Sorry this is one of those recurring debates that arises every few years. It’s even been touched on earlier this season.
Some folks go to the extreme of saying all boys turning 19 years-old during the calendar year should not be allowed to play schoolboy rugby.
That view is extreme and also grossly unfair in my opinion but it does eliminate any grey areas.
Then you have a few who say why discriminate, let everyone play!
The rest of us fall somewhere in-between, trying to decide which u19’s should or should not qualify to play.
My personal view these days is that a schoolboy should enjoy five years of high school A-team eligibility and if he happens to be in high school for a sixth year, he cannot play any higher than the B-team (2nd XV). I feel that an u19 should be a consequence of the education system and not a manufactured situation to improve rugby results.
I believe a 5-year eligibility rule will stop most u19 “huursoldate”.
I’m not in favour of banning u19s altogether because school rugby is generally a safe healthy environment for school student plus over the years I can’t tell you how many u14 in primary school parents I have had to respond to on email about where to next, after they find out their child cannot play primary school rugby. The last thing any of us should want to do is punish a late school starter a second time in matric after they’ve had to go through the same ordeal in primary school.
The main issue that arose in the Cape this year is that boys who had passed matric in 2022, repeated gr.12 the year. One repeater actually spent a few months out of school altogther before returning so lets see if he completes the year and writes matric again. Say whatever you like, the primary objective here was to have these older boys contributing towards rugby success at their school. Their eligibility was on an interpretation of the WPRU rules and looked to letter of the law rather than the spirit of the law.
A different approach played out at a prominent school in KZN, where newly acquired star players were encouraged to repeat Gr. 11 in 2022, in order to have them available for an extra year.
The bottom-line is that there are all sorts of strategies in play to acquire or create u19 players in the 1st XV. It’s a very favourable risk versus reward decision to sponsor such players as that extra year has the ability to transform them from useful into standout performer.
Background
Before 2007, schoolboy rugby in South Africa was being overwhelmed by u19’s in the form of post-matrics. Boys would pass matric and stay on in school for an extra of tertiary education or bridging year studies. The primary reason was not academics, it was sport. In some cases it represented the only opportunity to play 1st XV school rugby (also 1st XI cricket) or gain provincial honours.
Then the clamp down occurred and the SARU body responsible for schoolboy rugby basically decided that senior Craven Week should be restricted to u18 from 2008 onwards. This decision corresponded with a time when rugby union academies and HP institutions started to take off. There were great opportunities for boys after school. In fact it was really hard for an u19 boy in school to catch up on the year lost by not being able to train in one of these specialised pro rugby facilities. Overnight the incentive to stay in school an extra year died and schools stopped offering post-matric. So much for the great academic opportunity!
After a period of positive growth of the junior systems with many contractual opportunities, economic troubles hit and Unions under new guidelines started to cut down on the paid opportunities available to school leavers. Schoolboy rugby also took massive strides forward to reduce the gap between what they offered to desk bound amateurs and what the Unions did to develop young pros.
So we arrived at the situation now where an uncontracted u19 potentially has more exposure and paid for opportunities as a schoolboy player than he does in the uncertain low key dog-eat-dog world of rugby outside of school. It is not the ideal career move for an ambitious youngster but there is good motivation for the overlooked player hoping to noticed or even for the young man unsure about what he wants to do with himself or how he will make ends meet, to stay in school an extra year.
The result is that the threat of a return to the pre-2007 days of post-matrics looms large as we head into the mid-2020’s where some school see u19s as the shortcut to success while their rivals don’t want to be left behind.
@Djou:
@Vleis: Beautiful story! Just had to laugh and feel pity at the same time!
@Smallies:
@Vleis: and to this day your mate’s boy will say “you know I used to play against Steven Kitshoff at school ,he’s the reason I have this herniated disc”🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Talking about 16-year-old props…my mate’s 18 year-old son was the reserve 1st XV prop for St John’s College about 15 years ago. He said that SJC was invited to a rugby festival for top rugby schools as it’s a prestigious school…NOT because of its rugby pedigree.
Anyway, SJC was playing PRG and getting a hiding when he was brought on to replace the obliterated starting prop. He ran onto the field, very excited to get his first cap and tried to fire up his teammates. However, it did not work, as they had the look of shattered WW1 soldiers that had just taken a pounding in the trenches and were no longer interested in cheerful words or platitudes.
He, on the other hand, was relieved that his opposition prop at PRG was only 16. However, his relief only lasted until the first scrum, where his body got so compressed that he almost passed out in pain. It got worse in the second scrum, where he was twisted like a pretzel to the point that he thought that he was about to die.
Perhaps it was PRG’s 60 point lead, or perhaps it was the terrified look on his face…but the 16 year-old PRG prop took pity on him and said, “Don’t worry soutie, from now on, I’m not gonna push again in the scrums.” May mate’s son was so relieved that, despite being 18, he said: “Thank you sir!!”
It turns out, the 16 year-old PRG prop was Steven Kitshoff.
@BoishaaiPa: That “bottom line” of yours was unilaterally defined and does not exist other than in subjective minds. % wise there are plenty in many teams and it does make a difference; is an opportunity to abuse the system, as has been abused many times. As with Craven Week and “International Rugby Standards” it will definitely change to under 18 to align with the international age-grade rugby standards, common sense, logic and provide a more accurate representation of the players’ age and development. Objectivity will trump everything else.
@beet: agree 100 p stop this now make rugby u 18 period
@beet: Generally yes boys are bigger, faster etc due to creatine and other supplements. Also, steroids etc but that is for another debate. However, I do remember some freaks back in the 90s who were easily bigger and stronger than some of the kids now. In our gym, we had Barret Pardey genuinely benching 150kg for 10 reps. His brother Leyton was around 120kg at school. Paul de Bruyn from DHS was over 130kg. Richard Kelly from College was a muscle-bound monster, only 100kg but all muscle. I think now you just have more kids like that and the backs are bigger, so like the Grey Bloem team, not massive but like a team of 15 loose forwards. I myself in matric could bench 100kg weighing 90kg. After school I did more gym to get stronger for rugby and overtook the 1st team guys by age 20. 19 is about the point where most ‘boy’s are fully grown men…
@Snelvuur:
Snelvuur I’m with you on this.
The physical development progression does not end at age 16. There are exceptions (including a few freaks of nature) but in general on average a 19 year old is considerably more imposing. In the past I have watched a lot of provincial u19 and u21 rugby and even at these levels it was obvious that young men develop to become bigger, stronger and better equipped to succeed at rugby as they got older.
There is a movement in rugby at all levels to make the game safer. It is based on research. It is also now based on evidence coming to light about how SOME not ALL former pros struggling with dementia etc. So we increased measures to try avoid this like the height of tackles. There is an appreciation that rugby is not the same game as the one parents played in the 1980’s and 1990’s. Today it is far more physically demanding at senior level and at high school level.
So at school the challenge is how to accommodate boys born in three different years in one age group as its was traditionally done in the 1990’s and 1980’s and before that when fitness constituted most of the off field preparation and a term like strength and conditioning did not exist.
We have got around the three years in one age-group by accepting that one or two u19s will be present in 1st XVs. We accept that these boys will generally be bigger in size and better in terms of power and speed and maybe better in skill and confidence than they were as u18s a year earlier. So they are more of an SBR asset as u19s than they were in the year they were meant to matriculate.
Where my concern lies is that we could see a post-matric like situation start to evolve. As mentioned there are schools who have taken advantage of loopholes to create u19s (as opposed to allowing them to be available due to other circumstances). They create an u19 by encouraging a rugby boy to repeat matric when he has passed. They create an u19 by encouraging a rugby boy to repeat gr.11. They do it solely to benefit the 1st XV with the hopes of being more competitive and winning more matches. They do it because in spite of what people do to try pull the wool over the eyes, they know the value of an u19, they know the massive added value of a good player who returns as an u19.
The schools taking advantage have positioned themselves to have boys who were already good as u18s available as u19s. This is a problem.
If they then decide that they want three, four, five, six or seven such players, it’s an increasing problem.
My experience is that in SBR the attitude is very much if you cannot beat them, join them. This is how post-matric took off in the 1990’s. Where will it leave the game and the higher emphasis on safety if a 16yo has to compete against a team containing a multitude of approaching or already turned 19 starting in 2024 or 2025.
The dangers of leaving loopholes unabated are evident now in 2023.
Prevention is better than cure.
The measures to control it have to be improved.
@Snelvuur: Bottom line is % wise there are very few u/19 players playing in SBR overall and dont have such a big impact as what is suggested.
So, the 100kg u.16 lock should not play against the 60kg u.18 scrummie!
@Snelvuur: The Kitshoff statement clinches the argument. No comebacks can refute that.
@BoishaaiPa: sure, but it is also more difficult to measure strength and skill than age. I think it is uncontentious that the average 19 year old is stronger than the average 16 year old.
Also, for every outlier 16 year old who is as strong as a 19 year old, you get a 19 year old as strong as a 25 year old (see, for example, Steven Kitshoff playing for the Stormers at 19).
Imagine for the moment that your son, an average 16 year old prop, comes up against a 19-year old Steven Kitshoff in a first team game: I would be concerned for his safety.
The age groups are imposed to limit the extent to which there can be a difference in size and strength (with the full understanding that it will never be completely eradicated). It is the most reliable and generally applicable way to do so.
Iets interessant om te oorweeg: waarom is meisies se skoolsport o18, maar seuns se skoolsport o19?
@BoishaaiPa: grap is ek weet van heel party O 16 seuns wat die gemiddelde O 19 speler lelik op sy donner sal gee
@Deon: Maybe you should try not be so smart and read the post. Its not always about age difference but about strenghth and skill as well..hence the prop example…nothing to do with 10 year olds vs 16 year olds..that is so logical even you should grasp it.
@KES Oldboy: Durbanville have x6 nineteen year olds , plus the Parel Valley post matric , he is 18 though.
@boerboel: Durbanville have six 19 year olds , plus the Parel Valley post matric , he is 18 though.Hence Durbanville not publishing their 1 st team anywhere this year, not on any platform , not even their on.
@Kaya 85: Agreed, I saw this with JJ Van der Mescht at school, huge and used his size to ‘smash’ over players at school, but at adult level it now requires more skills and pace. These sorts of ‘freaks’ like JJ, Paul Willemse, RG Snyman etc are rare and not the norm
@Kaya 85: Come on man I designed that post to p.off old BHP and the other Paarliete on a Friday. Don’t spoil it. So blatantly skoorsoekerig 😂
@Grasshopper: I agree with you. Just as your average 17yo is stronger and bigger than your average 16yo.
So the only real solution is /14, /15, /16, /17, /18 and /19 age groups at school.
This all speculation and a storm in a teacup.
@Grasshopper: Yes I agree with you.
@Grasshopper: but that big 16year old SACS boy is still a boy…muscle mass is much lower, bone density not as hard etc etc. Often those young big guys still battle with coordination and explosive power…all those things can be improved…(with age and training)
@Rainier: That kid at SACS bigger than Eben Etzebeth aged 15? I think the point is generally 19 year olds are bigger and stronger than 16 year olds. You do sometimes get cases of a 65kg 19 year old wing who would be fine vs a 16 year old 65kg wing. Maybe it’s a weight category thing, but lets not open that can of NZ worms…
@Deon: Because 23 and 30 are both adults and fully grown
It will be under 18 eventually as despite all the strawman arguments about size and growth etc. ,what it really is about is playing 5 years. Kramer building has a Moot court for this kind of debate.
@Deon: Or a mere blogger trying to win the argument against Deon
@BoishaaiPa: It may be a paradigm too high for Paarliete to cogitate but although it’s the same age difference between a 30 year old and a 23 year old prop it is not the same to let a 17 year old scrum against a 10 year old and that 10 year old against a 3 year old. I can get crayons to draw pictures?
@BoishaaiPa: boys and then young men keep developing and growing till at least 21…an u16 team will destroy u14s….a school first team will destroy the u16s…and a club/ Varsity u20 team will destroy a school first team…
@Grasshopper: The typical 16 year old boerseun from Cradock v the typical 19 year old townie from the southern suburbs?
@BoishaaiPa: Well, what is the general comparison between 16 and 19 year old males?
@Grasshopper: Nope..some 16 year olds are already fully developed and some 18/19 year olds only develop later..plenty of examples so its not a clear case of age.
@BoishaaiPa: 100%!
Only once in a while you get freaks such as Os du Randt or Steven Kitshoff who can stand their own against 30-year old props.
@KES Oldboy: Yes it’s still there. Over the years has become a more structured and holistic program, rather than just for sport.
http://www.kingswoodcollege.com/senior-school/bridging-year
@BoishaaiPa: 16 year old not fully developed, 19 year old is. ALL school rugby should be 18 or under
@Djou: We just played…did not matter the age. Why are we worried about a 16 year vs a 19 year old while we dont worry about 23 year old prop playing against a veteran 30 year old prop?
@Kaya 85: I did not know that! Swimming the odd one out!
@BoishaaiPa: What?
😃😃😃😃
So, what did you do, tackle him as if he was 16 or 20?
@BoishaaiPa: Haaibo 😳!
@Djou: I’m no brighter than Smallies but to answer that question, u14 should probably be called ’14 & under’, that way it makes sense. The same principle applies in schools athletics. But here’s an interesting alternative: the age group swimming structures (club swimming+ provincial) is based on your age at the specific gala you are swimming, so this week you swim with 15year-olds, but if your birthday is on Tuesday, next weekend you swim in the 16y age….it wouldn’t work as well in big team sports, but still interesting to consider
@Djou: I turned 16 in March in st8..those days there were no u16 rugby so had to play open rugby with boys that only turned 16 in Dec. We were all still u16 but played against 17/18/19 and sometimes 20 year olds…the Head Boy at Otto Du Plessis was married with kids already!..
@Djou: Don’t know about the “brighter”, but a boy is “under” whatever he turns in a particular year, whether his birthday is on 1 January or 31 December.
Something you brighter guys can shed light on.
Say a boy enters high school. He is 13 and in grade 8. He turns 14 in March.
Is he still allowed to play u.14 from then onward throughout the year? Because technically he is not under 14 when he turns 14, he is then under 15.
The same applies to the other age groups.
The SASRA ruling about players in possession of a matric certificate not being allowed to play + the Craven Week u18 ruling I think has eliminated a lot (most?) of the causes for u19 players. But as the discussion highlights, there are still many school teams with a few u19 players. I think those two decisions were very good, without needing to be overly prescriptive or without needing to outight ban the minority of u19 players, so maybe what we have seen here, after we’ve had a chance to think it through, is an example of wise decision making by those at the top.
@KES Oldboy: durbanville 5 or 7 ?
@Wyvern: Despite losing most K-Day 1st team games historically, KC has always provided a great fight and won the odd game here and there, which keeps everyone interested. It would be a shame if it becomes a procession and thus loses its lustre. In such a situation, it would be in both schools’ interest to have a headmaster’s agreement to allow u19s** to play, should the latter be banned in future.
** if necessary, as it sounds like you are making good progress without them in recent times.
I attended my first K-Day last year and had a great time.
@KES Oldboy: Kingswood do still offer a bridging year but those who take it up, are limited to playing cricket for the school.
As far as rugby is concerned, Kingswood now conform with the SASRA ruling of boys in possession of a matric certificate not being allowed to play (at Craven Week / Academy Week)
@Kaya 85: Look at the Irish system, they focus on the 18 to 23 years, less on schools. Academies etc but only proper money from like 21. Schools rugby is U18, the Craven Week is U18, so really simple. If you 18 turning 19, play club rugby with the big boys…
@Mate: @KES Oldboy:
I also think it should be u18 only…
when I played (and I’m giving my age away here gents) we had a practice match against a ‘Reform School’, we were scared sh!#less, then to hear that they would still have a teacher on their team. Our school agreed to play, we ended up winning comfortably. They were delinquents but not great rugby players and their teacher was trying hard to hold the team together from fly-half.
@KES Oldboy:
Then repeat a year
I dont think it is fair to penalise a kid and prevent him from playing a school sport because of circumstances( whether it is intellectual or personal)
@Mate: No! Every boy should have the opportunity of playing 2 years “Open” rugby. With U17, they would only get one chance.
SBR should have
U/14
U/15
U/16
U/17
U/19
@Wyvern: Does KC still offer a bridging year?
And yet, u19 rugby is a crucial phase
and as such an excellent opportunity to consolidate, and further rugby talent, as boys become men.
It should not be the role of high schools to develop this…but Varsities, Academies, provincial unions, professional franchises, …whoever…there SHOULD be a concerted effort to have a nationwide u19 structure with a competition and a development pathway.
@Vleis: This is the first year (at least that I can recall) that KC has no post matrics in the 1st XV. Two u19s in the team but both still at school, with the team being stronger than usual.
To your point re KC struggling against SAC with u19s – What I’ve noticed over the last 10-15 years or so, with KC specifically, is the quality of rugby “BYs” falling. Yes, there has been the odd provincial-level player joining but for the most part rare. IMO I put this down to two reasons 1) the start of the varsity cup 2) KC putting a lot of work into formalizing a comprehensive “Bridging Year” program that is aimed at more than just sport.
If u19s get done away with completely, the KC 1st XV will definitely be weaker no doubt. However the biggest impact, particularly for a small school, would be the depth at open level. If u19s are allowed to play but only at 2nd XV level, then you’ll find cases where the 2nd XV is stronger than the 1st XV (since the BY program will continue due to point 2 above).
Agree with your and other blogger’s points that a set of rules needs to be put in place that applies consistently across all schools. IMO limit the number of u19s that can play in any 1st XV, as well as those u 19s not yet having a matric certificate. Rules can be set aside if headmasters agree beforehand.
@Deon: soms ,net soms verbaas ek myself
@Smallies:
Vlymskerp.
@Deon: hulle sal volgende jaar as hulle O 19 is die vooreg he 😂😂😂😂😂
@Grasshopper: It will eventually be u/18 only. There simply is nothing else that will be fair and believe me, if that happens, almost all under 19’s will miraculously disappear from good schools. Vanish. The idea that the proverbial 99,99% must be prejudiced for the rest is indefensible and makes zero sense.
@Smallies: Jis, ek neem aan jy praat van Kempton Park? Verseker, maar daar is sewe outjies die voorreg ontneem om teen Grey pak te kry.
@Grasshopper: easy peassie 👍🏻
@Snelvuur: U18 finish and klaar….simples
@beet: I dont even know if clubrugby in Qtown even exist anymore
@Djou: my punt 1000%
@Snelvuur: The issue with club rugby is that although it appears to be fairly vibrant in the big metro areas, in most other parts is as dead as a door nail.
I just wonder what the opportunities would be like to play competitive club rugby in places away from main centres – places like Balgowan, Craddock, Komani, George, Kimberley etc.
I think the u19 boys that are serious about pursuing rugby as a career will make a plan to play club rugby maybe even move to main centres to achieve this. But for the rest, I do think as school students they should have the option to continue playing SBR as B-team players.
School related bursaries etc might be problematic as I can’t see too many schools who’d paid the way for 5 out of the 6 years of high school, investing in a 6th year rugby boy who has no chance of representing their A-team that year.
@Smallies: ‘n Speler soos Ruan Ackerman (ek glo hy sal nie omgee dat sy naam gebruik word nie aangesien hy al voorheen as voorbeeld gebruik is) wat einde Desember verjaar is laat skool toe gestuur op aanbeveling van opvoedkundiges. Hy het na hy sy laaste eksamen in Desember geskryf het 19 geword. In sy graad 11 jaar was hy beseer, met die gevolg dat hy nooit eens ‘n Cravenweekspan gehaal het nie.
Terselfdertyd was daar ‘n stut van ‘n buurskool in dieselfde situasie. Daai tyd was daar ook SA o.19-spanne. Die outjie kon ook nooit Cravenweek of SA Skole speel nie, maar is gekies vir SA o.19 daai jaar.
Net 2 vinnige voorbeelde van spelers wat nie uit eie keuse nie gestraf sou word indien een reël ingebring sou word.
Not sure why this is such a massive debate. Make it under 18, so everyone gets 2 years at first team level. By making it under 18, you are also ensuring that everyone has 12 years of school sport (instead of some getting 13). And yes, loads of kids still in Grade R already play u/7 sports at primary schools if they are too old. Same as many grade 7s playing u14 sport at high schools while still in primary school.
Having the cut-off at 18 is the most logical and easy to enforce rule. It is also in line with the Craven Week’s standard.
Nothing precludes 19 year olds from playing u19 club rugby in their matric year.
@KES Oldboy: Very good and maybe just this year. I do think there needs to be a rule and all sign up to it.
I’m sure that a set of rules could easily be drawn up, like they have for Varsity Cup and College football in the US – e.g. maximum number of years, redshirt years, maximum number of post-grads, etc, etc. These must be adhered to unless the headmasters agree not to in certain specific circumstances – e.g. Kingswood generally have more u19s than most, but still struggle against SAC at K-Day (possibly the 3rd biggest school derby in SA), so imagine what will happen to this great event if Kingswood (with only 250 boys) are not allowed u19s.
@Deon: die scoreline teen Grey se vir my dat O19 spelers ook maar pakslae kry
@KES Oldboy: So how can those like Welkom Gim not have a significant unfair advantage, and what good does it serve where Cravenweek is under 18?
@Smallies: Nee man lol, ek het nooit gesê dis f-up om dit te doen nie, en sal ook nooit nie, want dit is nie. Ek het verwys na die besluite van ouers en dade wat genoem is wat die kind be-invloed. Hoe kan mens kind B straf omdat jy kind A wil help oor sy ma hom in FAS ingedrink het? Dis wat ek bedoel. Nee, dis verkeerd en dis waarna ek verwys het. Ek verstaan goed wat jy bedoel oor die kind wat ‘n jaar laat skool toe gestuur is. Hy gaan net een jaar kry om onder 18 te speel, wanneer hy onder 18 is, sal hy die kans kry, wat damn regverdig is. Hoe is dit regverdig om ‘n ander kind tegnies gesproke dan een jaar te kos omdat Gertjie laat skool toe is? Hoe gaan jy verhoed dat deur hom te akkommodeer iemand anders nie drie jaar onder 18 kan speel nie? Eerlik, hoeveel kinders wat hier genoem is wat onder 19 is val in Gertjie se beskrywing Smallies? Waarskynlik uit die talle miskien een of twee, en almal speel drie jaar onder 19 om hul skole te laat goed lyk en vee ander kinders se drome uit. Of dit nou PRG insluit, irrelevant. Onregverdig.
Jy dink emosioneel. Dis ‘n teken dat ek te naby iets raak, so ek onttrek nou na hierdie post. Ek gaan beslis nooit met jou van alle mense in onsmaaklikheid betrokke raak nie. My eie kinders val beide binne Gertjie se geboortegleuf, net so terloops, maar die seun het my ball sense ge-erf, so…tog relevant elders.
En nee, soos met Cravenweek, dit gaan uiteindelik nie die skole se besluite wees nie. Daaroor is daar geen twyfel nie.
Res van my plasing het ek uitgevee.
Oor en uit van my kant af.
Maar ek is klaar met die inderwerp, oor jou emosionele betrokkenheid, en nee, ek nooit gesê ‘n ouer wat sy kind terughou vir ontwikkeling is f-up nie.
@Grasshopper: I can only go on the team lists that I’ve seen published on this site on 10th March or from festival brochures. Based on that – it lists the Affies & Grey teams with zero U19s. It does not list PRG or Paarl Gim or Paarl Boys as they maybe didn’t play that weekend but I seem to recall seeing their teams at Noord/Suid. Pretoria BHS is here say. St. John’s & KES are definitely all U18 – I know the parents of these teams & both are mainly U17.
Of the teams listed on 10th March:
Stellenberg – zero U19s
Boland Landbou- zero
Drostdy – one
Diamantveld – zero
Affies – zero
Trio – 3
Welkom Gim – 7!!
Grey College – zero
Michaelhouse- 1
Helpmekaar- zero
DHS – 4
Voortrekker- one
Clifton – one
Marlow – 3 in squad
Selborne- 1
Menlopark – zero
Nelspruit – zero
Noirdheuwel – 4
Oos Moot – one
Outeniqua – 3
Kingswood – 2 in squad
Middelburg – one
@Deon:1 hoe kan jy se n ouer is Fuctkup omdat hy besluit dat dit beter vir sy kind se ontwikkeling is om hom n jaar later skool toe te stuur???
2 Soos ek al reeds genoem het moet elke skool gemaklik wees met wat hulle besluit tov O 19 seuns ,hulle oponente ook
3 ons almal stem saam dat skool seuns nie teen 20 jariges behoort te speel nie ,maar as n seun 19 in matriek is en eers na die eind eksamen verjaar,en dit is die geval van die meeste O19 seuns wat ek ken,dan is hy beslis nie 20 nie
4 as jou seun 18 is en die O19 seun speel eerstespan omdat hy beter is as jou seun wat ook matriek is ,dan is hy beter ,in jou woorde ,it is what it is
@KES Oldboy: Do you know that for sure, it’s zero? 100%?
@Smallies:
1) Wil jy vir argumentshalwe Kosie penaliseer omdat Gertjie se pa fucked-up was? Dit is presies wat jy sê. Dit is mos baie erger.
2) Dink jy die name wat Grashopper noem was almal Gertjies?
3) Nog ‘n aparte vraag, onafhanklik van bg. Wat van die Gertjies wat 20 is in matriek, soos my Petrussie ( Petrus, regte naam), hoekom mag hy dan nie ook speel nie? Hy was op Herbertsdale, klein dorpie naby Mosselbaai toegelaat om op 14 te speel in ‘n onder 13 toernooi totdat ek gesê dis verkeerd en dit gestop het. Hy was boonop kleiner as die res? Waar trek mens die lyn? As daar 5 jare in hoërskool is, en nou wil mens oor emosies die lyn trek op 6, hoekom nie op 7 nie? Tegnies kan 14 spelers reeds sesde jaar wees en min verskil van die wat 20 is ens. Die beginsel staan.
Emosies gee nooit ‘n billike oplossing nie.
@Deon: my seun se beste vriend was saam met hom van gr 1 tot gr 10 in die selfde skole al verskil tussen die twee is Gertjie (skuilnaam) is gebore 17 Des 1999 my seun 5 jan 2000 19 dae verskil ,Gert was egter reeds 8 toe hy skool toe is ,hy het tot hulle paaidjies geskei het in gr 10 n jaar groep ouer gespeel,hy het drie jaar eerste span gespeel vir sy hoerskool….is dit sy skuld sy ouers het besluit om hom later skool toe te stuur omdat hy so laat verjaar …..beslis nie ,is dit sy skuld sy afrigter het hom goed genoeg geag om drie jaar eerste span te speel …..beslis nie.soos jy se ons kan nie kinders straf omdat ouers besluite neem nie ,of daai besluit geneem is tot voordeel van n kind of in jou FAS kind se geval tot nadeel …ek is ook baie erg oor kids veral gestremde kids want ek het my hele lewe tussen hulle groot geword….daarom se ek dat elke skool sal moet besluit waarmee hy gemaklik is,maar om n laaity te penaliseer omdat sy pa hom laat skool toe gestuur het is in my oe en vir die gebrek aan n beter woord klein bietjie fuctup
@KES Oldboy: Don’t worry, we solved the problem, that arbitrary line has been changed to under 23 now. Countless kids matriculating at 21/22 now due to hardship, no fault of their own. Debate over.
Why draw the line at under 19, with so many kids now matriculating at 20, 21 etc? All very very sad cases, I am serious, As in really sad. Let’s be fair and all inclusive, and make it under 23, so schools can play in the Varsity Cup. There happens to be an open space at VC where Tuks used to play, perhaps Garsies can fill that slot.
@Grasshopper: but you can’t say 3 is average; Grey Bloem, Affies, PRG, Paarl Gim have zero. KES, St.John’s, Pretoria BHS also have zero – I listed these 3 separately as they are not in the same bracket as the big 4 (I think Paarl Boys has one U19)
@Smallies: Mens kan ook nie ander kinders straf vir wat sy ouers gedoen het nie, of nog ver minder, of kan mens? Dit sou darem baie verkeerd wees. Uit respek vir jou gebruik ek nie die woord “siek” nie want dis alles behalwe wat jy is. Maar nee, dis nie dieselfde vraag wat gevra word nie. Ek het ‘n bitter sagte hart vir kinders Smallies, ek het jou al vertel dat ek drie kinders op laerskool aangeneem het, een ‘n FAS plaaswerker seun. FAS omdat sy oorlede ma ‘n drank probleem gehad het. Bitter goeie rugbyspeler (Stanford/Hermanus vlak). Ek moes aanpas by wat hulle ouers gedoen het aan hulle, maar dit was my keuse. Hulle moes ook, en ons kon nie ander kinders straf oor sy ma en die ander twee se pa in Saldanha se hartseer probleem nie. Is what it is.
@Deon: nou kan ek jou die selfde vraag vra waarom n seun benadeel wat laat in die skool gesit is of wat weens omstandighede n jaar moet herhaal?jy kan mos nie die seun straf vir n besluit wat sy ouers geneem het nie? Daardie mes van jou het twee snykante sien jy,as n seun nie aspris agterbly in gr 11 vir rugby nie het ek totaal geen probleem as hy drie jaar oop spanne speel nie….
@beet: If you are ill or injured and out for a year and have to repeat a grade as you could not write exams, it should not count agaist you.
The example you mentioned re the overseas player is exactly why I mentioned conditions.
From my experience the “via negativa” method always works well. Throw everything in a pot, then take out what you don’t want – and what is left should be the conditions under which a 19-year old may play (in terms of fairness).
@Smallies: Die dertiende jaar mag sad wees, soos ek sê, slegte dinge gebeur met goeie kinders. Maar dit kan nie ook ‘n slegte ding gemaak word vir die ander kinders nie. Hoe kan ‘n familiesterfte iemand ander se probleem word, sy skoolgvreugde steel, anders as dat almal natuurlik hartseer is oor die sterfte ens? Daar kan net een reël wees. Anders gaan dit misbruik word. Kyk na die syfers wat Grasshopper hierbo pos. Dis mos bitter verkeerd teen gemiddeld drie kinders per span, wie se skool loopbaan minder belangrik geag word. Ek verstaan, mens moet deernis hê, maar in 5 jaar op hoërskool, waar twee beskikbaar is vir eerstespan. of een…….Dit gaan bloot oor sterkte van die eerstspan. Skelmspul wat boonop mense se gevoelens en tragedies misbruik.
@ForeverHorseFly: I’m not on any slope at all, I’m just highlighting that we ‘trust’ the birth dates given, should that be the end of the story? Hmmm, considering the history of it, not always. It’s like saying, we discussed steroid abuse at school, don’t bring it up again. Issues like this are not put to bed and should be investigated continuously…
@vonke_44: I get that, but it is a serious question. It was all investigated, swept under the carpet and forgotten about now. I can tell you, that issue has not gone away. I have not pointed out any of these players as culprits. I made a general statement. Zuki Tom is off to France to play at a club, I forget which one…..yet everyone can mock Glenwood about Tom-gate and it’s all a bit of fun, also forget about Payi who was just as bad…
From the Kearnsey Festival Brochure;
Dale x 2 (Xuma, Xozwa)
DHS x 3 (Boesak, Mani, Zungu)
Glenwood x 4 (Van Vuuren, Tom, Le Fleur, L Mpufi)
EG Jansen x 2 (Twala, Green)
Framesby x 4 (Barnard, Minnie, Hendricks, Afrika)
Kearnsey have none.
Marlow x 3 (Loesch, Troskie & Aucamp)
Monnas x 2 (Henery, de Costa)
Noord Kaap x 6 (Hamat, Diedericks, Hibbert born 2002, must be a typo, Mbeke, Jansen and Dichaba)
Westville x 3 (Mkomazi, Finca, Ramaloko)
Worcester Gim x 2 (Michaels, Hendricks)
So it feels like 3 is average…
@vonke_44: I was about to say the exact same thing…Grasshopper is on a slippery slope when the topic is clearly u19 and not over age players.
@Grasshopper: Whilst I understand you are just asking a rhetorical question in whether their ages are correct, I would shy away from such questions unless you have evidence that leads you to believe otherwise. Personally I feel it is quite unfair to the players, if I was a matric I certainly would not want my name getting dropped in a chat about overage players. On another note, interesting to hear that Zuki Tom has left you say? Any idea where/why?
Hierdie debat is al holrug gery.Daars argumente beide kante toe wat sinvol is.Speel die reel,dit is die gelykmaker.As hy verander /18 toe so be it.Daars geen grys gebied huidiglik nie.
Aan die einde van die dag sal elke skool maar vir hulle self moet uitwerk waarmee hulle ,en belangrikste hulle oponente gemaklik is….
Glenwood have William Van Vuuren (prop played a few games 1st), Zuki Tom (No 8, gone now), Renaldo Le Fleur (wing, out most of the season to injury) & 2nd team lock Likhona Mpufi. So quite a few too. Question is, are all of their birth dates correct?
@Djou: Won’t it be difficult to establish if a boy failed a year.
It’s a lot easier to say you have 5 years. 6th year play 2nd XV. Accepted if you seek out opportunities to play outside the school.
Should we treat a child who misses a season due to illness differently to one who gets injured on the field and suffers the same consequences. I don’t know. I do know that there are exceptions and often quite unique ones.
I think one came up a few years back when a boy returned from overseas and had to repeat a high school grade to get up to speed.
@ForeverHorseFly: I need to know who the U19 players are to make an educated comment. Boesak, the flyhalf and fulcrum of the side is U19. Sisenko Mani & Siphiwosethu Zungu are also definitely u19. So three isn’t too bad. Question again as in Payi and Tom in the past, are all of these ‘boys’ really u19, but that is for another debate..
@ForeverHorseFly: You are right about u19s being linked to a success school team before it becomes a controversial matter.
This u19 matter is a big deal in the WP school region at the moment. They have had covered the topic in a couple of meetings and at their AGM later this year, I’m sure there will be a push for a change in the rules. One school is being frowned upon by the others.
In KZN we have had our Headmaster’s Agreement for several years. Of the headmasters that signed the agreement, I think Luman of College is now the only one left. The other headmasters do not want to abide by it. If they had, u19s who arrived after gr 10 would have been disallowed.
The aim should be to have a system in place that is transparent and tries to be fair to all.
In my opinion one rule alone, such as a 5-year rule will not be fair and equitable. Maybe it will work is you set a few conditions, e.g. you are allowed to play if you turned 19 in matric, on condition you are not a post-matric; you legitimately failed/could not complete an academic year; etc.
@KES Oldboy: Wow, 7 is almost half the team. Wonder how many post-matric?
On another note. A boy had a horrible accident in his grade 11 year, so much so that he could not attend school. So, he did not fail grade 11, but had to repeat the year. He still could not play in his repeat grade 11, but was ready in matric. Naturally he turned 19 in his matric year.
That boy is now playing URC/Currie Cup.
If he was not allowed to play due to a 5-year rule, he might have given up on his dream, namely rugby. Should he and others like him be punished due to “crooks”?
@KES Oldboy: He is at Wynberg, not sure on the details or the reason for the move.
I agree, we need to bring the annual fixture back…I remember the train ride up from durban to play KES and Jeppe, it was a good tour and experience. Went up as an u14C player covering the B team bench to starting for the B team and came back an u14A player so definitely a memorable tour for me.
@ForeverHorseFly: Thanks for the correction. Which Cape school did your U16 captain go to? I look forward to another KES/DHS fixture. One of our oldest rivals & a mainstay on the fixture list for many years over the “Ascension Thursday Weekend”.
@OUD ANKER: my first year at varsity there was an excellent flyhalf at trials who, although he was pretty damn good, did not make any of the Tuks u20 A, B, or u19A, B teams. Although this was early March he left and re-registered at his former high school to “repeat” matric and play another year of first team rugby. The school principal (won’t mention the school’s name) had invited him back.
@KES Oldboy: There is three, one player was incorrectly listed as u19 on that list.
To be honest it would have been two but we lost a u17 prop to a cape town school this year who was KZN u16 captain last year who would have been first team.
@ForeverHorseFly: as per the team lists published on this site on 10th March, there were 4 U19s in the DHS starting XV. That’s a lot!
@Smallies: Dit is hoekom ek saamstem oor limit van 5 jaar in hoerskool, wat in die laerskool gebeur gaan dan nie jou 5 jaar beinvloed op hoerskool nie (steeds limit tot u/19), hopenlik gaan ouers nie dan gaan en kinders in laerskool terughou sodat hulle groer in matriek is nie, maar dit sal darem baie stupid wees
I think this is a great post from Beet,
I have to agree with Deon and the suggestion from Beet, and believe they should be allowed to only play 5 years of high school rugby, if they fail academics then that is an academic problem where they can have another academic year but believe they will have the 5 years of sport as limit the same as everybody else.
What will happen next, where a child fails grade 1 for not being ready in primary and then fail another year, he will be 20 and currently is not allowed to play but if the principal of being in school is used to allow for participation?.
@Deon: die vraag wat jy moet vra is waar kom die 13de jaar vandaan ,moes die mannetjie bv gr 4 herhaal agv dalk n moerse tragedie of is hy in gr 11 gevra om te herhaal ter wille van rugby ,indien dit die laasgenoemde is ….norrefok sal ek dit goedkeur nie
Personally I’ve noticed a trend that this u19 topic usually ever comes up when some very top players happen to be u19 in that year…in most other years you will find schools will still have u19 players but because the players aren’t as good or the teams aren’t as strong, it doesn’t really draw as much attention.
@Grasshopper: from a DHS perspective, last year’s team was just as good as this years team imo and last years team had no u19 players. In 2022 two u17 players made craven week (again this year as u18) and the team as a whole had 5 u17 players in total(would have been 6 if Ntshangase wasn’t out for the season) with the rest u18(two are u19 this year)…so to argue that a team with such a strong returning u18 core is only good this year because of two returning u19 players is disingenuous, even if they are really good players.
@Jakkals: ander opsie speel gr10 en 11 1ste span en dan gr 12 sak jy af na die span van jou keuse of dit nou 2des 3des of 9des is gaan jol totaal vir die lekker ,as jy goed genoeg was in gr 10 en 11 het jy in elk geval al reeds n kontrak na skool
@Deon: I must say, your opposite-side-of-the-coin point re. 13 chances vs. 11 very valid as well. I think I’m leaning towards the zero 0/19 allowed side of the debate.
@Djou: From what I’ve seen, Welkom Gim is the biggest culprit. They had 7 U19s in their starting XV at the St. John’s festival. That appears sinister to me…..
@Beet I like your 5 year suggestion. Good compromise and will cut out the players that hang around for Rugby as opposed to those who genuinely had some trouble with the books at some stage or started school late. I must say I also won’t be opposed to keeping it U18 right across the board. Nothing stopping an U17 Gr 10 or U18 Gr11 from having a great time in the 1st XV. Also nothing stopping an U19 Gr12 from joining a U19 Club team and playing provincial trials while still at school.
I’ve had a few U19s that coach one of the school teams, or be team manager in their matric year a we were strictly U18. They had their time in the 1st XV and then gave back amd loved it.
@burra: You guys are reasoning like geometry compasses (passers in Afrikaans) now, all around your own holes (gatte). What would be even more extreme would be stealing the opportunity of a boy who spends 12 years at school, as is the norm, and kill his dream to excel and play say first team, in favour of a boy who spends 13 years. Bizarre idea, sickening, and way too often just for school image. Bad things happen to good people, and we have to live with it. So, if a boy fails a standard, for whatever reason, there is no way he should receive 13 opportunities and someone else effectively 11 opportunities, perhaps even punishing another kid for excelling at academics or being a hard worker. That reasoning is simply evil.
@Djou: Totally agree . In some cases it’s not because of rugby but due to academics. I believe it would be a bit extreme not allow a boy to play in his matric year because he’s u19 , Because academically the boys can never be all at the same level. So only failing one high school year be it gr8 or whatever shouldn’t jeopardize ones chance of playing in his matric year
I am intetested in knowing how big this “challenge” is. In other words, how many u.19’s in the top 10 schools, how many in the next 10, etc.
Secondly, for me, just eliminate “post-matrics”, no matter whether matric was passed or failed.
The rest should play. If a boy repeats a lower grade, it is an academic issue and he should not be punished for improving his marks.
How many boys repeated a lower grade for “rugby” and how many of them actually played higher up after school?
I get the point of a 16-year old playing against an almost 20-year old, but this is misleading and used in an extreme sense. One could have described the same situation as an almost 17-year old playing against an 18-year old turning 19 later on, which is the opposite extreme.
@Grasshopper: I’ve heard from people in the know that Boesak is definitely U19. Those old July to June age groups were applied in Transvaal & Natal schools but went out in the mid 90s. Craven Week used to be U19 but also in the January-December calendar.
@Kaya 85: I like your suggestion. You are allowed to play up to the day you turn 19. If it is before the rugby season starts, tough luck.
If you go to gr1 the year in witch you turn 7 there is no way you can be u 19 in matric for the simple reason you will be 18 when you finish matric,you are u 19 in matric when you turn 19 in your matric year
@KES Oldboy: ah ok, so I need to adjust my DHS list. I remember it being July but that maybe for year cut off. Boesak is born March 2005 but didn’t make Craven Week, hmmmm…
@Grasshopper: 1st January 2005. If you turn 18 that day or any day after that you are U18.
Great post!
If a U/19 player already played first team rugby in his U/18 year which ever school, he should not be allowed to play first team rugby in his U/19 year.
If it’s 1st July 2005, then DHS have the following 13x u19s in their squad;
Dlamini (prop)
Everitt (hooker)
Basson (lock)
Mani (flank – born Feb 2004)
Boesak (Flyhalf)
Willemse (wing)
Madikane (centre)
Erasmus (prop)
Hlabisa (lock)
Zungu (scrum half – born Feb 2004)
Zama (fullback)
Mavuso (wing)
Thiam (prop)
…..
Doesn’t seem fair & why they are so good this year…
I’ve forgotten, what is the cutoff for being u18 this year? Born 1st July 2005 and after?
@Grasshopper: @KES Oldboy:
Or how about letting the boy play up to and until he turns 19….so while he is 18 he plays,…if he turns 19 in July he can play most if the season…if it’s January we’ll then, find a club team my friend
@OUD ANKER: and then on the other hand you might get a guy who turns 19 in December of his matric year…just a usual team player, not recruited, not a star…now told he can’t play in gr 12
@OUD ANKER: daardie tiepe mismatch kry jy baie meer in o13,14 ,15 vlak as by oop spanne…..meeste seuns het tussen 15 en 17 n helse groath spurt,as voorbeeld neem ek my eie seun op 15 het hy 70kg geweeg op 17 het hy 89kg op 18 was hy 95kg hy het 13 gespeel
Dit gebeur nie gereeld op elite skool vlak dat jy met klein O17 sit nie.
@OUD ANKER: This is not a theoretical example, it is an actual scenario this year where Jeppe have an U19 born 5th January. KES have a few players turning 17 in November & December.
@OUD ANKER: that would be ideal, U18 only full-stop. DHS’s two best players are u19
@Smallies: I agree because they would have repeated/been held back for the right reasons at primary school. A very different situation to where a boy is recruited in grade 10 & then told to repeat “for academic purposes”…….
@Grasshopper: And what if one of those 0/19s is a 110kg inside centre who turned 19 on 2 January and in August of that year he plays against a grade 11 centre who only turns 17 in December? So you have a16 year old playing against an almost 20 year old giant. In my opinion, zero 0/19s should be allowed from a safety perspective.
@Grasshopper: Good points raised. I’d limit it to 2 U19 players.
You do get boys who are u 14 in their gr 7 year so basically they go to high school as u15 boys,Ihave no problem with them playing 1st team for 3 years
@KES Oldboy: KZN has more rural communities where education is not as good, so academics is usually an issue. Quite a few of the rugby players are not academics and trying to use rugby to build a future professional career, so unfortunately a few fail a year or two getting to matric. It’s a tough nut to crack. Again, limiting a side to 3x u19s would hopefully cover for this…
Great post again Beet. For me limit the numbers allowed to play, max of 3 seems fair to me. I’ve heard of teams with up to 9 or 10 U19s playing, just mad! It’s like a uni side playing. As you well know I love to highlight the privates with their post matric offering, it was the difference in the 90s. You had 19 year olds vs 16 year olds in some cases. Glenwood even joined them in 97 & 98 and offered post matric with Unisa. In 97 there were about 8 post matrics and all of them played sport at 1st team level. Malcolm Aeirengton joined from Pinetown, still one of the best schoolboy loosies I’ve ever seen. Rudi de Vry went to College for post, played 1st team cricket & 2nd team rugby. It was a case of if you can’t beat them join them. Of course their is a different issue with real age, which Glenwood is well aware of…and now tarnished…
A very interesting article. What I have noticed is that the top teams who are the traditional power-houses i.e. Grey Bloem, Paul Roos, Affies & Paarl Gim only field U18 players. (I think Paarl Boys have one U19 player).This possibly occurs because they don’t recruit players after grade 8 & if they do, the boys aren’t encouraged to repeat. The Natal schools are notorious for both recruitment after gr8 & having U19s in their teams (DHS, Westville, College, Glenwood always have U19s or worse!) and I can’t help but think that they go hand in hand. The same applies to Jeppe which explains their lack of players in the Lions teams despite having an excellent team this year. Banning U19s is harsh on “young” players born in Oct/Nov/Dec who for social or academic reasons were kept back in grade0/1/2. But we can’t have a situation where playing U19s is taken advantage of. I don’t buy the argument that it is good for these boys rugby – it is good for their egos & the bragging rights for their schools. Very, very few of these rock-star U19s shine after school. They were fooling themselves – men Vs boys.
Great post, thanks. Did not see this developing, hopefully just a blip to cover the Covid Years