zylya

Like a few others have mentioned, a few things from other sports that would hopefully help reduce the incidence of poor touchline behaviour and increase the enjoyment of kids playing: - RFU do a half-game rule for everyone U18 - so each player must get half a game. Possibly slightly better than equal playing time, since you could leave your best players on for the whole game, but you avoid the issue where a kid travels to an away game to get 2 minutes at the end. I personally know 5 players who stopped playing adults rugby union because they were only getting 5/10 minutes per game - giving up a whole Saturday to travel up to 90 minutes just to sit and watch others play - now imagine how much worse it would be for a child. Fortunately for adults rugby league in the south, the game is so demanding that subs rarely have that problem - everyone wants to have a breather - The FA have done "Silent Support" which is probably a better idea than not having a crowd at all - where parents can applaud but the aim is to cut out all of the sideline instructions and let players make their own decisions. Part of the strapline is "let the players play" - so allowing kids to make mistakes without fear and to help build some psychological safety. The more we can do to make junior rugby league an enjoyable experience, the more players are going to stay involved in the game. The likelihood is that players who are good enough to go pro will make it regardless of what we do at the junior game, but there will be players who aren't as good at rugby league but could become future community level players, club volunteers, referees or even coaches of their own children in the future. If their overwhelming memory of playing junior rugby league is negative, then they're less likely to do these things.

I think you're overestimating just how much financial resource would be needed to start implementing some of these. For example, a WSL U19 and/or colleges competition would have the following costs centrally: * Central venue for a final + live streaming costs * Any other live streaming costs * Referee costs * Cost of admin/marketing for the competition (but likely within someone's workload so not a new member of staff) Most of the rest of the cost would be borne by the participating teams (travel, filming, coaching, medical etc). The RFU run a top level colleges league for women which has the final live streamed and played at Twickenham. But they don't pay all the colleges to be part of the competition. Create minimum operating standards for the college teams and then build a good competition for them to play in. Rather than paying for 4-6 coaches yourself, you could invest in developing the 4-6 coaches that the colleges hire (coaching courses, mentoring etc) at a fraction of the cost. You could even invite them into England U19 camps as part of their ongoing development. Level up the whole picture. Some of these just need some energy attached to it - e.g. a southern academy I mentioned as part-time, but there might even be a way to do a lesser version with 1/2 self employed coaches paid per session and then filled out with volunteers. Retaining them per session would keep the overall cost lower and not creating any ongoing head count issues for the RFL in terms of employment. Using community clubs as the base, plus engaging volunteers would allow you to start it off without particularly high costs. The only one that I can see having a significant cost would be the full England U19 team - but even then there's ways to defray that cost e.g. using coaches already on RFL payroll for parts of delivery, fundraising effort by players & parents for Australia tour, deals with colleges/universities to use their facilities for camps. But if there's no investment of any kind (financial, energy etc) to develop players and systems to find talented athletes with lots of potential, then we're going to be outpaced by Australia and eventually not get invited to things like Vegas because it won't be a good game.

One thing I notice in women's Rugby Union in England is that the whole season is set up to enable maximum success for the national team - for example, the World Cup this year has meant that they've finished this year's Prem in time for the 6 Nations and then will start next season's Prem after the World Cup is over - meaning that there's no problem with access. The three main "problems" I see within Rugby League at the moment in terms of the women's game: 1. There aren't enough women's internationals and there's very little structure to the international season 2. The current women's pyramid building seems more focused on growing the number of players and teams in the women's game rather than building the strongest possible national team - this isn't necessarily a bad thing per se, but won't necessarily help the national team in the short to medium term 3. There's barely any pathway for young athletes to get the high levels of coaching required in their formative years - again as a comparison to Rugby Union, they run an U18 Women's Six Nations and most of those teams also run an U20 team that plays a variety of fixtures. There aren't any quick fixes for all of these problems. If I was in charge and putting together the strategy I would be focused on the following: 1. An England U19 pathway set up and work with France and Wales to ensure they're doing similar for annual fixtures. Build a regular touring schedule to Australia/New Zealand to gain real exposure. Have 1-2 full time staff running this so that they can run regular camps and keep in touch with players for ongoing support/tracking. Alongside this: - Build out WSL19s - with some minimum standards attached (medical, strength & conditioning, maximum number of players so as not to completely gut the community game) - ideal 6 well run teams for 10 games + SF/F. Ensure that this competition fits in well with the season - so that the top U19 players are available to play WSL games and that players aren't playing 2 games a week as much as possible if they're also at a RL college - especially if it's the bigger games (so definitely not WSL19s on the week before/after the college final). Live stream the final at a minimum, but as many games as possible the better (not for fans necessarily but because the experience on being on live stream is a powerful motivator for young people). All games filmed as a minimum. - Build out colleges game - some decent work started here, but allow ambitious colleges the opportunity to partner with WSL clubs to share resources and develop players while maintaining an education - ideal (short term) 4-6 high performance colleges (again including provision around medical, S&C etc). Again, live stream as much as possible. Filming games a requirement for colleges with film uploaded to central repo for England U19 coaches to watch. Keep building it as a meaningful competition while still building a participation model beneath it to encourage other colleges to start. - Set up 2-3 RFL run U19 academies in London & SE/South West/Midlands. Not full time things, but PT coaching staff who identify talented players, run camps, play each other as main competition plus chance to play occasional games against WSL U19. The first two (WSL19s and Colleges) are development pathways - i.e. make young players better, this one is an identification pathway to funnel players into the late developer pathway - not necessarily going to create lots of England U19 players (although there will likely be some incredible athletes unearthed who could go on to England U19). Again, all games to be filmed and put on central repo. 2. A better "late developer" transition pathway - Build out universities game - build towards a Unis Super League, again trying to get high performance cultures into uni rugby league. This might be a target for players identified in Southern Regions to combine education with a RL pathway (players more likely to move for university). - (Re-?)Establish England Knights as a mostly U23 team and play full women's teams in Europe. Not that the fixtures will necessarily be of a high enough standard, but give the players a chance to experience what it's like in camp, and for coaches to have an idea of future players. No quota or anything, but this team should be looking at some "wildcard selections" from bottom half of WSL, Championship and Southern/Midlands leagues. 3. WSL "restructure" I wouldn't be changing too much here, but rather than Home/Away, I would be doing 1 round vs everyone (7 games) and then split into top 4/bottom 4 for and play the other teams in your pool twice more (+6 games = 13). 4th v 5th Eliminator play-off and then into semi finals. Keep Challenge Cup broadly as is - it's aspirational for clubs outside the Top 4. Having Championship kick off, then Challenge Cup starts, means that Championship teams can be better prepared for the challenge (no pun intended) and for WSL clubs it's a decent pre-season competition. Only change is that I'd have the Challenge Shield have a "fall-in" so the teams that get knocked out in the Group Stages (and possibly Quarter Finals) of the Cup fall into the Shield at a later round. Although there are some blowouts, the reality is that it allows Bottom 4 WSL teams to see where they're at in pre-season, it allows Championship teams to see where they are compared to both Bottom 4 WSL but also Top 4 WSL. You don't want tons of games between Top 4 and Champ teams, but 1 a season in group stages gives players a chance to experience the magic of the cup and to play against a top team. If I had to summarise it, basically there's a need to establish a viable pathway for players who, e.g. live too far away from a top 4 WSL club but have the potential required. Without these pathways into the top level, there will be high quality athletes who just won't see the value if they don't feel that opportunities exist. Success breeds success - so players are more likely to push to a top 4 WSL club if they've had positive success along the way. A top athlete in London or Bristol or Birmingham isn't relocating to St Helens/Wigan/Leeds/York on the off-chance, but if they're already on the England radar, maybe it's an easier decision for them to move or undertake the extra travel time. If players are identified earlier and given pathway opportunities then their skill set will be higher and professionalism stronger. The standard of WSL will go up as well.

The National final is part of BUCS Big Wednesday so every now and then it's streamed by BUCS. There's not a lot on offer though unfortunately. Super Rugby (the union comp) does a lot of live streaming for both men and women's competitions, which is building the profile of the unis game.

Central funding for League One has been reported as £20,000 pa. That's barely enough to cover one development officer salary, let alone the other costs of having an employee and the budget they'd need to promote activity (equipment, travel etc).

I've never been a fan of the varsity match as a concept - I can't think of a single sport where Oxford vs Cambridge is the best two teams (maybe the Boat Race in fairness). I get the argument of traditionalism etc but for me, we should be making a big event out of the University National League final before Oxford vs Cambridge. Get more of the top uni games live streamed (on YouTube) especially the final.

This kind of got lost a bit, but great to see Broncos supporting the work the RFL is doing in schools in the Southern Regions. The more schools we can get into the sport, the better. It's easier to teach than Rugby Union and you don't need specialised positions/set piece the same way you do in union as well so overall more accessible for schools especially where they don't have a history/background in union.

I like the new Broncos pathway setup - lots of development camps that work in tandem with the players' community clubs at U12-U15. I believe coaches are also invited to the camps (if they're not, they should be) to help upskill them. The players receive feedback which is also sent to their community coaches so that they're better supported. Then U16 and U18 they're running London Origin Elite which is a 12-week training programme, including nutrition, gym, lifestyle etc and 3 North vs South games, again to fit in alongside their community club schedules. If the Broncos can build out an academy system which has hubs (i.e. North and South origin) but moving from 2 hubs to 4 hubs (NE, NW, SE, SW of London & surrounding counties) then you can create a representative pathway that could include a decent rep competition but with the primary focus on improving all the players in front of you. Hopefully it also connects the young players more to the Broncos as an outfit so the ones that don't have aspirations to go pro can become supporters of the club.

I'm excited to see how this additional profile translates in the next couple of years - as someone involved in a community club outside of the heartlands, I'm also hoping that the extra attention and availability (BBC, streaming etc) of top flight Rugby League will also help generate interest in people playing the sport across the country, both kids and adults. A rising tide lifting all boats scenario.

No we didn't. We had a semi professional league 1 with a variety of expansion teams created to join it. That's not a pathway because there's no ongoing process. What I'm saying is remove the arbitrary barrier between League 1 and the two Conference Leagues and let clubs build how they want, with a promotion & relegation structure (that could include minimum standards if necessary). e.g. League 1 bottom team gets relegated (suspended for a few years til League 1 gets to the right size) and the winner of the SCL and NCL Grand Finals play off for the spot. You could even have a playoff game between the bottom team and the winner of the NCL/SCL final. That way, if Skolars ever attracted the investment they were looking for, they could re-earn League 1 status over time. At the moment, it's a huge slog for League 1 clubs to find the funding to operate (limited number of home games, limited central funding etc). Likewise if a group ever invested into a lower down Rugby League club, they could in theory work their way up to Super League without any outside interference, e.g. when Manchester Rangers were denied entry because "too many other teams nearby." If you're good enough, and build your business well enough, you can find promotion. Clubs that don't want to push towards promotion don't have to, but clubs with ambition have a viable pathway to get their club up the pyramid. Additionally, Hemel and Skolars are now both rebuilding in Southern Conference - so you already have the relegation part of it available for clubs. But at the moment, when a club drops out from League 1, it's a traumatic process, whereas a natural promotion/relegation would allow for a smoother transition of teams. Wests and Hammersmith both beat NCL Premier teams in the challenge cup so the gap in playing ability has clearly been closed.

This is what I was trying to say as well - get rid of the whole “this is the semi pro league and this is the amateur league” and have a pathway through for clubs to hit their own aspirations if they choose to dedicate the resources to it.

Obviously the neatest short term solution is a 12/11 split, but I think it’s time for the RFL to start looking at a national pyramid like they’ve introduced in the women’s game. League 1 to sit above NCL/SCL with a promotion playoff between the two regions (with NCL renamed Northern Conference). Of course, they would have to make promotion to League 1 be an attractive proposition, which I’m not sure it is at the moment. That said, there have been some teams wanted to join League 1 in the past - a national pyramid would remove the “block” on new clubs (E.g. Manchester) but they’d have to prove their stripes before they could get there. Obviously you’d have to change things around so there’s not a clear pro/amateur split which has a lot of historical context so wouldn’t necessarily be a simple process.

Whether growth of Rugby League as a sport is their stated purpose or not, everyone here seems to agree that NRL wants to make money off the back of this. It might only be small numbers, but now you've got a group of Rugby League enthusiasts who are ###### off and won't go to the game. It's probably not the end of the world, but the NRL would probably do well to send some free kit to these guys with an apology and even better if they can get a player to visit as well. The video on the article also clearly shows the kids rucking over after a carry, so Leniu's not even delivering a Rugby League session. He called a high school rugby union team "the pinnacle of Rugby League" in the area. It's not that this is the biggest mistake they've ever made, or that it's not salvageable at this stage, but running things like coaching clinics is part of a strategy to get supporters interested in the product. Creating life time fans rather than just plugging a few events in Vegas. If the NRL stars runs a coaching clinic and the 4 youth clubs in Utah all get an extra 10-20% membership and that catalyst helps them grow to more clubs etc then you've got a ready-made group of people who are going to want to come and watch the NRL when it comes back the next year. Going to a rugby union high school and coaching rugby union is pretty one-and-done in terms of getting fans through the door. The marketer in me also thinks that this is actually an opportunity for the NRL - because you could send them a load of free NRL stash, make an apology and offer some time from your marketing/design department to create some cool graphics and website for the Utah clubs to help them get seen. And offer a coaching session when you next can.

The changes I were referring to with my post were the tag/touch til U10 - so a few years of playing before they get to contact work - promoting evasion and catch-pass skills. My hope would be that smaller players will still be able to find success on pitch once they then graduate to contact, by using some of those evasion/catch-pass skills that they've spent a few years developing. I also think that a kid who plays for 2-3 years will be less likely to have a single negative contact experience that makes them want to leave the sport. Obviously some players will come to realise that contact rugby isn't for them, however they may remain involved in the game in non-contact environments if they've had positive experiences.

I am not a lawyer

IANAL, but given that the game already carries an element of risk, I imagine that any good-faith effort to reduce the likelihood of head injuries would not count against the RFL, especially if the research done post-change highlighted this and they reverted. The current lawsuit alleges that Rugby League (via its governing bodies) didn't take action to protect players from concussion and repeated concussive events. If they can point to the research they've carried out and the changes they've made because of it and then, if they're wrong, revert the change in good time then I don't believe that they would be specifically liable in that instance.

I work in rugby environments of both codes, ranging all the way from U12 (and very occasionally primary school) all the way through to Open Age, and I can honestly say that one of my biggest challenges with young players is lack of catch-pass. The majority of youth rugby that I see, up to around U14/U15, is determined by which team has either the oldest kids (i.e. relative age effect) and/or most early onset puberty kids. I've seen games at U13 & U14 level decided by a team that gave the ball to their biggest player over and over again and that player does 80%+ of the work. That doesn't make for great learning outcomes for the other 12 players! Especially because give it to the big lad as a strategy only works for so long - loads of opportunity to learn how to read the game/play tactically/develop the majority of your players missed. My experience as a player and subsequently as a coach, as well as anecdotally from others, is that the players who have that initial physical dominance tend to either drop out when everyone else catches up in terms of physical maturation or find themselves unequipped in skill terms to hold their own any more. There is an effect where smaller players who matured later do find themselves with excellent skillsets (no doubt from trying to avoid getting tackled by the aforementioned physically dominant players) however, I wonder how many kids got stream-rolled at 8/9/10 years old and decided "rugby isn't for me." I think there's a bigger element at play than just the future professionals of the game - we need loads of kids playing and being involved in the game because they're our future supporters, volunteers and coaches as well as players, even if most of them will never progress beyond community rugby. More skilful players, and longer development time on those core skills of evasion and catch-pass will have positive outcomes in the longer term. I don't believe it will have a long term detrimental impact on the game - in fact, by having players start to learn the complex multi-faceted movement patterns involved in tackling later on in life, they're likely going to be better at tackling in the long run.

Ah didn't see this before I posted it on the International Forum. But to repeat myself, have been really impressed with what they're doing in the Netherlands at the moment. Lots of good stuff, working hard to grow the game.

https://rugbyleague.nl/u19s-squad-named-for-inaugural-tour/ Two matches against community sides and visits to professional clubs. Have been really impressed with the Netherlands recently - lots of good stuff in both men's and women's and now pushing their youth as well.

This is an excellent post and mirrors a lot of my own experience as someone who was born in a non-RL area and only took up the game for the first time at uni and am now involved in running Rugby League activity (club and some schools stuff). There was no "effort" to expand into my home town, I set it up by getting in touch with people and making it happen. The idea that the RFL is ploughing tons of cash into expansion areas is demonstrably false - even at the pro level, look at the fates of West Wales & Skolars over the last couple of years. There's a skeleton staff at the RFL dealing with "The South" (i.e. everything that's not the heartlands, even though that covers way more than just South of England) and they've always been really helpful, but it's a drop in the ocean. To suggest that there's money wasted on expansion projects is crazy when there's only one full time staff member for the largest part of the country. Despite that, small pockets of progress are happening - I took a local school to the London & SE Champion Schools festival the other day (U14) and there were 7 schools there all playing 13-a-side rugby league. The more that can be made of these things, the more likely it continues. The problem for the traditionalists is that there's practically zero money to divert from the expansion areas to the heartlands - since as FI has pointed out here, most of it is coming from enthusiastic amateurs. Because as someone who's never lived up North and only took up the sport at university, I'm not going to be sending any money to places over 5 hours away from me. I'll either invest my time and energy into building something in my local community or I'll simply spend that same time and energy in other pursuits. This heartlands vs expansion debate is trite and irrelevant since there's no real funding or time/energy invested into non-heartland areas at a NGB level.

Got it, you don't have any examples at all. Even in the post pointing out your own hyperbole you still suggested that World Cups have been built around the very minor nations, but it's good to know that you can't actually point to a single time this was the case and are therefore talking out of your ###### about it.

Take it that's a no on pointing to any World Cup that was designed for the tiny countries as you've claimed a few times? As I mentioned earlier in this topic, I don't even have a problem with the IRL deciding that the World Cup should be smaller and acting accordingly. But why, as the global governing body, have they not created anything to help these developing nations as well as their top nations? Looking at the "international calendar" it's mostly about what's happening with England and Australia, aside from a brief mention of a potential World Series competition. I don't see how you can legitimately try and claim that the IRL has shown any real interest in anything OTHER than the very top nations. And I don't see how anyone can justify a global governing body being so lackadaisical with a large segment of their membership.

I wouldn't 100% be against a 4-3-3 group system as long as it's drawn like this: Pot 1 (top 4 ranked teams) - 2 into Group 1, 1 into G2/3 Pot 2 (teams ranked 5-7) - 1 into each group Pot 3 (teams ranked 8-10) - 1 into each group So that there's still an element of fairness in the groupings. 2 teams would qualify from the group of 4, 1 from the 2 groups of 3. Creates some good jeopardy - still likely that the top 4 teams would end up in the semi finals, but a single upset in a group of 3 would be enough to get a different team in. Also means a marquee game in Group 1. Would be happy for the hosts (Australia or New Zealand depending on where it ends up held) to be in Group 1 and their game against the other Pot 1 team to be the tournament opener - less random, but gives a decent opening game. Would make the draw easier to explain as well. Super Group can get in the bin though.

Ok, but that's not really what's happening here. Brazil Men played in an IRL initiated qualifier (at their own expense) and after winning, they've been told that now there's actually no chance for them to qualify. Brazil Women earned a spot in the 2025 RLWC after participating in the 2021 RLWC. This has now been rescinded also. And in return, they get... nothing! A tournament that has no structure announced, no dates, no hosts, no funding model. It'd be interesting to hear how anyone could justify all the goalpost shifting here... especially with full membership of the IRL being such a joke in terms of teams with hardly any domestic activity holding on to their full membership status. You say that you can't build a RLWC around the needs of minor nations and that we've done so before, but I can't see any example of a RLWC which has been built for anyone other than Australia, England and New Zealand. All of the previous 10/14 team tournaments were specifically designed to get those three into the semi finals (e.g. 3 qualifying from a group of 4). To suggest that somehow the IRL board, which is disproportionately represented by officials from Eng, Aus, NZ, has been creating World Cups that benefit tiny nations over the established ones is just completely incorrect. Please point to one World Cup where it's been built disproportionately around the needs of the smallest nations.

A governing body that just exists to serve countries that already have functioning systems is hardly a governing body at all. As a membership organisation, its role should be to support and develop the entire game. That means that projects like the RLWC will ALREADY receive most of the IRL revenues, but that doesn't mean that they don't also have a responsibility to their other members to grow and develop the game there.