|
|
|
Junior Member
 
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 02/11/2009 15:21:28
Posts: 13,
Visits: 218
|
|
| CJP I fully agree with all of your arguments apart from one area which is the amount of games and festivals as you will see below. http://www.rfu.com/regulations/PageContent.aspx?SectionID=331 .4 Each player is limited to playing in not more than:
(a) 17 Club Fixtures and/or Festivals during a season in addition to any Fixtures and/or Festivals played by them for their Schools;
(b) 17 School Fixtures and/or Festivals during a season in addition to any Fixtures and/or Festivals played by them for their Club; and
(c) 1 Festival during the same weekend, during which teams are only permitted to play in a maximum of 5 games.
The combination of fixtures and festivals should not exceed 17 in order to allow for adequate training and coaching to take place.8.5 Clubs and Schools must maintain a record of how many Fixtures and Festivals are played by each player to ensure they are not exceeding these limits. The coaching aspect which is my main concern is tied in with the politics of my own club and the attempt to restrict the training sessions and I appreciate your final point of how long to produce an athlete. I may use that in another discussion this weekend. Regards Duncan
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Being
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 08/12/2009 18:08:23
Posts: 190,
Visits: 482
|
|
Duncan,
Good spot re the fixtures festivals thing. Unfortunately, yet another masterpiece of incompetent drafting! If I have it right a) means you can play 17 club fixtures on top of anything done ant school and b) says you can play 17 school fixtures on top of anything done at the club. So that's 17 at school plus 17 at the club makes 34. All good so far.
Then the words "The combination of fixtures and festivals should not exceed 17 in order to allow for adequate training and coaching to take place." really throw a spanner in the works. This appears to limit the total number of fixtures in a season to 17, school and club combined. The wording does not say "should not exceed 17 at club and 17 at school..." it just says 17. If I have understood the confusingly worded sub sections a) to c) correctly, it seems likely that the draftsman meant to allow a total of 34 fixtures, half at school, half at the club but in seeking to explain the rationale for the decision to put a limit on fixtures has inadvertantly actually put a limit of 17 fixtures in total for the season in place.
Now this may just be irritating stupidity on one level but such things could have more serious consequences in relation to insurance. Not wishing to libel insurers here but they are never that keen on paying out. No quibbles with that, it's a business not a charity they are running. However, let's say a player is expensively injured in a late season game - if you are the insurers it is areas like this you might wish to exploit to avoid liability. The argument going along the lines that the player had played too many fixtures (more than 17), therefore his involvment was not permitted by the RFU - non-permitted activity is uninsured, terribly sorry but that's not one for us to pay. It is incumbent therefore on the RFU to pull their fingers out and sort out these documents.
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Guru
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 11/11/2009 12:22:33
Posts: 54,
Visits: 149
|
|
| If I could chip in here ... As a lawyer in my day job (the one I get paid for!) while I agree with cjp that the wording is poor, I do not think a court would construe the last sentence of 8.4 as placing an overall restriction of 17 matches or festivals; it should construe those words in the light of what comes before, and I think the preceding wording is clear enough that it is 17 at school and 17 at club. (Sorry to get technical! This is why I don't have many friends.) I do agree that the whole thing should be sorted out, not least because one can never predict exactly how a court will decide, and because insurance companies do have deep pockets to fight these things. Because of my day job I am unofficial lawyer to the team and when it comes to looking at tournament rules, etc, the standard of drafting is invariably rubbish. Of course you might say, 'does it matter its only a game' etc ... but we all know it does matter, and to lose or be disqualified on a technicality in badly drafted rules would be a terrible thing. Worse even than a biased referee! Cheers Ferret
U14s Backs Coach "There is a forgotten, nay almost forbidden word, which means more to me than any other. That word is England" (Sir Winston Churchill)
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Being
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 08/12/2009 18:08:23
Posts: 190,
Visits: 482
|
|
| I agree with you Ferret - I was a lawyer in a previous life and, like you, reckon a court would probably go the way you describe. However (unless one is a litigator by trade) if things get as far as a court, things have gone pretty wrong and as you say big companies can certainly outspend and outlast less well funded opponents. For me the aim of documents like this is to give clarity and to keep things out of courts - one only goes to court because one cannot decide or agree what a thing means. The Continuum is a disaster of a document - if it had been drafted by a trainee I'd sack 'em! Time to get it fixed RFU.
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Member
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 12/12/2008 13:37:04
Posts: 30,
Visits: 216
|
|
interesting reading.
for such a good game, its admin is a shambles.
every thread seems to have this sort of confusion. makes you wonder why people bother with running a team.
btw, im glad you do.
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Being
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 11/03/2010 16:56:51
Posts: 270,
Visits: 309
|
|
cjp... I have read somewhere - RFU forums I suspect without checking - that the 60 minutes trainig time at U7 and U8 (etc) does NOT include water breaks, rest breaks, toilet breaks etc. and as such a typical 9?) 90 minsute sesssion probably doesn;t in reality break the 60 minute trainng time thing.
i accept this isn't quite what the wording of the ctnm as you reproduced it either!
It is all a bit of a difficult scenario i agree. One that will only ever be truly understood when a court case occurs maybe (or a more definied pathway of rules and regs etc is installed).
In the meantime I suspect that if one were to follow the Ctnm (rightly or wrongly) in training as well as in matches you are unlikely to go wrong. As long as the kids come back next week is there really a problem in this stage that is developmental? ("training to train" isn;t it or somesuch?)
didds
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Being
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 08/12/2009 18:08:23
Posts: 190,
Visits: 482
|
|
I know what you are saying Didds. The whole thing gets rather circular as it is the lack of clarity of the Continuum that causes (as can be seen from the correspondence) so many problems in following it! What does it say about x? Can't be sure. Let's just follow it anyway. But I don't know if x or y is allowed and so on round and round we go. For example let's follow the Continuum re training - well it says nothing at all about training so how can anyone follow it? And on and on ad nauseam.
On one level it is just plain irritating - esp. for a pedant such as myself - but not much more! I suspect most folks just get on with training and playing and generally giving the players a positive and enjoyable rugby experience. The only problems I can foresee would be along the lines of insurance as mentioned in a previous post. Courts are very, very expensive places to end up whatever happens - best avoided.
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Being
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 11/03/2010 16:56:51
Posts: 270,
Visits: 309
|
|
Courts are very, very expensive places to end up whatever happens - best avoided.
I agree. But very very occassionally people do end up in them.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1416031/Paralysed-rugby-player-wins-high-court-case.html
didds
|
|
|
|