[
PLEASE LOGIN TO POST TO THE FORUM
]
|
|
|
Jas9Mg#$
|
Wed, 27 February 08 15:41 GMT
|
Just like the Public School coaches I will keep my own council now. All I was really doing was making people aware of what IS DEFINITELY happening today in the hope of bringing a better tomorrow. It clearly doesn't happen in all areas of the country but in some areas it is rife. Truth. Take the blinkers off or ignore and ask for proof if you prefer. End of story.
|
|
|
Jas9Mg#$
|
Wed, 27 February 08 15:41 GMT
|
Just like the Public School coaches I will keep my own council now. All I was really doing was making people aware of what IS DEFINITELY happening today in the hope of bringing a better tomorrow. It clearly doesn't happen in all areas of the country but in some areas it is rife. Truth. Take the blinkers off or ignore and ask for proof if you prefer. End of story.
|
|
|
ob
|
Tue, 26 February 08 17:02 GMT
|
Jas9Mg#$ - "I have no wish to prove anything. I'm just saying that it happens, of that there is absolutely no doubt."
So you don't feel any need to justify your claim?
"It is always difficult to prove what happens behind closed doors but the people involved know that it happens as I have stated in a previous thread and no one from any of said schools has refuted the allegation."
That could equally be prejudice the other way round.
My point is that refuting an allegation for which no evidence is produced is virtually impossible.
Even though you can't tell what happens behind closed doors, you can compare outcomes. Are there any others of the same sort here?
In this particular case there is a perfectly reasonable explanation that does not rely on prejudice.
|
|
|
Jas9Mg#$
|
Tue, 26 February 08 13:45 GMT
|
ob - I have no wish to prove anything. I'm just saying that it happens, of that there is absolutely no doubt. It is always difficult to prove what happens behind closed doors but the people involved know that it happens as I have stated in a previous thread and no one from any of said schools has refuted the allegation. I am hoping that this may be my last word on the subject but in all honesty sometimes what happens is laughable.
|
|
|
ob
|
Mon, 25 February 08 17:57 GMT
|
Jas9Mg#$ - conspiracy theories are easy to construct, but difficult to prove. So far there is no evidence, just assertions.
|
|
|
Jas9Mg#$
|
Mon, 25 February 08 16:10 GMT
|
There is no doubt that a higher proportion of Public Schools play rugby more seriously than State Schools. However, there are an awful lot of very good State School players in the junior/youth sections of club teams who do not get a fair crack of the selection whip because they do not play for a fashionable Public School. Furthermore, the selection processes in some areas of the country appear to allow a "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" mentality with the coaches/selectors from these Public Schools who put themselves in those positions to ensure that they have influence when selection is taking place. Once the selection processes are over you don't see them for dust ! As I have said previously I didn't believe it could happen like this but I'm sorry to say it does.
|
|
|
ob
|
Thu, 21 February 08 19:44 GMT
|
AIUI St Peters Sixth Form is effectively regarded (at least by itself!) as equivalent to a Sixth Form college, but without formally having that status. Obviously in a Sixth From College you cannot expect players to have been at the school for a few years, so they are an exception to the standard qualification rule.
My guess (and it is only a guess) is that St Peters thought that the previous fine etc meant they had "paid their dues" and could go on using the technically ineligible players. The authorities saw it otherwise. Miscommunication with both sides convinced their own understanding is what really happened.
A great pity. You have to wonder what happened in previous years.
|
|
|
gerard_jenkins
|
Thu, 21 February 08 16:34 GMT
|
In the case of St Peters (OP). They have a highly qualified DoR and rugby at all ages is taken seriously. The high level of coaching can be demonstrated by the number of players that progress to Hartpury College and the Gloucester Academy. Current 1st team players at Gloucester, Worcester, LLanelli and more are products of St Peters.
I'm unable to comment on specifics of the grievance regardless of what has been printed in the local paper as I'm sure all the facts are never reported. I have no involvement with the school other than some players in my age attending the school.
|
-------------------------
Gerard Jenkins |
|
|
NBHmark3
|
Thu, 21 February 08 14:56 GMT
|
To support OB, and I have no axe to grind in this but as a Referee who has covered many a school match I speak as I find.
Saturday fixture at Public School, fixtures at 1st 2nd & 3rd XV (20 boys to a squad) U16's A, B and C sides, U15 A&B, U14A,B,C , Parents from both schools watching all sides,. Eleven sides all playing rugby against visiting school, in addition to "in house" matches at U14 and U15 level, and all of the players getting coaching at a very high level from highly qualified and accredited RFU coaches. Medical staff in attendance.
1st XV Public School matches are often rated as level 6 games equivalent to Midlands or London 2 senior leagues.
Saturday morning fixture at local rugby playing state school, two sides playing, 1stXV and U16 squads of 22/20. No medical back up limited parental support, one teacher an enthusiastic rugby playing coach for the 1st XV, U16 have teacher who has turned up to be teacher in charge, local club coach (also a dad) giving the rugby input.
School 1st XV side rated at Level 10/11 and the gap in grading reflects the actual rugby.
Some state schools have great facilities with dedicated Teachers & coaches and achieve the best they possibly can. In most Public Schools, every boy plays rugby for at least one term, and then play hockey or football, but they all take part. In a state school you need a Teacher who can coach and is willing to dedicate the time to develop the players and the players are self selecting if they don't want to play they don't.
|
|
|
ob
|
Thu, 21 February 08 12:28 GMT
|
Or could it be that the perception is wrong?
I suspect a higher proportion of public schools play rugby seriously than state schools, so there will naturaly be more players from public schools than the number of such schools would otherwise suggest.
It is easy to devise conspiracy theories, but they are of little value unless there is some evidence to support them. Mere perceptions are not enough.
|
|
|
Jas9Mg#$
|
Thu, 21 February 08 09:05 GMT
|
This has echoes of the Club Rugby v Public School Rugby debate earlier on. Whatever the rights and wrongs there is a definite perception by many that Public schools get preferential treatment in many areas. Could it be something to do with the fact that they need to sell a rounded package of benefits to their fee paying clients and half a dozen little Tarquins in an England shirt and a couple of national cups looks good and rakes the cash in ? I wonder.
|
|
|
the whistleblower
|
Sun, 17 February 08 21:48 GMT
|
<<I feel very sorry for the players, who were certainly not at fault, but I see no evidence that this is a question of bias.>>
I am sure you are right, OB, that there was no bias in the application of the regulations in this case. However, it is easy to argue that the regs are, if you like, institutionally biased, in that they disproportionately discriminate against comprehensive schools. In the state sector, the 6th form is not a natural progression from the year below; it is a natural break point in the continuity of education, where pupils assess the (more limited) range of options available, and select a school that best meets their needs. In addition, many state schools offer no 6th form provision.
This factor is far less common in the public school sector, so the rules of the cup do, whether intentionally or not, discriminate against state schools. The exception for 6th form colleges suggests that the matter has arisen, and a fudge reached without proper understanding of the breadth of the problem.
Perhaps the original poster should try to pressure the Daily Mail into withdrawing sponsorship if the lacuna is not addressed? I imagine the Express, Sun, Mirror et al would have fun with the situation if it could not be amicably resolved.
|
-------------------------
Whistleblower |
|
|
ob
|
Sat, 16 February 08 22:45 GMT
|
According to articles in the local paper (http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk) the school believed it had permission to play their full team, despite having been sanctioned for breaking the rules in the previous round. However the hearing said they had no such dispensation.
It sounds to me like a miscommunication. People from the school say that at the previous hearing (when they were fined, and told to play their next round at a neutral venue) the chairman said he did not want to penalise the boys. Whether that also meant the same technically ineligible players were to be allowed to continue is apparently the point at issue.
To me it would seem odd if ineligible players were allowed to continue after sanctions - surely they would simply attract further sanctions thereafter? At the very least the staff involved should have made very sure they had clear evidence of any special dispensation.
I feel very sorry for the players, who were certainly not at fault, but I see no evidence that this is a question of bias.
|
|
|
northl1
|
Sat, 16 February 08 21:20 GMT
|
IF we have got the right end of this stick there are three issues.
The regulation OB found I would guess was put in place to stop (public) schools from poaching good players from other (comprehensive?) schools or similar practices. Although given the number of schools that don't play rugby I think if a talented player can move from one that doesn't to one that does this should be encouraged.
Secondly IF the school inquestion in correctly filled in their form that it would suggest they knew they were breaking the rules and were trying to hide the fact (Pure speculation given limited facts)
Thirdly - if only 6th form colleges are excluded that discriminates against schools that have a 6th form that admits students from its own Year 11, and those from other local schools that do not have a sixth form - this system I imagine is more common in the comprehensive system.
|
|
|
ob
|
Sat, 16 February 08 00:46 GMT
|
I have now managed to find a copy of the Regulations.
4.4 "In the Under 18 Competitions, and with the exception of Sixth Form Colleges, only three
players who have joined the School/College after the 30 September 2005 are permitted to be
part of the Squad of players selected."
I presume this is the regulation that St Peters has breached, but I have no details.
|
|
|
ob
|
Fri, 15 February 08 21:33 GMT
|
I tried to Google the background, but it is not all that clear. In the previous round St Peters were fined, made to play at a neutral venue and reprimanded after their game for incorrectly filling in their team sheet (whatever that may mean). It appears they have a policy of recruiting good players from other local school at age 16, which conflicts with a rule about the players having been at the school for 3 years.
However I have had to piece that together from all sorts of reports and comments, so it might not be quite right.
I hope there will be an official report.
|
|
|
ballsie
|
Fri, 15 February 08 21:25 GMT
|
Exactly what have they done....
|
-------------------------
Ballsie |
|
|
davida7304
|
Fri, 15 February 08 15:12 GMT
|
St. Peters COMPREHENSIVE School have found themselves on the end of a ridiculous decision from the RFU. The have been excluded from the under 18 Daily mail cup after abiding by the rules that were set out by the RFu only one week earlier!!!
The school has been excluded from the tournament after fielding players that the RFU had said one week earlier that they were entitled to play!
This decision has nothing to do with the fact all of the other remaining schools left in the competition are all PUBLIC SCHOOLS(Yeah Right)!
The RFU has not once thought about how this is going to affect the children, who have strived all year long to achieve there goal of reaching the Twickenham show piece. To have this snatched away from them in such a cruel way could lead to all sorts of reactions from the children, this has not been considered once.....English rugby needs a big shake up....if the people in charge of running our game are left to their own devices they are going to ruin the game of rugby. The game will be become exactly the sort of game we don't want it to.....something for posh public schools and nobody else!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
