KIDS FIRST RUGBY: WHAT IS IT AND WHY?

Following on from my previous introductory piece, this article aims to describe some of the nuts and bolts of Kids First Rugby and examine the reasons for the initiative having been put in place. The purpose of this is twofold: to make the issue more transparent for those of my readers outside England who will necessarily be unfamiliar with the detail of KFR (and yet who may well be familiar with a version of the same thing run by their own NGB), and to combat some of the misinformation – wilful and otherwise – that has managed to accrete to the debate since it began.

In that previous piece, I stated three reasons why I am in favour of this approach To Age Grade rugby, and these three reasons relate in turn to the implications for a coach, for a parent, and last but not least, to the implications for a player. In this article I’m going to discuss the ways that Kids First affects how an Age Grade coach will do his or her job, and how it will help them provide a great rugby experience for their players.

The most obvious starting point here is to talk about the New Rules of Play and the refinements they have brought. These have been well documented here on FRN and elsewhere, but to provide a brief summary would be helpful:

• Simplified game rules for the very youngest players, so they can focus on learning the basics of evasion, pursuit, support and handling
• Reduced numbers of players on the pitch to allow more players to participate more fully in the game
• Step by step introduction of the contact and set piece phases of the game, so coaches can focus on embedding one skill set before the next one is introduced.

When I coached an U11 team under the old Continuum rules six years ago, we played 12-a-side with 5-man contested scrums, 4-man contested lineouts, a fully-contested breakdown and kicking, including kicks at goal after tries. Now coaching U11s under New Rules, we play 9-a-side on the same size pitch, 3-man scrums with a contested strike but no push, limited numbers at the breakdown and no goal kicking.

In terms of which is more satisfying to coach, there’s no contest. As a coaching team we can spend more time on each new skill area while at the same time reinforcing and enhancing what was learned previously. So for example, last year at U10 we introduced the uncontested scrum. The emphasis was on ensuring correct body position and binding so that the front row is in a nice tight, low position with everything pointing forward. This year we have a contested strike, so there’s more emphasis on the hooker supporting his weight to strike for the ball quickly and under pressure, meaning the props too have to ensure they are in a really strong stable position. However, that’s the only change to the scrum. We don’t have to worry about striking and pushing at the same time, and as that isn’t happening the hookers have a nice stable platform from which to contest possession. It’s a great example of introducing an additional skill without disrupting the development of the previous skill set.

Another aspect of the Kids First approach, and one that found particular disfavour with Simon Halliday and his supporters, is the recommendations on competitive games and especially the shift from tournaments (which are all about finding a winner) to festivals (more of a celebration of rugby with the emphasis on learning through games).

One issue that caused real controversy was the advice to allow only mixed ability teams in festivals rather than A/B/C teams. The ‘anti’ argument was that by mixing players in this way, you would have A team players from one club playing against C team players from another club and this wouldn’t be right. Playing A teams against A teams is ‘fairer’.

What this ignores of course is that in the mixed teams, both clubs would include some strong and some weaker players, so the argument above would cut both ways. Yet what those weaker players gain from the experience is the chance to see their more able team mates in action and to learn by emulation. They also naturally have to raise their game to try and match the level of the better players.

Those better players gain by being able to help and encourage their less able team mates, showing them good practice and setting the tone for the others to follow. The power of this peer-led development can’t be overstated. It chimes well with my desire to coach the whole child, which means that I like to encourage the players to live the Core Values in their rugby. At the same time I can find opportunities to emphasise the 5Cs – competence, confidence, connection, creativity, character/caring – that are essential in creating the social bonds that help to form strong teams.

In short, while the change to New Rules has made it easier to coach from a technical standpoint by breaking a complex game into bite-size chunks, the change of ethos inherent in Kids First – whereby games become just another learning experience and the score isn’t all that important – enables me as a coach to ensure everyone can demonstrate their value to the team. The main point of course being that regardless of a player’s skill level, he gets his chance to do what he’s capable of and contribute to a team effort. And because while we play each game with the aim of winning it if possible, there’s no trophy on offer or league points to be gained so if we don’t win… then what, exactly?

In actual fact, a post-match analysis goes more along these lines: “You played a very exciting brand of rugby today, you were great to watch. The standard of passing was superb, especially the off-loading out of the tackle, and the way support runners attacked space at pace was excellent. Some of the tackling was a bit hesitant, but the players who attacked the breakdown with good body positions more than made up for that by continually turning over the ball. As a result you had a lot more possession and many more opportunities to score, of which you only missed out on two, which was fantastic to make so few errors. Put all that together and you can see why you won the game. If anyone’s really interested the score was 35-5”.

That sort of summary was always possible of course, but for many coaches the 35-5 scoreline would be enough. A win’s a win, after all. The new approach actually encourages you to link performance of skills and application of teamwork to outcome on the scoreboard in a positive way, and the players’ competitive instinct and desire to excel makes them hungry to make the improvements they need to make. When you have the players in that frame of mind, coaching becomes a lot easier and more effective, and their development really takes off – and this is the biggest benefit Kids First offers an Age Grade coach.

MAKING CONTACT RUGBY SAFER – HOW TO TACKLE A GROWING ISSUE

The issue of tackling in rugby has been big news recently. We’ve seen a collective of 70 concerned health professionals and academics send an open letter to the UK Government calling for a ban on tackling in schools rugby.

There’s been a lot of discussion on social and other media both in support of and opposed to these concerned citizens. I’m sure you can imagine most of the arguments that have been trotted out. There’s also been a petition raised on the UK Government site, currently signed by 22000 people and counting, calling for tackling to remain in schools rugby. Columnists as diverse as former Irish international lock Neil Francis and Times restaurant critic Giles Coren have given their views in print (Coren’s article in the Times of 5^th March 2016 is especially amusing!). It was even debated on BBC Question Time, so it’s safe to say this issue has had a lot of airtime recently.

What I don’t propose is to rehash all the arguments as these should be pretty much public knowledge. Prof Allyson Pollock is the cheerleader for this campaign, having seen the damage suffered by her son Hamish during school rugby. I’d like to add here that I think Hamish was dealt with inadequately by his school coach and that Pollock’s concerns should have been taken seriously. However, I also think that Prof Pollock has lost all professional detachment on this issue and judges the whole of the game through the prism of this negative experience – in fact, rather than a cool and reasoned medical professional, she comes across more like a disgruntled mum.

So what is my point? Is it a concern that some former players have suffered rugby-attributed symptoms ranging from general cognitive dysfunction to motor neurone disease (MND)? Of course it is. The ravages of MND on former Springbok Joost van der Westhuizen are heart-breaking to see, especially to those of us who remember this magnificent player in his prime. To think that the game he loved has done that to him is tragic.

Is it a concern that owing to the bulking up of international and elite domestic players, every collision in a top rugby match now resembles a small-to-medium-sized car crash in terms of the force going through players’ bodies? You bet. The injury stats for the Aviva Premiership show something like 25% of players out injured at this stage of the season, while Ireland’s injury issues in the current 6 Nations campaign, and Wales’s during the World Cup last year, are well documented.

Is it a massive concern that the influence of this trend in elite rugby is seen further down the pyramid, not only in the 1^st XVs of grassroots clubs but also in age grade rugby where we hear of U14 teams having conditioning coaches? Too right. Trying to turn young kids into miniature versions of James Haskell or Courtney Lawes is insane, and I’ve put my concerns about this on record before.

So if we accept that the increase in size and aggression from top players, and the change in tackle philosophy from simply stopping the ball carrier to smashing him, are contributing factors in the increasing incidence of concussion type injuries, what then must we do?

First of all, banning the tackle in age grade rugby (because you can’t just ban it in schools) is a non-starter. This would expose boys on leaving school to playing adult rugby alongside older, bigger, heavier players, without the knowledge of how to tackle and take contact safely. All this would achieve would be to defer the issue to a later date.

Taking it as read that the tackle must stay in the game, what really needs to happen is that tackling and the other contact phases of rugby, need to be taught thoroughly by qualified coaches with rigorous emphasis on correct technique and player safety. As a club rugby coach, I know this is happening to a greater or lesser degree in the majority of clubs, though should also add that I’ve encountered coaches for whom it appears that safety takes a back seat in the pursuit of those all-important U10 victories.

I also have experience of teaching in prep school and again have worked really hard on technique, safety and player welfare. But clearly there are schools, just as there are clubs, where other factors are higher priority – for example the desire of the school to win its games. This could be exacerbated by the fact that in many schools, rugby is taught by PE teachers who may not be rugby specialists, lacking the technical knowledge to deliver contact training safely.

So as well as addressing the coaching of the tackle, we need to achieve a change in mind-set of coaches and perhaps collectively of clubs and schools. Winning games needs to be less important, technique and player safety more so. If we’re less bothered about winning, then we’re less likely to tell players to tackle hard and aggressively to intimidate the opponent. They are then more likely to pay better attention to good technique, especially if we as coaches praise them for that rather than how hard they fly in to contact.

Less concern about the result of the game will also help coaches make the right decision during games when a key player takes a blow to the head. At the highest level, last year’s 6 Nations saw a worrying incident when Wales wing George North returned to the field after a kick to the head that left him dazed. He then suffered a further blow to the head and was out before he hit the ground – yet still recovered and was allowed to return to play. Former England player Shontayne Hape tells disturbing tales of being pressured to play on after suffering a blow to the head. This sets a terrible example to the rest of the game: that no matter if a player has suffered head injury, if the game is important and the player crucial to the team, their safety takes second place.

In England, grass roots and age grade club coaches have had a lot of input recently on concussion awareness. The HEADCASE initiative gives vital information for coaches and parents on what to do if they suspect a concussion has taken place. We err on the side of caution, and if the player is found to have been concussed, they follow a return to play pathway to keep them healthy.

Like myself, there are many well-qualified and safety conscious coaches in clubs delivering full contact rugby perfectly safely. If there is concern about how rugby is taught in schools, my response would be ‘Use me’. Bring in coaches from clubs to supervise rugby training where the PE staff lack the experience of the game to deliver it safely.

Schools and clubs also need to look at their rugby offering and give thought to allowing players who don’t relish full contact rugby the chance to play touch rugby instead. Far from being a ‘watered-down’ version of the game, touch is fast-moving and dynamic, great for fitness and a wonderful way to develop game awareness, evasion and handling skills.

What we don’t need to do is apply a blanket ban on tackling for youngsters. Education of coaches and parents, monitoring of coaching and reporting of injuries are a far more useful way to tackle the issue while maintaining the integrity of the game.

KIDS FIRST INITIATIVE GATHERS PACE

September 2016 sees a new landmark in Age Grade rugby in England, as the Kids First initiative comes fully into effect across the country. Changes have been agreed which will see for the first time a harmonised approach to how young players are developed whether it be in clubs, schools or in girls’ rugby.

I’m aware that this issue has caused some division as well as a certain amount of wailing and gnashing of teeth. Last year Rugby World magazine posted a ‘For and Against’ piece with the Pro camp represented by Walcot RFC U10 coach Dave Parsons, while for the Anti stance they deployed the rather bigger gun of former England centre Simon Halliday (no disrespect intended Dave). I’m not sure if this disparity was a deliberate attempt to influence people’s thinking, or if they simply chose Halliday because of his extremely vocal public opposition to Kids First expressed in his role on the committee at Esher RFC. View the RW piece here.

The argument advanced by Halliday and others, including the Daily Mail, was that the game was going soft or in some way ‘dumbing down’ in trying to remove all competitive and physical elements from Age Grade rugby. Even my esteemed co-author Spike – though I hasten to add his views were expressed as persuasively and in as reasoned a manner as always – shared the view that this initiative was a reform too far.

Even within my own club I’ve found opposition to Kids First or at best a kind of grudging acceptance, followed by a heads-in-the-sand ‘ignore-it-and-it’ll-go-away attitude’. Some of the older age groups – and more worryingly last season the chair of AG rugby and the Club Coaching Co-ordinator (CCC) – have displayed the same sort of illogical and uninformed, knee-jerk hostility epitomised by Halliday.

So, let me first nail my colours to the mast and say that I am well and truly in favour of Kids First for a number of reasons. At the coaching level, I like Kids First because it promotes coaching the game in the way I have already being doing it for about 6 years now – though I have to say it also goes above and beyond my approach and means I will have to raise my game a bit!

I also like it from a personal point of view, as it seeks to challenge and eliminate certain attitudes, values and behaviours that have been prevalent in the Age Grade game (this despite the prominence given to Core Values at every club in the land), and which damage both the child’s enjoyment of the game along with his/her potential to develop as a player.

Thirdly, from the perspective of a fan I simply LOVE what the Kids First approach, in tandem with the New Rules of Play, is doing to the skill levels and entertainment on display in Age Grade rugby. Most games at U11 that I see are full of kids trying to keep the ball alive and take risks in a ‘Barbarianesque’ style of play that is thrilling to watch.

So to conclude this introduction to my series on Kids First, I’ll simply observe that far from dumbing the game down, this initiative is producing players who play smarter: better tactical decision makers, able to read the game and identify opportunities, and with the skills to exploit what they see. Those who argue (as some do) that they want to see more youngsters boshing into each other and mauling, fail to see the irony in their accusation that the game is seeking to become less intelligent (I assume that’s what they mean by dumbing down?).

All the above notwithstanding, this is happening and is going live from September 2016. As the Cybermen might say, “Resistance is futile” – that being so, it surely behoves even the hardiest opponent of Kids First to grit his teeth and try and make the best of the many positives it offers.

Our sport has always thrived on change, and the need to evolve in Age Grade rugby has been clear for some time. The most pernicious phrase in the English language for anyone who wants to see progress is ‘This is the way we’ve always done it’. That is the attitude, I’m afraid, that would have seen William Webb Ellis given 6 of the best and 1000 lines, and this game that we all love so much would never have come into being.

To be continued….

Footnote: DB9 coaches an U11 mixed team and U13/U15 girls in West Yorkshire; in his professional guise he also coaches at a private prep school in North Yorkshire, and runs weekend and after-school groups for Rugbytots involving children as young as two. Safe to say, he has studied this issue from just about every angle possible for a coach!

 

SILENT SUNDAYS – A view from inside the tent

The furore (too strong a word? Kerfuffle might be better) over the #SilentSundays experiment run by my local governing body Yorkshire Rugby Football Union (YRFU) over the last two weekends of Age Grade rugby was something of a surprise – and yet, knowing rugby folk as I do, completely expected as well.
I’ll lay my cards on the table from the start and say I was wholly in favour of the initiative for a number of reasons. I’ve been an age grade coach for over 10 years now; this is my second time round at Under 10s and I’m noticing a lot issues that have not improved over that time – and in many cases that have got worse. The atmosphere on the touchline is a case in point. I referee regularly and often find myself in conversation with a spectator about a particular decision they don’t agree with. It’s a short conversation usually, often ended when I proffer my whistle to the other party and suggest they have a go, at which point they realise I’m right after all and back down. True to say though, that it’s getting more frequent and less good-humoured.
That said, the majority of the noise is aimed not at me but at the players, and this is the main target of Silent Sundays. The particular problem YRFU was looking to address was coaches and spectators shouting, especially the kind of shouting that intimidates and confuses children. The bear-pit atmosphere that we often play in – noticeably more so at some clubs than others – is getting worse and is definitely intimidating for some kids. Parents shouting at children to “smash ‘im” is not good to hear, for example. If it’s not that, it’s a constant barrage of instructions from coaches: “SPREAD OUT! PASS!!! TACKLE HIM!!!” (as if the players don’t know that’s the idea when an opponent makes a break!). Not forgetting the additional and often contradictory instructions from parents, well intentioned no doubt but in many cases totally misguided, because the player doesn’t know whose instructions to follow – though I would add here that ‘Listen to your coach’ is the only advice a player needs on this point. I’ve seen this conflict end with a young player leaving the field in tears, unable to choose whether to listen to his mum shouting at him to run, or me telling him to look inside and pass. Anecdotal evidence suggests that a proportion of early teens who quit the game do so because of the constant noise coming from the touchline, that ruins the game as a fun experience for them.
So it was right for someone to do something to challenge this developing culture, and taking a lead from Lancashire Junior FA’s Silent Saturday initiative last year, YRFU decided to give a similar idea a whirl. The dates of 25 January and 1 February were chosen, and an announcement made early in the New Year. This is where it got interesting for me. Immediately the sniping started. “Ridiculous idea,” “are we not allowed to support our kids now?” “the game’s going soft,” “the players won’t know what to do” and much more in a similar vein. In short, many people decided from the outset that it was a bad idea and wouldn’t work, and grumpily went along with the scheme because they’d ‘been told to’. Even the reporting in the media (as far afield as New Zealand, where similar concerns exist over touchline noise in rugby – see Jack Cottrell’s report from April 2014 http://www.radiosport.co.nz/opinion/jack-cottrell-30apr2014) took the angle that this was a crackpot idea, to the extent of erroneously reporting that spectators were banned even from applauding. Most of the reaction seemed to be informed by a willingness to believe the worst about YRFU’s intentions, that they were somehow trying to suck the entire atmosphere out of the junior game for ‘politically correct’ reasons. Some even assumed the initiative was a permanent one rather than an experiment requiring just two days’ co-operation across a 34-week season.
So, we’ve now done the two Silent Sundays and feedback has been a mixture of positive and negative. Some of my coaching colleagues missed being able to yell instructions to their players; one coach from another club, however, reported that he caught himself about to shout something and – realising it was Silent Sunday – stopped himself. He then thought about what he’d been about to shout and concluded that it would have been inappropriate in any case! A parent of one of my players said to me that it was a sledgehammer/nut approach and it was a shame that because of a few numpties, everyone was being targeted. My response was, ‘So next time you have one of these numpties next to you gobbing off, have a word with them. Then Yorkshire won’t need to enforce it from the top down.’ Another parent withdrew his son from the fixture on Silent Sunday 2, as he was so angry about the initiative and saw it as an attack on parents’ rights to support their children. After a reasoned discussion he changed his mind (and was rewarded by seeing his son grab his first two tries of the season!) as I managed to convince him about the positives of the experiment.
Those positives, as I observed them, were as follows:
• The atmosphere was a lot calmer without the noise from the touchline, the whole feel of the fixture was far less adversarial than is the norm.
• From a referee-coach perspective, it was good for me that the players only had me to listen to; they could hear my explanation of decisions, which helps them learn, and I was better able to help them avoid infringing, meaning less whistle and more running around.
• The game was played in a good spirit between the players, none of the macho hostility we sometimes get, and in fact the only point of issue was dissent from one player which required him to leave the field. In the absence of noise, his interaction with me was clearly audible and his dad told me after the game he would have sent him off too.
• The players also played great rugby (though they often do), in that kids from both teams were prepared to have a go and take risks in a spirit of adventure that is often absent. Did the reduced noise from the touchline make them more confident? It’s hard to say for sure but it’s not improbable.
• In the absence of the usual volley of shouted instructions from coaches, the players soon began to coach and encourage each other during the game. Decision making responsibility fell on their heads, meaning they needed to be more game-aware and to help their team-mates who were less so. This is a win for any coach with his players’ long-term development at heart.
In summary, this was a well-intentioned experiment that has achieved its major goals. It has created open debate about how touchline behaviour affects young players, and discussion of what is and isn’t appropriate. It has caused parents and especially coaches to think about what they say and how they say it during games – and I have certainly thought hard about my input during games and how it needs to be adjusted. Finally, it has perhaps made people realise that the raucous touchline atmosphere was starting to get out of hand. While no one including me wants a silent, funereal experience on a Sunday morning, equally we want to avoid the opposite extreme. As in many things, moderation is key. Applaud both teams and all good play (and good refereeing, please); encourage and praise effort over and above ability and skill; if you must coach, do it quietly during breaks in play. In short, just stick to what the existing Codes of Conduct say, and you’ll be pretty much in the right area.

10 YEARS ON: ENGLAND’S WORLD CUP WIN

Part 1 – Memories

Last Friday saw the 10^th anniversary of England’s 20-17 extra-time win over Australia in the final of the 2003 Rugby World Cup. For anyone who’s been living under a rock for a protracted period of time, here’s how it ended….

I watched the game in a pub – The Marsh House in Huddersfield as it goes, no longer a pub but a very nice coffee bar. My regular rugby buddy had thoughtlessly got married the weekend before and was in Malta on his honeymoon, so I flew solo on this one. The pub was almost empty for the duration of the game (rugby league stronghold) with just a few punters taking the chance of early-morning beers. So empty that I think I was the only genuine England fan in there! There was a Welsh RU fan in there, supporting England, and a stereotypical Scot supporting Australia. The only other guys watching the game were essentially neutrals; English, but rugby league fans, so watching out of a sense of curiosity rather than genuine passion.

So how did the morning play out? It was tense, so that meant by 1000 I was really quite drunk. There was an early try for Australia, greeted with a rather in-yer-face celebration from William Wallace in the corner. He went quieter as the first half progressed, limiting himself to muttering about the biased refereeing of Andre Watson. England’s try brought a roar of approval from my new best friend from Wales and me; the RL boys were of the opinion that it had taken a RL convert to get England over the try-line. I countered by saying that even Wallace over there would have scored that after the work done by the union boys. General hilarity. The second half and extra time passed in a blur of tension and alcohol, until Jonny Wilkinson delivered the goods. My Welsh mate and me leaping around and hugging; Wallace storming out of the pub swearing; the RL boys agreeing that it had been a tense, epic encounter but that League was more exciting.

Suddenly the pub started filling up – Sky Sports was screening Man Utd v Blackburn and all the wendy fans were arriving. Disgusted, I left and staggered home. But my day wasn’t done! My wife was helping out at the church Christmas fair and I had to take the kids down to visit the stalls of overpriced tat. So I lurched around the House of the Lord for an hour or two breathing fumes over old ladies and eating mince pies that were more pie than mince, washed down with the weakest tea in Christendom.

And there’s still more to tell…. We’d promised the kids a trip to see Finding Nemo at the cinema, so I had to sit through that as well. Word around the camp-fire is I fell asleep and snored, but I couldn’t have, could I? Not on such a halcyon day as this?

Post your memories of RWC 2003 below….

PRIMA DONNAS IN RUGBY – WHO NEEDS ‘EM?

James O’Connor (left), talented Australian utility back, is one of a small band of ‘troubled’ high-profile players currently strutting their stuff in elite rugby union. The reputed leader of the self-styled ‘Three Amigos’ (O’Connor plus fellow Wallabies Kurtley Beale and Quade Cooper) certainly hasn’t covered himself in glory on or off the field. As a result he’s found himself released from his contract with Melbourne Rebels in July 2013 and booted out of the Wallabies squad in October the same year.

However, while fans and commentators can forgive lapses in form in players who clearly give their all for the cause, they (we) are less forgiving of those who seem not to give a stuff about their rugby and have things in their life they appear to consider more important. O’Connor, along with Danny Cipriani and Gavin Henson now belongs to an unholy trinity of that least welcome figure in a rugby dressing-room – the Prima Donna.

The PD can be recognised by a combination of one or more of the following traits:

• He’s always a back, often a playmaker – one around whom the team revolves.
• Outrageously talented, often to the point of flashiness, and usually makes a massive impact in big games early in his career.
• As a result, he develops a high profile off the field – celebrity girlfriends, TV appearances and modelling contracts can form part of this mix.
• As a further result, he develops a ‘star’ persona, either through the adulation of people he mixes with off the field, or through believing all the hype about himself in the media, or a bit of both.
• After a relatively brief time at the very top of his game, on-field form starts to dip.
• At the same time, stories start to appear of training ground bust-ups, late night drinking sessions during match weeks, spats with celebrity girlfriend and so on.
• The end result is the PD being released from his club contract, dropped or not selected for his national team and assuming a nomadic existence plying his trade at any club willing to take a gamble.

Any of this sound like someone you know? Danny Cipriani was involved in an exchange with England hard-man Josh Lewsey at a Wasps training session and ended up being knocked out; Gavin Henson flitted from club to club without settling anywhere, seeming to prioritise his TV appearances over top-flight rugby; O’Connor’s drinking and early-morning burger runs were the first sign that his mind wasn’t right. Recently given a chance to shine by London Irish, O’Connor immediately alienated their fans the day after an impressive debut, by travelling to French club Toulon with an apparent desire to secure a move to the Med. Various comments on Facebook are encapsulated in this one:

“I think it’s ******* diabolical. I also wonder how he’s gonna get on at Irish if a move to Toulon doesn’t materialise… I’m regretting us ever signing him. Just another rugby player with problems that no club can fix.”           London Irish supporter ‘Abu’ on O’Connor

The whole issue with PDs can be summed up as follows: they become more famous for their off-the-field activities than their rugby, and their attitude reflects this. They appear to believe they are more important than team-mates, that they don’t need to put in as much effort, and that they ‘deserve’ a greater share of the wealth and respect to be had as a professional sportsman. Some who start to head this way can be turned around with strong management (see Stuart Lancaster’s handling of scrum half Danny Care in 2012), but the key is in their desire. And the sad truth is, the PD’s desire to succeed in rugby is not strong enough either to resist the siren call of celebrity, or to put in the required level of graft to turn around a slump in form. The pattern of jumping ship to other clubs reveals another narcissistic trait – it’s always someone else at fault. The PD can’t accept responsibility for their actions, which is why it is so hard to get them to change.

It’s very sad to see such talent go to waste. In football, this type of player is tolerated to a greater extent – footballers seem to have a greater affinity for these types of antics, so they are more like the norm. In rugby, we’re less forgiving, probably because there are so many examples of the right way to build a career or cope with adversity (Dan Carter, Jonny Wilkinson, Shane Williams, Michael Lynagh, Joost van der Westhuizen and many others).

In rugby, it really seems to be a case of “Who needs ‘em?” – long may it continue.

FUNDING CUT IS A WAKE-UP CALL

Last January, Sport England, the body which presides over the allocation of public money to sports development in England, announced its spending plans for the next four years. A £493m investment is to be made with the aim of keeping alive the legacy of the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games, by increasing participation in grassroots sport. In accordance with this aim, the funding allocations were redistributed in favour of those sports with a solid, workable plan or a good track record for increasing participation, while those sports which are under-performing in this respect saw their funding cut.

For both codes of rugby, as well as cricket, there was an expected reduction in funding. The failure of all these sports to provide adequate evidence of actual or projected growth in numbers participating made this inevitable. Despite all three sports being commercially successful at the elite levels, clearly the attraction and retention of players further down the chain is more problematic and my own experience as an age grade coach in rugby bears this out. All of which tells me one thing – we need to get our act together and start delivering on the RFU’s objectives for player recruitment and retention, before we lose even more funding.

This isn’t going to be easy, especially when the chief competition to both codes of rugby in their core market (little boys who like chasing a ball around and being part of a team) is football, a sport whose funding was increased by 582%. That’s five hundred and eighty-two percent, in case you think it’s a typo. It was a stat that threw me into a fury of outrage at the time. “How the hell” I thought, “can they justify that kind of increase in funding to a sport that is already swimming in cash? Why can’t grassroots football development be funded by donations from every Premier League player – God knows most of them wouldn’t miss £5000 a week.” And so on in a similar vein until the initial surge of anger had dissipated.

But that’s irrelevant to rugby. So is the fact that football is the first point of call for most parents wanting a sporting activity for their boys; ditto the fact that in the majority of primary schools, football is the only formally organised sport available to boys. Football clearly has a massive advantage over rugby in terms of initial recruitment of players, but the fact remains that football’s performance in growing the game justifies the increase in funding, while rugby is being told to pull its socks up. As the guardians of the game’s future, we have to strive now to justify the same kind of largesse from Sport England in turn. Here at the start of a new season, it’s a time when we should be focusing our minds on this very issue.

So just what can we do to encourage more youngsters to take up rugby first of all, and to ensure those we have stay with us? The latter are in some ways the easier group in that we get plenty of chance to influence their decisions directly. Here a few basic suggestions for keeping players:

• Focus on FUN and skills development rather than winning. A winning-is-everything mentality will, over time, drive more players away than it attracts. If you focus on the players learning and enjoying themselves, the results will follow.
• Treat every player as of equal importance, whether they are the strongest player or the least talented in your squad. Don’t treat ‘star’ players as special cases. Fairness and consistency are key ways of showing respect to your players; conversely, nothing alienates parents quicker than their child being dealt with unfairly.
• If you’re lucky enough to have enough players for 2 or 3 teams, consider making these mixed-ability rather than A, B & C etc. Having a really strong team that wins games easily will not teach them anything; by contrast, players in a weak C team who get battered every week will soon lose the will to keep turning out – yet these players could be the future stars of your Academy side if you keep them. (You also avoid the dilemma about ‘dropping’ players who are out of form if all your teams are playing at the same standard.)
• Foster team spirit both on and off the field by getting the players to do social activities together as a whole squad a few times each season: bowling, laserquest, obstacle courses or a simple barbecue are all great ways to do this. Taking them away on tour or a camping trip provides a great bonding experience from which even the youngest players will benefit hugely.
• Engage with the players’ parents and enlist their support for non-rugby activities like first aid, fundraising, organising tours and festivals.
• Make sure everything you do satisfies the core values of the game: Teamwork, Respect, Enjoyment, Discipline and Sportsmanship.

The good news is that the new rules of play now being used across England are tailor-made to assist coaches with player retention. Player involvement is promoted by having smaller teams; fewer and simpler rules mean fewer reasons for refs to blow the whistle so the game keeps flowing. Tag rugby games at U7 and U8 are literally non-stop action with loads of tries and all players fully involved. From U9 upwards, the complex rules and technical skills are brought in by stages so that the learning curve remains manageable and gives kids real opportunities to develop at a pace that suits them.

We have everything in place to make rugby an attractive option for youngsters and their parents. Smart, child-centred coaching will deliver the right outcomes, the only ones that should matter in age grade rugby: player recruitment, fun and enjoyment, skills progression and player retention. Let’s get it done.

For full details of the January funding bulletin from Sport England, follow this link:

http://www.sportengland.org/about_us/our_news/almost_£05_billion_investment.aspx

THE JOYS OF AGE-GRADE COACHING, PART ONE: The start of a new season

Five more sleeps! A new season starts on Sunday and for the first time in a few years I’m especially excited and enthusiastic at the prospect, so much so that I’m counting the days just as I hope my players will be. Five more sleeps… can hardly wait!
The reason for the extra excitement and anticipation is that this season, I have the under 9 squad. The players I’ve been nurturing for the past two years will be ditching their TAG belts in a formal handover ceremony, and starting contact rugby mostly for the first time. It’s a significant stage in a player’s career and one that’s vitally important to manage correctly as a coach; indeed, I consider it a privilege to be able to guide young players through an experience that some view with a certain amount of trepidation. The right input from me and my colleagues at this stage can make all the difference, meaning players learn to love the rough and tumble side of the game and carry on that love through long playing careers as adults.
One thing that’s going to help massively is the adoption of the New Rules of Play. Previously, the transition from U8 to U9 meant learning about rucks, mauls, scrums and line-outs in addition to tackling. This represented a massive learning curve and meant that only the very talented players, the ‘naturals’, were able to pick up all these skills adequately. Maybe 80% of your squad would be struggling with one or more aspects of the game, and those for whom most of it was a struggle would eventually give it up. With player retention being a vital objective for coaches, this made it far harder to achieve the right kind of success.
The New Rules have simplified the game, reducing to 7-a-side from 9 and stripping out everything bar the tackle for U9s (the rest is brought in progressively over the following three seasons so that by U13, the whole game is in place). All I need to worry about now is how to tackle and be tackled, and what to do afterwards. With the ruck and maul removed, the contest for possession also goes and the defending side has to allow the attackers to move the ball on from the tackle area. In fact, it’s not far removed from another form of rugby, very popular here in West Yorkshire, which places the focus on ball-handling skills and solid defence. The counties along the M62 corridor were the last to adopt New Rules, I think out of a fear that we were switching to ‘RL-lite’ as one coach described it, and that as a result we would lose players to the 13-a-side game. I see it as more of an opportunity though; firstly to focus on developing our players’ skills in manageable chunks, and also to attract players from RL who want to play rugby in winter as well as summer, and who won’t find the game so alien.
So that’s why I’m feeling so enthusiastic about the coming year. I’ve sent out my briefing e-mail for Sunday and already had three replies indicating that my players are also raring to go. The best of them read as follows: “…see you on Sunday for the new season (Anna already has her kit laid out in preparation!).” When your players are as excited about it as you are, that’s half the battle won already, and just one of the many joys of being an age grade rugby coach.

RugbyMusings wishes you an excellent 2013-14 season, wherever you play.

“WE ALL HATE LEEDS SCUM” – does Rugby have a tribal problem?

Well, first the good news. Rugby union has not yet become as tribal as 13-a-side, as was proved to me at the weekend. Being a lifelong dual-code rugby follower, I was on Saturday glued to the BBC watching my beloved Leeds Rhinos getting well and truly spanked by Huddersfield Giants.

The online forums (fora?) were what you’d expect afterwards. Fans of Huddersfield (and everyone else especially Bradford Bulls) gloating – not a hint of graciousness in victory. Many fans of Leeds moaning about the ref and blaming the defeat on him – not a hint of humility in defeat from the vast majority of posters. However the real story of why Huddersfield triumphed is this: despite dominating possession and territory, and playing against 12 men for a quarter of the game, Leeds were outscored in both halves and had no way through the Giants defence. Huddersfield’s defensive display was a master class in commitment, teamwork, discipline and controlled aggression; the classic combination of fire in the belly and ice in the mind. When scoring chances came their way, they were far more clinical than Leeds, made fewer errors, and so ran out deserved winners. No blame on referee Phil Bentham, who did make mistakes but certainly nothing that affected the game as dramatically as the mistakes made by Leeds players.

Anyway, my point about tribalism. During the game, if you’d closed your eyes you might have thought it was a football match you were hearing as the Huddersfield fans proclaimed “we all hate Leeds scum”. This kind of thing has been par for the course at RL grounds for some years now, with certain rivalries (Wigan-St. Helens, Castleford-Wakefield, Hull-Hull KR and Leeds-Everyone) being especially bitter. Fortunately, the aggression in the crowd is generally defused by the action on the pitch, and I can only remember one incidence of serious crowd trouble in the recent past when irate Hull fans invaded the pitch at Huddersfield’s McAlpine Stadium after a Cup semi-final loss to Leeds (inevitably). But the undercurrent of rivalry bordering on hate bubbles away under the surface at RL grounds, and as with football crowds the supporters just seem to be angry a lot of the time if the widespread bad language is anything to go by – something you just don’t hear at a rugby union game. Indeed, none of the issues mentioned above is present at rugby union grounds, where supporters of rival clubs mingle freely, drink beer together and engage in humorous and good-natured banter.

So hurrah on huzzah for rugby union, great bastion of sportsmanship and repository of sporting ethics par excellence.

Now the bad news. While everything is still hunky-dory at the game itself, away from the stadium and especially online, rugby union followers are getting more and more like those of other sports. Anyone who used to go on the old BBC 606 forum will know what I mean – the place should have cut the pretence and just called itself Fight Club. I left a Facebook rugby discussion group just before the 6 Nations started because I could see what was coming and didn’t want any part of it. However, I do get all the RBS news on my timeline so I was ‘privileged’ to read some of the ‘discussion’ that played out after what I like to call The Game That Never Was when my beloved England were well and truly spanked by Wales.

The online forums (fora?) were what you’d expect afterwards. Fans of Wales (and everyone else especially Ireland) gloating – not a hint of graciousness in victory. Many fans of England moaning about the ref and blaming the defeat on him – not a hint of humility in defeat from the vast majority of posters. Sound familiar? Some of the hatred levelled at England’s players was vile, like expressions of regret that this or that player hadn’t been put in a wheelchair for life. Clearly a record win isn’t enough for some. England fans reserved their bile mainly for ref Steve Walsh, but however flawed his performance (that’s a topic for another post), death threats are a bit much – it’s only a game.

Just a one off? The discussion about Cian Healy’s stamp on Dan Cole was similarly heated, with one section of supporters advocating a severe punishment beating for Healy (equating a game of rugby with Ulster’s sectarian issues – genius), while others saying Cole got what he deserved for cheating and Healy should have really hurt him. Or the Lions selection debates, pre- and post-squad announcement. Attempts at discussing the relative merits of the available players were hijacked by those with a nationalist agenda. Their MO is simple: anyone not from my country is worthless and has to be slagged off mercilessly in the most basic terms. So apparently we learned that Sam Warburton is a [EXPLETIVE] coward who will bottle it against the Aussies, Owen Farrell is [EXPLETIVE] useless and only picked because of Daddy, and so on. All very unsavoury and the only comfort is the players themselves are unlikely to read any of this garbage.

But the very worst of it is that I’ve started to hear club rivalries expressed in similar terms at grassroots level in age grade rugby. Such and such a club are a set of cheating [EXPLETIVE]s. We don’t play against them, their ref’s bent. I’ve even heard one coach calling a rival club ‘inbred scum’ – and meaning it. Every club buys into the Ethos of Rugby: Teamwork, RESPECT, Enjoyment, Discipline, Sportsmanship. Gradually, over the last six or so years, that word respect seems to mean a bit less. It’s about shaking hands on the pitch and not arguing with the ref and that’s it. But if you do those things and then later bitch about the ref in front of impressionable youngsters, or refer to a club as cheats and refuse to play against them – are you really showing respect for the ethos of the game?

And do we really want to go down the path which leads to supporters chanting abuse at each other and viewing the opposition with hate? Because at the moment, that seems to be what we, aided by the internet, are teaching the game’s future guardians.

TIME TO STAMP ON RUGBY’S THUGS

On Sunday I watched England’s first win in Dublin since 2003 (and only their third over Ireland in that time) from the comfort of my sofa. It certainly wasn’t a pretty game, and unlike the similarly ugly fare on offer in Paris the day before, there wasn’t even a solitary try to cheer. Two penalty goals for Ireland against four by England, the lowest scoring game in 6 Nations history, and the first tryless encounter between these sides since 1984. However, it was an absorbing game, with some flashes of skill from both sides and especially from the adventurous Keith Earls, but mainly a story of guts, commitment, physical intensity and solid tactical kicking in poor conditions. As often in these games, the side making the fewer mistakes was the winner.

Now, I’m a passionate and ‘involved’ supporter and work on the principle that even if I’m not actually at the game, the players might hear my words of encouragement if I can just make them loud enough! I also use the opportunity to give the referee the benefit of my expertise at similar volume – something I would never do at my local club, for example – safe in the knowledge that I’m essentially talking to myself. Sunday’s referee, M. Garcès of France, must have had seriously heated ears at one particular point, when he failed to deal with the following incident which occurred right under his nose.

Healy stamps on Cole

I saw the stamp by Healy at normal speed, and when the whistle went immediately afterwards, assumed that M. Garcès had too and was about to reverse the penalty against England for collapsing the maul, and show Healy a card for serious foul play. On reviewing the incident in slo-mo, I was sure Healy would be red carded; the ball was already won (indeed Conor Murray had his hands on it) and in any case, the part of Cole’s leg stamped on was nowhere near the ball. In other words, the usual defence of over-vigorous but legitimate rucking couldn’t apply, and the offence could only be judged as a deliberate attempt to injure an opponent. As an aside, the replay also showed that after the ball had left the ruck, Peter O’Mahony trampled on Cole as he lay on the floor – this too is in contravention of the Laws.

However, after calming down the fighting players and pulling the captains aside and appealing for ‘discipline’, M. Garcès made no reference to the stamping and carried on with the penalty against England. To say I was flabbergasted sells my reaction rather short. I realised that Healy would be cited (this has indeed happened), but this option now seems to be the default for referees and we risk the game becoming ever more like 13-a-side, where even serious acts of foul play go unpunished on the pitch and are dealt with by the ‘on report’ system instead. And far from eradicate foul play, my belief is that this laxity encourages it.

Incidents of players being ‘targeted’ for special treatment seem to be on the increase (or maybe with the prevalence of cameras we just see more of them), and clearly this sort of thuggish behaviour needs to be cleaned out of the game for a number of good reasons. How, for example, should I explain to my U8 players that they mustn’t indulge in foul play when they see international players getting away with just that? But the citing process alone isn’t enough, and it’s time that a player’s on-field misdeeds had serious on-field consequences. In short, Healy should have been red-carded leaving his team a player short for the rest of the game, and THEN hauled before a disciplinary panel to receive a lengthy ban.

The effect of a sending off is two-fold: it harms the team, leaving 14 men to do the work of 15 – and any player with an ounce of integrity would feel shame at leaving his colleagues in the lurch; and secondly, the reaction of team-mates and management after the game would be of the kind that tends to increase this sense of shame. So players who want to dish it out the way Healy did on Sunday must be made to feel they have let their team down, by events on the pitch as well as by the displeasure of their team-mates. Only in this way will players be made to think before they stamp, gouge or punch players in an attempt to injure or incapacitate. Citing alone, like the on-report system in 13-a-side, allows the ref to abdicate responsibility and thereby avoid accusations of influencing the game – and for that reason, refs need to be encouraged and empowered to take a stand on foul play before someone gets seriously hurt.