No more thrashings in NZ Jnr Rugby

[RugbyReg]

http://tvnz.co.nz/breakfast-news/nzru-defends-changes-kids-rugby-6-32-video-4220307

NZ Rugby want to impliment a system whereby there are no more thrashings in Jnr Rugby. Most a team can win by is 35 points and if its a thrashing at half time the coaches need to come together and discuss how they can make the game closer as research shows the kids "don't like being thrashed"

I assume the kiwis will go easy on Japan and Tonga in the RWC, because I am sure they don't like being thrashed.

 

[light]

Well this shows NZ's soft side. Perhaps during the matches you speak of, the teams can share oranges too. Then the coaches can deliberate on how to make the match fair, possible swap of players like they do in U7's wouldn't be too much to ask would it?

 

[TheNextBigThing]

Interesting thought.

also interesting to note that this is expected in Basketball. Even up to a professional level, teams are expected to not extend an already significant lead in the name of sportsmanship.

I remember recently a high profile college coach got reprimanded because his team won by a massive margin.

 

[qwerty51]

Interesting thought.

also interesting to note that this is expected in Basketball. Even up to a professional level, teams are expected to not extend an already significant lead in the name of sportsmanship.

I remember recently a high profile college coach got reprimanded because his team won by a massive margin.

What are you referring to when you say basketball? The reason it may appear that way is because coaches will put on the bench players and rest their star players.

 

[Ruggo]

Great idea at the early ages. It sucks when you coach a group of kids who try there guts out but get flogged every week even though they try their guts out. You teach the kids to play the game safe and skillfully with an emphisis on team work and good sportsmanship. As the kids bet older it obviously gets more competetive.

 

[TheNextBigThing]

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705280290/Coach-fired-not-sorry-for-100-point-thrashing.html

Sorry he was a high school coach. But the culture persists. Its not a matter of rotating players. It's actually expected of teams to take their foot off after the game is basically won. At all levels. I've always thought this was bizarre but its just the culture of a different sport.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

In the under 6's sure, but in the teenage grades no good would come of it. Sport is inherently competitive and kids want to win as badly as adults do.

In the early years, I just wouldn't keep score.

 

[Ruggo]

In the under 6's sure, but in the teenage grades no good would come of it. Sport is inherently competitive and kids want to win as badly as adults do.

In the early years, I just wouldn't keep score.

Where would you draw the line in regards too teenage years as the difference between under the 13's and under 19's? The teenage years is such a broad period in player development. Personally under 15's up is where I wouldn't apply it.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

It's a good question. I think on or around the Under 13's is a good time. I don't think it hurts kids of that age to know that sport is competitive, so long as it doesn't become win at all costs.

 

[Scarfman]

Mate, we're talking rugby here. I sometimes think the culture in NSW Country Rugby must be different to other places. We were always swapping players if one team was short. We even lost because of it sometimes. No big deal. It's all about the piss, ya soft city kids.

Who cares who wins? Just let 'em have fun.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

I can recall players swapping teams once or twice when one team was short when I played. It was the choice between that and no game at all. No issue there. Tell you what though, when playing as teenagers, we all wanted to win. It's more fun when you do Didn't really care when I was a nipper.

 

[ChargerWA]

This is a symptom of having the ages split by two years. I remember playing sports where you have four teams of 11 years old in the same pool with 4 teams of 12 year olds, both playing under 13s. The 12 year olds whip the 11 year olds then next year they jump up above U13s, leaving the previous 11 year olds as the big fish in the little pond now.

It makes you a better player, if your not a quitter.........

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

What about weight for age, would that be a better system? I had thought the Kiwis do a variation on this.

 

[Jay]

In the under 6's sure, but in the teenage grades no good would come of it. Sport is inherently competitive and kids want to win as badly as adults do.

In the early years, I just wouldn't keep score.

It doesn't really apply to the teenage years - it's only club rugby up until they reach high school (yeah, there'd be some 13 year olds at the very end of the end of the spectrum but that's it).

 

[Jay]

What about weight for age, would that be a better system? I had thought the Kiwis do a variation on this.

They do, but there's still gonna be a fair bit of variation. And a 12 year old is still generally gonna be more co-ordinated and skillful than an 11 year old even if they weigh the same.

 

[daz]

Under RugbyWA guidlines, junior rugby has a mercy rule which states that the maximum amount of points counted is capped at 50. This applies to U6 to U12 and the focus is on participation and enjoyment.

From U13 onwards, the focus is on winning. Coaches and parents suddenly get serious and many kids don't like the sudden change. The retention rates in junior WA rugby has a huge drop from U13 to U14.

For the record, my son's U13 team has played 4 rounds so far. They have been beaten 64-0, 57-0, 45-0 and 67-5.

For me, my son loves playing. His team are not great, but they are enjoying being a team, training with mates after school and running out each week. Compared to what he could be doing instead, I'll take that any day, and to hell with the score.

I keep reminding him that Farr-Jones and Kearns didn't even make the school thirds. As long as a group of 13 y/o kids have a crack and stay tight, I'm one happy dad.

 

[Jnor]

In my first two seasons of rugby I think we won two games (both in the first season) and routinely got smacked by upwards of 40 points. I think we hailed a massive achievement holding one team to 90-something so they didn't get the ton.

I would be disappointed if other kids didn't have the opportunity to soar these lofty heights.

 

[light]

i agree, at least getting smashed every week gives them something to improve on. It also gives the opposition a target score to aim at, I know playing rugby I liked versing the weaker teams where we could bet on how many points we would each score

 

[cyclopath]

Under RugbyWA guidlines, junior rugby has a mercy rule which states that the maximum amount of points counted is capped at 50. This applies to U6 to U12 and the focus is on participation and enjoyment.

From U13 onwards, the focus is on winning. Coaches and parents suddenly get serious and many kids don't like the sudden change. The retention rates in junior WA rugby has a huge drop from U13 to U14.

For the record, my son's U13 team has played 4 rounds so far. They have been beaten 64-0, 57-0, 45-0 and 67-5.

For me, my son loves playing. His team are not great, but they are enjoying being a team, training with mates after school and running out each week. Compared to what he could be doing instead, I'll take that any day, and to hell with the score.

I keep reminding him that Farr-Jones and Kearns didn't even make the school thirds. As long as a group of 13 y/o kids have a crack and stay tight, I'm one happy dad.

That's right - both had to settle for the seconds.

 

[darkhorse]

The ARU already has a rule for everyone under 12 that you must give the opposition players if they are short on numbers.