|
|
 |
[
PLEASE LOGIN TO POST TO THE FORUM
]
|
|
|
pauldg
|
Sat, 17 May 08 18:25 GMT
|
As posted on another thread:
"The RFU appreciates participants of the Game are seeking guidance and/or training materials from them urgently. They need to provide all participants with high quality information and material once :
a) the wording of the ELVs as it will appear in the Law Book has been received from the iRB
b) they have obtained clarification regarding the impact on the Youth Game
c) had an opportunity to facilitate further discussion between selected referees and coaches on the implications of the ELVs.
The proposed process is :
28th/29th June - National Panel Officials conference takes place. National League coaches and RFU development staff will be invited to further consider the refereeing, coaching and playing implications of the ELVs
w/c 30th June - guidance and appropriate training materials will be provided to Referee Societies, clubs, universities and schools.
July/August - through the CB Coaching Committees, RFU Coach and Referee Development staff are organising CB training workshops at which the implications for refereeing, coaching and playing will be discussed."
(Thanks [again] to Simon Thomas of Hampshire Referee's Society.)
|
-------------------------
--
PaulDG |
|
|
rugbytom
|
Sat, 17 May 08 16:10 GMT
|
Any comment from CRG re-
1. ELV's and their impact on the Continuum?
2. Continuum 08/09 and when it will be available to download? - coaches should hopefully have this several weeks before 1 September in order to make the necessary preparations for coaching them correctly and competitively.
Please someone from the CRG? - regular comment on this Forum would relieve a lot of stress and angst for regulars on this Forum.
|
|
|
osmona
- andrew.osmond@virgin.net
|
Wed, 07 May 08 06:35 GMT
|
I agree whole heartedly with Tom.
How can collapsing a maul be deemed as safe and, as responsible referees with a conscience for child protection, are we supposed to allow this practice along with other unsafe practices such as bridging?
Kids of continuum age simply do not have the strength in their backs and muscles to control such situations. This also goes for the removal of the requirement for shoulders to be above hips.
Please don't tell me it is safe. Only last weekend did I have to referee a Yorkshire side that had been taught to bridge and persistently tried to take the legs away from one of our players in the maul. Unfortunately on one occasion they succeeded in avoiding my gaze and predictably we needed intense medical attention.
Please, please, please for the 08/09 continuum
1) No collapsing mauls
2) No bridging
3) Shoulders above hips
Andrew
|
-------------------------
Andrew Osmond
U10 Coach (07/08)
Market Rasen & Louth RUFC |
|
|
rugbytom
|
Tue, 06 May 08 16:38 GMT
|
Await with interest the revised Continuum inclusive of the ELV's - please please please do not allow defending teams to pull mauls down as it is so dangerous at any level contrary to the IRB alleged research and please please please can we have a draft out urgently for review and comment and digesting well before next season starts.
Please can the CRG liaise through this Forum regarding this mauling issue and any others which are deemed to have a safety impact? - having spoken to a number of other referees about this, irrespective, I too will be instructing teams that any attempt to pull a maul down will be treated as dangerous play because I for one do not want an otherwise avoidable serious injury on my conscience as a result - especially with young kids.
Personally I fear for the senior players too - the rolling maul from a catch and drive is well used in professional rugby (National Leagues and above) and in addition to being technically skillfull also gain considerable momentum which could result in some serious pile ups and injuries.
For the record - this is the only ELV which is a major concern to me - and this on the grounds of safety.
|
|
|
ealing bill
- wjgrist@tiscali.co.uk
|
Wed, 02 April 08 21:50 GMT
|
I've been waiting to see what response this would get, and the answer seems to be very little.
I don't want to come over as churlish, but my honest reaction is blood out of a stone. That may offend the members of the CRG but, then so be it.
First we get a name. But not all.
Then perhaps the crux of everything that follows.
"The CRG do not want to make any substantial changes to the current rules and regulations. Areas of discussion have been geared towards how best to educate and communicate to the game matters relating to Mini/Midi rugby from playing rules and regulations to best coaching practises."
Very clear. Why couldn't this have been clearly communicated before?
The next exchange really amplifies this - once again very clear. Why couldn't this be clearly communiucated before, why in the second exchange of an e-mail correspondence not intended for publication?
I will pass over the Bayli stuff. I personally have looked very hard for the research that Bayli has used to support LTAD so if anyone can point me at it?? But if they are actually researching it, then good.
I slightly dispute the core implication that the continuum is a 'scientific' piece of work.
Much of it is good common sense and matches with what research says about child development, but e=mc2 it ain't.
By taking this line it means that the continuum becomes holy scripture that needs two years of evealuation and research to ammend. Whereas the reality is that it is a really good piece of strucuring, but exists on the same planet as all the other countries that play contact from 7 or 8.
Fundamentally it is good to hear the 'filtered' views of the CRG - it's better than nothing, but why does the stone have to be squeezed so hard to get the blood out?
What they have effectively done is release the areas they are currently considering for changes - just the extra man at 12. Good to know. We can stop having opinions about what isn't working.
"6. We would welcome any evidence based suggestions from you or your club on how the current core skills acquisition by our children can be improved. These will then go through our two year process of evaluation by the Coaching Dept, Medical advisors and then pilot studies. "
Hmmmm...
I'm trying not to be cynical, but I just get a strong feeling that this will never happen.
Bottom line - good to hear what the CRG thinks but next time why wait to have it wrung out of you?
|
|
|
pauldg
|
Sat, 15 March 08 17:02 GMT
|
Thanks Tom.
I'd love to see this one shouted from the rooftops:
5. The CRG does not have a closed mind to change but these must be within the rationale of the Continuum which is about skill acquisition by every child not the playing of a small pitch version of the adult game.
That's the whole point, people!
Continuum development IS NOT RUGBY.
Rugby begins at U13.
|
-------------------------
--
PaulDG |
|
|
rugbytom
|
Sat, 15 March 08 11:16 GMT
|
The following series of correspondence with Andrew Rogers of the CRG may well be of interest to those contributors to this forum who sometimes (or even regularly) end up frustrated with the confines of the Continuum, the lack of communication (or ability to communicate with) the CRG, and the apparant lack of consideration of the points raised on this forum.
Personally I should like to thank Andrew Rogers (Scretary of the CRG) for his time and providing what in the end outlines clarity for the way the Continuum is reviewed and an opportunity for those of us at the coal face to provide specific feedback on areas of the Laws which are being considered for change.
I hope this proves of interest and helps quell the frustrations of others at least a little with a clearer understanding of the current focus and constraints of the CRG.
Needless to say - I hope we will all continue to provide our suggestions for change as I still believe there ar considerable improvements to the current structure which would be to the benfit of all - Coaches, Referees and Players alike.
Yours in rugby
rugbytom
________________________________ ________
Original post after CRG Chairman advis e d commnication should go through the Secretary.
Thank you for this - I am sure that we can all agree wit h t he prescribed method of contact through both this Forum and the Secretary Andrew Rogers.
On this basis it w ould still be useful for us to know who exactly compr ises t he CRG.
Additionally it would be useful t o know what areas of which Age Groups are under discussion for cha nge and why - this would then enable more focussed discussi on and help those of us at the coal face feel mor e involved with the process of Continuum evolution.
As sug gested this submission will also formally be se nt to Andrew Rogers by email.
From: Andrew Rogers [mailt o:AndrewRogers@RFU.com]
Sent: 25 February 2008 12:01
Tom
My apologies for the delay in respo nding to you.
The Continuum Re view Group consi sts of 10 members. The Chairman, Colin Ma jor has been acti vely involved on Sunday mornings for the last 28 years. Th ere are 4 volunteer representatives from around the country all are actively involved in deliverin g mini/midi rugby. The executive is represented by staff from Development, Coa ching, Tournaments & Competitions, an d Refereeing. Women’s rugby is also represented on the gr oup.
The CR G do not want to make any substanti al changes to the curren t rules and regulations. Areas of discussion have been gea red towards how best to educate a nd communicate to the game matters relating to Mini/Midi r ugby from playing rules and regulations to best coaching p ractises.
If yo u have any further queries ple ase do not hesitate to contac t me.
Kind regards
Andrew
Sent: 26 February 2008 1 4:55
Dear Andrew
Thank you for your reply.
Can I assume t hat there are no specific areas under consideration for cha nge that might be worth p utting up for discussion on the Co mmunity Rugby Forum?
Can I also assume that much of the debate on this Forum is therefore a waste of time a s it covers areas whic h are not even up for consideration f or change? Previously I have been led to believe that the F orum debate is follo wed seriously and taken in to considera tion?
Fo r those of us who care deeply and have p otential for genui ne input to improvements to the Continuum – what/how does the CRG recommend these are put forward, a nd is there a Ch arter of any description to ensure that a p roper reply is formulated such that those making the effort to influence positive change feel that their efforts are a t least worth while whether incorporated or not?
People often ask how individuals can get involved at CRG le vel and whe ther there are ever any opportunities for new ap pointments – myself included?
Finally – is there any way the CRG could empower an individual to be able to sanction specific variations which might be required from t ime to time to facilitate Mini Rugby to the benefit of all? Speci fically I could anticipate a dispensation for an indi vidua l Festival where teams are travelling great distances and the organisers need to be able to guarantee them genero us game time for their troubles?
If there are no c hanges so be it (although this is very disappointing as t h ere are a number of areas that could be reviewed for the b enefit of all those tied to its governance) – but possibly the single most dissatisfactory inclusion from the perspec t ive of a child is the notion that the toss of a coin can ev er be an appropriate way to progress in a Festival after a drawn game. There are others, but as an organiser I hav e al ways attempted to find as many different ways of effec ting a count back to avoid the toss of a coin being a dete rminan t as children simply do not consider it equitable.
< br>Thanks in anticipation.
Regards
To m
From: Andrew Rogers [mailto:AndrewRog ers@RFU.c om]
Sent: 14 March 2008 09:48
Tom
Th anks for your email. I have tried to cover your queries as follows:
1. The agreed criteria for change is t hat it should be evidence based utilising the latest resear ch on the appropriate age at which a child ca n acquire spec ific motor and cognitive skills. To this end the RFU are wo rking with UK Coaching Council and several universities to update the work done by Bayli and others w hich produced LTA D. This research work will take at least two years.
2. The Continuum is written to prov ide a safe nationwi de process for clubs and schools across the country who hav e considerable variations in facilitie s provision and numbe r of players. It also has to recognis e the significant chan ges in coaching approach and current methods eg less struct ured dirigiste approach.
3. It is clear that an y change to the Continuum takes ti me to reach every corner of country and then to be correct ly and effectively coached . Hence the need to make as few changes as possible and onl y after validated evidence on t he benefits or otherwise of the current format.
4. The CRG has specifically asked the game to respond on how the addition of the thirt eenth player at Under 12s ha s worked out over the last two years. A topic which has be en discussed on the Forum and th is has been considered by the CRG for next season.
5. The CRG does not h ave a closed mind to change but th ese must be within the r ationale of the Continuum which is about skill acquisition by every child not the playing of a small pitch version o f the adult game.
6. We w ould welcome any evid ence based suggestions from you or you r club on how the cu rrent core skills acquisition by our ch ildren can be impro ved. These will then go through our two year process of ev aluation by the Coaching Dept, Medical ad visors and then p ilot studies.
7. Unfortunately following the d ecisions of the Court of Appeal in the Vowl es v WRU and Mo untford v Newlands cases the RFU is unable t o grant local variations to any of its Regulations.
If you ha ve any further queries please do not hesitate to contact m e.
Kind regards
Andrew
An drew Rogers | Regulations Manager | Rugby Footba ll Union | Rugby House | Rugby Road | Twickenham | TW1 1DS |
Sent: 14 March 2008 13:17
To: Andrew R ogers
Subject: RE: Continuum Forum - Response to posting by CRG Chairman
Importance: High
Thank you v ery mu ch for this reply which clearly outlines the position .
I can appreciate that one of the major factors for your consideration is the disparity in coaching skills , t echniques, and objectives about which you have little co nt rol at the coal face.
Personally I believe in c onsiderable focus on the basic skills on the basis that th ose put in practice in a competitive environment generally result in greater success – and I appreciate that this is n ot always the case and it is for this reason that you hav e to be so much more prescriptive.
Consequently – whilst I will no doubt continue to occasionally feel fr ustr ated at various parts of the Continuum which I conside r ina ppropriate and in need of amendment – I will endeavou r to r emember that this has to be a ‘catch all’ robust eno ugh to contain those at the edge of acceptability and with the ove rall mantra of providing a safe and enjoyable envi ronment f or both the best coaches and the best kids as wel l as the l ess able kids and less able coaches.
With your a greement I would like to post your response on the forum as I suspect this will quell a lot of the other frustration t hat arises and perhaps focus minds towards th e specific are as under consideration for review and I woul d perhaps urge the CRG to make a regular posting outlining these areas to provoke objective debate and analysis/feed back from the coa l face as suggested.
Thank you once again for yo ur concise response.
Regards< br>
Tom
14 March 2008
Tom
Many thank s for your appreciation of our approac h. I am happy for yo u to post this onto the Forum.
Kind regards
< br>
Andrew
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
