Few debates in South African schoolboy rugby are as persistent as the role of u19 players (boys turning 19-years-old) in 1st XV rugby. There are strong views on both sides. Some argue it is a natural part of school progression; others believe it creates unfair advantages.
Where there is growing agreement, however, is this: the issue becomes problematic when u19 participation is manufactured and exploited.
When Advantage Becomes Excess
While not a nationwide crisis, certain provinces have, over time, seen schools attempt to use u19 players as a competitive edge. The reasoning is simple—older, more physically developed players often provide a clear advantage.
The question then becomes: how many is too many?
Across the rugby community, there appears to be a broad acceptance that two u19 players per team is reasonable. Anything beyond that raises questions—particularly when it becomes a recurring pattern at specific schools.
A System Open to Manipulation
Schoolboy rugby is no stranger to rumour, and separating fact from fiction is rarely straightforward. But occasional cases point to a deeper concern.
One such recent example involved an English-medium KZN school reportedly approaching a settled Grade 11 player from a good academic Afrikaans Cape Town Co-ed that plays in the lower leagues. The proposed condition? That he repeat Grade 11 after transferring—effectively extending his eligibility into a third year at open age-group level.
The intention was not merely to recruit talent, but to maximise its lifespan within the system. It is this kind of manipulation that fuels concern.
A Changing Landscape
Part of the problem lies in how schoolboy rugby has evolved. Once largely managed by teachers who earned a supplementary income from the extramural activity, coaching roles at top schools are now often filled by full-time professionals whose success—and job security—is closely tied to results.
That shift changes behaviour. When performance determines livelihood, the incentive to minimise risk and maximise advantage becomes stronger. In this environment, ethical boundaries can blur.
Headmasters are meant to provide oversight and balance, but they too operate under varying degrees of pressure and ambition. Some are highly competitive; others may be more willing to accommodate grey areas if it serves broader motives.
The Case for National Regulation
The absence of a unified national framework leaves too much open to interpretation. If schoolboy rugby is to maintain its integrity, clearer, standardised rules are needed.
A Practical Way Forward
A balanced, phased approach could address the issue without unfairly disadvantaging players:
- Gradual implementation: Avoid sudden rule changes. As with the 2007 decision that effectively ended post-matric participation, reforms should be phased in to allow schools time to adapt.
- Reframe the category: Rebrand 1st XV rugby as u18. This shifts the default expectation and ensures that new coaches, officials, and headmasters are immediately confronted with the need to justify any u19 inclusion.
- u19 as a privilege, not a right: In line with the old KZN Headmasters’ agreement—which emphasised the spirit of the law over the letter—reinforce the principle that older players may participate only under exceptional circumstances, not as standard practice.
- Five-year eligibility window: Allow any player in their fifth year of high school to compete in A-teams, ensuring those who have progressed normally are not penalised. It is worth remembering that many of these players were already restricted as u14s, unable to play primary school rugby in their Grade 7 year—it should not happen to them a second time.
- Sixth-year restrictions: Permit rugby participation for educational purposes, but exclude sixth-year players from A-team selection.
- Protect player welfare: Introduce safeguards to prevent exploitation—particularly in cases where recruited or funded players are later discarded or financially disadvantaged after failing an academic year. This is an issue quietly developing beneath the surface, where underprivileged recruits who do not meet expectations are sometimes moved on to free up resources for new acquisitions. Greater transparency is needed before this becomes a more visible problem.
- Set a clear limit: Cap u19 participation at a maximum of two players on the field at any one time. Schools can manage this through substitutions or by rotating players between A and B teams during the season.
- Exempt lower leagues: Apply flexibility to schools where rugby is not performance-driven and participation, linked to education, remains the primary objective.
Preserving the Spirit of the Game
At its core, schoolboy rugby is about more than results. It is about development, character, and opportunity.
Without clear boundaries, the drive to win risks distorting those values. With them, the game has a far better chance of remaining both competitive and fair.
@Grasshopper (Comment #76)
Dont try and change your tune now mate ,you said what you said…
@Smallies (Comment #75)
I didn’t mean Glenwood I meant all the ‘new’ rugby schools ploughing money in, those schools founded under 50 years ago…..
@Grasshopper (Comment #74)
In comment 70 you clearly says they are wannabees….🤣🤣🤣🤣
@Smallies (Comment #73)
Glenwood isn’t a wannabe, we’ve been there since the start. DHS played us with teachers in the team in 1910. Even the Cape teams only started derbies after that, Joburg much later. KZN was playing in the 1880s….the Paarl Schools only really started 100 years ago. We’ve played maritzburg college over 160 times. We don’t need to prove anything…..
@Grasshopper (Comment #72)
You called them wannabees a few posts down 🤣🤣🤣🤣
@Smallies (Comment #71)
If dropping 20 odd positions, then yes. We were only really top 10 for 3 or 4 years. We are a proper traditional school actually playing rugby from 1910, many schools only started derbies in 1930s and later. Glenwood is not a new kid on the block…
@Grasshopper (Comment #70)
Sooooooooooooooo they imploded….
@Smallies (Comment #69)
Last time Glenwood was top 10 was probably 2018. Been hovering around 35-40 since. Just run out of money & lost multiple coaches & teachers. It will happen to all the wannabes ….in the 80s, 90s etc we were always around 30th
@Grasshopper (Comment #68)
Went from somesort of top 10 to top 50…..sounds like an implosion to me bud
@Smallies (Comment #67)
Guaranteed the ages on many playing are more than 19, there is a blind eye now. Glenwood’s programme didn’t implode, the surrounding area did! Also, other schools copied the Glenwood blueprint & bettered it…we are now just back to where we were for the past 110 years, around Top 50
@Grasshopper (Comment #66)that school will have a problem very fast….their rugby program will implode faster than Glenwoods did
@RuggaFreak (Comment #65)
What happens when the 1st team starts to have 8, 10, 12……U19 players?
@OUD ANKER (Comment #59)
As I carefully explained, as long as a 19 year old is not intentionally held back for rugby reasons, then I see nothing wrong.
@OUD ANKER (Comment #59)
If the 18 year old boy is good enough he will play ahead of the 19 year old, we’ve seen this in many occasions where a 19 year old gets dropped for a 17 or 18 year old. It’s all about picking your best starting team on merit ! 19 year olds who started a year late or failed a grade are eligible to play and are not taking anyone’s spot, they are literally teenagers and some of then turn 19 post rugby season hence some start school a year later in some situations. The cream will always rise to the top. You work your ass off if you want to topple a player, simple as that! That’s life !!
@OUD ANKER (Comment #62)
As jy geen graad hehaal het nie beteken dit gewoonlik dat jy 19 word laat in matriek ,meeste van die seuns wat nie n graad herhaal nie is al klaar met hulle matriek eksamen as hulle 19 word ,dus in my oe ding hy en die outjie wat 4 maande na hom 18 geword het op n redelike gelyke vlak mee en dan kies jy die beste een van die twee….
@Smallies (Comment #60)
Die tipe voorbeeld wat jy noem is juis ook die teenargumet. Netsoos daardie 0/19 wat nooit ‘n graad herhaal het nie, niks verkeerd gedoen het nie, so ook nie die laaitie wat 0/18 is wat hy uit die span hou nie. Vir watter een van die 2 seuns is die onregverdigheid die grootste. Ek dink die groot probleem is dat, kom ons noem dit die “ou” tyd het gewone blerrie commin sense nog geseevier. Deesdae met die “wen ten alle koste” word die 0/19 reel pleinweg abuse en dit is wat ek nie wil sien nie.
@Westville_Boy (Comment #58)
hahahahha, funny how people judge others without actually knowing them, typical Westville type of response. One of the most insular bunch of people on earth…..
@OUD ANKER (Comment #59)
Ons plaaslike hoerskool het die gebruik gehad dat indien n seun O19 is en hy geen graad herhaal het nie kon hy 1st team speel in matriek, indien hy n graad herhaal het in die hoerskool anders as gr 11 kon hy 1st team speel in matriek, as hy egter gr11 of 12 herhaal het hy sy twee jaar 1st team gejol en dan die laaste jaar 2de span
@RuggaFreak (Comment #43)
Fair enough, I don’t know anything about the club rugby in the Border region, however let’s talk about privilege. Many 0/19s return to play not because of any “under” privilege reasons you mentioned. What about that 0/18 first time in grade 12 boy that indeed was under privileged, but worked his arse off every year to finish school in 12 years and is then kept out of the 1st team by the 0/19 year old. Is that fair in your opinion? Where is the border between fair? privileged? and pure commin sense?
@Grasshopper (Comment #55)
I would rather watch paint dry.. Any time spent with someone like you is lost time i will never get back.enjoy your beers remember to tip the barman.
@Smallies (Comment #56) Wonderful stuff in the days without steroids, creatine etc. Now it’s a huge difference. I remember a 15 year old prop in 1993 running on vs Hilton and their post matric 19 year old prop, held his own but he was a freak, Barrett Pardey!
@Grasshopper (Comment #54)
I was 15 years old in st8 when I started playing what whe called open age group rugby….just saying ,my best frien played nr 8 for our school std8,9 and 10 if you’re good enough you’re old enough….
@Westville_Boy (Comment #51)
Let’s meet when I am over in Easter 2027, I’ll be in Westville for a couple of days. You can educate me yes. At Waxies, or whatever it’s called now, where that oke just killed his girlfriend in cold blood….a pint (or draught) or three….ill pay
@RuggaFreak (Comment #50)
Boring too boet, I’ve been here since the beginning. You Lighties have a lot to learn. It’s got fokhol to do with me. My point stands, no u19, the physical differences are too big. I mean we not even touching on real ages too……
Two sane men in @smallies and @westville_boy. Agree with every single sentiment you men have shared!
@Westville_Boy (Comment #51)
@RuggaFreak (Comment #49)
Im still having trouble wrapping my head around the fact that those boys gave up their schooling to go play rugby….one broken leg ,one concussion to many ,one serious neck injury and they are done playing pro rugby….I will never condone bullshit like that ,as for U19 kids in school,if nothing immoral happened let them play.And I went to highschool long before any world cups were won and grew up on the wrong side of the tracks…I’ve said it once and will say it again ,we need to stop wrapping our kids in cotton wool,life isn’t easy outside of school and they need to be taught that .
There is a saying,Hard time creates hard men ,hard men creates good times ,good times creates soft men and soft men creates hard times ….I wonder where in that cycle we are now
@RuggaFreak (Comment #50)
Agreed with you. Living in the past and the good old days!! South Africa has changed we have won 4 world cups.. 1 when he was at school and 3 in the new South Africa. Lets the boys get their education the rest isn’t important.
@Grasshopper (Comment #45)
Always has to find a way to make things about him ! Yawn !
@Westville_Boy (Comment #44)
100 percent agree with you ! What pressure are we putting on these boys that makes them make the decision to go pro without a matric certificate? No man. Let u19s play and boys should be held a grade back for academic reasons. Academics before rugby! Some of these comments are absurd !
@Westville_Boy (Comment #46)
Directly from coaches, teachers & family teaching….let me guess you are a lighty under 30, knows it all….
@Westville_Boy (Comment #46)
Don’t be a doos be lekker
@Grasshopper (Comment #45)
🤣🤣🤣🤣 what year was this? You so disconnected its frightening!! Let me guess you have an annual old boy meeting so that where you get your information from🤣🤣
So which school has the most under19’s playing? I don’t agree with any 19 year old players, no excuses around late starters and kids that fail etc etc (smoke screen). In matric I was 17 and played 3rd team and a few 2nd team games, by 1st and 2nd year out of school (aged 18 and 19) I had leapfrogged most of the 1st team players in size and higher club level. The difference between 19 and 17 is huge! My gym stats were 50% more by 19 and I was 20kg heavier. It’s like u16’s playing u14s, just not allowed….
@RuggaFreak (Comment #42)
Agreed at 35 years old their rugby careers end… Then what? This cannot be a rugby decision. I use batho as an example if you see in grade 11 he is battling and doesn’t look like he will get through matric because of his marks… he should repeat grade 11 in order for his marks to improve… why? Because South Africas unemployment rate is absolutely shocking what chance do kids have if they dont get a basic Matric… If they are repeating for the right reasons (education) then I believe as educators they have the responsibility to give the best possible chance of the boy being successful outside of rugby!
No union signs boys at the end of the rugby season contracts are negotiated befor boys get to Craven week. And such a small percentage get these Pro contracts. So the best possible pathway and more realistic is through Varsity cup. And in order to get into a varsity you must have a Matric if the boy needs to stay back because of Marks then I am all for it and hopefully that opens the more realistic Varsity Route.
There is no club system in SA its that simple. It makes zero sense to think otherwise
@OUD ANKER (Comment #4)
Tell us which club rugby a 19 year old boy in Queenstown must go play in ? You speaking out of privilege . 19 year olds are teenagers! Keep the same energy regarding player poaching that weakens regions like the Eastern Cape rather !
@Westville_Boy (Comment #41)
EXACTLY ! All we can do is to trust the educators really. 19 year olds are still teenagers and shouldn’t be punished. They must explain to us where a 19 year old boy must play club rugby in a town like Queenstown where the club system is almost non existent,I mean the Border Bulldogs Rugby Union is in dire straits, now imagine the club systems. They speaking out of privilege and we are here to defend these teenagers. I don’t agree with Batho and Jooste leaving school without a matric, it sends a bad message, school first always and these boys must aim to matriculate before pursuing pro rugby. For now hands off u19s! Bok smart says its safe so please leave the 19 year olds who started school a year late or failed a grade alone !
@RuggaFreak (Comment #40) I couldn’t agree more with you!! Ridiculous to think that this is even spoken about.. the suggestion of playing club rugby is a joke all that will do is weaken the top structures.. schools should never intentionally hold kids back for their rugby programs morally and if they do they shouldn’t be educators as their compass is all messed up. There really isn’t anything more to than that in my opinion
Hard disagree from me ! Boys fail a grade,some start school a year later. Why we punishing them ? I hear chats they should go play club rugby. What club rugby that barely exists in a province like the Eastern Cape?? Let’s u19s play. Schools must just not intentionally hold players back for another year.Bok smart says its safe for 17 year olds to play 19 year olds so let’s live it at that and not punish innocent children. Also check your regional privilege with the “they must play club rugby” stance, in some provinces club rugby is horribly run like the senior unions themselves. Check your privilege!
@beet (Comment #37) I agree he definitely was on the radar there is no doubt… so what is the alternative that we dont allow him to finish matric..I am very certain that Amhed would of been offered a contract at 18 and most likely signed and he choose to finish his matric … or do we purpose that you play club rugby in a non existent club rugby scene? And remember if he signed a contract he wont be allowed to play club rugby…? But if he hasn’t its can see if club rugby was a pathway and I viable option that can be utilized… But the fact of the matter it isn’t… I agree with most comments schools that bring boys in late and repeats the boys it shouldn’t be allowed. All you can hope is that morally the school is making an academic decision and not a rugby decision. After all its a school not a rugby high performance camp.
More recently we have seen Cheswill Jooste and Batho Hlekani forfeit their u19 year at school by dropping out and joining post-school rugby to further their careers.
Different debate for a different day about what junior rugby can and cannot do for a school leaver in those three or so years between u19 and u21, but it’s worked out very well for both players above.
@Westville_Boy (Comment #36)
Ahmed, if anything, supported the case many people had made below.
He was already on the radar as a top player at u17 level.
He did not need his u19 year to earn his pathway or prove himself further.
He was based in arguably the best area for access to post-school rugby and could have slotted into that system quite easily.
Ideally, the example you were looking for was a player who grew up out in the sticks, had no practical access to post-school rugby structures such as club rugby, and was still under the radar as a u18, resulting in his u19 year being the vehicle that earned him a realistic pathway after school.
@KES Oldboy (Comment #34)
Ahmed current Sa u20 flyhalf??? When he was u18 he played as the starting ten for u18 schools and 3 test against touring side… slotted right back in to the starting role… what would of happened if he didn’t play school rugby last year?
@KES Oldboy (Comment #34)
There have been a handful of successful U19 players over the years, but I think it’s exactly as you say: talent scouts are streetwise and will most likely sign a player based on what they saw him do at U18 level.
Aphelele Fassi
Ruan Venter
Embrose Papier
@Roger (Comment #33)
I don’t necessarily agree that U19 players can still get noticed. The selectors know the advantage that the extra year carries and therefore discount it. I’m racking my brain trying to think of a good U19 player at school that has gone on to be a star….. If you’re not good enough as an U18, then the year that you are older than the other boys tends to be ignored.
@KES Oldboy (Comment #32) @OUD ANKER (Comment #27) This is why it is so difficult to manage – you have legitimate late starters in grade 0/1 who are certainly not held back for rugby reasons, and then you have schools taking the piss. In the bigger scheme of things, kids held back at the start of their school journey and actually going on to play 2/3 years of first XV rugby are few and far between, but, by the sound of things, the jiggery pokery with u19 players in High School is creating a problem. Players also don’t need Craven Week anymore to get noticed so the u18 rule there, while well intentioned, is no longer a deterrent. The Easter festivals, Wildeklawer and Noord Suid are far more high profile. So it benefits the schools and the players to “repeat” – there are no restrictions that I know of? However, whatever the solution, legitimate late starters should not be penalised due to the “dubious” tactics of a few schools.
The U19 question is a tough one. There’s blatant abuse i.e. when a boy repeats grade 11 or 10 just for rugby. Then there’s the cases where a boy born after October is “held back” before going to grade 1 – this is certainly not done for rugby reasons. A few seasons ago when I was privy to birth dates, I couldn’t help but notice that Affies, GCB and Paul Roos all had zero U19s. However Welkom Gim had about 7. The Natal schools and one of our rival schools in Jhb always seem to have more than 1 U19s. To me it appears a bit sinister…..boys in grade 9 or 10 are recruited and then told that they need to repeat the year. A few years ago I hosted boys from a prominent Natal school. I asked the boys staying with me why their school always has U19s. They described this scenario to me.
@Ystervark (Comment #30)
I really thought that that was not allowed. My simple understanding is that once a boy has “registered” to write matric, he may not play rugby the year after that regardless of why he is doing matric again. How do the E.Cape schools allow this?
Framesby have an u19 player who actually passed matric last year but is repeating the whole year to play another year of rugby. Madness
@OUD ANKER (Comment #27) In al die jare wat ek skole rugby volg was O 19 spelers nog nooit in die meerderheid gewees nie ek dink skole moet ma net eerder bietjie meer integrityd aan die dag le en nie die situasie probeer uitbyt nie ,dit het maar n manier om jou aan die gat te byt later…
Late starters play club rugby once they turn 19, simples….at Glenwood we tried U30’s for a while ;-)
@Roger (Comment #26)
What should the rule then be? Should 15 boys who are 19 years old be allowed to take the field in a SBR game? Should there be a maximum number be allowed? Should 19 years old be restricted to backline players…?
@OUD ANKER (Comment #21)
yup, I said it’s difficult to manage. Hard and fast rules always have unintended consequences and in this case, it is the unfortunate late starters. Very tough on them and I’m not sure a school can prejudice a kid like that. Craven Week is an SA Rugby tournament so easy to enforce rules. Schools rugby is a free for all !!!
@Smallies (Comment #24)
Absoluut moes hy, maar dan is ‘n situasie geskep, wat uitgebuit kon word vir post matrieks om matriek te “herhaal” ter wille van die skool se rugby program. Dit illustreer maar net my punt dat iewers ‘n lyn getrek moet word tussen genuine November/Desember babas en ander legit redes vir 19 jariges in matriek versus skole wat 19 jariges terugbring net om hulle rugby program te “boost”. Ongelukkig is laasgenoemde deesdae die norm en nie die uitsondering nie.
@OUD ANKER (Comment #23) Dan moes hy 1ste span gejol het volgens my ,veral omdat hy nie gepost het of so iets nie
@Smallies (Comment #15)
Juis die punt! Omdat daar baie 21 jarige “Visvoete” was is die 19 jarige reel nogal streng gevolg. By the way ou “Visvoet” was ‘n legit matriek 19 jarige. Die man het ‘n hele skool jaar gemis agv borsluis koors van alle dinge!!
@POD (Comment #17)
Waar is die lyn in die sand dan? Is dit okay dan om 15 0/19s in jou 1e span te speel? Hoe gaan jy voel as daardie skool se 1e span die jaar onoorwonbe afsluit en nommer 1 in SA se SBR ranking is met ‘n span wat bestaan uit 15 x terugkerende 1e span spelers?? ‘n Absurde voorbeeld maar teoreties moontlik en 100% binne die reels.
@Roger (Comment #19)
Where is the line in the sand then…? Unfortunately rules are there to control those who abuse standards and rules. If 0/19s are allowed, to accommodate the unfortunate November/December babies how do you stop the “selfish-results-driven-only” schools who bring back 19 years olds for the sake of their rugby programmes?
rather than “under 18”, school rugby should be for 18 years and under… you can play if you are 18, the day BEFORE your 19th birthday is your last day of high school rugby. That means those 18 year olds who only turn 19 in e.g. October or November can play, those who turn 19 in e.g. February cannot.
Kids who were held back at the start of school (usually November / December babies) should not be penalised if they turn 18 in their grade 11 year and are genuinely in their 5th year of high school in matric. Kids who are held back or repeat matric just to play sport, are in their 6th (or more) year of high school and are u19, are a different story though. I get how difficult that is to manage and there will always be outliers, but a blanket u18 rule is also unfair.
@POD (Comment #17)
Amen
@OUD ANKER (Comment #10) My laaitie se prep skool (en opponente) het 14 jariges in die league games laat speel (waar onder 12s nie mag speel) maar nie in festival games (waar onder 12s mag speel). Dit is wel in lyn met jou punt. Hy het wel n pel wat hierdie jaar onder 18 is in graad 11, wat C span speel. Dit voel verkeerd om hom games te ontneem in sy matriek jaar vir n skool waarvoor hy lief is omdat ander skole die stelsel abuse.
@OUD ANKER (Comment #14)
Is dit Visvoet wat vir die polisie gespeel het, hier by 90?Ek stem saam, as jy 19 word in n jaar mag jy nie 1 ste span speel nie. Daars hordes clubs wat jy kan gaan speel. Jy het mos 18 geword of dit nou gr 11 was of jou 1ste jaar matriek of wat ookal die geleentheid was daar om vir jou 1ste span te speel en jy word niks ontneem nie.
@OUD ANKER (Comment #14)
Ja maar toe was visvoet al in sy derde matriek jaar gewees en het hy al 1ste span gespeel van st8 af en niemand was seker of hy 19 of 21 was nie
@Smallies (Comment #13)
Ek hoor jou tjom, maar nou moet ek ook noem dat selfs in ons tyd was die 0/19 reel streng toegepas. In my matriekjaar mag ons ster speler (Visvoet was sy bynaam, storie vir ander dag) nie gespeel het nie, omdat hy in ons matriek jaar 19 geword het.
@OUD ANKER (Comment #12) Miskien moet ons ophou om ons seuns op te piep,op 16 het ons voorouers in oorloë geveg ,op 18 moes ek Grensdiens doen,so om op 16 en n half teen n 18jarige te scrum is nie so erg nie ,ek en baie st8 laaities moes dit doen op hoerskool so dalk moet ons die laaity wat op 16 en n bietjie vir Affies of Boishaai se ee4ste span krediet gee vir hoe damm goed hulle is in plaas daarvan om hulle in watte toe te draai…ek kan net eenvoudig nie die doel insien daarin om n seun die voorreg te ontneem om in sy matriek jaar eerste span te speel bloot omdat hy n maand of twee ouers as ander seuns is nie….
@Smallies (Comment #11) Ek verstaan dat ons hier oor uiterstes praat, as iemand 17 jaar en 364 dae oud is mag hy volgens wet nie ‘n bestuurs lisensie kry nie, maar ‘n dag later wel, so wat de moer gaan daai 1 dag verskil maak, en jou voorbeeld van jou seun en sy pel val in die kategorie, wat gaan 13 dae inderdaad ‘n verskil maak, maar iewers moet ‘n streep getrek word. Miskien is ‘n opsie dat soos in die ou dae wat ‘n kind al op 5 jaar kon skool toe gaan mits hy voor 1 Junie van die betrokke jaar 6 jaar oud geword het. In die rugby geval, as ‘n seun na 1 Junie 19 word kan hy nog 0/18 rugby speel, so sal die gaping kleiner wees vir ‘n “man” om potensieel teen ‘n “seun” in ‘n skrum te sak. Die dilemma met jou seun se voorbeeld bly hoe bepaal jy of die seun 16 jarige fisies “sterk” genoeg is om die 19 jarige die stryd aan te sê?
@OUD ANKER (Comment #10) My seun se beste pel is op 23 desember 1999 gebore ,my seun 5 Jan 2000 hulle verskil 13 dae….op papier is die een O 19 en die ander O 18,ek gee jou drie raaiskote wie van die twee was groter en sterker as sy jaargrop tot Matriek toe
@Smallies (Comment #7)
Fair enough, maar daai laaitie wat skool toe gaan as hy 8 jaar oud is mag nie in sy graad 7 jaar vir sy laerskool speel as hy reeds 14 is nie, so hoekom dit toelaat op 0/18 vlak? Vir my is die issue dat daar ouderdom reels is vir als in die lewe ingesluit sport. ‘n 20 jarige mag nie 0/19 speel nie, ‘n 17 jarige mag nie ‘n bestuurs lisensie kry nie. Daars goeie redes vir al hierdie reels en word daar nie uitsonderings gemaak nie, so waarom vir 0/18 skole rugby wat ‘n “collision” sport is waar daar ‘n moerse gevaar is dat ‘n 16 jarige “seun” ernstige beserings kan opdoen as ‘n 19 jarige “man” die 16 jarige in ‘n duikslag raakry!
I agree that a zero nuance policy needs to be taken, for a few reasons:
1. U19 players legitimately still at school have options in terms of playing club rugby, and have had their time to play first XV, but the majority of schoolboys matriculate at u18, so every u19 starter is robbing some other kid of his ONLY shot at being a first XV player.
2. Surely players like Morne Noble, Jadewill Koopman, Jadrian Afrikaner, Alan Ngubande, Okuhle Mbanjwa and others (for example Yaqeen Ahmed last year), would benefit far more from playing provincial u19 and senior club rugby than having another year playing younger kids?
3. From a competition integrity point of view, the additional year’s development makes a significant difference, and a team like Westville with at least 3 of their 4 best players being u19 is enjoying a significant advantage. Before the Westville lads pile in, I’m critiquing the rules here, not the school for seeking a competitive advantage within the rules.
4. It hurts our long term, broader depth development. Sure, SA schools depth is so great that maybe this isn’t too keenly felt, but surely there is more benefit to be had from giving a talented u17 or potentially a late-blooming u18 more opportunity, rather than having a u19 player get another year at a level that has become unchallenging for him?
This seems a fairly simple issue to me if one is objective.
I agree that a zero nuance policy needs to be taken, for a few reasons: 1. U19 players legitimately still at school have options in terms of playing club rugby, and have had their time to play first XV, but the majority of schoolboys matriculate at u18, so every u19 starter is robbing some other kid of his ONLY shot at being a first XV player. 2. Surely players like Morne Noble, Jadewill Koopman, Jadrian Afrikaner, Alan Ngubande, Okuhle Mbanjwa and others (for example Yaqeen Ahmed last year), would benefit far more from playing provincial u19 and senior club rugby than having another year playing younger kids? 3. From a competition integrity point of view, the additional year’s development makes a significant difference, and a team like Westville with at least 3 of their 4 best players being u19 is enjoying a significant advantage. Before the Westville lads pile in, I’m critiquing the rules here, not the school for seeking a competitive advantage within the rules. 4. It hurts our long term, broader depth development. Sure, SA schools depth is so great that maybe this isn’t too keenly felt, but surely there is more benefit to be had from giving a talented u17 or potentially a late-blooming u18 more opportunity, rather than having a u19 player get another year at a level that has become unchallenging for him? This seems a fairly simple issue to me if one is objective.
@OUD ANKER (Comment #4) Onder normale omstandighede is dit juis die seuns wat laat in die jaar verjaar wat O19 is n matriek ,hulle word gewoonlik nie in die jaar wat hulle 7 word skool toe gestuur nie maar die jaar daar na…
@Grasshopper (Comment #5)
Yes!, CW only 0/18s allowed, so why on earth should it be different when schools play, that feed those CW teams and I personnaly don’t buy the various “circumstances” reasons why a 19 year old should be allowed to play at 0/18 level. If “circumstances” do not allow me to live close to my school for instance and I need to walk there at age 17, I can be the best car driver in the world, which would allow me to drive to school, country rules dictate that I can’t have a legal drivers license before the age of 18, finish and klaar, no exceptions, no asking about my “circumstances”.
@OUD ANKER (Comment #4)
Exactly! Isn’t Craven Week or whatever they call it now, U18 only?
In my opinion, zero, zilts, 0/19s in any school team, EVER! As @Grassy suggested, if you are 0/19 go and play club rugby….the 0/19 rule can possibly allow a 3 year age difference between 2 opposing props playing against one another! Team A has a prop turning 19 on 1 January and Team B has a grade 11 prop turning 17 in December of the same year. When these 2 teams meet at Wildeklawer which is played basically in the middle of the year the 0/19 of team A is 19.5 years old while the grade 11 of team B is 16.5, that is a 3 year age difference, surely that can’t be allowed at school level where there is a massive physical difference between a 19 and 16 year old!! This is an extreme example, but theoretically possible without the (current) rules being broken.
@PASSIONATE ABOUT RUGBY (Comment #2)
Thanks buddy, yeah 14 years later and it still taints us. It’s funny how all the other schools who had the same escaped all criticism, sweeping the age issues under the carpet and scrambling in the background to phase these kids out. Win-at-all costs, now let’s think who was behind that idea, Trevor Kershaw the dodgy and convicted ex Headmaster & his deputy, who is now the head of a school across the road……hmmm, I wonder what the issue was? There is a middle-ground that I am happy with, transparent recruitment in grade 8, regular age checking of 1st team players and clear accounts of OB Trust money plus some level of sponsorship, probably on the jersey’s and on the field. Glenwood have dropped massively due to a lack of funds, a decaying surrounds and teachers being poached from other schools. We are in a hole but the OBs will help to correct that. We will never be Top 10 again, but Top 30 is our rightful place, 116 years of rugga. These other schools now run with multiple U19s, no issue. I wonder if some remember Marne-gate, where Westville refused to play Glenwood as we had one x U19 recruited by the Sharks and family moved…….
UNDER 19’S AT SCHOOLBOY LEVEL
It’s simple, u18 only. If you u19 go and play club rugby. A bigger issue is knowing their actual age. Thom-gate & Payi-gate suggested they were 21 or older. Vetting documents or even bone testing on those whose docs look iffy. There are some ‘boys’ playing who look close to 30! I think about 10 years ago there was a Diamantveld side with 9x u19s, crazy! They were pretty good for obvious reasons. It’s a bit like your u16A playing your u14A, carnage.