NSW AAGPS Rugby 2016

[HFTH]

This is where it gets complicated and difficult to manage. No matter what system you end up applying kids will generally want to play with their mates rather than go down or up an age group.

Even though such rules would be great for governing safety and ensuring an appropriate duty of care is applied there needs to be some discretion in the process based on skill and other player attributes..e.g the good little bloke who can tackle like a wild man and run like the wind.

Fact is that rugby will continue to lose boys unless they grade by weight. There are so many sports to choose from that it becomes an easy decision for a parent to pull their kids from rugby if their kids are faced with tackling boys twice their weight. By the time there is less difference is size at about 16-17 years, they are already lost to other sports.

It's not complicated and there should be no discretion. Check out how Caterbury NZ grade by weight-its a very simple process. "0 tolerance" is the policy.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Azzuri]

It's not complicated and there should be no discretion. Check out how Caterbury NZ grade by weight-its a very simple process. "0 tolerance" is the policy.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So without any discretion what do you say to the lads who miss the weight cut off but are clearly capable of mixing it with the larger kids in the right age cohort. Do you simply tell them that they can't play with their mates but can play with their younger brothers? To expect such a zero tolerance approach wont result in the loss of juniors to Rugby in that scenario is delusional.

I'm sure the NZ model works well in NZ but we aren't NZ and we don't have NZ''s junior player population.

There needs to be discretion and I can't see why a Level 2 (or above) accredited coach can't act as a certifier of capability rather than fixing a weight limit which in a AUS with our junior player numbers would be impractical and difficult to manage on a number of fronts. Eg. Imagine trying to manage a team during the season when the inevitable growth spurt puts a kid into the next weight category part way through a season and disentitles them from playing the rest of the season with their mates?

All said however most would agree that something does need to be done for the safety of players in groups up to U13 at least.

 

[Lindommer]

If a stricter size grading leads to more young people playing rugby I'm all for it. We're all rugby people here on G&GR, what about the people who aren't? The soccer mum who's young lad wants to take part in more physical sport when he reaches 10? My village club about doubled its registrations every year when young boys reached the under 10s.

A bit of history. I attended a country boarding school for three years in the early 60s before being packed off to high school in Sydney, that country school played rugby league. Those was the days of the old 5 stone/7 lbs, 6/7, 7/7 up to 10/7, etc., teams. Boys were put on a set of scales at a predetermined date, and THERE WERE NO EXCEPTIONS. We either passed the weight or went up. Which resulted in games between teams of boys roughly about the same size.

This current dissatisfaction about mismatched sizes couldn't/didn't happen back then. Something to be said about size grading here.

 

[Armchair Selector]

if smaller boys were allowed to go down bigger boys should be made to play up, the vast majority of these larger boys weren't tested against smaller ones in the round comps and at times their weight advantage was dangerous. But, more importantly, I could see the concern parents had watching their sons get smashed by much larger opponents and the long-term damage this could cause to rugby's fabric. I added a codicil to my "playing up" suggestion: those larger boys should be allowed to play in their correct age groups for all rep rugby.

As Lindommer points out this debate has been raging for an eternity. Someone has to have the courage to make a call and give it a go. ACU (I believe) undertook a study of U12 -U15 players 2-3 years ago and the data was "inconclusive". From memory they recommended a trial of a competition with weight dispensation from U12- U14.

My very great fear is that unless administrators have the courage to draw a line and say "stuff you, we are going to give it a go" then we are setting our game up for a "catastophic injury" to drive change with our sport. Similar to what happened with scrum reform following a colts front rower suffering a neck injury in the late 80s/early 90s?.

I have no issue with the larger boys having their opportunity in playing reps in the right age group.

I am yet to see a valid argument for NOT forcing the larger boys to play up an age group beyond "playing with their mates". Lets put self interest aside for the benefit of the game. I might also add that a number of these boys are quite happy to put themselves up for selection (and quite rightly) for higher rep honours in Junior Gold Cup U15 and Schools U16.

Kids play Rugby for a myriad of reasons; some to challenge themselves and push for higher honours, some to play with their mates but most to have fun. As parents, no matter what the ability of our child, we want our children to participate in sport in a safe and controlled environment.

Its only a matter of time before change occurs. lets hope we (Rugby community) make the change rather than a catastrophic alternative forcing it.

 

[HFTH]

As Lindommer points out this debate has been raging for an eternity. Someone has to have the courage to make a call and give it a go. ACU (I believe) undertook a study of U12 -U15 players 2-3 years ago and the data was "inconclusive". From memory they recommended a trial of a competition with weight dispensation from U12- U14.

My very great fear is that unless administrators have the courage to draw a line and say "stuff you, we are going to give it a go" then we are setting our game up for a "catastophic injury" to drive change with our sport. Similar to what happened with scrum reform following a colts front rower suffering a neck injury in the late 80s/early 90s?.

I have no issue with the larger boys having their opportunity in playing reps in the right age group.

I am yet to see a valid argument for NOT forcing the larger boys to play up an age group beyond "playing with their mates". Lets put self interest aside for the benefit of the game. I might also add that a number of these boys are quite happy to put themselves up for selection (and quite rightly) for higher rep honours in Junior Gold Cup U15 and Schools U16.

Kids play Rugby for a myriad of reasons; some to challenge themselves and push for higher honours, some to play with their mates but most to have fun. As parents, no matter what the ability of our child, we want our children to participate in sport in a safe and controlled environment.

Its only a matter of time before change occurs. lets hope we (Rugby community) make the change rather than a catastrophic alternative forcing it.

I agree entirely. I don't understand why there is fear of change. It works in NZ - the best rugby country in the world.

At present I'm constantly amongst parents at the stage of deciding/influencing what sport their 5-9 year old kids play. I am a rugby lover and I have grave concerns for the future of the sport because parents are turning away from it due to safety concerns.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[footy4life]

does anyone know where I could possibly find the top scorers list for this season?

 

[Crackerjack]

^^^^^^
@F4L, I do love a "challenge" on a slow-as night for Free-to-Air TV, so I took a bit of a squizz (look) for you, and naturally, any and all interested others.

Here's what I've gleaned.

2016 1st XV - Leading Scorers*
*As per AAGPS Rugby Results website for Rounds 1-5, but 'corrected' here if, to my knowledge, it's been recorded incorrectly, which does happen occasionally.

"Leading" Try-scorers below, team by team and Overall, are those with multiple meat-pies. In brackets, I've noted the aggregate of the leading Try-scorers' tries against the Team's total number of tries, and I've also noted the number of different try-scorers for each team so far.

Leading kickers and their points, speak for themselves.

(I have a full team breakdown, Round by Round, which I can post separately if anyone is interested, but it is all up and available for trawling through on the AAGPS Rugby Results webpage.)

View
Leading Try-scorers (18 of 21): Rorke 6* (One Rnd 5 try is wrongly attributed to Scott; thanks @BW ), Smeallie 5, Lenehan 3, Pirina 2, Terry 2
Total: 8 different try-scorers
Leading Kicker: Lenehan - 9 Goals, 3 Pens (27pts + 3 tries = 42pts)

Kings
Leading Try-scorers (11 of 14): Pietsch 4, Brown K 3* (Rnd 1 try taken as being K. Brown), Brown N 2, Osborne 2
Total: 7 different try-scorers
Leading Kicker: Brown K - 9 Goals, 12 Pens (54pts + 3* tries = 69pts*)

Scots
Leading Try-scorers (12 of 16): Yassim 3, Crawford 3, Gavin 2, O'Beirne 2, Pen.T 2
Total: 9 different try-scorers if you count the "Pen.T" multiple, otherwise 8
Leading Kicker: Shannon - 9 Goals, 1 Pen (21pts)

New
Leading Try-scorers (15 of 22): Helu 4, Duvall 4, Turner 3, Lawson 2, Simmonson 2
Total: 12 different try-scorers!
Leading Kicker: Kuenzle - 7 Goals, 0 Pens (14pts)

Joeys
Leading Try-scorers (10 of 13): McTaggart 4, Reilly 3, Day 3
Total: 6 different try-scorers
Leading Kicker: Day - 9 Goals, 6 Pens (36pts + 3 tries = 51pts)

Shore
Leading Try-scorers (6 of 9): Joyce 2, Haskins 2, Suttor 2
Total: 6 different try-scorers
Leading Kicker: Sinclair - 6 Goals, 3 Pens (21pts)

Overall Leading Try-Scorers
6* - Rorke (I)
5 - Smeallie (I)
4 - Pietsch (K), Helu (N), Duvall (N), McTaggart (J)
3 - Lenehan (I), Brown, K* (K), Yassim (S), Crawford (S), Turner (N), Reilly (J), Day (J)

Overall Leading Point-Scorers
69pts* Brown, K (K)
51pts Day (J)
42pts Lenehan (I)

Other 'musings'
View have two outstanding players (Rorke and Smeallie) who've bagged more than 50% of their tries (11 of 21). Add in Flyhalf Lenehan's production, and that proportion goes up to 2/3rds.

Kings are lethal at keeping the scoreboard ticking over, having kicked double the number of Penalties (12) than the next nearest, Joeys (6).

Scots' piggies have earned the only two Penalty tries awarded this Season.

New have far and away the biggest spread of try-scorers (12 different contributors), so they can score meat from anywhere, almost from 1 through 15, though their conversions rate wasn't too good before getting No.1 kicker, Kuenzle #10, back on the paddock in Rnd 4.

Joeys and Shore have each relied on 6 try-scorers, with Shore's 'top 3' accounting for 2/3rds their Season's haul (the same % as joint-leader View), but the JoeBoys 'top 3' account for over 75% of their team's total tries so far!

So that's my bit for the long-weekend. Looking forward to reading Father Jim's splitting of the 3rd XV atoms so far.

And really, let's face it. None of these stats at the 'turn will amount to anything much more than a small hill of beans in a few short weeks' time, starting this Saturday when some more cracking Rugby will come to be played at a No.1 Oval near you!

 

[loiterer]

So without any discretion what do you say to the lads who miss the weight cut off but are clearly capable of mixing it with the larger kids in the right age cohort. Do you simply tell them that they can't play with their mates but can play with their younger brothers? To expect such a zero tolerance approach wont result in the loss of juniors to Rugby in that scenario is delusional.

I'm sure the NZ model works well in NZ but we aren't NZ and we don't have NZ''s junior player population.

There needs to be discretion and I can't see why a Level 2 (or above) accredited coach can't act as a certifier of capability rather than fixing a weight limit which in a AUS with our junior player numbers would be impractical and difficult to manage on a number of fronts. Eg. Imagine trying to manage a team during the season when the inevitable growth spurt puts a kid into the next weight category part way through a season and disentitles them from playing the rest of the season with their mates?

All said however most would agree that something does need to be done for the safety of players in groups up to U13 at least.

There isn't really an easy solution to this problem. Kids develop at different rates both physically and mentally. Many kids are perfectly capable of mixing it with much bigger kids. While physical size is a great advantage, a larger player can't rely on that alone, the skilled smaller player will take them down every time.
Part of the problem stems from the way that grading actually works at club level, where nepotism is often part of the team selection mix. There is too much focus on A teams. It has a dual action of discouraging kids who didn't make the A team, whilst putting some, of those who did, in situations where they are uncomfortable. Both groups risk being lost to rugby and this creates a problem for the clubs in older age groups from u13s up. Something I have seen in my club (not the one in the article), and in a number of others across other districts. Many of the better, not necessarily bigger, players in club rugby play up an age group anyway.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

a larger player can't rely on that alone, the skilled smaller player will take them down every time.

there's a crossover beyond which what you say is true - the difficulty is that the crossover is different for everyone.
I have a theory that for the majority of rugby players their interest is proportional to their relative size between the ages of about 12-15. The biggest kids stay interested while the smallest tend to lose interest. The ones in the middle can go either way and are often the adult standouts when they catch up. if you could keep the little guys in the game from 12-15 they could be standouts too when they get their growing done.
When the adolescent big boppers are caught up to and they can no longer dominate by size alone then they find out whether they love the game for its own sake or because they used to be able to dominate it.
Like all theories the exceptions prove the rule.

 

[OldColt]

just 2 years ago the Newington prop Opeti Helu was playing inside centre..

And, sadly, while he's an absolute wrecking ball with ball in hand, he still scrummages like an inside centre........which may not matter so much at school level, but will give him grief in later years. The Joeys front row had him under pressure and going backwards at every scrum - except for one, when New, with Duvall the centre in the bin, won a tight-head not far from their own line (although that seemed to be due to a lapse of concentration on the part of the Joeys pack more than anything else)

His effort in scoring three tries and setting another one up in atrocious conditions at Hunters Hill was quite rightly considered a man of the match performance, but you'd have to think that tight-head prop is not his go.

 

[SonnyDillWilliams]

interesting stats ...

SDW's politically incorrect interpretation

...riverview's goal kicking is a bit suspect ... either that on they like scoring in the corners

Kings will happily take 3 points whenever on offer

Scots prefers to have a run ...

Newington ... couldn't kick a ###nk in the gutter ... although their main man is now back

Newington I am tipping to go undefeated in the 2nd round

 

[HFTH]

there's a crossover beyond which what you say is true - the difficulty is that the crossover is different for everyone.
I have a theory that for the majority of rugby players their interest is proportional to their relative size between the ages of about 12-15. The biggest kids stay interested while the smallest tend to lose interest. The ones in the middle can go either way and are often the adult standouts when they catch up. if you could keep the little guys in the game from 12-15 they could be standouts too when they get their growing done.
When the adolescent big boppers are caught up to and they can no longer dominate by size alone then they find out whether they love the game for its own sake or because they used to be able to dominate it.
Like all theories the exceptions prove the rule.

Yes agreed. It wouldn't surprise me if Mackenzie (the Chiefs fullback and new AB squad member) would have been lost to another sport if he grew up in Australia. I think there is a tendency by Australian coaches and selectors at all levels and age groups to focus on the best players at the time which is usually the biggest players - understandable but short term. Guys complete their growing at different ages and there has to be a longer term focus on good smaller players who will eventually fill out. Phil Kearns recently expressed this view on Rugby 360.

Anyway, if the ARU announces grading by weight rules for 2017, it will be interesting to see the details and how junior rugby and the schools will implement them.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Crackerjack]

interesting stats .

Newington I am tipping to go undefeated in the 2nd round

You don't have long to wait if your Nostradamus on New's 2nd half is off the mark @SDW. Kings first up for the 'Challenge'.

 

[HFTH]

So without any discretion what do you say to the lads who miss the weight cut off but are clearly capable of mixing it with the larger kids in the right age cohort. Do you simply tell them that they can't play with their mates but can play with their younger brothers? To expect such a zero tolerance approach wont result in the loss of juniors to Rugby in that scenario is delusional.

I'm sure the NZ model works well in NZ but we aren't NZ and we don't have NZ''s junior player population.

There needs to be discretion and I can't see why a Level 2 (or above) accredited coach can't act as a certifier of capability rather than fixing a weight limit which in a AUS with our junior player numbers would be impractical and difficult to manage on a number of fronts. Eg. Imagine trying to manage a team during the season when the inevitable growth spurt puts a kid into the next weight category part way through a season and disentitles them from playing the rest of the season with their mates?

All said however most would agree that something does need to be done for the safety of players in groups up to U13 at least.

In NZ, there is a weigh in day and you don't change half way through the season. NZ juniors and schools manage it so I'm sure we can. Check out the Caterbury rugby website. It's a simple process. I don't remember the figures exactly but the concept is U10 players range from say 38-43kgs, U11 range from say 43-48kgs etc etc up to U15. It doesn't matter if there are less rugby players in Australian clubs.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Wristman]

Newington I am tipping to go undefeated in the 2nd round


Completely disagree SonnyDill.
I think New will again lose to Kings, Scots and Riverview.
They aren't a great side.....lacking fitness and with an appalling defensive record. No finesse and no discernible game plan outside of 'give it to the big guy'.
They will again be exposed by the top 3 teams.
Let's check back Saturday evening shall we.....humble pie will be waiting for one of us.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Yes agreed. It wouldn't surprise me if Mackenzie (the Chiefs fullback and new AB squad member) would have been lost to another sport if he grew up in Australia.

Funny you say that: i thought of throwing him in and an example as I was typing!

 

[loiterer]

Yes agreed. It wouldn't surprise me if Mackenzie (the Chiefs fullback and new AB squad member) would have been lost to another sport if he grew up in Australia. I think there is a tendency by Australian coaches and selectors at all levels and age groups to focus on the best players at the time which is usually the biggest players - understandable but short term. Guys complete their growing at different ages and there has to be a longer term focus on good smaller players who will eventually fill out. Phil Kearns recently expressed this view on Rugby 360.

Anyway, if the ARU announces grading by weight rules for 2017, it will be interesting to see the details and how junior rugby and the schools will implement them.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There also needs to a focus on not so good big players and not so good small players because kids get it at different rates. Some of these kids will develop into much better players later on, others rugby enthusiasts, and some potential sponsors. The more that are retained through good coaching at younger ages the more that will still be playing as they get older and the more grading options will available to ensure kids are competing at the right level.

 

[Azzuri]

..... It doesn't matter if there are less rugby players in Australian clubs.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well in 2017 we'll find out it would seem

 

[SonnyDillWilliams]

Completely disagree SonnyDill.
I think New will again lose to Kings, Scots and Riverview.
They aren't a great side...lacking fitness and with an appalling defensive record. No finesse and no discernible game plan us.

Round 1 ... It was 4 tries each . Goal kicking was the difference , and new were without their 10. Newington has 4 nsw players so far from a one man team.

Oh well let's see who is eating humble pie.

 

[Crackerjack]

Round 1 . It was 4 tries each . Goal kicking was the difference , and new were without their 10. Newington has 4 nsw players so far from a one man team.

Oh well let's see who is eating humble pie.

Aaaahhhh, I love the smell of napalm in the morning! (*With thanks to Lt Colonel Bill Kilgore.)

The 'return' matches are upon us.
'Round 2' (or 6-10 if you prefer).
No second chances.
All in.
5x back to back "Grand Finals" for all the Y12's. No replays.

And that's just for the boys!

Should be immense fun!