A few months back, I praised Grey High for their clever application of the SARU age-banding rule for a home game against Paul Roos. The match was an under-18 match and therefore Grey were permitted to play their talented under-16 flyhalf Curwin Bosch. Well now it turns out that Grey didn’t do their homework ahead of Cape Schools Week and brought the same player on off the bench in an under-19 game against Paarl Gim on Saturday, which in terms of the SARU rules is not allowed.
The added harm to Bosch of being on the same field as one Gimmies under-19 was absolutely nothing at all. Before this season many under-16’s have competed at open / under-19 level. The onus was always on the qualified coaching staff to evaluate the player’s readiness and get signed off formal approval from a designated and qualified official at the union. Bosch by all accounts is good enough and strong enough to play 1st XV rugby this season and his progress has been halted by a rule that was introduced in the interests of safety. I believe that the same safety requirements can be attained by placing more emphasis on the testing of a player’s ability to cope with physical and perhaps even mental challenges of playing an age-group higher, rather than focusing solely on the date of birth.
The age-banding rule has already caused the KZNRU High School Association plenty of headaches this season. Rugby at many tier-2 schools in the province no longer enjoys the same participation levels that it once did. There is a genuine battle going on to keep rugby alive at some of these schools. Previously a good few tier-2 schools had no under-16 age-group. Boys went directly from under-15 to open. This was the only means of ensuring the schools in question had sufficient numbers to field a first team. The new age-banding forced each school to decide whether their first teams should be an under-18 or under-19 team. As a result it also limited them in terms of which opponents they could play on any given Saturday simply because an under-18 team containing under-16 players could not play against a team containing under-19 players. The changes made by SARU definitely did not benefit the growth or well-being of rugby in KZN tier-2.
So perhaps this Grey High decision to field an under-aged player, as unintentional as it was is a good thing. Hopefully it opens the door to further discussions on the matter and a reassessment of the age-banding rule in this regard.
@Queenian:
There as so many rules scrumtime that it is becoming a joke. All ok with new rules up to u/21. But the older players need no more protection than what is already provided. Scrums are a vital part of the game. Let it be.
Remember the saying that rugby is the only game that provides all shapes and sizes the opportunity to participate. Let it be.
Rules are rules just follow them
By die o/13 cravenweek is daar seuns in die voorry wat tot meer as 20 kg swaarder is as sy direkte opponent.So die volgende veiligheids meganisme gaan wees dat voorrye naastenby dieselfde gewig gaan moet he.Dan gaan dit gebeur dat die een dalk baie harder in die gym geoefen het en 70 kg meer gaan benchpress as sy opponent.Dan sal daar n reel ingebring moet word dat albei die voorrye omtrent ewe sterk moet wees.
As jy nie wil he die kind moet seerkry nie,laat hy n ander sport kies.Anders sal rugby soos ons dit ken verdwyn.
Lekker harde skrums, krag teen krag. Wettige skrumtegnieke. JA! Onwettige skrums wat beserings tot gevolg kan he. NEE! Maar hierdie sissieskrums???????
@Positive: Where all of these boys playing as underaged players with much older players? Any initiative that looks after player safety is to be commended, I am just not convinced that it is always the younger boys that gets injured as there is but a very small percentage of actual u/16’s playing in the u/18 groups. Most areas have u/16 age groups and thus these players dont play for the open age group anyway. The focus should be at illegal scrumming and punish that!
I have been reading and not commenting on this because I am indifferent on this matter.Safety of the boys is the number one priority, without a doubt, and there are no ‘buts’.As a result, it is necessary to have some sort of age limiting legislation.Then there is the argument that under 16s have played in open for ages, so why now?CB Jennings played for Dale 1st XV at the age of 14.Played for Border Currie Cup at age 17.He went on to represent the Springboks at 23…this was in the 1930s.He lived a full life, died at 89.
A fair argument is that things have changed.Boys are bigger now, they take supplements, and hit the gym at a younger age, for longer time periods.Which is where my counter-argument comes.Have we considered that the reason our boys are so injury prone nowadays is a product of their bodies being over-worked at an early age.A lot of these boys are pumping iron 5 times a week, hit tackle bags/play koppe stamp 2 or 3 times a week, and then play 60 minutes of rugby every Saturday.When does the body recover?Imagine how the still developing body of a 15 year old is taking all of this?
In my time, which is not too long ago, no boys under 16 were allowed to enter the school’s gym.Supplements were not allowed to be taken.Of course, some boys broke those rules.
My point here is simple.Boksmart is focusing on age as a yardstick for safety.We have realised that there are boys who are bigger than their peers in the same age group with the capability to inflict the same harm as a 19 year old would on any younger boy.My feel is that I would rather Boksmart focused on legislating time spent in gym by boys, as well as the in take of supplements.A suggestion would be the old school rule we had in my time…no kid under 16 should be in gym, and should therefore not take supplements either.But I guess it is easier to just monitor age…
@Deon: Precisely like I said held back one year would not stop him becoming a star bad being pushed too fast will.
The rule should be enforced and even “policed”. An under 16 player is under 16, neither under 18 nor under 19, perhaps not even under 17 (I realize there is no such age group) If the rule is scrapped, all will be fine and everyone will be happy, until the first under 18/19 scrum falls or breaks down in an unexpected manner and a u/16 player involved is harmed or even handicapped for life. I have witnessed this in a game between Paul Roos and Bellville in roughly 1986-I wish not to name the player, but he is still in a wheelchair. Regardless of whether his injury will be due to the injured boy’s lower age,the name, blame and shame process, which is inherent to human nature and a natural response after disaster, wil commence. Next will be the court cases and media reporting. Who will prove whether any blame can be shifted on the boy’s progress from u/16 to u/18, so, assessing u/16’s abilities will have to become a science in its own. Children will be called as witnesses etc. (This has happened, and halted rugby careers) There is precedent for this kind of response. Leaving the authority to decide whether a psyched up young man with big dreams can progress into a higher age group in the hands of officials, even medical doctors, is irresponsible, and within a few years will lead to chaos. If that exact same official, by exactly the same standards and methods and science, “proofs” an under 14 player fit to play under 19, we suddenly sit with a question to be answered by interpreting the Constitution. Do not open the gates to chaos. Safety before, enjoyment enjoyment before accomplishment. Beet, unfortunately you already made an assessment regarding this boy’s ability, which I do not think you, or anyone, are qualified to do. And saying his progress was halted, is unknown an arbitrary. Perhaps his progress through the age groups has been halted, but perhaps his progress through the game we love was boosted.
@Positive: Please do not see me as insensitive regarding the serious injuries of any person. But are we going to ban all sports that may result in injuries i.e. cricket to be played with a sponge ball. No sir protect children. But leave the big boys alone.
@Tjoppa: The “over reaction” is possibly due to some boys who cannot live a normal life anymore. The problem is that even if you try and control dirty and malicious play by means of penalties etc. it remains reactive. The tackle has been made and the illegal scrumming has already taken place, sometime with catastrophic results. Many of our ref’s (especially at school level) are so incompetent that they don’t even notice these transgressions and it does not get punished. In the lower school leagues an element of hooliganism and “muscle junky” attitudes have creeped in and there is less regard for ethics, rules and legal play. In this regard we welcome Boksmart which is trying to be pro-active to a certain extent.
However, in my opinion scrums are an invitation for an injury to happen and the few that understood it in it’s original and legal form, are thinning out. Even in the elite rugby schools. Your statement that it will disappear in future might be very true.
@Positive: See the sissy scrums is implemented from Friday this week. We are living in a community that is over reacting. Rugby was and will be a dangerous game as long as contact is allowed. I say let us get rid of dirty and malicious play but let the game continue as is. Scrums was always a major part of rugby that only a few understood and with the new rules I can see it disappear in the feature, due to safety.
I read the article and many of the replies. I am familiar with most of the Boksmart regulations / principles. This is one of the best initiatives ever by SARU. The most important aspect here is the wellbeing and safety of each boy, which should be first prize in all circumstances. Do yourself a favour and view the “Serious and/or catastrophic concussion, head, neck or spine injuries in South African schoolboy rugby” stats on the Boksmart website. One schoolboy who has a head, spinal or neck injury which result in him being a quadriplegic or end up with a neurological deficit, is ONE TO MANY.
Visiting these injured boys, where they need to wear nappies and cannot feed themselves are not for those with a weak stomach. I dare anybody on this blog who is in favour of the age banding to be scrapped, to make one such visit to one of these boys and lets see if you still feel the same? It is the most unwise decision to think by obtaining “parental consent” is a solution to the problem. Unfortunately there are many parents out there that are so “rugby crazy” that they are prepared to offer their sons to the Rugby God, no matter what the end-result is.
@Woltrui: Volgens die lys het hy in 2001 en 2002 gespeel. Dalk Vrystaat in st.8. Glo Bog sal weet.
@Woltrui: Sal gou kyk.
@Koos Roos: Koos het Bismarck nie ook van st 8 af SA skole gespeel nie?
@Woltrui: Lees nou net iets raak wat ons liewers self moet blog, voor Bog dit doen. Grey is ligjare voor met SA skole spelers sedert 1974. Vinnig getel. Lyk soos 86. Naaste is Affies met 27 en Gim met 26. Dan volg die res. PRG het maar sowat 18! Hulle se jy kan statistiek bewimpel maar hierdie een is solid. Dit lyk my net Danie het van st.8 SA skole gekry. Maw 3 jaar in ‘n ry.
@Koos Roos: Dankie Mnr Roos!!
@Woltrui: Het hom gebel. Dis Bekker Landbouskool of andersom. Tipies Blou Bul stuur hy sommer groete vir iemand wat dalk ‘n BB kan wees! Verstommend dat so ‘n stuk Afrikana geskiedenis daar afgespeel het en vandag word KZN as hoofsaaklik Engels beskou.
@Woltrui: Ek skat hy is net ‘n bietjie g@tvol vir Boland-L wat nie goed doen nie. Ek is seker hy is binnekort weer terug!
@Koos Roos: Was jou vriend in Hoerskool Wagpos, die ou Brits Landbou skool?? Watter jaar was hy in matriek Mnr Roos??
As ek reg is was een van die Heuwel Fantasties se lede in Affies.
NNatal beslis die moeite werd om te besoek. Een van die GROOT toeriste geheim in SA. Buiten die natuurskoon seker die area in ons land met die mooiste (en geweldadigste) geskiedenis).
Plekke soos Bloedrivier, Ladysmith, Colenso en Dundee is verstommend. Onder Spioenkop is die Spioenkop Natuur reservaat (ons het letterlik gekampeer in die voetpad wat die Britse soldate gevolg het toe hulle Spioenkop aangeval het). Natuurlik die Rorkes Drift en Isandliwana slagvelde ook in die area. Spioenkop ook ‘n klipgooi van die mooie Drakensberg met al die mooi staproetes.
@Woltrui: Daardie pel van my raak liries oor die Bosveld en ek sien myself om daai kampvuur! Heuwels Fantasties se Tambotieboom liedjie sit gewoonlik die gesprek aan. Laaste hieroor: Ons bly in ‘n pragtige land!
@Woltrui: Een van my kollegas hier by die Balie was in daai landbouskool in Magalliesberge. Hy deel al jou liefdes vir daai dele. Bel my elke keer as ons ‘n tipiese Kaapse reen en sop dag het, om te kla! Maar dink jy ons kry hom om te trek? Blou Bul ook, maar goeie pel. Het in st 9 in destydse Oos Tvl gaan toer. Manoutsa was pragtig! Sabie ens ook. Ek hoor Mnr. Edwards is legendaries. Julle is bevoorreg. Sal daai trippie N Natal toe oorweeg. Goeie jagplek ook hoor ek.
@Koos Roos: Met die Noord Vaal A en B spanne word gepoog om aan meer kinders blootstelling te gee. Hulle speel in ‘n provinsiale onder 16 kompetisie waar meestal Noordelike bonde by betrokke is.
Stem saam Mnr Roos. Stellenbosch en die Paarl mooi dele van ons land. Ek self het egter ‘n sagte plek vir die Noord vaal. Die Mpumalanga Hoeveld en Laeveld. Bosveld daar na Ellisras se wereld. Mooi jong.
Was ook op ‘n slag bevoorreg om saam my laaitie die historiese “slagvelde” in Noord Natal te besoek. Daar is nie woorde om te skoonheid te beskryf nie. As ‘n man daar op Spioenkop staan voel ‘n man maar erg klein (Dr Edwards, skoolhoof van Affies, vat die geskiedenis laaities in Gr 10 een keer per jaar na Noord Natal om die slagvelde te besoek. My laaitie was so beindruk met die toer dat ek en hy dieselfde roete later moes oordoen!)
@BuffelsCM: Ook nogal gedink die “burrps” opmerking was skreeu snaaks. Kon net van n sekere Mnr Ploegskaar kom
Ek verstaan egter die man trek nou klein koppie op die blog. Ek gaan hom beskinder tot hy ‘n “comeback” maak. Geniet nogal die man se insette.
@BuffelsCM: Dit het glo oor die “jack knife” taktiek gegaan. Soos jy se, iemand moes dit vir hulle geleer het. Natuurlik nie noodwendig die afrigter nie. My seun het ook al by my kom navraag doen oor daardie taktiek. (Was self haker) Ek het hom al die mediaberigte oor daardie voorval laat lees. Hy kom egter steeds gereeld uit wedstryde met stories wat opponente doen! Iemand leer hulle dit.
@Koos Roos: Ja en in daardie opsig speel Boksmart ‘n besliste rol. Destyds met my eerste bywoning van Boksmart kon ek duidelik sien hoe daar op bv die veiligheid by skrums gekonsentreer is. Afrigters wat nie veel geweet het wat in skrums aangaan nie, kon selfs daarby leer. Alhoewel in die spesifieke geval gekonsentreer is op die oortreder, wonder ek net watter rol sy afrigter daarin gespeel het. Iewers moes hy in elk geval die onwettige taktiek geleer het.
Ek dink dit is belangrik om die game so veilig as moontlik te maak. As ‘n ma voorvalle sien of hoor van bogenoemde, is dit moeilik om hulle kwalik te neem as hulle nie wil hê dat hulle seuns moet rugby speel nie.
@BuffelsCM: Hulle het ook getuienis van Andre Watson en Proudfoot aangebied. Ek dink die uitspraak vestig een beginsel: opsetlike vuilspel lan jou duur te staan kom. Verbasend hoe min mense dit besef. Harde spel daarteenoor is iets anders. Wat afrigting betref, glo ek meeste afrigters volg die reels. Die uitspraak wys nie veel daarvan nie , maar ek het by eiser se advokaat gehoor dat baie klem geval het op wat die unies doen om die spel veiliger te maak.
@Woltrui: Nee wat ou Woltrui, ek is trots op my Valie deel van my lewe. Ek weet net van Jaques en dis 30 jaar gelede. Na my studies op die Puk het op die mooiste plek op aarde kom woon. Selfs julle Valies sal dit erken. Wat julle spanne betref, het ek net respek, veral Affies en Roos bied mekaar baie teenstand. Lekker! Julle ouers die afgelope 2 jaar by o 15 en 16 toernooie in Paarl was lekker company. Veral by die biertuin! Wat is die Noordvaal A en B spanne. Lyk na goeie idee om outjies wat nie Khomo haal nie, ook kans te gee. Sien by een van die spanne ‘n outjie wat saam met my seun op laerskool was en toe in Boishaai, in een van die lae o14 spanne gespeel het. Lyk my julle ontwikkeling van spelers geniet ook aandag, ten spyte daarvan dat julle buite die provinsie ook soek na talent.
@Woltrui: Mnr Woltrui, ek dink daardie ‘chirp” van Ploegskaar was nogal skerp! Laat ons nou die ou Transvaal hierby betrek nie !
@Koos Roos: Yes Koos, I was actually surprised about the judgement but nevertheless grateful that it was handed down. My initial thoughts were that the plaintiff would battle to show adequate proof of the incident. “Fortunately” they had video evidence that was presented and accepted by the court. Balie Swart had to give evidence as well (as an expert opinion).
I played hooker and received my “fair” share of foul play during my playing days as well. We simply had to deal with the matter on the field of play. At one of my first practices at university I was “welcomed” by one of the opposing locks (in a scrum) with an upper cut to the face. The matter of the schoolboy’s horrific injury was much however worse than “normal foul play”.
I have been coaching for about 13 years and I’ve never taught the boys any illegal tactics but had to show them on certain occasions how to negate illegal play by the opposition. I spoke to a 19 year old yesterday who told me about a former coach that showed them all the dirty tactics when he was under 15 – now that is simply wrong !!
Certain parents often go overboard and the comments you have made are unfortunately often heard. If one of “my parents” make a comment like that I’ll ask him to refrain from such behaviour (I have done it in fact)
@Koos Roos: The incident took place in 2005, and judgement was finalized in 2012. Don’t think it was the sole cause but it certainly contributed. Action was instituted long after, I think 2008. It was then done by his father on his behalf, sugesting he was one of yhe younger players in the side. I will speak to his counsel, allmost sure he was 16. My son plays in the front row and it sends chills down my spine when opponent parents encourage their children to “break him, tear his arm off etc.”. It happens though. This case places a duty on coaches to teach legal technics and on players to adhere.
@Koos Roos: Mnr Roos. TOV die feit dat U in die TVL gematrikuleer het: Moet se ek het die kwaliteit van dag 1 af gesien. Definitief ‘n stappie hoer as die gemiddelde Wes Kaapse blogger(veral daai Ploegskaar spanner met sy “welkom in die burrrps” opmerkings en die BHP wat om die dood nie ‘n Valie span die No 1 op sy ranglyste kan plaas nie).
Vandat die 0/16 ouderdomsgroepe in die NV inwerking gestel is (goeie 20 jaar terug???) weet ek nie van gevalle waar 0/16 spelers vir oop spanne gekies is nie. Veral nie in die Groot – en Makro skole afdeling nie. Was werklik nog nooit ‘n debateerbare aangeleentheid nie. Sal graag van bloggers wil verneem indien daar wel sulke gevalle was.
@beet: Sorry, to esure not assure. By the way, Judge Fourie’s finding was confirmed in the Supreme Court of Appeal.
@beet: Ek het matriek in destydse Transvaal klaargemaak. Toe was dit algemeen dat ons in graad 10 al ope spanne gespeel het. Jacques Niewenhyus het bv. 3 jaar Cravenweek gespeel in 1982 tot 1984. Baie het egter verander om die game veiliger te maak. As far as tha case goes it was a game between Labori and Stellenbosch High. The claim was based on illegal scrumming, but the safety and agegroups were fully canvassed during the trial. Judge Fourie found in favour of plaintiff. Much emphasis was placed on the duty of rugby’s governing bodies to assure the safety of particular young players, since their physical development is not allways that of fully grown, older players. From that point of view, Boksmart seems to comply with that. Hence I don’t think it can be faulted.
Ook vir my interesant is dat ‘n beker soos die Beeldtrofee in Noordvaal ‘n onder-18 toernooi is. Dus mag onder-16 spelers in die eerste span afdeling speel.
@Koos Roos: Ek het dit nou gelees. Goeie punt. Ek onthou ook dat daar ‘n groot hofsaak oor ‘n besering verlede jaar plaasgevind het, maar het nie dots gekonnekt nie.
My Afrikaans is vrot! Ek lees elke dag die taal maar leer niks nie. Was die nuwe reel die uitslag van hierdie hofsaak dan?
Dit klink ook as of die meeste van die ouers hier met die nuwe reel saamstem.
@beet: Jammer Beet , die blog was eintlik vir jou bedoel.
@Tjoppa: Onthou net dat Boksmart sy oorsprong in onder andere ernstige beserings aan seuns in ouer ouderdomsgroepe te danke het. Hofsake het daaroor gevolg. Ons kan nie die liggaam wat dit beheer as daar reels daaroor is nie. Dit is nodig. Uitsonderings sal daar altyd wees, maar reels poog om die norm te reel en nie die uitsonderings nie.
@Tjoppa: It’s all about tier-2 schools. I’m not sure how many teams they start out with in u14 but it comes across that by open age-group they are scraping the barrel to get a side or 2 together because of the high drop rate. I’m sure that if circumstances permitted it, these schools would have a separate u16 team from their 1st team and there wouldn’t be an issue with Boksmart now. The very fact that they didn’t field an u16 team in the past and depended on u16s to make up the 1st team suggested a major shortage in participation numbers.
I don’t know if anyone is measuring but chances are that SBR in SA is reducing in size rather than growing in popularity. We have to accept the reality that the game may even die out in many schools where it once thrived.
@BoishaaiPa: I don’t feel your opinion is correct on all levels – sure, cricket requires mental toughness in that one needs to concentrate for long periods of time and also when going through a lean patch one has to rise above that.
Schoolboy rugby on the other hand involves higher emotional stress and obviously for a younger boy the inner concern that he may not match the opposition physically.
My boy played 1st XI this year as an Under 16 and had no obvious shortcomings mentally – I honestly feel it might have been different on the rugby field … but that, we will never know.
@BoishaaiPa: Bang hom niks nie. Only cricketers will bring a small red ball to a gun fight.
@Tjoppa: I would like you to call a bowler a pansy who can hurl that hard little round and red object at you at well over 130km/h!..You are creating a bunch of pansies and over protected kids when you should be making them strong..physically and mentally!
@Tjoppa: Like any gentleman would!!!!
@kcman: Jersey was given to me and as a gentleman of sort accepted the ruling of the host with dignity.
@Tjoppa: Seeing your supporters jersey makes me think you must have been a cricketer then or wait that would have required skill and brains, so maybe ballet.
@BoishaaiPa: Cricket, as said on this forum before, is for pantsies and as a sport comparible to ballet, hockey and tennis . So please keep to the subject.
@Pedantic:Give this man a Bells. Your child is the most important gift you will ever receive. If he is to be a big star holding him back one year will not affect the outcome. But pushing him to fast will definitely cause his failure.
@beet: As an ex bean counter please correct me. If a school have 2 teams per age group in the senior (u17 & U18/U19) they should have at least 60 boys playing rugby. So in order to account for boys losing interest etc at least 40 boys left to play senior rugby. So why do you not have enough players?
We had a similar scenario with a current disadvantaged school who refused to play b & c sides in leagues as they claimed a lack of interest. We imported a few varsity students to help coach, with some financial support, and suddenly there was 3 teams per age group and 5 senior teams.
Unfortunately the will must be at the school, and if a school pick under aged boys in senior teams it is clear that winning is everything and that school is the only one to blame if not enough seniors are willing to play rugby in matric. For every action they say a reaction will follow.
@BoishaaiPa: Great point!!!!
So would you not play a 15 or 16 year old in the 1st cricket team either?…Cricket is a much more mentally tougher game than rugby…If it is not the size then it must be the mental and emotional scarring playing with older boys?
@Pedantic: Fantastic comment,tough choice to make as a parent thro,his time will come and be ready for it
@Pedantic: Well done for admitting that as parents we cannot always be trusted to make the right decision for our kids. Having the rule in place helps us all avoid buckling to pressure for the wrong reasons.
May your son continue to progress and realise his full potential next year and the year after in the open age group.
As a parent of a boy who was directly affected by the new ruling this year I must admit that in my opinion the ruling makes a lot of sense.
In our particular situation, on the old rules, the decision would have come down to the coaches & parents – as a parent, how could one possibly deny your son the opportunity of participating in one of Kearsney’s best 1st XV’s in history? I know for a fact that as parents we would have given clearance to play our U16 son who is pretty well developed physically – and in hindsight it would have been the wrong decision as I don’t believe he would have been mentally or emotionally ready.
So .. from my personal viewpoint enforcing it via the rules is the best way … yes, it will exclude the minority who might be ready for it, but it protects the kids … end of the day that is all we can ask for.
@beet: That was the point I am trying to make. No criticism against the Du Preez twins. I believe they are both brilliant.
As mentioned already, it just seems that the boys that played with the big boys to early, tend to get injured a lot more as they get older.
@Tjoppa: No in KZN its simply a case of survival. If the school has 6 u16s and 2 u19s, the decision is we need those 6 u16s to make a team, therefore the 2 u19s miss out because we have no one else. Yes everyone plays because they want to win, but the exclusions come about as a result of the SARU rule. In 2012 the same decision would have been to play the 2 u19s + 4 of the 6 u16s. That choice has been removed. If they keep the 1st team as u19 they don’t have the numbers to field a team and rugby dies at that school because the next set of Gr.8 parents decide to send their kids to a different school that does offer 1st team rugby.
@beet: Very happy with your answer, hence why I say I cannot think why we want to hold back boys who are ready for the next level.
@QC86: I will ask uncle Tony from Stoopstats to help answer that one.
@kcman: Definitely not. Kearsney has a history of promoting boys who are ready for 1st team rugby at u16 level. Matt Stevens and Brad Barritt are the 2 famous examples. More recently Warren Seals, Andrew Holland, Sandile Kubeka, the 3 Doop brothers, Mat Reece-Edwards and Tristan Tedder.
Glenwood, College and few Joberg schools have done likewise.
@beet: So we rather exclude the u/19’s to have a winning team? If taking into account that u/17,u/18 and u/19 can be picked it seems difficult to understand that the players do not exist. Maybe the u/16 more talented and the 1st XV a better team whith his selction, therefore I insist that this decision is made in the interest of the school only.
@Tjoppa: I agree. The previous and new rules both pointed to this. The new rule is just a stricter application. Essentially the new rule disallows a player from playing against 100% of older kids but if 10% (u19 component) is not there the player can play against 90% of those older boys.
The KZN tier-2 issue is a headache for those who have to enforce the rules. I think to some of the schools concerned it was something they did not ask for being forced down their throat. They had to make tough decisions. It was even believed that one school had to tell its u19 players, their school rugby careers were over at the beginning of this year because the school 1st team was now u18.
@beet: what other teams are fielding u19 players in the CSW,because Selborne is playing 1 u16 and Dale 3 u16’s
@Tjoppa: Goosen good case in point,we have ruined the best up and coming BOK flyhalf we would ever have watched
@beet: This very visible at Tuks. All the junior stars bandaged up to the ears with the late bloomers still injury and bandage free.
@beet: Do you think Kearsney would have chosen the Du Preez lads at u16 level if they did not think they were mature enough mentally and physically?
@valke: As much as I’d like to I can’t dismiss what you are saying completely.
Not specifically for the Du Preezs as they have enjoyed 2 injury free seasons of 1st XV rugby between 2011 and 2012 and both picked up injuries after the KZN season (one while playing for SA Schools). In 2011 they were both 15 and playing Craven Week, and were the 2 most physical forwards KZN had. In KZN, given their size and strength, they would have overpowered rivals in the u16 age-group and certainly it would have been along the lines of what some have said above: kids in u16 would have been at risk of being injured by them.
But the reason I tend to agree is because there does seem to be a trend at senior level where players that start playing top level rugby in their teens seem to be more prone to injury than their peers by the time they hit 26/27.
@RBugger: Johan Goosen maybe a similar situation?
@beet: Rules are made and if we want lo live a an civilized society, they must be adhered to. If you want to change the rules do it in a manner that your intentions are not questionable. If the rules are regarding children take only their best interest into consideration.
@QC86: Ja no I think we have had some valid points made. Yours amongst the best as it comes from personal experience as a parent. It’s refreshing to hear that a parent of a talented SBR player sees the big picture.
I’m enjoying reading the input from bloggers. When I did the post last night I foolishly believed that everyone would agree with me.
Safety is paramount. I think I underplayed that. Consultation with parents before making decisions to proceed with other requirements is a must.
But the rules are not as set in stone as a few believe they are. There is a loophole. And furthermore the age groups work on the calendar year. So a player born in Jan 1998 can be excluded while one born in Dec 1997 is legit to play, so it is definitely not so straightforward.
Also no one has touched on our KZN tier-2 problem yet. Solutions for that would be interesting to read.
@valke: Imagine how many u16 boys they would have broken that year, as I saw them break a lot of 19 yr olds.
@QC86: I hope the Selborne and Dale coaches did their homework before they fielded those u16 boys at Cape Schools
@Valke: True, they are injured, have been all season and only just coming back now, perhaps just too much rugby at a young age.
No matter how big and strong you are, when 17-19yrs old, you are still young and your body has not developed into an adult yet.
@beet: Even u18 i would not allow my u16 kid to play,even thro he weighs 98kgs and is 1.78 cm tall,he is still soft,like i said,i don’t say i am right,but that is were i am the happiest.
@kcman: Seems to me that the Du Preez brothers are injured most of the time. Maybe they should have played in their age group a little longer.
@beet: This is how Curwin Bosch was able to play against both Paul Roos and Wynberg on subsequent weekends earlier this year.
The rules were not broken by Grey PE back then.
However things changed when Grey PE played Gimmies because the Gimmies prop DJ van Niekerk (172m, 93kg) is u19 and started the game + was on the field at the time that Bosch was brought on. Of the Gim 22 player squad for the match, I think 20 are u18. 2 are u19.
Just so everyone is clear on this SARU rule
An u16 player can play 1st team this year if:
a) the 1st team game is an u18 game. In other words, no player on the field or bench for either side is turning 19yo in 2013.
b) the player’s team has union clearance to play him
@BoishaaiPa: Then as a parent of an U16 boy can you tell the opposition that they may not field a player 1,83m and 95kg, even if he is U16, because he might injure someone.
My view is make the best rule possible (with safety as the major criteria) and everyone stick to it.
@QC86: I am 100% with you on this one. Make a rule and everyone must stick to it. As soon as you give someone discretion to “break” the rule there is mayhem.
@QC86: First game kicks off at 2pm.
@BoishaaiPa: No scores yet,Selborne ,rondebosch should be over by now
@QC86: Of course it is your decision and your perogative, I just dont belive in set rules to try and govern this.
@BuffelsCM: Darem net in my en Tjoppa se opinie, en dit tel nie vir veel nie! Wag tot Swiel ons oor ‘n paar jaar in ‘n wit trui moertoe hardloop, die ergste kom nog. As ‘n oud-Bolander vir Italië en oud Bokkaptein se seun vir Frankryk kan uitdraf is die skrif reeds lankal aan die muur.
@BuffelsCM: Nee my maat daar gaan die cream of the crop van 2013.
@Ploegskaar: daar verloor ons nog ‘n goeie speler !!
@BuffelsCM: Yip.
@Tjoppa: Glo “plaaswerk”, maar hy sal speel daar, daaroor het ek geen twyfel.
@Tjoppa: Praat ons van Tian Nel ?
@Ploegskaar: Ons gaan nog lang trane huil oor daardie kind. Gaan hy op rugby kontrak?
@BoishaaiPa: @Ploegskaar:
This sentence in my post: “IMO it should be discussed by parents, the coach(es) and perhaps the principal or somebody who can be more objective about the matter” is the crucial point.
Stick to the current rules but allow exceptions. The latter should be made carefully though – we know how certain parents can’t see the bigger picture.
Another aspect is the child’s state of mind. Although he may be a big unit, he may lack the necessary mental strength.
Ploeg: I’m not 100% sure how the weight system works. What is the required weight of the backs for instance ? Those 2 props are also exceptions to the rule. I am not sure how you can protect opposition players against the “heavy weights”. I know certain people would have liked to see them in the U/19 team this year already but if they have to pack against a “hardebaard front row” of 19 years, I don’t think it will be a good thing.
In the end common sense needs to prevail
@BuffelsCM: Agreed on all accounts, but what about the safety of u/16 players that have to face those two Bellville props for instance (about 115Kg and 125Kg respectively)? We saw the havoc they caused in your last league fixture (5 boys got injured, 2 seriously who left by ambulance)? They are much bigger than you 1st team props and 95% of the u/19 props I have seen play this year. Maybe the NZ weight system in the answer?
@BuffelsCM: and that is exactly my point..safety first… but if you have to adhere to a strict rule where you totally exclude a u/16 from playing u/19, that said u/16 can cause more damage in his u/16 league that elsewhere…How would you as a parent feel if your kids’s been injured by a monster 16 year old who could have played in a higher league, but due to some rule has to compete at this u/16 level?….There should be options open to competent individuals who can decide if a player is eligible to play u.19 or not.
My 2 cents: IMO the safety of the player is the most important factor to consider. Certain parents (as was mentioned above) will always push their children as much and as high as possible. When a decision is based upon Jannie’s immediate future only, the wrong decision will often be made.
Others will perhaps be more circumspect and see the long term effects on their child.
IMO it should be discussed by parents, the coach(es) and perhaps the principal or somebody who can be more objective about the matter. I realize that the principal will not always be too objective (if his school will be the “winner” in the short term when an U/16 boy is picked).
The Du Preez brothers were mentioned above. There will always be exception(s) to the rule. I would suggest that every case is treated on its own while the current guidelines are adhered to. We have to consider the fact that the school boys are much bigger and stronger than they used to be.
The safety of any player is much more important than the gains of getting the mileage out of an U/16 boy…………Rather be safe than sorry: that is my view
@BoishaaiPa: I don’t want to go around and around the same bush with you oke’s.I have 3 sons that play rugby and i would not let them play out of age group,i don’t say i am right but that is the decision i am most happy with.@kcman: What did the Du Preez brothers gain by playing and what would they have lost if they did not play that year,in the bigger picture not much hey,and was it worth the risk
@QC86: No coach is going to pick a player for the First XV if the kid is not physically able to hold his ground. 2 Years ago the Du Preez brothers played KZN CW, if this ruling was in place they would not have been allowed to, is that a good thing?
@QC86: I would still rather be more comfortabe to see Kosie at 95Kg’s and 1,83m and still only 16 years old playing u/19 level than than competing at u/16 level against Jannie who is 50Kg’s ..This actually happens at u/19 level as well in any case!..You are not protecting anyone with a rule like that because every individual differs.
@Tjoppa: Jou Boland 10 gaan Australië toe volgende jaar.
@BoishaaiPa: Try as you may,you can’t make rules for every scenario,but if he is in his age group everybody is covered.simple.Parental consent is not the best way to get a good decision.
@kcman: @BoishaaiPa: If we allow the parents any say all the boys will be playing for the Springboks @ under 9 level already.
I think this rule was implemented in order to protect the majority. Like I said it will not hurt the 16 year old who is physically and mentally ready but if a u/16 player get pushed to fast it definitely will.
@QC86: You get exceptions to all rules..Some kids are fully grown and big at u/16 level…if you keep them there you are more likely to cause injury to other smaller players at that level as well..so what now?..
@kcman: in the old days we never knew what a gym was and never took supplements.The kids are much bigger and stronger than we were, plus rugby is now a profession and is played as such.
@Rooikat: who decides who is ready and who is not,and i have said this before,the kid wants to play because he thinks he is bulletproof,the coach wants to win,so he plays the oke,the opposition knows he is young so they want to kill him,make one rule that puts the kids well being first.
@kcman: I thought they did play u/16 level in ECape now? I know in my days we went from u/15 straight through to u/19 in St 8. I would alos stick to the u/16 age group, but if a specific player is good enough and strong enough I would let him play u/19 by parental consent.
@Tjoppa: I just think it should be up to the parents otherwise they should make it u17 as well.
@kcman: Being fairly involved with the physical development of rugby players the development of a 16 year old to a 17 year old is normally light years different. There are exceptions but the norm is what it is. So the child being held back is not scarred forever but the boy pushed to early most probably will.
@kcman agree with you many players played CW at that age. Obviously it will depend on the readiness of every individual player. Danie Gerber probable the best in the world played SA schools at that age if I am not mistaken.
It was good for the child for many years, now all of a sudden it’s not good anymore???
Many boys played SA Schools rugby at u16 so what suddenly has changed?
Why don’t we next move to u17 as well?
@kcman: Have you ever considered if it is good for the child?
@kcman: KC sorry i don’t back you on this one,safety first,rugby scores way second.
I sincerely hope that this ruling with u16 players is scrapped. It has severely weakened our rugby at Kingswood in the Open Division because of the lack of numbers. Let’s hope sense prevails and they allow schools to play u16 players in the open division.