|
|
|
Supreme Being
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 09/05/2013 13:32:53
Posts: 106,
Visits: 119
|
|
Harrison (18/08/2012)
FFS Blub
Lighten up, its only a game, your're taking it all too seriously. It's not the the losing that matters, it's the taking part that counts.
Go out and have a couple of beers.
Steve
Steve, it is odd how forums such as this can distort the intent of posts. Although it may equally be my use of language as I am not sure how it could be inferred that I am concerned at losing. Certainly in the actual world I have been accused of quite the opposite.
"your're taking it all too seriously. It's not the the losing that matters, it's the taking part that counts." is precisely my view toward those advocating 10/11 year olds specialising in certain positions, and always picking a team to win.
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Being
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 04/04/2013 19:52:18
Posts: 125,
Visits: 288
|
|
timaru69 (18/08/2012)
didds (18/08/2012)
blub and tryer - your posts hearten me. Top coaching.
diddsGroup hug  Group beers would be much better....... I think we could all do with a few of them....... I would add I think it's easier for me to comment as I've left the minis behind for the time being. I can remember differences of opinion with the continuum.
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Being
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 22/05/2013 17:18:34
Posts: 291,
Visits: 286
|
|
| The first fallout of the new regulations happened following Sunday morning. This was the 2nd training session with the U9s following the summer break and on the first week we explained the new rules to the parents whilst the children were all outside warming up and getting sorted with the coaches. This week two of the parents asked to talk to the coach and myself (my role is chair of the club) and got us to explain the rules again as they hadn't been there on week one. After we'd gone through the changes both announced that unless we went back to the "proper" game they won't be bring their lads back. In both instances these are big lads who's parents are ex-players and the lads were both looking forward to starting scrums and are both very strong and have practised mauls with dads etc. I spent a lot of time repeating the ideals from the NRP meeting in an effort to make them reconsider. Last night we had a couple of phone conversations about it and the up shot seems to be they are going. One dad is taking his lad to boxing and the other is going to try another club who have said they believe the NRP is optional. In a team the size of our U9s losing two players makes for a very shaking start and one sadly I predicted.
spike
|
|
|
|
|
Junior Member
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 28/04/2013 21:16:20
Posts: 19,
Visits: 116
|
|
Spike, sad to hear but I am not surprised.
The new rules offer a game that is a cross between 7s and rugby league. These rules have lost a sense of being a game for all sizes and shapes. It is so important that society offers a game for large boys that are not nimble for games like football.
TTT
|
|
|
|
|
Junior Member
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 28/04/2013 21:16:20
Posts: 19,
Visits: 116
|
|
PS. I understand that some areas (Middlesex & Surrey) have delayed the introduction of the new rules until September 2013, so if U9 players are within reach of these counties they may wish to travel to another club, which is better than losing them from the game of Rugby Union.
TTT
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Being
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 10:56:43
Posts: 212,
Visits: 357
|
|
| Spike - I hate parents like that, due to their intransigence the only person who suffers is the kid. We're having a problem along those lines with a parent who is determined his son is a back whereas all his son (and us) want him to do is play as flanker. Causing misery all round TwoTonTed (10/09/2012)
The new rules offer a game that is a cross between 7s and rugby league. These rules have lost a sense of being a game for all sizes and shapes. It is so important that society offers a game for large boys that are not nimble for games like football.I know I'm slightly a lone voice on this topic (and also playing under SRU rules) but I don't know where this idea that no scrums/mauls = large boys can't play comes from. I have 40 players in my U10 squad and in that I have all sizes and shapes, fast and slow, nimble and not-nimble, boys and girls. All of them play, all of them enjoy it. Position wise the big kids are happy when they find themselves on the wings, doesn't phase them and they know to run straight, draw the cover and offload. They're also happy to tackle their hearts out in midfield and use their size to crash through if they can. The small, nippy ones know they have to ruck when required (though knowing and doing are two separate things!) and also know they have to quickly get into a support position when one of the big kids takes off on a run. Conversely they also understand to go really low on the big kids and often doublt team them so they don't get bounced off in the tackle. All can pass, all can tackle, none feel excluded or hassled as all the kids know they have strengths and weakness. They know not to run straight at a big kid but to try and 'dance' around them (even the big kids running at each other), the big kids know not to let the jinky ones get their speed up and to watch their core to tackle them. Going forward, we're teaching them correct scrum position as part of rucking so when they do make the transition to scrumming the position isn't an issue its automatic. And if a kid goes from being a big, slow kid at aged 9, suddenly sprouts at 13 and becomes a tall whippet he (or she) will have the handling skills and the spacial awareness to deal with that change. Can't honestly see what the problem is!
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Being
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 10:51:49
Posts: 1,021,
Visits: 2,467
|
|
I do have to wonder if the children made these decisions or the parents - not that helps Spike's club.
For the lad/parents that are going to the club that believes its optional... they presumably will need top be prepared for some very long drives for a game as AIUI the only CBs now not playing NRoP at U9 are Yorkshire, Kent, London and Berkshire
http://clubs.rfu.com/Clubs/portals/CumbriaRFULtdCB/Media/File/New%20Rules%20of%20Play%20August%202012.bmp
.... unless of course Spike's CB has other clubs that view it as "optional".
Q: If one's CB has aligned itself with the NRoP... does that mean playing AGRs at U9 brings one outside of Marsh Insurance? If so then that lad (amongst others) may not be insured of course.
didds
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Being
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 10:51:49
Posts: 1,021,
Visits: 2,467
|
|
TTT - are you from Teddington? And are you a baker's delivery driver?
:-)
didds
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Being
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 22/05/2013 17:18:34
Posts: 291,
Visits: 286
|
|
didds (10/09/2012)
I do have to wonder if the children made these decisions or the parents - not that helps Spike's club.
.... unless of course Spike's CB has other clubs that view it as "optional".
Q: If one's CB has aligned itself with the NRoP... does that mean playing AGRs at U9 brings one outside of Marsh Insurance? If so then that lad (amongst others) may not be insured of course.
didds
Children don't make decision whether they come to sport or not at this age, parents do. Children may or may not enjoy it when they are there. It's our job to make it enjoyable.
We do however have to sell it to the parents too, after all they are paying for their offspring's activity.
Tactical Withdrawal the parent in question stated that the remove of the contest for the ball (ruck / maul) and of the very basic lineout and scrum was too much of a swing towards the smaller children. We did try to explain that a strong ball carrier and tackler will be critical in the team but their perception was not the same.
As for didds comment about the rules being optional, conversations with other clubs suggest that they are coaching rucking for U9s and that they believe this is optional. Equally there are numerous clubs with private school connections where the NRP don't apply so we have lads having to deal with further differences between club and school (always been some but this is now a step change).
Anyway this might not be an issue for us as a club as which out last night at the interestingly named PiS (safeguarding) course the age group coach took two more calls - it seems these parents' decision are causing others to consider why their children choose rugby and whether these changes create a rugby they still wish their children to play. It would look like we won't have an U9 team at this rate.
Regardless of all the "reasons" discussed if at the end of it all the end user (or in this case the key decision maker) doesn't buy into the idea we don't have players to work with.
spike
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Being
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 10:56:43
Posts: 212,
Visits: 357
|
|
spike (11/09/2012)
[quote][Tactical Withdrawal the parent in question stated that the remove of the contest for the ball (ruck / maul) and of the very basic lineout and scrum was too much of a swing towards the smaller children. We did try to explain that a strong ball carrier and tackler will be critical in the team but their perception was not the same.Hang on, you're not being allowed to ruck? That is daft. The only reason it works for us is we are allowed to ruck so the kids (U9 & U10) get to understand turnovers and contesting for the ball, rewards good aggresive defence and makes it a really good game to play. With no rucking it just doesn't work (having played against clubs who refuse to ruck even though the rules say you should). That is just Rugby League though the only 'positive' is your big kids do actually become more important as long as they can tackle as the only way to turnover the ball is to knock it free in the tackle.
|
|
|
|