[
PLEASE LOGIN TO POST TO THE FORUM
]
|
|
|
greengael
|
Tue, 01 April 08 12:15 GMT
|
Some flexibility and working out agreements is definitely a good thing. But like I say, our kids found it really hard to adapt to yet another rule change on the tour, and the other team took full advantage of that, so it is important that coaches aren't allowed to "manufacture" extreme variations that their team has worked on really hard, so that they have the edge for that game...
|
|
|
didds
- scrumtime@hotmail.com
|
Tue, 01 April 08 09:51 GMT
|
interesting point about the Irish flexible approach.
I would be concerned about players (at young ages as well) having to adapt week by week or even game by game. I would also have conderns that tomove to this approach would maybe be just "giving up" on trying to get -some_ coaches to accept their responsibilities.
But that all said it would certainly seem the path of least resistance :-)
didds
|
|
|
spud72
|
Mon, 31 March 08 23:37 GMT
|
I agree about the Tag \ Tag Belt specification, our club play with the Gilbert Style belts given out by the RFU for completing the questionaire in years gone by. We are now finding club with belts up to 3 inches wide and the velcro on the tags being the same width. This at a recent festival required our players to pull the tags off with both hands which is pretty hard when standing still let alone running. To give our teasm a fair chance do we buy all new belts ? I think that the RFU should not just specify tag size but the belt design too especially the amount of velcro on the TAGs.
This message edited on Tue, 01 April 08 by spud72
|
|
|
greengael
|
Mon, 31 March 08 17:37 GMT
|
Just for info: Went to Ireland last month with the U11s and a couple of U12s and played three games to three very different sets of rules. One school we played 10-a-side (5 forwards/5 backs), one school 9-a-side (very similar to our U10 variation of the continuum), and against the club we played a different variation of the 10-a-side game (mainly, where the team that scores gets the re-start).
What is the common practice there is for the coaches to get together in advance and decide the format. This could well be the three or four minutes before KO, when the ref and head coaches will speak to all the players and explain the finer points of the rules, hand-offs allowed/disallowed, 9/10-a-side, the side that scores gets the restart etc.
It's all very Irish (ie very easy-going), gives the coaches flexibility to decide the finer points of the game, and keeps the players on their toes. At the end of the day, they are not doing anything dangerous (so long as they stay within the guidelines), so in the event of someone getting hurt you are not likely to see the coaches in court over negligence. Could the same be said here? "You sir, were playing the game slightly outside of the rules of the Continuum, therefore your insurance is nullified".
Mind you, on day four of a hugely busy tour it did become a little confusing for our players and the opposition (ie the club team) were able to take full advantage of this and we therefore took a bit of a kicking, but even then we did eventually get the hang of it and scored three late tries in what was (for all the boys and girls involved) the highlight of the tour.
|
|
|
Rugby Russ
|
Fri, 14 March 08 09:14 GMT
|
IMO most o fthe Continuum has proven itself to be a valid model for player development and the RFU is to be congratulated on this. the devil though is in the detail and it is in the detail area that some refinement can be made to ease some of the problems many of us see on the park on Sundays.
General points:
A lot of the discussion on here revolves around coaching naturally but also considerable intepretation of the law/cntm. I feel that we have all seen our far share of poor coaching and especially refereeing and here the requirements sectio of the cntm can make a difference.
Suggestion 0ne:
All Mini age groups are reuired to have one ELRA qualified Referee for each (say 18 kids and remember they need not be a coach). This should be supported by the RFU as it would underpin one of the key Strategic Goals they have in the way forward strategy plan and would help build a body of officials that can can grow in expertise through Mini and into Youth Rugby. Middx is doing this through its Referee Panel and it seems to be working well. It helps recruit, retain and focus volunteers and enables if seriously adopted for direct and virtually immediate improvements in the standard of Refereeing (and incidentaly the pitch side conduct of coaches and players). I know that the RFU Referee Section would also be supportive of this and be able to assist clubs do this.
Suggestion Two:
Not strictly speaking a Continuum matter, but something aimed at getting the Continuum and its requirements more firmly embedded in coaches minds - A comprehensive Coaching progression manual covering LTPD from 6 through to 12 delivering a complete framework for coaches and players.
This is more than the tag course and L1 materials and would be focused on helping newer coaches work within the Continuums requirements. It wouldn't have to go to the nth degree but provide a best practice model for development, especially for coaches.
Suggestion Three:
All clubs to promote the Codes of Conduct for all players and adults involved in the game including parents. No tolerance of abuse of officials or players.
Suggestion Four:
Allow greater flexibility in Festival formats. Currently the overall time that is mandated for a Festival to be completed in is entirely unrealistic and needs to either removed or altered to somethng more reasonable. I have yet to attend ANY Festival ANYWHERE that has met this requirement.
Extend the overall game time allowed by maybe 10 for Tag, 15 for 9/10 and 20 for 11/12
If we are to retain the time limits on game time change the game limit to 6 this would help Festival organisers hugely!
Allow Extra Time on a golden try basis for say three minutes. If not resolved at U11/12 consider adding decided by Penalty kicks or drop goals attempts say 3.
Playing matters:
Mini TAG - ONE RFU specification for Tag belts
U8's - Contact skills introduction to be allowed from Jan in U8 year. In my opinion at U9 level allowing games in October leaves a max of 4/5 weeks to gain vital skills ahead of contact matches. Some kids will be played with just a few sessions to cover this off and we may well find the drop out of newer players increases, especially if you are playing teams who have kids active in the game at private schools.
U9 - No Change (other than maybe to allow a contested line out at the jump only). I do see the issue of the 3 man scrum, but adding another two players would decrease the amount of space for running skills that I think are vital to develop at this age. No more than 4 in a maul, more than this doesn't help the technical development of the skill and leads to big pileups of players.
U10 - 5 man scrum Uncontested until Feb then Contested, but if agreed between coaches and referee. Referee can go unconteted if he is not happy with the technical application. Maul as above
U11 - 5 man contested scrums. No wheeling/rotation of the scrum at all.
U12 - Increase pitch size, but allow for coaches to agree smaller size if neccessary. Formally specify a 10's or even a 7's version of the game to allow for B/C teams to be accomodated within fixtures/festivals. Thsi would also help smaller calbs field teams.
Seriously consider moving U12 to Youth.
'Maybe' allow No 8 to pick up at scrum, would be interested in your views on this.
Lastly and this is a bit of an about face from me but "Ball must be held in two hands as a requirement at all mini age groups" AND/OR that "hand offs are allowed from U10 onwards". Solves all the issues of hand offs fending etc and its good technique. At this weekends Festival I saw at least 6 tries scored as the result of a hand off.
Oh and mandatory free beer for coaches (and the taxi fare home) from parents :)
Russ
|
|
|
ealing bill
- wjgrist@tiscali.co.uk
|
Thu, 13 March 08 15:43 GMT
|
If there is a groundswell of opinion amongst us, the sad old men who really care about this - then why not?
This message edited on Thu, 13 March 08 by ealing bill
|
|
|
hullfc
|
Thu, 13 March 08 15:36 GMT
|
Mind you, I have been going on about having 5person UN-contested scrums since our current U13's were U9's. thats 4 years...is anything going to happen???
|
-------------------------
Cheers Pete |
|
|
hullfc
|
Thu, 13 March 08 14:37 GMT
|
For me U7's & U8's remain unchanged except for allowing contact practice after Xmas for the U8's (The schools allow tackling and so does RL). The mid season break seems a good time to instigate this.
U9's remain unchanged.
U10's to have 10person UN-contested scrums to aid in player development i.e. the hooker actually hooks the ball! No Kicking at U10.
U11's remain unchanged.
U12's allow limited hand off (nothing to the head). Keep the No8 I like it, but maybe allow bigger pitches. To align with schools would mean 15 aside & space would be a problem.
The Ctum doesnt have a lot wrong with it...but its not all right either!
My POV.
|
-------------------------
Cheers Pete |
|
|
ealing bill
- wjgrist@tiscali.co.uk
|
Thu, 13 March 08 08:44 GMT
|
Any chance of a consensus?
My summing up:
1. The 3-man scrum is not a good solution.
Suggestion - 5 man uncontested at U9. 5 man contested at U10.
(This also means that A squads start at U9 with a decent number of forwards, rather than slowly sucking the life out of B squads)
The size of the team can be debated.
What about 5 forwards and 6 backs at U9, 5 forwards and 7 backs at U10?
2. U12 isn't right.
Suggestion - the total change - move U12 into Youth. Align with schools (they wont align with us)
Part change - increase 'maximum' pitch size but allow teams who haven't got enough pitch space to insist on playing on half pitches. I actually think there is a huge value in the boys who are playing on bigger pitches at school understanding that they have different game plans for different sized pitches.
3. 13 players on a half pitch is not an advantage.
Either do away with the No8, or let U12's play on larger pitches (see above)
4. The U8 dispensation to allow tackling from Feb 1 was a good one.
Reinstate this.
It was a good idea.
It worked.
Are there any of the above we can agree on?
|
|
|
newcoach
|
Wed, 12 March 08 22:20 GMT
|
I'd like to see the re-introduction of teaching contact for U8. After all, the RFU approve and insure overseas tours where U8 (and even U7) play contact.
|
|
|
ealing bill
- wjgrist@tiscali.co.uk
|
Sun, 09 March 08 23:02 GMT
|
Fair enough.
|
|
|
didds
- scrumtime@hotmail.com
|
Sun, 09 March 08 22:07 GMT
|
sorry Bill - my stance is not that things CANNOT change, and if I have moved away from the original line of argument I apologise.
FTR - by all means suggest new stuff that MAY be adopted. Of course.
I was (mistakenly) arguing that we cannot start doing things differently UNTIL such adoption.
WRT extra time in 7s it MIGHT be that there is some evidence that seniors are able to cope with it whereas 6 year may not be (and again there may not be). But I would not mean to suggest that it CANNOT be done following debate and (undoubtedly!) insurers buy in.
cheers
didds
|
|
|
ealing bill
- wjgrist@tiscali.co.uk
|
Sun, 09 March 08 21:07 GMT
|
The title of this thread is "Suggestions for change to the continuum 2008/9"
Suggestions....
People are suggesting changes and you both are determined to prove (using recourse to imaginary future lawsuits on many occasions) why change is NOT possible.
The continuum is a recent invention. It has already been changed many times so ANYTHING can be changed if people are persuaded there is an alternative that is better.
And on another note, what County are you in? Plainly you have deep systemic problems.
This message edited on Sun, 09 March 08 by ealing bill
|
|
|
didds
- scrumtime@hotmail.com
|
Sun, 09 March 08 16:59 GMT
|
to back up PaulDG's point, the line9s) have to be drawn somewhere.
Wherever the lines are drawn, somebody somewhere will decide they are wrong - that's natural.
However right or wrong various people may think they are and whether they like it or not, to ignore the lines on the basis that "I think they are daft" is to expose oneself to the potential interest of an ambulance chasing lawyer. Whether one likes it or not, whether one agrees with it or not.
Lobby for change by all means. But if others disagree then that's .. well... natural.
In this regard the lines have been drawn such that 7s can have extra time (based on adults) and tag cannot (based on 6 and 7 year olds). Live with it.
didds
|
|
|
pauldg
|
Sun, 09 March 08 08:46 GMT
|
>There is a really strong undercurrent of opinion on here which seems determined to prove what is NOT possible.
And from my point of view there seems to be a strong "overcurrent" of ignoring regulation "cos it's rugby innit?".
>Beware of becoming the protectors of the Continuum, not the protectors of a game.
If you want the Continuum and junior regulations changed, lobby for the changes.
All *I* want is to know that my kids can play rugby in a relatively safe environment and that *I* (and my colleagues) wont be put in the position - which happens regularly in "festival season") of turning up to a fixture and being faced with a decision of either ignoring RFU *Regulations* (and hence exposing *everyone* to potential legal action were there to be an accident) or to tell the 15 or so kids "sorry lads, we can't play by these rules so we'll all have to go home".
Volunteer coaches/parents should not be being put in this position. The regulations *are* quite clear - as any barrister acting for an insurance company (or parent) would point out to the court.
How much ice would "In ignoring the regulations I was acting in the spirit of the game, Your Honour" cut in the High Court, do you think?
In the 19th Century, perhaps if you'd been to the right school that would have been OK.
In the 21st Century, what do you think?
|
-------------------------
--
PaulDG |
|
|
ealing bill
- wjgrist@tiscali.co.uk
|
Sun, 09 March 08 00:37 GMT
|
Proving what?
There is a really strong undercurrent of opinion on here which seems determined to prove what is NOT possible.
Beware of becoming the protectors of the Continuum, not the protectors of a game.
|
|
|
didds
- scrumtime@hotmail.com
|
Sat, 08 March 08 21:14 GMT
|
except 7s variations are typically aimed at senior players (ie >=17 years) wheras tag is aimed at 6 and 7 year olds.
didds
|
|
|
ealing bill
- wjgrist@tiscali.co.uk
|
Sat, 08 March 08 09:58 GMT
|
Returning to the extra time debate...
I am reffing a 7's tournament today, and reading the variations, 7's allows for longer games in the finals AND extra time.
Since 7's rugby is actually closer to Mini rugby than 80 minute senior rugby, it seems clear that the IRB/RFU recognise that playing 5 minutes extra time after a 7 or 10 minute half is quite different from playing extra time after a 40 minute half.
|
|
|
milligani
- iandmilligan@btinternet.com
|
Mon, 03 March 08 10:54 GMT
|
If we go back to basics on this, the main suggestion I'd have to improve the continuum is to get everyone to read it and adhere to it in whatever form it comes out. However, in order to do this the elements need to be written in such a way that intrepretation in not an option. They need to be clear and concise (which IMHO they aren't currently).
There are numerous areas of improvement I'd like to put forward.
I believe that the U8 age group should play touch and not TAG with a two handed touch as a progression from TAG into contact. This age group also needs the contact coaching and the dispensation needs to be crystal clear for that. IMO it needs to cover more than just tackling.
As for the rest of the age groups I think the progression and development aspects are good and they work reasonable well with the logistics of running all minis matches at the same time. This enables small clubs (which only a couple of pitches to still run all groups at the same time). The playing up / down debate needs to be put to bed too. I realise that this is sometimes compared to schools as are playing aspects other than those stated in the continuum but the RFU is there to regulation rugby clubs not schools and just because they do something it doesn't make it right (or wrong) just different.
Again the festival aspect is one we debate a lot on here but if it is 5 matches then make it so and police it. I know the clubs are also responsible for policing this but maybe a visit on the day by the RDO or some form of 'licence' for the festival might be the way forward.
Personally I have enjoyed the progression through the age groups under the continuum and from our point of view I think the skills learnt in the stepped approach have helped the players develop and embed their skills.
Maybe a dispensation for under 12's maybe a 8 man / person scrum training and a math on a full sized pitch (logistics permitting) might be a consideration.
Just my thoughts........
This message edited on Mon, 03 March 08 by milligani
|
-------------------------
Spike |
|
|
pauldg
|
Sun, 02 March 08 14:44 GMT
|
>I believe it should be 60 mins per player and NOT 60 mins per team.
It currently isn't either. I'd like it to be, but it's currently 5 matches per squad.
>Its great that teams can play up to 5 other teams in one day at a festival.
I've been to a festival today (organsed by the area CB) where the winners will have played 6 matches.
Frankly I'm getting sick of this and look forward to junior rugby. If the limit is 5 then RFU, *bl**dy* well enforce it! If it's not 5 - i.e. if we're allowed to play 6, 7, 8, 9 or 10 as long as some other conditions are met then *bl**dy* well say so!!
|
-------------------------
--
PaulDG |
|
|
the whistleblower
|
Sun, 02 March 08 08:43 GMT
|
Per jdoneill <<I believe it should be 60 mins per player and NOT 60 mins per team.>>
I am no loner active in the Continuum, but my recollection was that coaches were excitedly watching the game and moaning at the ref, not gazing at a clipboard to mark the precise number of minutes played by each child.
Imagine you are in the festival control tent. You'll need to maintain full lists of each child on site, and the number of minutes they've played in each game. Or would we leave it to the coaches of the sides in the final to be honest enough to disbar their best players from the final because they didn't dare to sub them in the tough semi?
Unworkable, I'm afraid.
|
-------------------------
Whistleblower |
|
|
jdzamosc
|
Sun, 02 March 08 00:34 GMT
|
I believe it should be 60 mins per player and NOT 60 mins per team.
At the age of 9 I played on a full size pitch for 80 mins, there were no more in injuries then as there is today. Just an observation as I have no desire to see mini/midi return to those times. Its great that teams can play up to 5 other teams in one day at a festival.
|
-------------------------
JD |
|
|
pauldg
|
Sat, 01 March 08 21:15 GMT
|
>Why are we going to court on a thread about suggestions of changes to the continuum?
You and I are not.
But if extra time is brought in eventually a child will be seriously hurt in extra time. (Objectively this may be nothing at all to do with the playing of extra time in this instance.)
At that point, someone will be in court and the RFU will have to justify why it introduced extra time in mini/midi matches while following the world governing body's regulations and banning it for junior matches on safety grounds.
I think that would be a very difficult case to defend, don't you?
This message edited on Sat, 01 March 08 by pauldg
|
-------------------------
--
PaulDG |
|
|
gittins
|
Sat, 01 March 08 12:41 GMT
|
I watched a bit of the Super 14 this morning using the Experimental Law Variations (ELV).
I wonder if we should anticipate change to the full laws and get the continuum in line with the ELV?
Main points would be:
* Defending line at scrum 5m back.
* Free kicks for unsuccessful rucks & mauls
Regarding the original post, I would like to see less players on the pitch, not more.
U12 should revert to 12 aside (the no8 adds nothing towards development). But U12s should be allowed 15 aside/full pitch development fixtures after 1st Feb. The hand-off should be allowed at U12.
U8 should be allowed to learn contact skills after 1st Feb.
Playing across age groups should be permitted for small emerging clubs by linking U7 & U8; U9 & U10; U11 & U12 for fixtures.
Generally the continuum should give greater tolerance to parents/coaches, rather than have a "thou shall not" approach.
Nick
|
|
|
ealing bill
- wjgrist@tiscali.co.uk
|
Sat, 01 March 08 10:26 GMT
|
Why are we going to court on a thread about suggestions of changes to the continuum?
|
|
|
[
NEXT
|
LAST
]
|
|
|
