PDA

View Full Version : [Mini/Midi] New age grade Law Variations trial in Scotland



Jolly Roger
07-07-18, 10:07
New age grade Law Variations are being introduced in Scotland as a trial this season.
These are much simplified and, I believe,bring Scottish rugbymore in line with the rest of the UK in terms of line out lifting and competition. No maul at U14 is also a change.

I know there was a previous thread where National AGLVs were posted. I have searched but I cannot find it.

Link to page on SRU website
http://www.scottishrugby.org/news/18/07/06/scottish-rugby-issue-more-detail-age-grade-law-variations


Link to AGLV trials
http://www.scottishrugby.org/sites/default/files/editor/docs/aglv_national_trials_2018-19.pdf

damo
07-07-18, 11:07
The U14 laws seem very restrictive to my eyes. They have tackling at waist and below only, uncontested lineouts and no mauls.

I don't think that is helpful in preparing players to play at higher grades.

crossref
07-07-18, 15:07
It also, to me, does not chime with what 14 year olds want to get out of rugby.

didds
08-07-18, 12:07
I'm intrigued by "no maul" stuff... I can see how it wold be asy enough to implement at a lineout where the set up is somewhat static, but in open play how does a player caught upright transfer the ball if his arms are trapped etc - must he just let go of it?

ta

didds

damo
08-07-18, 18:07
To expand upon my earlier post, I think the U14 rules in particular are well intentioned but will have a detrimental effect. I fear that these rules will reduce injuries at the U14 level but increase them when players move to U15 and open level grades.

In my view, players at 13 and 14 should be learning the game so that they develop proper technique and give their bodies the ability to withstand the rigors of rugby. By denying tackles above the waist, lifting in lineout, mails and proper scrums, I fear these players will be I'll equipped to handle the higher grades when players are bigger, stronger and faster.

I feel like this could result in more injuries and less able rugby players in the U15 - U18 levels.

Rich_NL
09-07-18, 08:07
Lifting is a fairly isolated, static skill: I don't think starting at 15 is going to increase any injuries. The rest are dynamic skills and I'd agree.

didds
09-07-18, 08:07
I don't really have a view to a no maul idea for U14s - its more a logistical "concern" as to how it actually works in reality that intrigues me. However, wrt lifting (historically) in England this didn't occur until U16 - and I didn't perceive any issues with moving onwards from that once basic techniques were learned in early U16 year. TBH, lineouts in my view at age groups are pretty much a shambles anyway and its long been a bug bear of mine. For perhaps some understandable reasons many coaches seemed unclear/scared to coach them particularly or training time never got enough time to deal with them. I lost count of the number of times as an invited coach with a youth squad I'd ask eg an U14 squad what they lineout calls and basic strategies were to be met with a blank look, or "we just throw it in and try and catch it where it lands". That's not a dig ant any coaches - its just what we have/had. There would be no point in introducing lifting to a squad that has no basic systems - these type of lineouts don;t have throwers that can throw straight, weighted, to jumpers that JUMP, let alone time the two together.

Of late, in England, lineouts at youth have undergone a bit of a change - now uncontested lifting is allowed at U15 following U14 uncontested non lifting. I'm not convinced U14 non contested lifted lineouts do actually achieve much wrt development - I see/saw a lot of throwing to a non jumper catcher TBH, or a jumper that hardly gets off the ground. [ * what it does do is get the game flowing so as a restart it is a success, not getting bogged down in a morass of sloppy lineouts ending up up as scrummages which end up as FKs which end up as lineouts while the other 6 backs stand around watching, as was not untypical at U13 a few years ago.]

I'd be really interested in hearing the experiences of Welsh coaches (for example) where AIUI lifting has been allowed from U13 onwards [ a reason the RFU regs didn't provide for this was a belief that U13s didn't have the body strength to lift anybody safely etc - Wales would presumably disprove that ].

So in short, Im not peronally of the belief that non lifting until U15 etc is detrimental to that skill/technaiue. I am however of the belief that requisite skjills such as throwing and jumping are at best glossed over and at worst deliberately ignored until the mid teen years, when all of a sudden many single skills are suddenl;y required to make one system now work smoothly.

didds

Marc Wakeham
09-07-18, 22:07
In Wales, U13 lineouts are uncotested with lifting being allowed. The idea being they develop the lifting skill without the concern of the contest. I don't ref a lot of Age grade stuff these days in Wales but I understand that some choose not to lift However, I understand it works quite well overall.

crossref
10-07-18, 06:07
We live on a small and crowded island, it's ridiculous that English , Welsh and Scottish children play different Laws. ...

didds
10-07-18, 08:07
2 x NGBs - 3 x viewpoints.

How much cross border competition actually occurs?

Do we have the same "concerns" over east Kent clubs versus North West France clubs - does that happen more/less than West Country/Wales, North/Scottish Borders?

didds

didds
10-07-18, 08:07
I'd be more bothered if the three unions involved don;t share experiences etc in order to get best fit for all ...

And maybe its down to insurance companies' differing perspectives on what they will underwrite?

didds

crossref
10-07-18, 09:07
It's down to politics. Each union has the power to set age group Laws.
. So they do.

Same as every merit table in the land can set its own rules on subs and man off .. so they do.

Still , we have had one big achievement recently in England. Kids now play the same laws on Saturday at school as they play on Sunday with their club.

Dickie E
10-07-18, 10:07
I'm intrigued by "no maul" stuff... I can see how it wold be asy enough to implement at a lineout where the set up is somewhat static, but in open play how does a player caught upright transfer the ball if his arms are trapped etc - must he just let go of it?

ta

didds

I, too, am interested in how this gets managed

Pinky
10-07-18, 10:07
It used to be the case that there was no distinction in the breakdown for age grade and it as tap and pass to opposition if the ball did not come out, ie turnover for any ruck/maul. I'll need to have a detailed look at this - I suspect it will be covered at our start of season referees training next month.

Dan_A
10-07-18, 11:07
So, we had an interesting experience of all this in the season just ended. We are an u13 team in RFU land, so have been playing a free pass all season instead of lineouts. Our end of season tour was to South Wales. On the Saturday we came back over the border to play an English team so still free passes instead of lineouts. On the Sunday we played a Cardiff based team so lifted but uncontested lineouts. I think we spent about an hour with our forwards prior to the Sunday fixture and we won all our own ball. We just kept it very simple with two static jumpers and a fair bit of throwing in practice. Since it is uncontested, the players get to practice the lift and throw elements in relative safety. I think the WRU version works just fine.

As a side issue, all season long we have had to ask referees in the pre-match how they would handle a kick to touch from a restart after an infringement. The U13 regs in England refer to these restarts being 'free kicks' so , in theory the infringing team should get the free pass at the point the ball cross touch. But loads of referees decided that the kick should be treated as a penalty, and awarded the free pass to the non-infringing team. All very confusing!

Marc Wakeham
10-07-18, 12:07
They are free kicks you are correct they should not be treated as penalties

OB..
10-07-18, 12:07
Same as every merit table in the land can set its own rules on subs and man off .. so they do.
I have been at various RFU-run meetings for merit table organisers. I don't know about others, but we certainly looked at how it was done elsewhere and incorporated several ideas into our system. I don't see a need for "one-size-fits-all" since the circumstances can be very different.

crossref
10-07-18, 12:07
I have been at various RFU-run meetings for merit table organisers. I don't know about others, but we certainly looked at how it was done elsewhere and incorporated several ideas into our system. I don't see a need for "one-size-fits-all" since the circumstances can be very different.

Perhaps we could develop three sizes fits all ?
The cost of the current approach is frequent mistakes as the rules are incredibly complicated with endless variations and in my experience few players , referees or even league organisers are able to keep up.

But i only mention it as an example ...it not as important as all playing the same Law s, which is what I am advocating for British age group rugby

didds
10-07-18, 13:07
I guess to implement that you'd need a British NGB with possibly a single insurer....

didds

Camquin
10-07-18, 15:07
The basic insurance cover provided by the RFu is very basic.
I am not sure how much the insurers get involved in the specifics of when lifting in a lineout is introduced.
But I could be wrong.

didds
10-07-18, 16:07
.It was merely one possibility agreed camquin :-)

didds

crossref
10-07-18, 18:07
The three unions involved will never agree to standardise their age grade rules.
So far as I know it's never even been suggested.
Any more than would Middlesex and Surrey agree to use the same man off rules . I don't think it's ever been suggested

Dan_A
11-07-18, 09:07
When I did the permission to tour paperwork with out County office, I specifically included the fact that we were playing to WRU age group rules in the risk assessment, with a note about the lineouts. They duly signed off as expected but I figured this might help in the event of any potential insurance issue.

crossref
11-07-18, 10:07
Their is such a lot of confusion about insurance

The RFU insurance covers all catastrophic injuries suffered playing rugby. It doesn't matter if people are negligent or using the wrong laws .. the injured person is still covered . That is the point of insurance

If there was negligence the insurance company might come after you to recover the costs, but that is separate. The person with the catastrophic injury is covered by the insurance

Dan_A
11-07-18, 11:07
Their is such a lot of confusion about insurance

The RFU insurance covers all catastrophic injuries suffered playing rugby. It doesn't matter if people are negligent or using the wrong laws .. the injured person is still covered . That is the point of insurance

If there was negligence the insurance company might come after you to recover the costs, but that is separate. The person with the catastrophic injury is covered by the insurance

Yep, understood, just want to make sure that tour leaders and/or our club would not be facing off with the insurance company. It would be harder for them to prove negligence if the County office (and therefore RFU) have signed off on that specific risk.

crossref
11-07-18, 11:07
Yes, it's a good idea not to be negligent .
But the primary reason why you would avoid negligence is because you want to keep your players safe, and avoid any injury in the first place. Not so much to CYA in the resulting court cases

In other words your train of thought should be about whether your boys can safely lift.

Dan_A
11-07-18, 12:07
Yes, it's a good idea not to be negligent .
But the primary reason why you would avoid negligence is because you want to keep your players safe, and avoid any injury in the first place. Not so much to CYA in the resulting court cases

In other words your train of thought should be about whether your boys can safely lift.

Yes, absolutely. We did a risk assessment. We identified which players could be exposed to the lifting. We had qualified coaches do a couple of sessions with them. We briefed the (Welsh) referee that the boys hadn't been lifting back home yet and that at any signs of an issue we would just stop lifting. For what it's worth I am a RFU level 1 coach and qualified first aider, so you're preaching to the converted!!

didds
11-07-18, 13:07
Good points CR.

Bottom line however is that wrt the RFU's insurers at least, the requirement is for coaches etc to follow the AG regs.

RFU AG regs don't permit lifted lineouts until U15. (notwithstanding one off differences as per the above)

the crux here is whether the insurers (Marsh?) have decided that lifted lineouts below U15 are not an item they wish to insure, or whether its the RFU that have decreed no such lifting. which still binds coaches etc to those regs etc. wrt what is covered or not ie whether they may get chased etc.

So whatever the reasons for the REFU not allowing lifting below U15 its either/or/both

* RFU don't want it
* Insurers don't want it.

didds

crossref
11-07-18, 13:07
You are required to follow the Laws
But if you don't , it doesn't invalidate the insurance. The kid with the injury still gets a pay out .

It does expose you to legal claims against you

didds
11-07-18, 15:07
which is exactly what I said of course.

didds

Foggy-Balla
13-07-18, 15:07
I'm just about to move up to coaching/refereeing U13s as my lad moves and we have played in a lot of the larger tournaments against Welsh sides, my Club being in the Home Counties.

crossref
13-07-18, 17:07
My son's team played Welsh sides, on tour and at tournaments

Marc Wakeham
15-07-18, 17:07
Good points CR.

Bottom line however is that wrt the RFU's insurers at least, the requirement is for coaches etc to follow the AG regs.

RFU AG regs don't permit lifted lineouts until U15. (notwithstanding one off differences as per the above)

the crux here is whether the insurers (Marsh?) have decided that lifted lineouts below U15 are not an item they wish to insure, or whether its the RFU that have decreed no such lifting. which still binds coaches etc to those regs etc. wrt what is covered or not ie whether they may get chased etc.

So whatever the reasons for the REFU not allowing lifting below U15 its either/or/both

* RFU don't want it
* Insurers don't want it.

didds

When I ref (Age group rugby) in England, my WRU kinsurance does not cover me and I am licensed to referee WRU only. THe English structure insures me as a "club" referee. So, as far as my liability and the players I am covered.

I would imagine that eour clubs coming here would be covered under the WRU confirmation of the tour being under its insurance rather than the RFU's cover. I would imagring the RFU merely wishes to see the confirmation that the WRU are covering the tour.

As far as English refs are concerned you are not covered under WRU cover to ref in Wales (obviously this is not including the higher level appointments) and offers to referee should be declined unless you have something in writing from the English system to say that you are covered.)

crossref
15-07-18, 17:07
in reality it's more complex than that.

welsh children playing rugby in Wales will be covered by the WRU's catastrophic injury insurance, even if there is a rogue English ref in charge. That's the whole point of insurance : it covers them for all injuries, including those caused by negligent or rogue officials.

Now, having said that, the club who appointed him may well be laying themselves open to an action for making such a negligent appointment etc etc -- but the kids with the catastrophic injury will be get their payout.


(Rider -- of course Marc is quite correct to say that an English ref should get himself properly appointed if was invited to ref in Wales. The RFU have a permission to ref abroad form, and you'd want that, and you'd want to be on board with the WRU as well. I am not advcocating taking any risks or short cuts. It's just that when people say 'not covered' the situation in reality is more complicated)