The 2017 national schoolboy rugby season is fast approaching and there are already allegations doing the rounds about several schools who are expected to field 1st XV’s with excessive numbers of under-19 players.
For years now there’s been an ongoing debate about whether or not under-19 players should be allowed to play school rugby.
No doubt in most cases a boy that’s between one and two age-groups year older than his 1st XV peers will benefit though natural growth physical advantages if nothing else.
Irrespective of this on the surface it would certainly seem an unjust punishment to prohibit a legitimate turned or turning 19 years old student from representing his school, especially if he’s been a learner there since grade-8.
But what should the ruling be if a school purposely abuses this principle and imports older players with the primary intention of giving their 1st XV a distinct advantage over opponents who have always respect the plight of under-19’s still at school but have never tried to manipulate it to gain an unfair upper-hand.
The plight of under-19’s still at school:
Somewhere around 2007 SA rugby caught on big time to the idea of conditioning junior players (the common term given to young players aged between 19 and 21). As a result profession rugby unions’ institutes and academies took off.
During more or less the same period, pressure was applied to certain schools to phase out their post matric year. An influencing decision was changing the Craven Week and SA Schools cut-off age to under-18 and younger player only. Up until then under-19’s had been allowed to participate and earn SA Schools caps.
The two factors mentioned in the two paragraphs immediately above effectively meant that virtually overnight the once massive advantage/incentive of being an under-19 at school became a thing of the past.
For many years thereafter, it was a sort of death-sentence for an aspiring under-19 player with an ambition to pursue a career in pro rugby to be stuck in a classroom for several hours per day, while those out of school and in his same age-group enjoyed the benefits of training as near enough to full-time professions. On top of this it was definitely not an easy year-long gap to bridge either and unsurprisingly very few players who’d been star under-19’s at school made it to senior rugby.
So for a few years the system was extremely harsh on students who had genuine reasons for being a year behind in school. Amongst the challenges they faced were that unions were not too interested in signing them.
However these circumstances have changed a lot in recent years. For one, many schools have made huge strides in their own conditioning programmes and are now very well organised. Unions have also upped their game and are now doing a lot more to help those turning 19 while still at school to stay on track. All this has combined to make the transition to junior rugby a lot smoother nowadays and more of those under-19 school players that once fell by the wayside after matric are now progressing to senior rugby without any hiccups at all.
This swing around has its merits but it’s also placed the school rugby system at a potential risk of seeing a return of the post-matric style player – broadly defined as an A-team sportsman who arrives at his new high school from a different school either in his grade-11 or grade-12 year or intentionally stays a year back at his current school, turns 19 in his final year at school and was recruited or encouraged to stay back by the school for the primary goal of boosting their first team rugby (and possibly other A-team sports).
Action may be required
It’s a situation that needs to be monitored closely. If loop-holes do exist and schools are taking advantage, more regulations should be implemented.
SARU with the help of Boksmart possibly needs to consider stepping in from a safety viewpoint.
Headmasters also need to stay on top of the situation and act to protect the integrity of schoolboy rugby in their own regions if required.
In KZN the participation of under-19 is regarded as a privilege and not a right. A fairly rigid KZN Headmasters’ Agreement exists to regulate under-19 players. It achieves its desired objective but it has had it’s downfall in terms of headmasters not being prepared to compromise when unique cases arise that call for merited exceptions.
@Far Meadows: You mean his Bluff Handbag?
@Far Meadows: Whahahahaha. Morning Far Meadows, you learn a ton on this blog.
@Bush: Springfield … nice , good to see that
you have graduated from ‘ Chateau de Cardboard’.
@Grasshopper: My best buddy. I looked at my Year book in 1991 and was quiet disappointed that we only played 12 games our year. It was horrible for the season to end, we weren’t pro’s just okes. We only have 600 okes playing cricket, waterpolo, tennis, hockey, rugby, chess, kissing “your sister” catchers, ballet, canoeing, under water hockey, butterfly identification and a member of the orbi conservatory oh yes and still can fit in the rural community work and then least of all academics. Sushi I wish I was a Hopper. Then I could just focus on Rugby and myself.
@Ploegskaar: Whahahahaha Ploegskaar. What is a Crayfish Shell?. Thanks for the enlightenment of the Springfield Estate Online shopping. I’ve become their number 2 customer. I bought a few of the Estate Reserves. My Maat flip ek keur lekker met my buffels.
@Bush: Don’t you guys just fly in copters over that stuff and drop crayfish shells on the the poverty stricken populae below?
@Grasshopper: My best buddy. You apologized for been a ***. Banter is great let’s not go over the falls again. I don’t think any game, be it chess or ballet is going to be easy in the Midlands.
@Bush: if you want a soft fixture list go up to the silver spooners in the Midlands….
@Grasshopper: Eish so the entire KZN is then Irish.
Did you ever hear of the Irish Helicopter Exjector seat that was in invented in Dublin
@Bush: we give them 3 days to prove themselves before asking them to move to a 2nd Tier school like House or Hilton
@Grasshopper: A term?That must be a record for GW.
@GreenBlooded: GB, I was so confused. I heard it normally takes about 8 games to get your GW Cap. Luck of the Irish 1st game.
@Beet I didn’t even try and ask his age, how far is the Eastern Cape from Ireland??????????
@beet: And that’s my point, all traditional rugby schools are wonderful academic institutions that send well balanced young men into the world. A parent must be very ill-informed or plain stupid to make any other choice
@beet: I think the two Irish boys are 16 on exchange for a term.
@Ploegskaar: I think this is where part of the big debate starts.
For me SBR should be about scholars who play rugby and not about rugby players that visit the classroom for a few lessons every day.
Yes by all means make use of the latest scientific methods and coaching models available and prepare to succeed on the field but always keep rugby in context in relation to overall school life.
When schools do things like poach players and deny kids the opportunity to play a full 60-70 minutes of rugby on a Saturday, all in the name of winning, something special is lost and it starts to feel like school rugby is more about the adults satisfying their own needs rather than kids thriving in a healthy balanced educational environment.
@Ploegskaar:
@beet: We do have a few cry babies, as is the case every where, but the majority just play what’s in front of them. If we honest Bishops and the SS schools can do with any help, be that post Matrics or fresh legs, so who blames them. WRT to the squad system, I am all for it. Innovative and forward thinking by PRG, especially with buy-in from the players.
@Wonder: I don’t think Boksmart allows u20s to play SBR any longer.
@Ploegskaar: In the Western Cape two incidents do come to mind:
1- Bishops’ so called post matric which I think was some sort of A-levels matric as opposed to tertiary education. There was dissatisfaction over this.
2 – recently the squad system came under question. PRG fielded a fresh bench for their games while a couple of SS schools were/are in the habit of keeping 4 fresh players on the sideline. Not all were too pleased with this arrangement either.
@Ploegskaar: The controls aren’t necessarily bad. I would add to what you’re saying by adding “culture” to the equation. In regions where they are more relaxed, people generally don’t see the need to regulate or over-regulate.
@Bush: Surely the Irish player is still u18 or younger. Glenwood was one of the schools that insisted the Westville cricketer/rugby player that spent a few weeks in matric before going back to gr 11 a few years ago, not be allowed to play either sport in his u19 year. It would be a double standard if Glenwood now permitted an u19 foreigner to play.
Sorry unless the Irish cricketer has been at Glenwood since Gr10, in which case he is cleared to play.
@beet: It is obvious that there are only controls in place in regions that cannot conduct and control themselves properly. The rest of the country, which can obviously behave without effort, should honestly not be affected because of 2 bad apples
For me this is simple, it is in the best interest of the child to play. I can’t see that any straight thinking parent would hold his child back a year for the sole reason that the kid would be able to have a physical advantage on the rugby field. You can’t discriminate against a kid because of the decisions made by his parents.
If a kid fails two years at school it means he may very well be under 20, so it raises the question, until what age will he be allowed to play school boy rugby? Even if he is allowed to plays for the second team it will be dangerous to allow him to play against 0/17’s.
@Grasshopper: As far as I know an u19 exchange student can play school rugby in any region in SA except in KZN Tier-1 or in the various Noordvaal early season u18 cup competitions.
An amendment to the KZN HMA resulted in u19 exchange students being excluded. Also KZN has a player register. All schools are required to register their players details. So it is possible to track players. There are a number of KZN schools tier-2 and lower schools that are not part of the HMA, who are free to do as they please but most of those have their own set of challenges just getting numbers to make up a 1st XV – so much so that I don’t even know if they play u19 or u18 open age group rugby. If its u18, then all u19s would be disallowed period.
@AbsolutMenlo: I agree. Ideally the school system needs to be fair to the genuine scholar who is u19 and seek to marginalise all other attempts to manipulate the u19 ceiling by schools looking to contract rugby players that then pose as students.
One of the reported instances of “huursoldate” this season alleges that a school is in partnership with it’s union to bring in u19 players who will represent both entities over the course of the year. If true it is no different to a post-matric scenario and should be disallowed.
@sewes: Die feit dat Kloof gebieg het maak nie skielik alles reg nie. Dit tenspyte,hou net op met jou negatiewe praatjies oor Garsies dan los ek jou uit,maklik.
@AbsolutMenlo:I do not know what went wrong with my last post. What I said is the following : I am almost sure that the SA Schools commitee must have raised and debated this topic over the last couple of years. Should they feel that the rules must be changed, in the interest of schoolboy players, they can put a motion to SA Rugby.I think(and can,t say for sure), that the majority must have felt that it will be unfair to deny u/19 youngsters (who for some reason, as per examples already mentioned ) the oppertunity to represent their schools.
In the meantime,untill the age rules change, schools will need to monitor schools that mis-use this issue, and refuse to play against them. This will surely result in a re-think from the guilty culprits.
@Grasshopper: Ok, it applies to all schools. If schoolboy rugby is u19, why should anyone monitor it? Let’s be honest, how many exchange student at 18/19 are queuing up to attend Noord Kaap? There is better talent locally in most instances and I think as far as the privates are concerned, they aren’t easily going to get away with playing an exchange student, (who only attends the school for 3 months at best), for a full season at the expense of a fee paying pupil who has been there since grade 8.
@AbsolutMenlo: I am almost sure that the SA Schools Should they feel that the rules must be changed, in the interest of schoolboy players, they can put a motion to SA Rugby.I think(and can,t say for sure), that the majority must have felt that it will be unfair to deny u/19 youngsters (who for some reason, as per examples already mentioned ) the oppertunity to represent their schools.
In the meantime,untill the age rules change, schools will need to monitor schools that commitee must have raised, and debated this topic over the last couple of years. mis-use this issue, and refuse to play against them. This will surely result in a re-think from the guilty culprits.
@Grasshopper: @Bush:
Well if one was looking to recruit top class cricketing talent – Ireland would be top of the heap no? Can’t believe other schools haven’t discovered this untapped resource. Next thing they will be recruiting Irish swimmers and waterpolo players…….
@McCulleys Workshop: It applies to Glenwood too, who is monitoring it?
@McCulleys Workshop: It’s a genuine question because nearly all the privates have an exchange scheme, who is monitoring it? My genuine question is what are the rules around it? What happens if the exchange student is 19 or injures another schools player etc. I just think it’s a fuzzy area.
@Grasshopper: Yes but that wasn’t quite the inference on a thread regarding the demerits of u19 players as hired guns. Exchange programs are offered at varoius schools mainly for grade 10 learners. I don’t see the validity of your question if they aren’t over age and aren’t chosen for their sporting prowess, nor your …. inference regarding private schools… when Glenwood does it…. what’s the problem…
@Bush: I tried to get on the buzzer, but GB was firmly stuck on it!
@McCulleys Workshop: Talking about that how strange in this. I went through to watch the T20 final GW vs St Charles. Great game of cricket and well done to GW for winning. GW have an exchange student from Ireland in that team. He took over the wicket keeping duties of a GW boy that has come through the ranks from U14. I watched him play and he wasn’t 1000 times better than the other kid. In fact he didn’t do anything great. Hard to understand.
I’m here in PTA you must get on the buzzer to a few MHS OB that have a few coins to spare. I’m sure I will find a couple of “u19 exchange students” here for House.
@McCulleys Workshop: https://www.michaelhouse.org/student-life/student-exchange-programme/
https://www.facebook.com/hiltoncollege1872/photos/pb.561294823965461.-2207520000.1469738267./1081773658584239/?type=3&theater
http://college.bishops.org.za/info/Exchange.aspx
Kearsney had a few recently;
International Exchange
Exchange Students: 14 Grade 10 boys went on a term’s exchange to the
following schools – Catholic University School in Dublin; Box Hill School
in Surrey; Canberra Grammar School; St Peters in Adelaide, Christ Church
Grammar School in Perth and Rossall School in Lancashire, England.
I do know Glenwood have a couple of Irish boys in under16 for cricket.
The question is can they play 1st team and what are the rules around that?
@Grasshopper: Some schools have done this or private schools are doing this quite a bit? When last was there an exchange student playing for a private, and which exchange student was over 19? Because the only exchange students I can think of in the last 2 years, was the 2 week visitor to Glenwood from Sea Point over KERF and an Eastern European guy at Northwood. Neither of those schools are well known private schools….
@AbsolutMenlo: I wonder what the policy is on post matric these days, a few schools have it. I think Bishops and Kingswood. Also, what is the policy on playing exchange students. I have noticed the private schools do this quite a bit…
@Kattes-Strofes: Just the fact as stated in the article that CW was changed from u/19 to u/18 and competitions like TUKS and PUK (Noordvaal) that are only for u/18 players, is a clear indication that there is in fact something wrong.
Times have changed and SBR rugby setups are definitely not the same as when we were at school.
Fact is schools and unions already recruit u/19 players and/or manage circumstances in order for a player to stay longer in school with the sole purpose to boost their 1st teams. The motivating factor behind this is easy the profile of SBR for the majority of u/19 players is much higher than what they will experience first year out of school. (SBR … Festivals, television coverage etc.)
In my mind if not regulated the problem (that’s already there) will escalade.
@Kattes-Strofes: Agreed, but it makes no sense to play if Craven Week is under18. Also many of these trophies up in the Vaal (I can’t keep count, bloody confusing) are under18. Why don’t they just make Craven Week under19 then. You do also get schools like Glenwood with 23 year olds like Peeping Tom ;-)
@Wonder:Lyk my al wat jy doen is wonder.Ek begin twyfel in jou intelek hoeveel keer moet ek dit nog se of moet ek n prentjie by teken Kloof was een van die wat die storie begin het maar daar na besin het oor al die negatiewe na gevolge en die etiese kwessies,as ons daarmee volge hou het sou ons moontlik weer 108-0 teen julle gewen het dis so goed jy speel met agt chineese en maak dan as of hulle jou eie is en by7 gese ek dog ons gaan nou die kak los en aan gaan.
I really do not know why this is such a big deal. SA Rugby cleary states that high schoolboy rugby age groups are from u/14 to u/19 level. Why then now all of a sudden these complaints. As some of the older bloggers will tell you, when we were at school, we sometimes had to play against some real outoppies with harde baarde. Sometimes you got a hiding from them, and other times ,you dished it out. No mess, no fuss !! I do not think at this stage that any, or at least not many, schools will try and recruit u/19 players to bolster their 1st team. If they do, I am sure they will soon find it difficult to attract opponents. You play what is legally in front of you!!
@sewes: Ja, soos Danie v Schalkwyk. Matriek gemaak by Kempies en die volgende jaar speel hy vir Kloof. Pragtige voorbeeld wat Kloof stel, goeie voorbeeld van ‘n huursoldaat. Wonder of hy ooit sy matriek by Kloof voltooi het, dink nie so nie.
@Ploegskaar: I’m very outspoken on these practices. As my post above suggests a learner mustn’t be allowed to play any rugby from his thirteenth year of schooling. If we apply my rule on your scenario this kid will only be eligible to play this year in GR 10 if he started his schooling when he turned 7(meaning he repeated another grade except for last year). The above move will then not be facilitated because there will be no advantage for new school in this move. If in your scenario the boy started his schooling late(when he turned 8)and applying my rule,he would be eligible to play next year,even for a neighboring school as a U/19 player. I would definitely be against a move like this. Very unethical but won’t be stopped if the parents allow it.
@Couchmavin: What is your opinion on a school approaching a learner, let’s say, from a neighboring school, that will repeat gr10 for the second time this year, turns 18 this year, will play as an u19 in gr11 next year and probably has no hope of finishing gr12, as a 20 year old, at said school? I would certainly lose respect for all the adults involved in such a selfish move, don’t you think? My opinion on this is that the boy should complete gr10 at the current school and go on a contract with with a union next year, with a clause to complete gr11 & gr12. All hypothetical of course.
Having more than one or two U/19’s in a team will always draw some comments and scrutiny. Especially if said players have a doubious “move” record. But Even those that believe 2+2=22 should not be discriminated against. Hell, in some societies they may be deemed as alternatives and gifted. We played against 8 u/19 boys in the Parktown match, last year. Although match was hard as nails, the spirit was positive and enjoyable. Now getting back to the “huursoldate” – now that is another story. Maybe for another day.
@AbsolutMenlo: I honestly don’t have the solution.An obvious thing would be a boy coming into a school at 17 into grade 10 and just happens to be a very good rugby player.That should raise questions.We can always scrutinise a bit who is held back because his marks will be testament
@Couchmavin: I agree with this.Seems like a plausible part solution.In occasion though you have found a kid moving from a township school to a model c but teachers feel he needs to repeat a year.Difficulty is verifying the validity of that boy needing to repeat a year for purely academic reasons and not because the head of rugby wants an extra year of his services
Tricky
@GreenBlooded: The way I understand it, the NZ system is not simply a grading by weight, but a combination of age and weight and if I remember correctly, it also applies at HS level. A kid can therefore play one age group lower than what he really is, but not more. [My son played 1st team in matric, weighing in at a hefty 59kg’s – that’s about u14 level in terms of weight, but he was a lot tougher than your average u14 and would therefore have caused havoc if only weight applied!]
The main reason for the NZ system, as I understand it, is that boys from Pacific Islands heritage develop earlier physically than Pakehas, which caused huge mismatches. That led to white mommies discouraging their boys to play rugby, which was of big concern to the NZRFU. The weight/age grading is therefore a way to keep the white kids in the system.
A Possible solution could be to allow a boy to play for his first 12 school years. So if a boy starts his schooling a year later he would be eligible to play if he is U/19. No repeating scenarios must be allowed e.a where a kid is repeating any standard. Only problem is how to verify if the boy is in his twelve or thirteenth year of schooling when he is U/19.
@Playa: Agree it will be unfortunate for the “legitimate” u/19 player and by saying that at least he would have had the opportunity to play two years senior school rugby the same as the u/18 matric player.
I’m however not so sure that it will be possible to manage on a case by case basis, you will be thrown with a book full of excuses why the learner should repeat a specific year and who’s going to be the judge? Thus my opinion that it should be strictly regulated at 1st team level.
I’ll try not repeat anything’s that been said already. Lots of points have been valid.How I have thought of it is a scenario where Boy A turning 8, and Boy B turning 7 both start Grade 1 on the same day. By the time they are in matric, A will be 19 and B will be 18. They would have played the same amount of rugby (barring injuries etc, and assuming B finds an under 14 team when he is in Grade 7).This seems fair to me. Unless we are assuming that Boy A’s extra year in open rugby gives him an advantage. That’s something that cannot be proven.
I think we will all concur that bringing in mercenaries to bolster a 1st XV is definitely out of line. This can be easily monitored, and can be dealt with on an individual case basis. To have a blanket rule of banning under 19s from school sport is a bit extreme. Valkie’s son is already experiencing this at 14 – out of no fault of his – and he will again when in matric. My son is also destined to start school a year later than his peers, so I can almost imagine myself being in his position in 8 years’ time. The requirements put out by primary schools in accepting Grade 1 learners is getting more and more stringent, we have more kids with learning disabilities being born everyday – as such we can expect a greater number of kids starting school later going forward. This from where I stand can only be policed on a case by case basis.
I am involved in club rugby and let me say this. It will be extremely difficult for a schoolboy (u/19) to survive in the club rugby system. Varsity cup is one thing, club rugby is something else. You have provincial (prof) players who plays club rugby, others who did not make it professionally and very street smart amateurs. These gentleman absolutely annihilate the poor 18/19 year old at the clubs.
There are no proper competitions set up to cater for 19 year old boys to play so very few arrive at clubs, thus you have only a selected few. Maybe it is different for other regions.
So you would generally have a 19 year old playing against a 31 year old street smart player, but that would be deemed to be acceptable. Is there fairness in the system…..no!!
@AbsolutMenlo: exactly, look at how England dismantled the young Baby Boks, most were a year older and more experienced. A year is a huge difference between 16 and 21.
@BoishaaiPa: you referred to “elite” players as 1st team players @BoishaaiPa: that is why I used the term. I refer to players repeating a year just to play rugby because the system allows them. The only way to counter this is u/18 restriction for 1st team school boy rugby. Until such time schools will abuse the system. In my mind having only one u/19 player can make a huge difference.
But ja, as I said … for now you have to deal with it and play what is in front of you.
@BoishaaiPa: Agreed, Palvie was big but had something else too, mongrel. You certainly can’t base it on size or weight. I mean you get 130kg kids who are soft as anything. It has to be age and under18 is fair. Under19’s just need to go and play club. I know that was one of the big contentions in the ‘Marne-gate’ saga, he was under19 due to being held back as a kid. A limitation on 3 max might be the middle ground to accommodate a few.
@BoishaaiPa:
The problem with weight limits in rugby is that it’s supposed to be a game for all shapes and sizes. So we can’t have the scrumhalf the same weight as the locks and props. New Zealand use weight divisions in primary school I think – maybe that have different weights for different positions – eg: Tight 5 <60kg with loos forwards <55kg and backs <50kg. Something like that….??
@McCulleys Workshop: *ineligible
@Grasshopper: Palvie was most probably already big as an u/16 player and bigger than most u/17 and u/18 players at that stage.If you want to differentiate because of size difference then you will have to start a weight division. Some 17 and 18 year olds are much bigger and stronger that their same age counterparts and they are allowed to play..Where do you draw the line?
@Grasshopper: It’s an area that’s hard to find common ground on, and it’s either dealt with in a HMA, at department of eduction/sport level or not at all. The benefit of the US system is that it removes the option of post grade 10 rental of players that will be over 18 in matric as they will be illegible to play. But that takes government intervention, as we know that is not going to happen.
@Valkie:
Ja – it’s a massive bone of contention. There are a number of kids who have had a remedial year or started school late and it’s always heartbreaking to see these guys stuck between a primary school that can’t allow them to play and a high school that doesn’t really want them around. As a ref I’ve been the ‘big bad wolf’ on a number of occasions having to pull a lighty out of the team, deal with the tears and the irate parent on the sideline who want’s to slash my tyres. Not lekker for anyone concerned. But I do get it. 13/14 is when puberty strikes and the difference between a 12 year old and a 14 year old can be immense.
@AbsolutMenlo: How do you determine what an “elite” player is?..You must either make SBR u/18 or leave it u/19 as is. My personal feeling is that u/19 players are the exception and not the norm and should be allowed to participate in school sport. Any school that focus on obtaining u/19 players for the sole purpose of strengthening their rugby at 1st team level will very quickly be identified and become an outcast. With more focus on SBR than ever before no school that is worth its salt will make that mistake or follow that route. There is also no stats that shows on average the 19 year old is more skilled or bigger/better than his 18 year counterpart. The one or two u/19’s in a team will not make that big a difference..besides, most of them are usually Oct/Nov/Dec babies which technically still makes them only 18 years old during rugby season!
@NW_Knight:
An U16 player can play in an U18 game if he has the Schedule A completed (and a Schedule B for front row players). Quoting directly from the Age Banding Regulations: “For example in the U18 Age‐grade, the youngest player could be 15 years old, as per the Minimum Age definition, turning 16 during the year in question, but must have submitted a completed and accepted SCHEDULE A, and SCHEDULE B where applicable, to the Union’s offices, before training or participating in an U18 division squad or league”
There is no option for an U16 player to play in an U19 match – which is the de-facto league for Tier 1 schools in KZN.
I’m for Under18 only. I remember about 3 years ago Noord Kaap had about 8 under19’s and they had a massive pack ranking in the Top10 in SA, where are they now? Glenwood had two under 19’s last year, Palvie and Smit, both physically stronger and bigger than most. When they played they made a huge difference. Under 19’s need to go and play at clubs with the men.
@beet: My son u/14 is going through the situation as we speak. He is in a primary school and he is going to play high school rugby. He will not be considered to play in the A-team as he is still a primary school child.
@BoishaaiPa: So do you think elite u/19 players should be regulated or should schools have carte blanche to accept them at 1st team level? The discussion here according to me is more focussed on obtaining u/19 players at 1st team level.
@theblackandwhite: I agree that it’s a given that education comes first..Part of said education is participation in sporting events. Denying someone that part of his education because of academic liabilities or shortcomings could also be problematic in my view. Your normal run-of-the-mill bloke who is a 50 percenter or below perhaps need sport to lift his self esteem etc. I would agree that someone that is on a sport scholarship should perhaps be monitored on academics as he might choose to totally discard that part of his education…but your average Joe needs sport in his life even at age of 19.
@beet: Beet that is incorrect. Schools often try and “fudge” the rules. No U16 may play U18 in any circumstances (according to the Boksmart rules). It applies to a player turning 17 this year who is selected for an “ELITE” U20 team – with Elite being provincial or national.
I agree with age groups at school level.
I certainly think one can let a u14 primary boy join his high school u14 side. It has happened in the past.
@Valkie: Whatever we say about 1st XV level, things are a lot harsher on kids when they are u14 in grade-7, the last year of primary school. They basically can’t play primary school rugby at all. It’s a most unfortunate situation which I’m sure you have experienced with your son.
@Valkie: Age limits are definitely required at school level.
@sewes: Boksmart’s exception applies to 1st XV level. It’s the only school level where 3 age-groups can play alongside each other : u17, u18 and u19.
Technically an u16 can play in the u18A Tuks Reeks if an accredited school coach completes the correct documents and its approved.
Also Boksmart has stricter guidelines for an u17 playing in the frontrow. Accredited coach and parents have to sign off and there are specific questions like about how long the player has played in the possie and about strength/abilities etc/
@sewes: Jy weet was Naas se siening nog al die jare is: As hy goed genoeg is, dan is hy oud genoeg….
Kyk maar vir Curwin Bosch …..
Dalk moet ons verder redeneer en sê jy mag eers Snr Internasionale rugby speel as jy ouer as 23 is……
My experience regarding this situation is that there are not to many u/19 at school level. I have not noticed to many of them, and I have been looking to find them. Having said that one also have to consider that there are plenty of reasons why an u/19 child is still at school and we should be slow to criticize and exclude.
Let me unpack a situation, my son is a late developer and he was not school ready at age six. He is a November born child. So a primary school will refuse to accept him, and he is thus forced to stay a year behind. He goes to one primary school and one high school, why must the opportunity be taken away from him in his final year at school to play sport or be handicapped by the system all because he will only be 19 at the end of his school year career (NOV)……does that really make sense? All his mates would turn 18 during their last year at school as well.
So what if we were to say that children that turns 19 before June should obtain special permission to play sport at school level? Just a suggestion??? The application is forwarded to the ‘province’ where the amateur head considers approval. By doing it that way each province takes control of the situation and can monitor compliance.
Also remember at age group level a child that was kept back will play with or against children that might turn 16 in January whilst he turns 16 in November …..a 10 month gap. The November child is in class and mates with a child that turns 16 in January the next year (a two month gap) …..just saying….
@sewes: Omdat dit nie gereguleer word nie sal elkeen maar sy eie siening daaroor hê en skole sal verseker o/19 tiens gebruik en sommiges dit misbruik. (sonder verwysing na ‘n spesifieke skool)
@AbsolutMenlo:Ek stem saam en het al my siening hieroor gelig toe word my kop af gebyt deur die manne van daai groenerige skool maar dit bly problematies wat bv van n seun wat in desember verjaar of wat nie skool gereed was nie.Wat se boksmart oor ouderdomme opspeel want daar is ook o\17 wat eerstes speel?
@BoishaaiPa: Yes, I only talk about 1st team level and that should include 2nd teams. The elite u/19 player will then rather play outside.
Agree there should be room for the not so serious u/19 rugby player to finish school and play rugby.
Accepting one or two under-19’s in a first team has never been much of a big deal.
I think what’s really concerning is hearing talk of schools with 5 or more u19s and the alarm bells really start to ring when speculation is added that these players are all fairly new to the schools they will represent.
Like I mentioned there was a time when it was unfavourable to be an ambitious u19 player at school but those times have changed and perhaps so to do the rules, to ensure that u19 players remain the exceptions and don’t the norm on a team list.
@BoishaaiPa: It is a tricky situation. I was fortunate enough to have a sporting scholarship to do my tertiary studies in the US a long time ago, and both the university and high schools over there had a nice structure which may be useful to our schools here.
Basically you would need to have a certain school/grade average threshold to play sport, it is nothing out of the ordinary but was something in the region of 55%, anything below and you would have to get your grades higher to be able to play sport.
There are naturally students that will repeat a grade, the rule there was that if you repeated a grade from the equivalent of grade 9 or lower, you would be able to play sport your entire high school career ie as an u19. If you repeated either Grade 10 or 11, you would be able to play school sports until you were u18 but would have to sit out your matric (or u19) year. The logic over there was that any sportsman grade 9 or lower demonstrates talent and promise, whilst the last three years talented sportman had the ability to consider professional contracts – I am not sure how it works in SA, are any players ever contracted at the Grant Khomo weeks? if so then this theory makes sense.
I liked that system back then, it means the schools concentrate on their primary goal – education. Talented sportsman would all have the same opportunity, the cream always rises to the top.
@AbsolutMenlo: It is all good and well to make an age limit, but you are thinking at 1st team level only. What about the bulk of the boys that dont play 1st team and are at most 4th/5th/6th/7th team level. They dont have the option of playing outside at club or provincial level. They just want to finish their matric year playing one last time for their school and mates. Rugby at school is not just for the elite players who play 1st team. The rules must accommodate all players in my opinion.
The only way to regulate this is to enforce that u/19 payers should not be allowed to play school boy rugby. If not schools will continue to abuse the situation. The only casualty by enforcing this will be the “legitimate turned or turning 19 year old student” but in the same breath he will deny an u/18 player that is also in his final school year the opportunity to play for his school that can also be seen as unfair. There is also opportunities outside school for the u/19 player to still play rugby i.e. clubs.
If this is enforced we will eventually see less rugby players that are still in school whilst u/19.
I am for an age limit (u/18) for school boy rugby.
But for now, because it is not regulated you must have the attitude to play what is in front of you.