst other things such as society's general view of the sport believe it or not) too much pressure being put on the kids too soon. The question is then whether decreasing participation at grass-roots is detrimental to high performance (and the inference whether we should care). It certainly is beyond a certain point, but isn't there a case to be made that those who "have what it takes" mentally (and if you don't have what it takes mentally you won't make it, no matter how good you are, see Mark Lathwell, Tim Ravenscroft) will carry on regardless, since they won't accept failure and will continue to strive for better? Or will they maybe see an opportunity in another, more small person friendly sport, and try their luck there?

I don't suggest to have all (any) answers, but I do think it's a genuine debate worth having. It is one I'm actively involved in in French cricket at the moment.

And no, this isn't about "shielding" kids from the harsh realities of the world (before someone says it is). It's genuinely about what we want for this sport, and how best to achieve it.

 

[baftabill]

Always fascinated by this debate. Have read widely on the subject.
Several points:

There are two distinct needs being served:
1. The elite game. Elite players have an elite mentality. They are focussed on winning. I know many.
I don't think it's a coincidence that the attitudes we see in some parts of the SH (some of which would be totally unacceptable in my club Ealing) deliver more, and better elite players. Please don't take offence SH people. But we now have a very "inclusive" attitude in the UK.
But Elite players are quite well served in this part of the UK. The Schools/County/Academy system works. Not much liked by those not in it though...

2. Clubs
On the whole clubs want numbers, which means hanging onto the maximum number of players. it's easy to keep the obviously good ones playing. Harder the B's and C's. (Who may be A's later)

So for clubs, what is the best way to keep lots of kids playing?

In Middlesex the Herts-Middlesex League works really well. Leagues of 8 with 7 fixtures.

I'm justifiably suspicious of the Hampshire list of negative aspects of Leagues

1. Win at all costs attitude of many, affecting player discipline
2. Limited game time for non first choice players
3. Mental and emotional presure on players (and coaches)
4. Growing spectator referee abuse (these are ELRA qualified club refs)
5. Pressure on Saturday school players to 'illegally' play on Sunday too
6. Too intense week in week out competitive rugby, reducing skills and coaching opportunties.
7. Increase in injuries and no recovery time

How would the list be different if you were listing reasons against CUP competitions??
I could make a case that the knock-out nature of cup competitions actually makes ALL of the above worse, except (6) and maybe (7)
I don't believe that to be true, but it is easy to argue it.

Surely, one of the features of Rugby is the competition?
Will reducing that more and more make more and more kids carry on playing the game?

My experience is that kids really care about the game they're in. Good festivals look like the current International 7s tournaments, with Cup, Plate, Bowl etc etc
Someone will lose every one of those "finals", but losing is part of Rugby's lesson.
"If you can't lose, don't play rugby"
But the maximum get to a game that means something.

My personal conclusions.
Competition is part of the game. I really dislike the FA's approach where there are no winners in tournaments before a certain age.
My kids thought that was just STUPID. Were they fooled by it? No, because they aren't stupid. Even at 7 they could see it was daft.

I see a belief that removing competition from rugby will keep more and more playing.
I disagree.
Running competitions well keeps people playing. Doing things badly makes them leave.

If you play Herts Middlesex League 1 you will see many County players, and probably some who will play Professional rugby, and maybe an England player of the future.

If you play league 3 or 4 or 5 or 6, you will play teams at your level. They will be properly organised with proper refs. Good B sides play weaker A sides. everyone finds their level.

We may be fortunate with numbers - at U13 there are 7 leagues - over 50 teams, so I think Spikes experience is quite different and understandable.

Finally, Ice Hockey in Canada did an excellent study to find out why teenagers left the sport. The conclusion was that all teenagers gave up lots of sports between age 10 and 18.

My personal feeling is that there is a problem with the game. Kids lives are very full. My middle son was playing 1st team football saturday and rugby Sunday. He gave up rugby at 17. Rugby asked too much commitment from him and I completely understood. I think adult rugby will struggle for numbers for ever.

This debate will be going on in 50 years....

 

[crossref]

good post, baftabill.

I'd add that when we were U13s we didn't have enough numbers for B team to play in the league, so the Bs were friendlies only.
- over the season they played the same number of fixures as the As

on the whole, they didn't like it. They felt they weren't getting the same experience.

one left to go to another club so he could play in the league (he told us)

the following season we bit the bullet, entered the league

The first league game the B team had 15 players.. no subs.. we were hammered. And the second game.

but guess what? morale improved, the boys felt better about the team, they brought their mates, we recruited more players, we won some games.
I really thinks kids like leagues (of the sort we have, just seven games a season, not their whole rugby experience but a part of it)

 

[TigerCraig]

The point is about most kids.

The kids who are being selected every week and playing for the winning sides want to "make the semis".

Those who don't "make the semis", perhaps because even though they're pretty talented, 3 of the backs haven't had their growth spurts yet and so simply can't catch the longer legged opposition, don't feel very good about turning up for mid week training sessions in the dark and cold and cold Sundays where they're just going to lose again.

No, they play in a team that plays in the B,C,D or E grade against other kids about teh same level.

We also have "dynamic grading" where after 3 or 4 rounds teams which are obviously out of their grade (either winning easily or losing badly) are moved into a more appropriate grade (so the top team in B's may swap with the bottom team in A's). We also allow kids who are small for their age to request dispensation to play down an age group.

 

[crossref]

No, they play in a team that plays in the B,C,D or E grade against other kids about teh same level.

We also have "dynamic grading" where after 3 or 4 rounds teams which are obviously out of their grade (either winning easily or losing badly) are moved into a more appropriate grade (so the top team in B's may swap with the bottom team in A's). We also allow kids who are small for their age to request dispensation to play down an age group.

which is, indeed the advantage of a structured competition like a league -- it sorts -- so that all players can enjoy competitive, fun games against evenly matched opposition, whether that's in the top levels or down in Division E.

 

[Dickie E]

the model we use for baseball works quite well.

Friday night games are for beginners. It is a league type format but as all the opposing teams are beginners too it balances out.

Sunday mornings is the more serious stuff.

My son plays both (as do many other kids) as he is OK to hold his own on Sundays. But he doesn't get frustrated with the weaker kids on Friday nights as he knows that it is the 'development' program.

 

[davidgh]

Hi Chaps

Bafta Bill - I think you have it

In terms of what the club wants, I think adequate numbers are important, at youth 50 is about right for 2 teams, 3 teams is very tough to manage and needs a lot of commitment from the coaches and manager. More than that gets very hard.

The youth leagues in Surrey heavily restrict movement between teams within the league (nov-mar) season, and this makes re-grading in season very hard, there are good reasons for this rule, but it is also rather restrictive.

Items 1-4 on Simon's list are far more prevalent in League 1!! and we as a club like being there, but sometimes wonder whether it is a good place to be from the kids point of view, and for pure enjoyment of rugby.

Our main reason for loosing players at youth level is London day schools who rightly don't like them playing on Sundays after a big match on Saturday.

The point about younger players and needing competition is about right, but I think the Continuum is SPOT ON in banning overt tournaments below u7, let them find thier feet before launching them into competitions at 5 years old, they only just learnt to walk!! At this age the competition is definitely mainly for the parents!!

 

[Browner]

I'm uncertain why any referee takes it upon himself to become such a deliberate 'game leveller'

In my opinion, this type of action is bad practice .......

We have faced similar scenarios at U12/u13 where one side gets complete dominance, I always speak to the opposition coach and agree that i will remove players from my team

The outcome is that 'parity' is established which has the dual effect of increasing confidence in the losing team, whilst challenging the players in the winning team to have to work harder for their reward......

If I was refereeing [and unless the compeition rules barred it] , I would suggest this as a more desireably outcome to the coaches

win win in my book


win win me thinks