Petition against the new rules being implemented

[Clarkey]

Please click the link below and sign the petition.

https://chng.it/kTttcqVWmg

[JohnM]

3 hours ago, Clarkey said:

Please click the link below and sign the petition.

https://chng.it/kTttcqVWmg

No. 

[Clarkey]

7 hours ago, JohnM said:

No. 

Do you support the rules they're trying to bring in to ruin the game?

[JohnM]

No. I fully support the rules that have been brought in to improve the game. 

[The Blues Ox]

Reading the petition this is purely regarding the removing of contact below under 10's isnt it? Personally I think its  not a bad idea although I would also have been in favor of reducing the space bewteen defenders and attackers as an alternative. I think non contact will encourage a lot more attacking work with the ball which is not a bad thing.

[RigbyLuger]

What an utter waste of time.

[Dunbar]

2 hours ago, The Blues Ox said:

Reading the petition this is purely regarding the removing of contact below under 10's isnt it? Personally I think its  not a bad idea although I would also have been in favor of reducing the space bewteen defenders and attackers as an alternative. I think non contact will encourage a lot more attacking work with the ball which is not a bad thing.

Indeed, it's nothing to do with the tackle height, it is tackle or no tackle in under 6 and under 7 age groups.

[sam4731]

Protecting the players is paramount or we'll just end up with a body count piled high down the line. Sport evolves and just because the game isn't the same as it was 128 years ago, doesn't mean it's not rugby league. It's very easy to look back to a time when rugby league was a 'proper' sport but the version of rugby league that you're remembering would have been thought as a game for pansies by those in the George Hotel all those years ago.

If you want to sign the petition, do by all means, but think about whether you're also signing a petition advocating your kids getting dementia in later life.

[zylya]

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.

[del capo]

The rule changes adopt a phased approach over time ( no child now tackling will have to stop doing that ) . They invite coaches  instead to concentrate  on the techniques that encourage a running and passing game and not one that prefers to encourage big six year olds to skittle others out of the way and in so doing out of the game altogether.

I for one expected coaches of our children to have adopted a more  enlightened approach  to the education of our future players than  a luddite style petition , but then again  I  once recall a time when a teacher/ coach refused to let primary school aged girls play on the same team as boys...........

[Blind side johnny]

On 09/12/2023 at 09:15, Clarkey said:

Please click the link below and sign the petition.

https://chng.it/kTttcqVWmg

Nope. I believe that player welfare is paramount.

[overtheborder]

On 11/12/2023 at 23:09, zylya said:

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.

Great post, which I think not only relates to the new rule changes but actually touches on the culture of youth sport as a whole, and pretty much sums up why it can be beneficial to focus on learning outcomes as opposed to simply winning (not that there isn't a place for that approach from a learning perspective either at times).

Genuine question though - do you think the new changes will stop smaller players getting "steamrollered"? The way I see it, the tackle changes will mean players either get dominated just with a different technique, but also none of this would affect the instances where defenders simply get run over by a bigger player who's carrying the ball. I don't coach RL so just genuinely interested in what you think on that.

That said, I would say I am in support of the changes overall, in principle at least.

[Midlands hobo]

On 11/12/2023 at 23:09, zylya said:

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 thought there was an idea to move to size banding not age banding to avoid this.

[zylya]

5 hours ago, overtheborder said:

Great post, which I think not only relates to the new rule changes but actually touches on the culture of youth sport as a whole, and pretty much sums up why it can be beneficial to focus on learning outcomes as opposed to simply winning (not that there isn't a place for that approach from a learning perspective either at times).

Genuine question though - do you think the new changes will stop smaller players getting "steamrollered"? The way I see it, the tackle changes will mean players either get dominated just with a different technique, but also none of this would affect the instances where defenders simply get run over by a bigger player who's carrying the ball. I don't coach RL so just genuinely interested in what you think on that.

That said, I would say I am in support of the changes overall, in principle at least.

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.

 

[Sports Prophet]

On 10/12/2023 at 22:51, sam4731 said:

Protecting the players is paramount or we'll just end up with a body count piled high down the line. Sport evolves and just because the game isn't the same as it was 128 years ago, doesn't mean it's not rugby league. It's very easy to look back to a time when rugby league was a 'proper' sport but the version of rugby league that you're remembering would have been thought as a game for pansies by those in the George Hotel all those years ago.

If you want to sign the petition, do by all means, but think about whether you're also signing a petition advocating your kids getting dementia in later life.

If we haven’t got a body count piled high already through all the years of thuggery the sport endured, then I don’t expect the bodies to start piling high now.

I find this topic alarmist and feeding a narrative too many are swallowing.

How on earth can a sport be held responsible for injuries of a profession when governments can’t be held accountable for not outlawing cigarettes. 

[gingerjon]

6 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

How on earth can a sport be held responsible for injuries of a profession when governments can’t be held accountable for not outlawing cigarettes. 

Fantastic.

I knew we'd get to the most stupid possible argument soon enough.

[Sports Prophet]

8 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Fantastic.

I knew we'd get to the most stupid possible argument soon enough.

I can do better. Soon we will outlaw the use of knives in commercial kitchens because of all the cut fingers the apprentices get.

My point was a little tongue in cheek which passed you by as you seem to be too engulfed in all this hysteria of “player safety” in a sport which will never be safe.

Edited December 14, 2023 by Sports Prophet

[gingerjon]

4 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

I can do better. Soon we will outlaw the use of knives in commercial kitchens because of all the cut fingers the apprentices get.

My point was a little tongue in cheek which passed you by as you seem to be too engulfed in all this hysteria of “player safety” in a sport which will never be safe.

Nah. Your point remains absolutely laughable.

EDIT

But, to be kind, do go into a commercial kitchen and see if they just have knives out on the side, blades up, and nothing to do if someone gets a cut.

Edited December 14, 2023 by gingerjon

[Sports Prophet]

49 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Nah. Your point remains absolutely laughable.

EDIT

But, to be kind, do go into a commercial kitchen and see if they just have knives out on the side, blades up, and nothing to do if someone gets a cut.

I would suggest that the terrible culinary example you have given would be like professional RL matches without doctors and paramedics present, no defibrillator or stretchers, no emergency procedures and no magic sponge. Which of course doesn’t exist. So I suggest the most stupid argument goes to you my friend.

Edited December 14, 2023 by Sports Prophet

[gingerjon]

5 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

I would suggest that the terrible culinary example you have given would be like professional RL matches without doctors and paramedics present, no defibrillator and no emergency procedures. Which of course doesn’t exist. 

Health and safety, eh?

And all of the above will, at some point, have been seen as unnecessary because the game is dangerous.

[Sports Prophet]

38 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Health and safety, eh?

And all of the above will, at some point, have been seen as unnecessary because the game is dangerous.

Your attitude to the wellbeing of players is to be commended, but please pardon me if I don’t wish you well on your endeavours to turn RL into Tag Rugby.

[gingerjon]

2 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

Your attitude to the wellbeing of players is to be commended, but please pardon me if I don’t wish you well on your endeavours to turn RL into Tag Rugby.

Nothing in these changes turns rugby league into tag rugby.

[Sports Prophet]

3 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Nothing in these changes turns rugby league into tag rugby.

It’s one small step for league, one giant leap towards tag rugby.

Edited December 14, 2023 by Sports Prophet

[sam4731]

1 hour ago, Sports Prophet said:

If we haven’t got a body count piled high already through all the years of thuggery the sport endured, then I don’t expect the bodies to start piling high now.

I find this topic alarmist and feeding a narrative too many are swallowing.

How on earth can a sport be held responsible for injuries of a profession when governments can’t be held accountable for not outlawing cigarettes. 

We have got bodies piling high, the amount of former professionals that have ended up with some form of brain issues that will inevitably have contributed to many early demises will be staggeringly high.

It may not be the job of government to outlaw cigarettes but they can do what is possible to limit its harmful impact which is what they do.

[Sports Prophet]

10 minutes ago, sam4731 said:

We have got bodies piling high, the amount of former professionals that have ended up with some form of brain issues that will inevitably have contributed to many early demises will be staggeringly high.

It may not be the job of government to outlaw cigarettes but they can do what is possible to limit its harmful impact which is what they do.

If it’s not the job of the government to outlaw death sticks, then whose job is it?

Some pursuits in life have an inherent level of danger associated with them. I accept the level of danger which exists with RL and I think the majority of people who love this sport do also.

I do not believe in indoctrination. Models for the prevention of concussion are being updated, ammended and applied faster than the study of outcomes from original updates have been tested properly. These changes may lead to an increase in concussions as without doubt, they guide the tackler to lower the body position and place their heads in more compromising positions than the upright tackler.