Here in Hull our youth teams upto under 15's have voted to play summer rugby, this i agree with. We may loose some teams due to dual use of pitches i.e needed for cricket in the summer.

I do think it is good for those kids who also play soccer and for players, coaches and parents. We may not have the best summers in the world but surely it is better than standing in rain, sleet and snow?

I also think rugby league would attract more kids to the game if they played tag rugby upto under 12 level, i reckon the physical side of the game puts off a lot of kids and this way they can learn the core skills without the fear of getting squashed.

I feel it would promote expansive play and improve skill levels, they can still practice tackling in their sessions in a controlled enviroment and get the techniques mastered ready for tackling to be introduced at under 12's.

What do you think?

Why would you lose teams because their pitch is needed by cricket teams? There are more than enough pitches about aren't there? It can't be that hard to find a pitch.

certainly in some araes there are not enough pitches. Bury MBC have 96 pitches - all allocated to football.

anyway...

On juniors, in Bury we currently have 10 - 15 training at junior level and c. 30 who have casually attended our tag events. We are working to merge these to form our first sides at junior elevl ready for March. Absolutely switching to summer is right for the kids.

As for contact v non-contact it is a very tough call. I think some of our kids will not take to contact when we introduce them to it. We've been training basic skills and have recently shifted them to tag so they get game like experience and contact will come next. Like it or not though, RL is a very very physical sport at every level...a bit of me thinks it's better to have kids growing up with it and getting used to it as soon as possible.

How many rugby league teams actually play on the same pitch as a cricket team? I'd be surprised if it's anything other than a tiny amount.

I understand the reasoning behind the idea of u12's only playing tag since you are right in that the physical side does put off some kids. But I think it's necessary for kids to play contact and to have to tackle.

What can be changed though is the unnecessarily aggressive, intimidating and abusive atmospheres that are sadly prevalent at far too many junior clubs. There needs to be a whole change of ethos at these clubs, away from winning the next game to developing skills.

For me the sooner kids are tackling the more natural it will be. By the time they're adults this tackling technique will make them better and safer players. I also have to say that even when I've run "touch" games for kids, even as young as 4 and 5, they want to bash each other!

not that many i agree. however, come clubs have issues around changing room/kitchen capacity etc. with games moving to summer. we use a cricket club as a social venue and will need to 'manage' a clash with the tea interval for our open age matches.



that's what i think. they bang into each other, fall over, etc. etc. anyway playing tag, or any sort of running around. sometimes they feel it when they fall / bang into one another but within 30 seconds can have forgotton that they were just telling you they'd broken their leg!!!

No. I think kids play rugby because of the contact. Its what seperates rugby from football and thats why they come to rugby.

Bradford are playing kids rugby tonight. They're in for a real hammering!!

Whereas many more pitches would be available due to not being used by RU/football teams. It's just another illogical, poorly thought out excuse.

I agree, I don't see it as a viable excuse for the vast, vast majority of clubs. I think it's an excuse started by those ideologically opposed to switching to summer. Ie that idiot who has a column in the League Express.

Go to agree totally .....

Spent several seasons coaching up to U11 age group and am now back with the real tiny tacklers , the Under 7s and coming from a background of 20 years in education / child care , I am continually disheartened and sometimes very disturbed to see individuals 'coaching' our younger age groups who have nil skills or knowledge in the development and face to face interaction with our young players .

I'm not particularly from the 'participation is everything ' camp , I believe that our kids should be encouraged to be successful and ultimately win games but that has not to be to the detriment of the development of the basic core skills of ALL players whatever their abilities and the social advantages that playing team sports brings.

I'm off this afternoon to watch the Cougar Cubs U18s play in a massive game at the top of the National Youth League and I'm proud of the fact that at least 7 of that squad were my original Under 8/9s . We were no where near the best team out there at that age groupand to be honest spent most of our first year as a team getting roundly stuffed by other bigger and more aggressive teams but the learning and the spirit that came from that first season still is to the fore in those existing players now and hopefully will be in the future as they move on into open age and hopefully for a few of them the semi professional game .

The RFL supposed new 'mini mod ' level one coaching course yet again fails spectacularly when dealing with the youngest RL players , why do we not have a level two or three course for those coaches like myself who know our skills and experience make them more suited to dealing with children but want to learn and develop their knowledge further , as is possible for those coaching the open age game ? We are constantly being told that junior RL is crucial to our sports future development yet we relegate it to the most basic coach education ......RFL FAIL

I think you hve hit the nail on the head there. Coach education across the levels is poor in this country.

My suggestion would be that each Super league club as part of their franchise criteria need to develop the coaches within the junior clubs within their catchment area. Coaching workshops should be offered and these should bve specifically tailored to the age group/levels that coaches are working at.

I also think that mini coaching , junior coaching and senior ( 16's + ) should be seperated in terms of quaklifications and courses and badges should be speficic to these areas. The RFL also need to monitor what is being coached more effectively that they do currently ( they don't ).

Bear in mind that according to the RFL's own coaching guidelines ( derived form Sport England ) state that "Sports specific coaching i.e Rugby League should begin until the age of 9." Prior to that age they advocate the Fundamentals of Movement approach which centres around agility and balnace and core physical skills.

Now go and watch and Under 8s game in Hull for example and see how many coaches are trying to teach players to slow down the play the ball or how many teams only really use their best 2/3 players and ignore the rest.

We. as coaches/people intersted in the development of the game need to lobby our local clubs for these types of programmes in order to impprove the standards of coaches and therefore the players in our game.

I'd agree with you both ML Red & Rach. I have sympathy with the RFL though since I know they are trying to change these attitudes and everything in the coaching courses are aimed at skills development. However the problem lies with the individual coaches, teams & clubs in my opinion. They go to the coaching courses, do enough to pass the course and then ignore virtually everything they've been told and go back to being idiots. Like you say very young kids being taught to hold down in the tackle and slow down the ptb. Or just simply, the pass it to the big kid tactic because it means they win. But none of the kids, not even the big kid, get to develop their skills. In my opinion there are far too many coaches in it simply as part of their own little ego trip rather than as a desire to see the kids improve themselves.

The problem, in my opinion, is the amateur game in general. Go to a first team amateur game in Yorkshire or Lancashire and sadly the odds are that you will be at a very aggressive, very intimidating place that is rife with idiotic, drunken behaviour laced with foul language. That attitude sadly then filters down throughout the club to the younger age groups.

I'd agree it would be better if the RFL had lots more monitoring of coaches, however I don't know how much it would cost.

Honestly cant think of any in Hull that will lose pitches because of cricket.

For me im all for the idea, my lads would have been going into winter league in a year so it will be good that there seasons wont have to change as much.

Far better for development of skills etc

Cott tigers were using that excuse, i think there were 4 teams who were dead set against it and had equally flimsy excuses. However from 12's to 15's i think the quality of the pitches should be looked at. Some have next to no grass on and after they are bake solid in our glorious summers they become dangerous.

The pitches should have a good covering of grass and the clubs should have the means to be able to water them.