[
PLEASE LOGIN TO POST TO THE FORUM
]
|
|
|
milligani
- iandmilligan@btinternet.com
|
Fri, 04 April 08 15:59 GMT
|
I'm sure that should be the way Rugby First works but if you have a look at any club details on their rugby first pages the range in data input from club to club is huge. For some even finding a contact for the mini section is impossible. This might be due to the fact it is set to club officers (and higher) only but I very much doubt it.
Rugby First should allow such communication but until all clubs fully utilise it this would again only get the message to a percentage of the audience. Managing the message in meetings at start / during the season / face to face is still the most effective way of dealing with issues IMHO as well as setting the standards and processes which are used. Emails are fine but easily ignored or missed or mis-read.
I would maybe suggest that where a SoR has worked well 'best practise' is then shared out across other CBs. Sorry if this sounds a bit like day job speak to some but surely we should apply some of what we do professionally to our hobby.
|
-------------------------
Spike |
|
|
weakone
- slfaithfull@aol.com
|
Fri, 04 April 08 10:11 GMT
|
Gary- I am impressed you have responded and you are prepared to action some change. May I offer one small piece of opinion. Although difficult on resources, I believe that every CB and RDO (maybe even CDO)should have the email address of every youth coach (from U12's who enter the following year) from every club. Regardless if they are the yeargroup lead coach or assistant. Also, regardless if they nominate a lad or not. Can this not be channeled in conjunction with Sport England (for funding). Then there is no excuse for no one person who is involved not to be aware of any changes in the future.
|
|
|
milligani
- iandmilligan@btinternet.com
|
Fri, 04 April 08 09:42 GMT
|
Just picking up on this a bit, I would agree that the SoR in our CB has worked well. (Nicknell's example).
I believe that this is due to two very key elements. The first is the coaches selected to deliver this are acknowledged by their peers as the best in the area. There style and delivery in the sessions I've seen both at SoR and at club level are excellent.
The second and IMHO the most important element relating to the success of this SoR is the way the whole communication of the process has been managed and delivered. There is no question that some players and parents will be upset by selection decisions but these have been managed, explained and addressed very openly. This was also coupled with a meeting at the start of the process which again explained the situation well.
I think that this aspect of the process is equally as important as the actual coaching of the players selected as if the messages are managed correctly those players not selected have a clear understanding of expectation and standards for SoR and can apply themselves to obtain those levels. This is also true for the club coaches and parents as well.
|
-------------------------
Spike |
|
|
barry1957
|
Thu, 03 April 08 22:27 GMT
|
Thank you for that Gary.
I look forward to viewing the outcome.
|
|
|
garyhenderson
- garyhenderson@rfu.com
|
Thu, 03 April 08 13:38 GMT
|
Thanks for your recent comments regarding the Schools of Rugby. The programme has been reviewed and a number of the issues that have been identified here were fed into that process.
Some key actions were identified from the review, which (yet to be formally endorsed) revolve around clarifying responsibilities between CBs, the RFU and Regional Academies.
Furthermore, there was a clear need to have a transparent coach /player selection and development process, and that this should be made clearer to everyone involved, including parents, CB coaches, clubs and schools to prevent some of the misunderstandings mentioned here.
It is recommended that in future the Coaching Department take on responsibility (within the Community Rugby Dept.) for the Schools of Rugby, and at a regional level, Coach Development Officers will be the key contacts.
The Director of Academy and I will shortly be producing a clear explanation of the selection & development process, CB/RFU & Academy roles and responsibilities, together with guidelines of where Schools of Rugby sit within the player developemnt system.
Gary Henderson
Head of Coach Development
|
|
|
weakone
- slfaithfull@aol.com
|
Wed, 02 April 08 11:40 GMT
|
Nicknell-thanks for the thought, I am happy with the thought your SOR works. I do believe our CB will get it to work next year. But the damage has been done ie coaches lost, poor sessions and lads who are disenchanted.
It is about communication. Not just for the lads in the SOR, but really for the 120+ lads per year group and their parents. Who were not successful in gaining entry. Rightly or wrongly those folk feel that the wrong lads gained access because they thought it was like the old County development squads.
In hindsight, every parent and player of a nominated lad should have attended a meeting which detailed all the process. They could then have appreciated why certain good rugby players were not selected. Rather then bickering after the event and discrediting the set-up.
|
|
|
nicknell
|
Wed, 02 April 08 11:16 GMT
|
Barry - a slight amendment; SoR has replaced EPDC's - premiership clubs now have EPDGs from which they will make their selection decisions as to which players might join their academies at the end of their U16 season.
Weakone - it is a great shame that your SoR hasn't generated the positive vibes that have been seen elsewhere. It sounds as though it's a communication issue as much as anything else.
Just looking at the RFU SoR implementation guidance notes, I can see that there is £200 per CB in the SoR budget for "parent workshops".
Our CB delivered a presentation to parents and players early in the season outlining the player development pathway and where club/school/county/CB/RFU etc all fit together and I understand that they are planning to repeat this exercise for the newly invited players early next season, as well as at any assessments or trials over the summer.
I think you'll find that your premiership partner club will be happy to support this event and add a very positive message about player development.
The whole commuication thing is a two-way street and we all know that some people either just don't want to listen or are too idle to absorb new information.
Let me know if you'd like to talk offline.
|
|
|
barry1957
|
Wed, 02 April 08 10:44 GMT
|
How very sad to read about your particular CB.
I have posted on this thread in the past when trying to understand this new initiative. When our CB (Warwickshire) finally got going, the Coaches and Management gathered the Parents and Guardians together for a presentation and Q & A's session. This was very informative for all. I was told that lads could play County as well as attending SofR which was contrary to what I read initially.
Although Warks have only had 2 sessions, with the third get-together this Sunday, the only problem we are encountering is the number of lads attending. We've gone from 21 on the first session, to over 30 this sunday! I believe that this is to cater for new lads that were either not put forward by their School or Club initially, but are good enough to trial, or accommodating lads who were 1 or 2 marks off the 'pass rate' and either Coaches or Parents feel it would be good to trial them again. Clearly, lads will start to be dropped soon as this number cannot be sustained.
But apart from the number issue, the Warwickshire SofR (although still very early days) does seem to have the structure in place. The Manager for my lads age group (U14) is an excellent communicator, who mails the Parents and lads on a regular basis.
The only thing I found a little confusing is that we were told that the SofR replaces EPDC's, but I know that Clubs still have EPDC's in operation. It will be interesting to see if any of the age groups from SofR get passed onto Premiership club Academies.
This message edited on Wed, 02 April 08 by barry1957
|
|
|
weakone
- slfaithfull@aol.com
|
Wed, 02 April 08 10:06 GMT
|
I would not do that. I know the reasons, but it is more involved then my explaination following.
The original coaches were well trained and experienced but threw the towel in because of all the flack they got from parents, coaches and clubs complaining about who was selected and who was excluded. Plus the lack of support from those above.
In simple terms this was because the mass majority of people involved within youth rugby did not understand what the new SOR remit is. They all assumed it was the old County development squads.
Generally very few people still do not understand. There is a lot of disquiet over the selection process and who got in. It distracted the coaches too much from their task in hand. There was no real feedback from their powers that be, filtering down to the parents and kids. There still is not.
The replacement coaches (all honourable folk) have had to play catch up and have not had the correct induction.
I personally believe from my experience that 80% of people out there still do not know what the SOR is about. In hindsight, IMHO we should have run the County development squads in parallel with the SOR and had their respective selection.
I feel that a lot of painful lessons have been learnt, but possibily the credibility and damage may take a little longer to resolve then should be practicable. The CB will eventually get it back on track, but it may have lost some good coaches that they recruited in its evolution.
More importantly, the reason why it is there, 'the players' are confused!
I will not name the CB. I see no positive from that. But I do believe they will correct the issues. I just would have preferred they were not there.
It confirms to me that communication was king, but there was little of none of it evident. There was more info on this thread then anywhere within our CB. Sadly very few people read this. I think because there was a roadshow and a download on this website. It is assumed that everyone will make an attempt to communicate it through to club level and to every player it effects.
The lesson I have learnt witnessing this is you cannot take the mountain to mohammad! You have to get out their amongst the people.
|
|
|
nicknell
|
Wed, 02 April 08 08:18 GMT
|
Name and shame.
Report the matter to your CDO and demand answers. The SoR curriculum is very specific and leads to a series of outcomes for each of the 9 sessions by using, at least in part, a gamesense coaching style.
|
|
|
weakone
- slfaithfull@aol.com
|
Tue, 01 April 08 21:16 GMT
|
I hate to have to post this message. I was on the side of optimism last year when the SOR's were announced.
I'm sad to state that within the next week or so their first year comes to a conclusion.
Our SOR has been a total shambles with coaches resigning half way through the season. New coaches have not been properly trained. They do not know their full remit. The RFU is meant to filter down a coaching style incorporating game sense. I have not yet seen one session as such.
There has been no real feedback to club coaches or attendees.
I never dreamt I would see the day when I would write in such a critical manner of other volunteers actions or efforts.
How have they performed elsewhere. Please tell me they have worked and we have been unlucky!
|
|
|
nicknell
|
Mon, 17 December 07 13:04 GMT
|
ECRU operates 2 SoR centres about 30 miles apart.
It would appear to make sense to invite all of the SoR players in a particular age grade (in this case U15) to one central location, where the coaches can deliver the SoR curriculum and assess the players from both centres, without the need to arrange yet another rugby event for the players, many of whom probably already have too much rugby in their schedules.
|
|
|
paranet
|
Fri, 14 December 07 09:23 GMT
|
According to the CBSOR Implementation Guidance Booklet the CBSoR should REPLACE the CB Squad - here is the extract from page 3
"The recommendation which was
approved reads: ‘Constituent Body
Schools of Rugby will be established
to replace existing CB Development
Squads and England Player
Development Centres (EPDCs), and
will have responsibility for delivering a core curriculum. The CB Schools of Rugby will be based on geographical districts at U13, U14, U15 and U16 levels, and will be supported by Regional Academy staff and CB accredited personnel.’
Seems very simple to me.
I would be very interested to know where the contrary to this statement has been issued as a "guideline".
|
|
|
GerLp9$2W#
|
Thu, 13 December 07 23:08 GMT
|
This CB have taken an interesting approach in using SoR as an extension of its U15 CB development squad. It's contrary to the guidelines on SoR as I understood them, maybe it's a case of interpretation? Anybody else found this is the best route going forward?
http://clubs.rfu.com/Clubs/portals/ecru/C ulford.aspx
|
|
|
paranet
|
Fri, 30 November 07 01:50 GMT
|
I believe you are not alone in being confused. I think the majority of confusion comes from the misuse of the word County.
The levels through which a young rugby player can progress are as follows:
1.School or Club
2. Sub County or District
3. Constituent Body (CB)
4. Division
5. National
My CB is East Midlands which is made up of Bedfordshire and Northamptonshire which are geographical counties but are referred to as sub counties.
Most CB's are in fact counties like Hertfordshire which is broken down into districts.
So from what you say your lad is playing for his sub county/district hoping to be selected for the CB.
The school of rugby is at CB level. EPDG is a level above CB.
The RFU is made up of CB's not counties.
|
|
|
barry1957
|
Thu, 29 November 07 13:36 GMT
|
My lad had the second of his District trials last evening, and I'm pleased to say he was successfull. I have to say that most of us Parents are still a little confused as to the meaning and 'pecking order', if you like, of these development initiatives.
This weekend, we have a County Tournament, whereby 5 Districts play one another over the morning, and from that, a County side is picked. I think!
I'm personally confused as to where this new Schools of Rugby comes into play.
My lad's school have put him forward for the SofR. Does this replace County?
In the past I believe we've had District and County. Now we've got District, Schools of Rugby, EPDG's Sub-County squads.
I haven't had chance to ask the Coaches to explain it to me, and there's an tendency to just 'go with it' and see what happens to my lad but it would be nice to get my head around it.
I have read these very good threads, but to be honest, I'm none the wiser.
Please help.
|
|
|
PhiCm9$#
|
Mon, 26 November 07 14:04 GMT
|
Thanks for the clarification. We are being told that the directive has been handed down from RFU, whereas your explanation suggests that in reality it is EMMJRA who are preventing SoR boys from participating in the sub-county setup. I can appreciate that it gives a larger number of boys the opportunity to represent a "county" team and for late developers to be seen by SoR scouts/coaches - perhaps it is the illogical way in which it has been presented by EMMJRA that is so irksome, suggesting that the SoR boys might hurt someone of lesser ability when there is no attempt to restrict their club-level activities.
Thanks, Phil
|
|
|
PhiCm9$#
|
Mon, 26 November 07 14:04 GMT
|
Thanks for the clarification. We are being told that the directive has been handed down from RFU, whereas your explanation suggests that in reality it is EMMJRA who are preventing SoR boys from participating in the sub-county setup. I can appreciate that it gives a larger number of boys the opportunity to represent a "county" team and for late developers to be seen by SoR scouts/coaches - perhaps it is the illogical way in which it has been presented by EMMJRA that is so irksome, suggesting that the SoR boys might hurt someone of lesser ability when there is no attempt to restrict their club-level activities.
Thanks, Phil
|
|
|
nicknell
|
Mon, 26 November 07 13:32 GMT
|
The additional county games you refer to are in fact sub-county matches, ie Beds v Northants, Cambs v Suffolk etc. County matches would be, for example, East Mids v Middx.
I can see where the confusion has arisen, and some of the comments are at odds with comments from other CBs.
The CB SoR sits above the sub-county structure (ie Beds v Northants) and as your son is in the CB SoR, he has a chance of winning an East Mids cap later in the season - if you like, he has a free pass to selection for his RFU "county" of East Mids.
The sub-county structure continues to exist and is encouraged by some CBs (ECRU and NLD among others) because it offers another opportunity to see the "non elite" players in action at a level above their usual club or school, and in a representative environment, with a view to inviting the more able performers and late developers to join SoR, and also because it provides an opportunity for a large number of lads to represent their home "county".
I understand that players in another CB have been advised by the EPDG/SoR coaches that they may represent their sub-county if it fits in with the rest of their rugby commitments. Each CB may take a different view.
This might mean that an SoR player at a rugby playing school, who trains 4 or 5 times a week and has access to a meaningful school or club match once or twice a week doesn't need to prove himself to the SoR/EPDG coaches by playing his sub-county, and might even benefit from a rest! By contrast, the SoR player at a non-rugby playing school, might benefit from playing for Beds or Northants in the sub-county matches as it provides a level of competition above that which he might experience while representing his club.
|
|
|
callump
|
Mon, 26 November 07 12:22 GMT
|
My understanding was that the cb or counties could do what they want. However, the only funding they will get from the RFU will be for the SoR. So if they are running county development they will need to self fund that in some way.
I don't know that the level of the SoR players is much higher than the county players. I would be more worried about the elite players being targetted by those that did not make it...
C.
|
|
|
PhiCm9$#
|
Mon, 26 November 07 12:12 GMT
|
This topic concerns East Midlands - there is an East Midlands SoR, a Northampton EPDG, and separate county squads for Beds, Northants and Cambs - the Beds coach has received directive from John Stevens, head of EMMJRA, that no boy who has been selected for either EPDG or the SoR should be considered for county squad inclusion. There are 2 SoR games planned for 2008, and 3 county games planned for 2008 apparently. The "elite" comment is astonishing, I agree.
|
|
|
nicknell
|
Mon, 26 November 07 11:58 GMT
|
Some interesting interpretations there!
The first is that I understood that the only county matches would be CB SoR matches (2 matches at U15 and 1 at U14).
Therefore it would seem that the CB SoR squad should make up the "county team", with other players brought in for the matches as required. Is your CB planning county matches other than those defined by SoR?
I'm also surprised at the comment that "elite" (14-year-old) players might cause injury to less able players. Who are these elite players supposed to play against? Will their schools and clubs remove all the non-elite players at the start of each match?
|
|
|
PhiCm9$#
|
Mon, 26 November 07 11:09 GMT
|
Hello, my 14 year old son has been selected for both the CBSoR and more recently for the county squad - we were informed by the county coach on Friday that there has been a rule change and that SoR boys are not to be considered for inclusion into the county side because they are "elite" and "might cause injury to a less able player" at the county level. But there is no objection to these lads still playing club rugby against boys of a much lower standard than county players?? I'm confused by the logic.
|
|
|
milligani
- iandmilligan@btinternet.com
|
Wed, 21 November 07 16:31 GMT
|
I'll try that Nick. ;-)
Cheers
Spike
|
-------------------------
Spike |
|
|
nicknell
|
Wed, 21 November 07 16:21 GMT
|
The curriculum has been available to SoR coaches since late summer - we received our copies in about August, I think. We were issued with a pair of dvds and a pdf copy.
My understanding is that the curriculum was not scheduled to be on general release to club coaches unless they purchase a copy (from where, I don't know) which comes with a "coach training day".
Contact your regional coach development officer or senior club academy manager and I bet you'll blag a copy.
|
|
|
[
FIRST
|
PREVIOUS
|
NEXT
|
LAST
]
|
|
|
