NSW Junior Rugby - The Garling Report

[Hugh Jarse]

It looks like there is sufficient interest in this issue to warrant a thread of its own, rather than being buried within the Shute Shield 2011.

Some previous posts replicated from the TNSS 2011 thread by way of background reading.

Talk about going back to the future. If they can do better than NSWRU to promote club rugby, then bring it on. I'm concerned about their operational budget and the inpact on SJRU. Hugh, I agree you are right about a need for change.

Lily, you have hit on one of my hot topics.

Rugby at all levels needs to sort its shit out in an integrated manner. Juniors, Schools, Colts, Districts Premier Clubs, Suburban Clubs, Country Unions, Metropolitan Unions, Golden Oldie, Womens, Sevens, Beach Rugby, State, National Rugby pathways need to sort themselves out and all strive in the same direction. At the moment, I think it is all over the place like a mad Hippopotomus's shit with very little cohesion and coordination between the various stakeholder groups.

Unfortunately, entrenched interests within each of the stakeholder groups, and a lack of moral fortitude and vision at the highest administrative levels in rugby mean that the currant morass will remain for the foreseeable future.

Hugh

You forgot the one level that matters the most, the ARU. They collect the cash and need to drive the agenda on a national basis. I spoke to a member of a state board recently and it seems relations are frosty with the ARU. As they say the fish rots from the head and rugby administration is on the nose right now, with far too many layers of entrenched bureacracy with their own petty agendas. As well as managing international politics with the IRB O'Neill needs to get his own house in order.

A cohesive, nationwide plan and framework from the ARU leadership would be a good start.

A slight divagation from the TNSS discussion but in earlier this year, the New South Wales Rugby Union commissioned Mr KA Garling (a Sydney Barrister) to conduct a review of junior Rugby in Sydney.

The terms of reference for "The Garling Report" covered the status and structure of teams, competitions and player pathways within Sydney Junior Rugby Union, the SJRU Constitution, the roles and responsibilitys of clubs/zones/districts, competition structure and managagement, staffing structure and reporting lines and the development framework and strategies of community Rugby.

It makes for very interesting reading, and Mr Garling is to be congratulated for his work. It has not been met with universal acclaim within the heirarchy. For further reading (if you are interested) follow these links:
http://www.nswrugby.com.au/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=xEfdPIVvvNA%3d&tabid=364 for the Report
http://www.nswrugby.com.au/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=eUHbLA50XNg%3d&tabid=364 for a letter from NSWRU to NSWJRU
http://www.nswrugby.com.au/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=kfmVZRnuTYw%3d&tabid=364 for the NSWRU Board's Position on the Garling Report.
http://www.nswrugby.com.au/NSWRugby/Competitions/Juniors.aspx More source information

The Garling Report addresses many of the systemic issues that need addressing within JO'N's empire. What is happening within juniordom sooner or later impacts on TNSS.

I also suspect that the issues raised by Mr Garling may be transferrable to other State Unions and their juniors.

The future Wallabies were running aroung ovals last winter as part of the village club scene. Ignore them at your peril JO'N.

With apologies for continuing the brief digression / diversion ( due to a brief absence o/seas)……Wholehearted congratulations to Mr Garling on his report. It seems to have covered many of the issues that have embroiled Sydney Juniors over recent times, and it will be very interesting to see if those who now occupy the seats of power at this level are willing to embrace his recommendations.

Many of the issues discussed on this forum have had their genesis at Junior Club level, and if the mandarins can get it right now, perhaps more kids will want to play rugby, and there may still be hope for our code.

On another small, but not totally unrelated, digression, I am of a significant age that I was present at meetings many years ago which discussed the introduction of the “Junior Pathway” , as designed by the ARU. Suffice it to say that there was much doom and gloom as regards the prognostications around the future of the game if such changes were introduced ( heaven forbid that anyone would even consider doing away with 15 a-side tackle on full fields for Under 6’s ! ) , not to mention the inherent problems of getting Clubs, Schools and everyone else singing from the same hymn sheet. The fact that their designated representatives actually turned up was a minor miracle of itself , but on the whole, most were of a like mind and prepared to change for the benefit of the game. What resulted wasn’t fool-proof but it was at least a start.

That being said, I understand that the ARU have shown some further leadership in this area, and have now released their revised Pathway document. Whilst the doom merchants will always have their say ( eg “why on earth would you get rid of lifting in the line-outs for U12’s ??” ), IMHO, they have come up with a workable document, which should have all participants, no matter where they are located, playing the same version of the game.

It may even help the poor old ref’s who have had to deal with differing rules, depending on which day, which suburb, which school / club comp they were officiating in, by providing them with a uniform set of rules and allow them to carry out their duties with some consistency.

So whilst we may whish to hurl some brickbats at the ARU, perhaps a bouquet is deserved here – as they look like getting the schools, clubs and various other stakeholders across the board on this one - nationally - to agree to implement these new changes.

Perhaps if these people are all on side, then maybe from small acorns, larger things may grow ???


Apologies again for the digression ( and I’m not sure if Lily – 1/12/10 - actually meant SRU and not SJRU), but totally agree with Hugh’s comments ( 01.12.10) about everyone getting their sh*t together)

Maybe worth it’s own thread in the future…???

I meant the juniors. I hope it doesn't eat into any of their entitlements.

Lily, I hope so to !!

I think it was quite clear from Mr Garling's report, that the Junior Clubs shouldn't be holding out for too much in the way of $$ from the ARU !

That said, their development officers ( at least that ones that I have had the pleasure of seeing in action) are a credit to the department from whence they originated. They mightn't be exactly what people were wanting from the ARU in some instances, but they are a damned sight better than nothing at all !

 

[RugbyFuture]

so what are the conclusions briefly of that report (sorry can't be bothered reading it)?

 

[Hugh Jarse]

You really need to read the report, and the responses from the NSW Union, to put it all in perspective.

Certainly not a quick-fix.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

The main point I took from the report was the recommendation of further intergration of all the relevant clubs and districts both metro and country in determining the overall structure and direction of both the SJRU and NSWJRU.

 

[Joe Mac]

Hugh, give us the salient points of the report?

 

[lincoln]

Excerpts:

It is very important for those involved in the organisation of Junior Rugby (at any level) to keep in mind that the game is for the boys not the parents.

I believe that the majority of clubs accepted that the competition in 2010 was well run and would be prepared to continue in a similar competition in 2011. The important feature of the competition is that it is Sydney wide and professionally managed by paid staff.

No competition, however organised will ever satisfy all participants. This is particularly so in sport generally managed by parents for their children. Issues such as grading of teams, venues for games and the particular rules of the game and the competition plague every junior sport. There will always be tensions between parents.

It is unfortunate that the Schools see themselves in a completely different world in respect to Junior Rugby because Schools Rugby (with some exceptions) do not provide a satisfactory level of rugby, do not have adequate coaching and generally do not assist at all with the promotion and development of rugby.

There was almost total agreement that the levels of organisations within Junior rugby was to great and the structure too complex for what is essentially a simple process. I did not find any particular support for retaining the present structure.

In my view the single most important role of the SJRU is to organise competitions for the players. It needs to move on from the tensions that arose between those involved with the zones. That tension was unproductive.
It has led to some extraordinary criticism (often unfounded) of volunteers. This criticism was at a level not found even in the most competitive industry.
Far too often during the interview process I found the responses being personal rather then general. That was not helpful.

Everyone was opposed to those coaches and managers who deliberately have their teams play in an inferior grade.

The one theme which received almost unanimous support was that SJRU should be directly answerable to the Village Clubs and that it must be recognised by Rugby administrators that the views, needs and desires of the parents who are the people responsible for ensuring that Rugby prospers must be listened to rather than lectured to.

The zones play no useful role at all in my view and should be disbanded.

 

[Runner]

It is unfortunate that the Schools see themselves in a completely different world in respect to Junior Rugby because Schools Rugby (with some exceptions) do not provide a satisfactory level of rugby, do not have adequate coaching and generally do not assist at all with the promotion and development of rugby.

I have not read the report. However I find the above statement a little difficult to accept. Most schools in the GPS, ISA and CAS would have staff who have at least a level 1 or more. The schools field very large numbers on weekends and in other competitions such as the Waratah Shield.
What is apparent is to much politics and not enough focus on promotion. e.g. The Waratah Shield and other age group championships is played on a week day afternoon when few can see potentially the best school boy teams.

 

[lincoln]

However I find the above statement a little difficult to accept. Most schools in the GPS, ISA and CAS would have staff who have at least a level 1 or more.

Disagree - most schools (with one very notable exception) see it as an extra-curricular activity for everyone other than A team players. One school recently had an ex-3rd's tight five boy playing wing for a first grade SS team and had 2 16E boys playing reps two year later (achieved through their own individual endeavours at the village level). If you are not in their A vision you do not exist - training is a joke - throw the ball around a bit with very little/no skills based work. For the vast majority of boys this is acceptable but there are meaningful numbers of talented individuals (late developers?) missed in the school system. We should spend more time looking at 1st colts for our future.

 

[Drew]

The other thing with schoolboys rugby is that "gasp", some kids go to school to learn and not particularly aim for rep honours. The amount of kids who take pathways when they are doing it simply to build a better rugby resume to use as leverage for their possible professional career is disturbing and in my view a rort of the system. And don't forget that the schoolboy season is so short and split by school holidays that it is hardly a judge of talent. As the guy above said looking at colts is where they should look for potential talent.

 

[baldingwingforward]

Totally agree with a number of points here, particularly that A LOT of boys are missed at school level. It is disturbing that a lot of schools make very few changes to their "A" side each year - i.e. once you are in the As you stay there. This in my view is ridiculous but a lot of staff don't want to deal with the parental abuse that they will inevitably get when they drop little johnny who has been in the As since year 7...

At Colts level these boys quickly get found out and soon realise that they're not quite as good as they thought they were, or more likely as good as their dad told them they were! Conversely those late developers and players that were overlooked come charging through.

The amount of kids who take pathways when they are doing it simply to build a better rugby resume to use as leverage for their possible professional career is disturbing and in my view a rort of the system.

This may well have been the case a few years ago Drew but since the ARU brought in the "2 year window" ruling it is impossible for boys to stay on longer at school doing Pathways and play 1st XV rugby. I am sceptical however about how honest some schools are about the declaring the age of some of their players. What you do find happening is when players are young for their year they stay back for an extra one as they are still young enough to play 1st XV.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

This has been an ongoing debate for years. I suggest selecting the cream of the crop from NSW country Juniors, Sydney Juniors and NSW Schools and have a tournament similar to the regionals between these three teams - where the ARU step in and select a well balanced and talented NSW I and NSW II - making it equal for all three bodies to put forward their best. I believe Queensland do so well at the Nationals as their structure is similar to the suggested. Takes out the nepotism people can be accused of and allows kids to be promoted on their performance and ability. Just a thought!!!!

YES it needs a serious overhaul - urgently. BUT, having read the Garling report & more importantly the "official" responses - NO WAY.

Further, if you have ever got anywhere near enough to watch and hear the protagonists at the epicentre - it's clear that the member unions within schools have a "healthy rivalry" and I'm told that the uneasy peace that is the "love-in" between NSWJRU / SJRU / Schools / Country has to be hammered back together at the start of every season and that all the "understanding" between the 4some provide barely adequate coverage for the cracks in the facade of their relationship as they all posture for top dog status.

And there lies the problem.

A very compendious summation MOTH! In a nutshell as one would say!

There has been a bit of debate on the NSW U16’s thread, NSW CCC thread and the NSW Junior State Champs thread about the “difficulties” presented by the politics of the various Schools, Country, and Village club associations and how these impact into the representative pathways. Posts from Rugby Mum, Man on the Hill and Newbie encouraged me to reread the Garling Report and the “official” responses. So here goes:

Extract from NSWRU Letter to NSWJRU

The NSWRU Board has considered the Garling Report concerning your member union,
SJRU. The Report and the NSWRU position are attached and will be published on the
NSWRU website. We request that they be published on the SJRU website as well.

NSWRU requests that the following matters be referred to SJRU and NSWJRU.

I. NSWRU encourages the conduct of elections for SJRU at their AGM scheduled for
11 November 2010.

2. NSWRU requests that NSWJRU and the new SJRU Committee for 2011 consider and action the recommendations of the Garling Report.

3. NSWRU encourages NSWJRU and SJRU to consult with it constituents, including village clubs as soon as practical regarding item 2 above. The recommendation relating to village clubs becoming the members of SJRU is a key outcome and strongly supported by NSWRU.

4. NSWRU requests from the 2011 SJRU Corrunittee, details of consultation and follow up action relating the above matters be provided to the NSWRU Board as soon as practicable.

Comment:
It is 18 months since this letter was written from the then NSWRU Tsar to NSWJRU El Persidente.

A very carefully diplomatically worded letter with all the decisiveness of a limp fish handshake.

Has the Garling Report and NSWRU responses been published on Websites ? – TICK

Were elections held for SJRU in November ? – Suppose so - TICK

Have NSWJRU and SJRU considered and actioned the recommendations of the Garling Report? UNSURE. There is no mention of Garling Report in the 2011 SJRU Annual report which is available on the SJRU website. Would have thought it warranted a mention. There is no NSWJRU annual report for any year post 2008 posted on the NSWJRU website.

Have NSWJRU and SJRU consulted with village Clubs re the Garling Report recommendations? UNSURE. No mention in the SJRU Annual Report. And the only Committee minutes available on the SJRU website (November 2011) is a dead link. No NSWJRU annual report is publically available.

Did the 2011 SJRU committee provide NSWRU with details of the consultation with the Village Clubs, and follow up actions? UNSURE. I could not find any mention of Garling Report in the 2011 NSWRU Annual report.

Bottom line: If one of the Junior Jarses fronted up at home with a school report couched in similar terms to the assessment above, it would be fair to say that La Jarse and myself would not be all that pleased with Junior Jarse's performance.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

An attempt to understand the NSWRU view on the Garling Report.
The Blue italics are from the NSWRU Response.
Orange is an extract of what I think is the relevant comments in the Garling Report.
Where appropriate I have added my two bobs worth below.

Hope this helps.

The Report has been considered by the NSWRU Board. Overall, NSWRU endorses the recommendations of this report except for the following matters
· NSWRU does not support the generalised comments relating to Schools. NSWRU has no plans to change the current schools affiliate structure.
Garling Report extract: It is unfortunate that the Schools see themselves in a completely different world in respect to Junior Rugby because Schools Rugby (with some exceptions) do not provide a satisfactory level of rugby, do not have adequate coaching and generally do not assist at all with the promotion and development of rugby. That experience was reported during the interview process from club officials across Sydney and is not confined to any particular School or area.

I recognise that there will always be a particular School or Schools who do provide very professional organisation of junior rugby and do much to develop and promote the sport however the general view is as I have recorded.
It is outside the scope of this Review for me to deal in substance with the difficulties caused by the separate representation for the Schools.

Comment: Garling report did not really recommend any changes to the Schools affiliate structure.

· NSWRU agrees with the Garling report that constitutional review for NSWJRU and SJRU is required to reflect a narrower scope of authority under their Objects so that the term Junior reflects Club Rugby. However, in relation to the specific recommendation regarding SJRU, NSWRU believes that SJRU’s objects should not be restricted to just local club competitions.

Garling Report Extract: In my view the single most important role of the SJRU is to organise competitions for the players. It needs to move on from the tensions that arose between those involved with the zones. That tension was unproductive.

Recommendation 1. The Objects of the SJRU should be changed to reflect reality. The Objects should read:
“To organise competitions for Junior Rugby Players from Village Clubs within the Greater Sydney area and to regulate and manage those competitions.”

Recommendation 7 The sole responsibility of the SJRU will be to deliver and manage the Juniors Village Club Rugby competition in the Greater Sydney area.

· NSWRU supports the junior representative programs as an important reward for participants and for higher honours and talent identification for U15, U16 and U17 teams.
Garling Recommentation [1] Representative rugby should be the responsibility of NSWJRU and the various competitions should be managed by NSWJRU. Teams should be District based.
[2] Representative rugby should be viewed as a reward for those players who have excelled in their Village rugby not as part of the ARU talent identification program.

· NSWRU believes that the responsibility for representative programs should fall to the organisation or organisations that can deliver programs most efficiently and effectively. If SJRU is the best placed and resourced body to run the representative program it should not be precluded from doing so.

Comment: Linked to above point.

· While NSWRU endorses the role and provision of paid staff for SJRU, decisions affecting SJRU competitions and its other activities are the responsibility of SJRU.
Garling Extract
This reference has been overtaken by the earlier recommendations. I have recommended that there be one staff person responsible as the Competition Manager and one with the Executive Director role. They should both report to the CEO of NSWRU. It would be premature for me to make any further suggestions because a new CEO is to be appointed. I appreciate that at the moment the employment structure within NSWRU is complicated but that was not always so and may not always be so.

Comment: Just ask Link about the employment structure within NSWRU.

· NSWRU does not support the recommendation to remove SJRU and NSWCJRU as voting members of NSWJRU to be replaced solely by the Sydney Districts and Country Zones if the implication is that the equality of votes between Sydney and Country juniors is removed. There is no suggestion by NSWRU to replace SJRU or NSWCJRU representatives on the NSWJRU Committee.

Garling Extract:
The members of NSWJRU should be the District Clubs and the Country zones each with one vote.

· NSWRU does not endorse that promotion and development of Rugby should rest solely with the ARU. Fostering growth and development is a responsibility of all NSWRU affiliates and members in their area of responsibility, as reflected in the Objects of their constitutions.

Garling Extract
Communication needs to be improved. In this modern era of websites much more effort and therefore support is needed with many of the relevant Rugby websites being out of date. Some are years out of date.
RECOMMENDATION
[1] The task of promotion and development of rugby be the responsibility of the ARU Community Rugby group.
[2] The websites of NSWRU & ARU be updated to provide information about what ARU Community Rugby does, the personnel and their contact details, and the services available.

Comment: Agree with NSWRU but ARU Community Rugby Group needs to coordinate the overall holistic promotion and development of rugby, through all affiliated bodies. Consistent messages and material from the centre, enhanced by local initiatives within the overall strategy.
Lots of Rugby web sites are out of date. ARU web site has improved significantly in recent years.

 

[Man on the hill]

It's interesting - I had an opportunity be involved in a discussion on this very topic with someone who CLAIMED to know the difference between clay and the other stuff on this matter.
Ignoring various gold squads / academies etc, the game path to the top looks something like.

U15 SJRU Vs Country Juniors ==> NSWJRU Vs QJRU Vs ACTJRU

U16 SJRU Vs Country Juniors ==> NSWJRU Vs QJRU Vs ACTJRU
National U16 Championships - SJRU, NSW Schools & Country Juniors

U17 SJRU Vs Country Juniors ==> NSWJRU Vs QJRU Vs ACTJRU

U18 Australian Schools Championships

U20 Changed to align to IRB; previously it was Aust U19 & Aust U21

Waratahs / Reds / Force / Rebels

Wallabies

The following is how I now see the "bigger picture" - if you concentrate on any single element (above) too hard you miss the forest because of the tree.

#1 - understand and accept the concept of "for the greater good".
#2 - Organising a competition is different to organising a representative program / pathway.
#3 - If you track affiliations up the tree - it all starts and ends with the ARU- they are the puppet masters. so if ARU don't support something - guess what; no desire for change further down the food chain. You need to see how each union / association is related to the ARU - a bit like a family tree.
#4 - Status Quo - there is no Australian Junior Rugby. NSWJRU is affiliated directly to NSWRU and through that ARU, whilst NSW Schools are affiliated to Australian Schools, who are in turn affiliated to ARU. For the Garling report to kick along, Schools would have to affiliate to NSWRU. As long as you have a hole in your bum - that is just not going to happen - that is a structural change well beyond the scope of the report, it requires other states to also fall into line.
#5- getting over #3 & #4, it becomes all about PATHWAY. Selection in junior rep teams, despite the prestige associated with it, is a "mere" part of the pathway, not a destination in or of itself. Accept that and the structure becomes mildly irrelevant.
#6 - So it becomes about opportunity - multiple opportunity for players to shine - it stands to reason that having 3 NON EXCLUSIVE (U16) selection pathways in NSW - Schools, SJRU & Country, that any biases or failings evident in one selection system, will be countered by another. Ultimately - if a player can't crack one of those 3 squads, is he genuinely likely to push for honours beyond that?

Problem 1, The Gap
Yes there is a gap - it is assumed that anyone older than 16 will also be involved in the schools system (& I guess with the reported prevalence of scholarships etc, this might be 90+% accurate.) I can only assume that with the talent ID process being broad net approach from 15s and expanding at 16s to bring schools into the fold, that at some stage every participant has been in front of a selector.

Problem 2, New Faces / Late Developers
A tough one - I guess this is where the much reviled old boy network kicks in. Someone somewhere will see something and tell someone who is in a position to be able to do something about it!

Problem 3 - Young Dual Code Players
I haven't worked out how they are meant to fit in. I can only imagine that with limited resources, rule 1 might kick in "the greater good". if$100,000 gets you one player rated as a 9.5, or 5 players rated at 7 that you can work on, and you only have so much brass to spread about.


Oh well - that's my opinion - just painted a target on my forehead - let's hear it.

Cheers MOTH