|
|
|
Supreme Being
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 17:19:03
Posts: 634,
Visits: 854
|
|
| cjp: If the Continuum does not say you cannot do something you can do it Generally - yes. BUT... WRT contact in the U8 year the ctnm EXPRESSLY prevents it. With no dispensation included (as there used to be) in the U8 ctnm regs to practise/train contact then it CANNOT be done. As for downloading the ctnm the deifnitive place would be the RFU community rugby site, under referees and laws or somesuch.
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Being
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 17/01/2012 20:00:07
Posts: 213,
Visits: 505
|
|
| Didds, could you point me in the direction of the section that contains the prohibition (document name and section number) as for the life of me I cannot find it. I have been through the Continuum Regulations 07/08 and the Continuum Rules of Play etc without success.
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Being
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 17:19:03
Posts: 634,
Visits: 854
|
|
| cjp: the prohibition on contact in Tag, or the prohibition of tackling practise? cheers didds
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Being
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 17/01/2012 20:00:07
Posts: 213,
Visits: 505
|
|
Didds, its the prohibition on contact in training prior to the U9 season that I am struggling to locate. I am aware of the prohibition on contact in Tag rugby (as contained in sections 10 and 11 of the Continuum Rules of Play part (A) Stage 1 Mini Tag Rugby (U7 & U8).)
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Being
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 17:19:03
Posts: 634,
Visits: 854
|
|
| cjp - gotcha. Right... there isn;t a prohibition on contact training directly. what there IS at U8 is the normal tag regs which in effect make contact not part of the U8 game. To deliberately involve contact (training, games) would thuis be outside of the continuum with the usual concerns that then raises wrt insurance and exposure etc. In the past there exisisted a dispensation that specifically permitted TACKLE training to occur post Feb 1st. However, that dispensation has been removed - sp then the straight continuum now takes precedence and so no contact (let alone just tackling) is permitted. Its a bit kafquesque I admit Historical: LoTG=tackling, U8 Ctnm=no contact, dispensation=tackle practise after Feb 1st Now: LoTG=tackling, U8 Ctnm=no contact I haven't looked up the specific U8 Ctnm bitsabout "no tackling, no contact" but they must be there in black and white otherwise every U8 team in England would be piling into each other every weekend! Unless we have ALL been blind :-)!! Hope that helps. didds
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Being
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 17/01/2012 20:00:07
Posts: 213,
Visits: 505
|
|
Thanks Didds,
Kafka has nothing on this!
I have seen the prohibition on contact in the U8 playing rules etc. It is too much of a leap, at least for my legally trained mind, to take that as some sort of oblique, veiled prohibition on contact on training. You cannot use baseball mitts in cricket matches but that does not mean you cannot use them in training (and most top teams do!) You cannot bowl with a bent arm in matches, but that does not mean you cannot do a few throw downs for a batsman. If they want to prohibit something they need to state it specifically. There is absolutely nothing that I can find that sets out any rules on what can and cannot be done in training. If it is not expressly prohibited it is permitted, that is how English law works. The rules of the game have nothing to do with it. If the RFU want a prohibition on contact in training it needs to be expressly stated. At present I am completely confident that, from the documentation I have reviewed, no such prohibition exists.
Insurance is another issue. Without checking the detailed terms of the insurance cover provided via the RFU we cannot know what activities are or are not permitted within the scope of the cover.
I appreciate your efforts in trying to answer this one for me. Not sure you should have to put yourself out trying to cover for RFU inadequacies.
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Being
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 17:19:03
Posts: 634,
Visits: 854
|
|
| cjp - no problem at all. We're all here to learn and if I can help you, and you can help me we are both better off for it. I agree about the bits about English alw etc (in my layman's manner) but of course the overall rider is not english law (generally) but the contract wording that is bound up with the marsh/RFU insurance. All "we" have been told is that conforming with the Ctnm rgs is necessary to keep the insurance in place. As you quite rightly point out without actually seeing the contract wording we have to accept this at face value. cheers didds
|
|
|
|