|
|
|
Junior Member
 
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 19/05/2009 20:09:04
Posts: 12,
Visits: 216
|
|
| This may have been highlighted previously, but could some one give me a particular reason why we are restricted to coaching our kids, U7 & U8, for only 60 minutes per session? In these times of kids becoming obese and watching too much television and playing too many computer games, we are being stopped from spending more than 60 minutes on a coaching session. Our kids want & need more than this on a Sunday morning. And we are willing to coach them, so what is the reason? Local football teams are not allowed to play competitive matches but they can train for 2 hours. Rugby League kids, with full contact train for 2 hours. Cricket coaching for a full afternoon and yet tag rugby so NO CONTACT is restricted to 60 minutes. I understand about too much can be bad, but also not enough can be a waste of time. Next year we go into full contact without any training during the U8 season. We will have to fit in correct tackle training, correct maul training, correct ruck, scrum and lineout training and I would like to know how we manage this along with anything else that we need to do in one 60 minute training session? Am I being pedantic or our we overly protecting these kids? Is there some other option such as holding two training sessions on the same day seperated by a whole 10 minute break and by using two different coaches?  Any advice which will help us to provide the kids with the level of training that they want and also that we feel they need would be very gratefully received. Duncan - new level 1 coach.
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Newbie
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 18/02/2009 15:11:19
Posts: 5,
Visits: 29
|
|
| Hi Duncan, at under 9s the training session grows to 90 minutes. Now, this 90 minutes is time spent training. The continuum currently states : "Festivals, fixtures, coaching and training sessions (including time devoted to match play) must last no longer than the following:
(a) Under 7 and Under 8: 60 minutes;
(b) Under 9 and Under 10: 90 minutes;
(c) Under 11 and Under 12: 120 minutes." My view and I think this is the view of others is that this 90 minutes does not include drinks breaks, chatting time, getting boots on time etc. So if you run a training session from 10am to 12pm but the kids are actively training for 90 minutes of this time then you are ok. It would be great if anyone else can comment on this as I am in a bit of a discussion with my club about traning times, they tell me the traning session has to run from 10am to 11.30am regardless of when we start, drinks breaks, warm ups, warm downs etc. As far as the movement from U8s to U9s, we have done this very successfully without the need to train contact in the U8s season or over the summer. The additional stuff you have to coach the kids isn't that great, the prime concerns are tackling and rucking. I wouldn't worry about mauling, scrummaging or line outs from the start. Just show them the basics of those and then work more technical detail in later in the season Hope this helps Pingu
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Being
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 13/06/2009 17:01:50
Posts: 215,
Visits: 261
|
|
This may have been highlighted previously, but could some one give me a particular reason why we are restricted to coaching our kids, U7 & U8, for only 60 minutes per session?
.............
Local football teams are not allowed to play competitive matches but they can train for 2 hours. Rugby League kids, with full contact train for 2 hours. Cricket coaching for a full afternoon and yet tag rugby so NO CONTACT is restricted to 60 minutes.
.........
Next year we go into full contact without any training during the U8 season. We will have to fit in correct tackle training, correct maul training, correct ruck, scrum and lineout training and I would like to know how we manage this along with anything else that we need to do in one 60 minute training session?
I'm guessing but it looks as if you are in England.
One simple answer - insurers. For reasons known to themselves I SUSPECT the RFU's insurer's have placed this limit. Unless anyone has any definitive source for another explanation :-)
That doesn't help you or others of course, and doesn't stop the other sports from training for 2 hours etc. Neither does it of course stop a child from walking the dog for a hour, rugby training for an hour, swimming for an hour, playing football for two hours, riding their bike for an hour and then playing tag and other pick up games till it gets dark all on the same day.
As for how do you coach contact etc in 60 minutes a week (which doesn't include water breaks etc we are told) the answer there is simple. Its a long distance marathon not a sprint - ctnm rugby is all about development, not the end product. So if it takes you until Xmas to cover everything then that's what it takes. Every other club is in exactly the same boat, so there is no advantage particularly (clubs with kids at prep school probably have an advantage in this regard but that's hardly the club's fault). Clubs that choose to either ignore the continuum or never read it may of course train their players during the U8 year (and in fact outside of tackling there has never AIUI ever been an opportunity to coach scrum/ruck/maul/lineout prior to U9 anyway) ... but then its those coaches' houses on the line if anything ever went wrong, and not yours.
And of course early U9s games would be reffed and "styled" to promote was HAS been leaned rather than was hasn't, and safety is priority number one at these times. Just 'cos the CTNM says an U9 can ruck/maul/tackle/scrum doesn't mean that first U9 game on Oct 1st has to have - or be expected to have - full on clear out rucks, driving mauls et al.
cheers
didds
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Being
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 08/06/2009 12:44:28
Posts: 189,
Visits: 480
|
|
Can anyone point me in the direction of anything in the Continuum that actually states, in black and white and unequivocal language, what one can and cannot do in training, especially vis a viz contact training? Do not confuse what it says in the playing regulations, these are not relevant for these purposes.
There seems to be a good deal of myth and legend around this issue, people talk of a [mythical] "dispensation" that apparently allowed limited contact training from Feb of U8 year but no one can produce it. Equally no one can actually produce anything that says that contact training was banned in the first place - so we have a mythical dispensation as an exception to an apparently mythical prohibition.
I may be a pedant but I do need more than a "well there used to be..." or an "I have heard...", "something to do with the insurance..." as authority for anything that tells clubs and coaches what they can and cannot do. What drives me even more mad is how sure people seem to be about theses prohibitions but seem utterly unable to come up with documentation from the RFU that confirms their view. The bottom line is that if something is not prohibited it is permitted - that is a fact. And seems to be one of the few ones around in this area.
If there is something there that extensive research has missed, please tell me - and don't make it some inference from something woolly on a different subject (like because the rules of the game of tag say x it means you must not to x or y in training - that is completely wrong - game rules are irrelevant to training prohibitions.)
Also, if someone from the RFU is reading this - please, please, please do something about it - clarify the situation. The Continuum is a complete dogs breakfast. Work out what you want it to say and then pay a decent firm of solicitors to draft it for you and provide explanatory notes if needed. As it is no one has a clue what is going on (if you ignore the myths.)
If all else fails the best way is to contact the RFL and form [name of your club] RLFC and get on with contact training as you see fit. And for those who baulk at anything RL related - the schism was over 100 years ago, it may be time to move on now, be big about it... it's just another game.
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Newbie
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 18/02/2009 15:11:19
Posts: 5,
Visits: 29
|
|
| Hi Cip Prior to 14th April there was a provision that allowed Under 8's to begin tackle training from the Feb of the Under 8 season. There is no allowance for any other contact training. However, this provision was removed in April 2008. The letter is copied below. Also the continuum states the following 10. No Contact: The only contact allowed between the two teams is the removal of a tag from the belt of the ball carrier. Any other type of contact on the ball carrier, such as shirt pulling, running in front of or barging the ball carrier, forcing the ball carrier into touch, etc must be penalised with a free pass and the players concerned reminded of the rules. 11. Prohibited Play: In Mini Tag Rugby, there is total emphasis on running with the ball, evasion, running in support of the ball carrier, passing and running to tag the ball carrier. In Mini Tag Rugby there is: (a) no tackling; (b) no scrummage; (c) no line-out; (d) no kicking; (e) no hand off/fend off (a hand off being the placing of an open palmed hand by the ball carrier against an opponent’s face or body while a fend off is an outstretched arm by the ball carrier towards an opponent to discourage that person making a tag); (f) no going to ground; and (g) no ripping of the ball.
If you cant do it then should you be coaching it? Here is the letter removing the tackle training provision from Gary Townsend =============================
From: Linda Fell
Sent: 14 April 2008 09:35
Cc: Coaching
Subject: Tackling Progressions - Important Message for CCCs
Ladies and Gentlemen
Following a number of enquiries regarding the preparation of Under 8s for th e Under 9 season, which has highlighted some confusion, the Continuum Review Group has issued the following statement:
"Until three years ago the Continuum perm itted the introduction to tackling for Under 8s from February in preparation for Under 9s the following season.
However the Continuum Review Group was inundated w ith comp laints that coaches were not concentrating solely on the sa fe introduction to tackling but moving onto rucks , mauls et c and then arranging "training games" using thes e technique s against other clubs. It was found that player s with birth day's late in the year (thus often small in si ze) were bein g put off returning the following season and as this introd uction to contact coincided with the Festiva l season, some players were tempted to tackle in these gam es and not just "tag".
As a consequence of this , tackling is not permitted until September of their Under 9 season and shou ld follow RFU guidelines and the Tacklin g Progressions as d elivered on the "rugbyready" and the RF U Level 1 course"
Regards
Gary Towns end
Coach Development Manager
================================= Also a link to the RFU continuum message thread on this very thing http://www.rfu.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/for.showthread/threadid/9334/startat/26.cfm PtB
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Being
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 08/06/2009 12:44:28
Posts: 189,
Visits: 480
|
|
Hi Pingu,
Many thanks for that. What you quote are the Continuum rules of play and as such have absolutely nothing to do with training restrictions. Just as the full rules of rugby do not tell you what to do on the training field - if they did you could not use cones, hit shields, tackle bags (none are permitted in matches) and one would pack a scrum every time someone dropped the ball in training!
The letter is interesting as not only does the Continuum itself contain any reference to the Group mentioned but nor does it permit any body, group or committee to opine with any binding authority on the meaning of the Continuum. (There are interpretive provisions in the IRB rules and a committee referred to in the rules to whom such matters are addressed and whose opinions are binding. There is nothing like that in the Continuum.) Technically and legally, this body has no authority in this matter, no matter what they might like to think. As far as the Continuum is concerned they do not exist. The only way to change the Continuum is to change the Continuum. Presently the Continuum contains nothing relating to permitted or prohibited activities at training. As such, tackling training is allowed- whatever this group might think or say and whatever myths folks might like to believe about the matter.
The bottom line is that if the RFU want to ban contact training in the U8 year they need to amend the Continuum to say so. Amending the Continuum itself is the only way.
We shall just have to wait and see if idiocy and incompetence continues to rule as regards these matters or whether someone at the RFU will sort it out, preferably having engaged their brains first. Should this present mythical and non existent ban be put onto a more secure legal footing, I for one will be encouraging our U8s to join the local Rugby League club for the summer where they can gain some contact experience in a safe environment with proper coaching.
|
|
|
|
|
Junior Member
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 19/05/2009 20:09:04
Posts: 12,
Visits: 216
|
|
| The arguments about whether we should or should not do contact in U8s or any other age group are not my major issue in this topic. I would like to know why we are restricted to only one hour per session and also are we allowed two sessions in a day? My club have shown us that the insurance document states that we must abide by the regulations of the Continuum regarding players ages, matches and timings for training sessions. Therefore is it right to make the "official" assumption that EACH training session has a maximum time as laid down by the Continuum and that as long as EACH session does not over run that time we are not in any way compromising our position as a club or our cover regarding insurance? I am sounding pedantic but as with all clubs there is a certain amount of politics involved. Thanks for all of the input so far. Duncan
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Newbie
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 18/02/2009 15:11:19
Posts: 5,
Visits: 29
|
|
| Hi cjp The continuum does refer to the Continuum REview Group ============================= 17 ChangesIn preparing the RFU Continuum, the RFU has made great efforts to ensure that the regulations and recommendations reflect the way Mini-Midi Rugby is played in practice whilst also establishing a framework that will promote the development of a positive rugby culture. This is a constantly evolving process driven by the Rugby Continuum Review Group which welcomes constructive suggestions as to how the RFU Continuum can be further improved. Any suggestions should be sent to the Chairman of the Continuum Review Group at the RFU and, if agreed and adopted, will become part of the RFU Continuum. ============================ As far as coaching contact to tag rugby age groups I think that you would have problems with insurance should anything go wrong. The RFU insurance policy says, "Who is not covered – any person participating in any rugby activity which does not carry the approval of the Rugby Football Union" I would imagine that as U6, U7 and U8 are specifically participating in non contact rugby you would be ill advised to coach contact to these age groups. PtB
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Being
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 13/06/2009 17:01:50
Posts: 215,
Visits: 261
|
|
Duncan raises some interesting points I hadn't considered before. Particularly his point about the ctnm stating what cannot happen in games, but does not actualy state that it cannot happen in training. It would no doubt be an interesting point for barristers to discuss. Particularly given that whether or not the ctnm specifically did or didn;t state this, GT's letter implicitly indicates it can no longer happen, and that the intention of the ctnm was at one stage that it could (tackling anyway).
I also see the relevance of his point wrt individual training sessions - I thnk what he is saying he could run one training session of 60 minutes trainig duration, conslude the session and then start a new one 5 minutes later for 60 minutes training time etc. Again, it would no doubt be an interesting point for barristers to discuss whether that was what the ctnm intended or not.
I agree entirely that the ctnm could do with a major overhaul and be far more black and white in areas.
The problem I feel we as junior coaches face is that until there is a court case over what is or what is not intended and thus insured, the sensible approach is that which has been expounded so far.
So - can we find a guinea pig that is prepared to be the defendant possily in such a case?
didds
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Being
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 08/06/2009 12:44:28
Posts: 189,
Visits: 480
|
|
Thanks for that Pingu.
It is interesting to note that the Continuum Review Group is not actually constituted under any provision in the Continuum. The source of its authority is therefore unclear and may even be non-existent. One might also wonder how anyone is ever supposed to find out about the decisions of the Group as there seems to be no official mechanism for publishing their rulings. A thread on a forum is not sufficient. There is no proces similar to the publications of Statutory Instruments where amendments to this legislation can be made public. Deeply unsatisfactory. One can only assume that the only way to include an amendment would be to republish the Continuum. In the case of a prohibition on tackling (and the email only refers to tackling) this does not appear in the Continuum, only in an email to CCCs. It is unlikely therefore that this has the force of law. It certainly has not been made well known to the membership at large.
The next issue that concerns me is a basic legal one. It is the fundamental principle that rules and laws prohibit rather than permit. It would be impossible to work on the basis that if something is not specifically permitted it is prohibited. For example, the Continuum is silent on whether a player is allowed to shout during a game, whether he or she can run backwards or sideways, whether he or she can blink or stop to tie a boot lace. We assume these things are permitted as they are not expressly prohibited. (Some things will be prohibited even though not expressly prohibited if they contravene the laws of land - carrying a weapon would be an example.) The fact that the Continuum is silent on what can and cannot be done in training is important in this debate. There is certainly no prohibition on tackling or any other form of contact training under the Continuum.
This all then ties into insurance. Now insurance companies do not want to get into having to list what can and cannot be done and so go with the line that if it is permitted by the RFU it falls within the scope of the activities covered by the insurance. As can be seen from the above, the silence relating to training puts junior coaches in a potentially difficult position as has been noted. Especially given the existence of this email, the status of which is unclear.
As regards time limits - more lunacy but there we are. I have not come across a club yet who stick to 60 mins. However that does not invalidate the regulation. It is interesting to note that the regulation (9.2) applies also to Festivals and fixtures. Has anyone ever taken part in a tag festival the duration of which was 60 minutes? Under this section any festival lasting more than 1 hour (and that is not just match play, the section says "including time devoted to match play") is illegal and, presumably uninsured. I am sure they meant to refer to match play in festivals and fixtures, but they did not - one can only go on what is actually written, not what we think they ought to have said if they had actually though about it for a moment. Also, if they had referred to match time, the time limits would contradict those set out in section 9.1. Genius!
It is interesting to note that no limit on the number of training sessions that can be held in one day is stipulated, nor indeed festivals. I can imagine it would be tricky to declare a festival over every hour and restarted as a new festival straight away, but there is nothing to prevent a club training for an hour, taking a drinks and snack break and reconvening for a further session.
Let us hope that they do not clarify this one and restrict everyone to 60 mins a week or some such madness. The lunatics really would have taken over the asylum if that happens. If it takes 10,000 hrs to "make an athelete", training at 2 hrs a week the players will be in their 90s before they have got there - may be past their peak by that stage!
Why is it that my every dealing with the RFU, its rules and regulations leaves me with my head in my hands?
|
|
|
|