Continued decline in Sydney Junior Rugby

[Hugh Jarse]

Technically if the Chatswood/Dural Game was a forfeit, then the Chatswood Rep players in the SJRU U16 and Presidents XV U16 have to play this weekend to have complied with the eligibility criteria to play in the U16 Invitational Weekend in October.

If they forfeit this weekend, then there are suddenly 8 positions in the two teams for shadows to be drafted into.

I know it is Tin Foil Hat time, but in my time administering Children's Rugby, I have seen many examples of Adults doing precisely this sort of thing to promote their Oliver's and Samuel's into a representative jumper, and yep for those Fockers, it is for sheep stations and their trinket collection.

What this exercise should have done is drawn the Competition Managers attention to the rule about no more than 3 forfeits per team. Without going back to Buddha, I reckon that will now be 7 forfeits for the team which is four (4) more than the "tolerable" limit.

Pretty dirty pool from the Dobber, though. Any complaint about the Chatswood numbers should have come from the Opposition Manager on the day, the Dural Club President or from the Referee/Ground Manager, and not an "independent" party who "happened" to see something on facebook.

 

[Quick Hands]

Technically if the Chatswood/Dural Game was a forfeit, then the Chatswood Rep players in the SJRU U16 and Presidents XV U16 have to play this weekend to have complied with the eligibility criteria to play in the U16 Invitational Weekend in October.

If they forfeit this weekend, then there are suddenly 8 positions in the two teams for shadows to be drafted into.

I know it is Tin Foil Hat time, but in my time administering Children's Rugby, I have seen many examples of Adults doing precisely this sort of thing to promote their Oliver's and Samuel's into a representative jumper, and yep for those Fockers, it is for sheep stations and their trinket collection.

What this exercise should have done is drawn the Competition Managers attention to the rule about no more than 3 forfeits per team. Without going back to Buddha, I reckon that will now be 7 forfeits for the team which is four (4) more than the "tolerable" limit.

Pretty dirty pool from the Dobber, though. Any complaint about the Chatswood numbers should have come from the Opposition Manager on the day, the Dural Club President or from the Referee/Ground Manager, and not an "independent" party who "happened" to see something on facebook.

This, unfortunately HJ, is what junior club rugby has become. Adults manipulating rules, playing people off against each other and basically forgetting what the whole this is about. It's meant to provide rugby to boys from 6-17 years old.

EDIT: I've heard of clubs trying to claim a forfeit when the home team didn't have the ropes long enough.

The harvest of the introduction of Sunday club rugby in about 2000 is now being reaped. We now have the situation where the private school tail is wagging the junior club dog. It's just so sad, and it brings me no consolation to say that the things which I said would happen in the mid to late 90s when the Sunday club rugby proposal was first mooted, have by and large come to pass. The idea originally was that by allowing Sunday rugby the Gordon clubs in particular would be able to field more teams and the quality of rugby would be better. What we have is less teams and many of those teams are dependent of private schoolboys to stay afloat.

 

[10to12]

So a bloke gets elected to President of a district to further his own agenda, meanwhile backstabbing and dobbing ( with the help of his overly emotional mates) his own (age specific) district and club teams in the pursuit of righting the perceived wrongs done to his boy, who while playing for a club in the district gets special dispensation to play in the West Harbour rep team without trialling for his district rep team. No way, that couldn't happen, all make believe???

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I'm getting a very strong vibe that there's an agenda being pushed here and that the protestors may be hiding some skeletons.
We'll see if anyone comes out to defend the person identified by 10 to 12.

 

[Quick Hands]

So a bloke gets elected to President of a district to further his own agenda, meanwhile backstabbing and dobbing ( with the help of his overly emotional mates) his own (age specific) district and club teams in the pursuit of righting the perceived wrongs done to his boy, who while playing for a club in the district gets special dispensation to play in the West Harbour rep team without trialling for his district rep team. No way, that couldn't happen, all make believe???

You couldn't make this stuff up could you?

The junior club rugby pond is now so small, it's consuming itself.

And it's the adults who are doing it and the kids who suffer - all the kids. Those who don't have a parent in an admin/selection role cop it first, but even the kids manipulated through the system by scheming parents suffer in the long term.

 

[Brainstrust]

I would be interested to hear the actual facts on numbers and why the comp moved to Sunday. I have been told that the reason the comp changed was because numbers weren't great for Saturday rugby. I'm nit involved in club rugby although I was for many years. My experience was that it was extremely difficult to get the public school lads along to play. Some did but the numbers on the North Shore were mostly bolstered by the private schools. I am perplexed at the suggestion that going back to Saturday will be the answer to dwindling numbers? Surely we should be making it as easy as we can for all players to play. Also any notion that schools will opt into a club comp in Sydney is ridiculous. In addition boys at private schools must play a sport, so if rugby is there passion, they will play at school on Saturday, no choice really, particularly when as youngsters they watch their 1sts play in front of big crowds such as a Knox v barker, or view v joeys / Scots. I know this isn't a popular view on this thread, but I think that the removal of the gf clause will do more damage to club/ rep rugby than is realised. What you have in chatswoods case are boys that have played club and rep rugby for 6 to 8 years. They want to play out their rep pathway for Gordon and this year they have been given more hurdles to jump through than any other side has for years. Surely the rules can accommodate boys that have been part of the fabric of junior rugby in Sydney? If as much effort was put into attracting new players from any school background into the game, and less time invested in making rules to push 16 yr olds out, this thread probably would never have been started.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

What it really needs is someone to look at it from above and work out a way to reconcile the apparently irreconcilable ambitions of the SJRU and the NSWSRU by building a single defined pathway and de-emphasising Sydney NSW in the younger ages.
I don't think JGC fits this requirement but maybe it does or can be made to.

 

[Quick Hands]

I would be interested to hear the actual facts on numbers and why the comp moved to Sunday. I have been told that the reason the comp changed was because numbers weren't great for Saturday rugby.

This could take hours, but I'll be brief.

Junior club rugby was originally administered by the JRU section of each of the district clubs. These clubs would run their own competitions and when number dictated they would combine with one or more neighbouring clubs.

On the northside from 10s-14s Manly, Warringah, Norths and Hornsby combined into an entity, which funnily enough was called "Combined Competition" Gordon stood alone until 15s.

Combined Competition ran an A and B grade in each age group and usually down to Cs in 10s and 11s.

At 15s Combined Competition and Gordon got together and were known as Northern Zone and they ran competitions from 15s-18s.

In the 80s, demographics and neglect led to a number of clubs folding or being reduced significantly - Cambridge Bay, Artarmon, Manly Vikings, Allambie heights et al. Hornsby ceased to be a district club and clubs such as St Ives and Wahroonga became part of Gordon juniors instead of Hornsby juniors.

A decision was taken that Combined Competition would hand over 10s-14s to Northern Zone so that one body ran all age groups. All good so far.

As I'm sure everyone knows, the private school exodus has a far bigger impact on Gordon than other clubs and it was noted that there were a huge number of clubs up to and including 13s, but thereafter Gordon would lose a lot of its teams (it still ended up with just as many teams as Manly and Warringah).

All of these competitions were played on Saturdays and some private school players began to back up and play school and club on the one day.
What used to happen under this system was that from 13s on, clubs would lose players when the physical toll of backing up became harder and harder, BUT this was a drip effect - most teams would lose a few players every year and they could either go out and find some local kids to replace them or teams would combine. It was a lot easier to find a few kids every year than to suddenly find a whole team when they hit 16.

Anyway, someone had the idea that club rugby matches COULD be moved to Sundays where both clubs agreed. Clubs could also move matches to later on Saturday afternoons to accomodate boys playing school in the morning and club later in the day. This system seemed to work quite well.

Then someone decided that if all club rugby was played on Sundays , then we would retain the numbers from 13s all the way through. It was never going to work and some of us argued against it. However, it was pushed through. Of course what has happened is that the physical toll of rugby has increased and boys just can't back up the next day in the older age groups, so a whole lot leave the team at the same time and it's just too hard to replace 8 or 10 16 year olds.

The SJRU takeover occurred while I wasn't involved so I can't really speak on why it happend, but in the younger age groups, it's madness on steroids. There are 89 10s teams graded into 8 or 9 divisions who criss cross greater Sydney every Sunday for 2 x 20 minute halves - sometimes travelling an hour and a half each way for the privilege. From what I can see this has led to a drop off around 12s which used to occur at 15s.

As an example about half of the boys from the 2013 Manly 13s rep team don't play village club rugby anymore - they play rugby at school and junior league in the local competition for a club. Here's the choice for uncommitted parents: travel anywhere from Richmond, Blue Mountains and Sylvania on a Sunday morning or play junior league at 1 pm Saturday afternoon 15 minutes from home.

Apologies for the length of this post, but this is the reader's digest version

 

[Hugh Jarse]

It is like the scholarshp argument. All parties have an agreement that does not allow for sporting scholarships to be granted.

It is abundantly clear that a higher standard of rugby is played if talented athletes are recruited by Schools into their rugby programme, but it is against the rules of that competition.

To represent Sydney JRU, surely the player must meet some eligibility criteria, otherwise the team selected is a Sydney Metro Somethings XV and is not representative of the SJRU competition.

I am sure that AAGPS may have desired Harry Jones services in their Representative 1st XV last year. After all he had played for AAGPS rep teams previously, and had a good history of attendance at AAGPS schools up to the end of 2012. Unfortunately in 2013 he failed to be eligible for AAGPS selection, because he was participating in another competition.

Is this not the precise situation the Chatswood U16 boys are in this year. Their club has not complied with SjRU criteria to be a viable team in their competition, therefore they are not eligible to represent that Junior Union. Simple.

Call the team what it is (Sydney Under 16 Representatives), not what people want it to be called (Sydney Junior Rugby Union Under 16 Representatives) just because it suits their organisational structure.

I know I am being pedantic with the names, but no more pedantic then people seem comfortable with about the semantics of various school bursaries.

Get rid of the multiple pathways. It confuses the bejesus out of most punters, and places unreasonable pressure (10+ games in 20 days) on the players who just want to get a gig in a rep team somewhere. And then I woke up from my dream... ... ...

 

[Inside Shoulder]

The point you miss HJ to take your Harry Jones example is that no one changed the rules half way through his career.
Let alone in order to derail his ambitions.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

The SJRU takeover occurred while I wasn't involved so I can't really speak on why it happend, but in the younger age groups, it's madness on steroids. There are 89 10s teams graded into 8 or 9 divisions who criss cross greater Sydney every Sunday for 2 x 20 minute halves - sometimes travelling an hour and a half each way for the privilege. From what I can see this has led to a drop off around 12s which used to occur at 15s.

Excellent post.
When did this SJRU take over take place?

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Yes the "Grandfather Clause" changed this year, but it has always been a loophole to allow players who were not in the JRU competition to somehow be eligible to represent that Union on the basis that they played for the Union previously - The Ghost Players.

It was an out and out rort that simply gave kids two bites of the cherry to get into the National Under 16's tournament.

No one used that same clause to get into Under 17's State Champs.

It did nothing to grow rugby union or encourage players to stay with Union.

It should have never been implemented in the first place.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Yes the "Grandfather Clause" changed this year, but it has always been a loophole to allow players who were not in the JRU competition to somehow be eligible to represent that Union on the basis that they played for the Union previously - The Ghost Players.

It was an out and out rort that simply gave kids two bites of the cherry to get into the National Under 16's tournament.

It did nothing to grow rugby union or encourage players to stay with Union.

It should have never been implemented in the first place.

HJ - that's fine and I don't disagree with the policy: as usual it is the implementation that is completely dumfounding.
That it is the right policy does not justify stuffing around with kids hopes and dreams just because it suits you to and you have the power to do so and it may advantage a near relative.
There's just zero integrity in the process - both in the coming and going of the grandfather clause.
QH's post shows (I think) that people were trying to do the right thing: the difference here is that people wished to harm the interests of some kids in favour of their own.
Are you not absorbing the implications (if not the direct allegations) of 10 to 12's post?

So a bloke gets elected to President of a district to further his own agenda, meanwhile backstabbing and dobbing ( with the help of his overly emotional mates) his own (age specific) district and club teams in the pursuit of righting the perceived wrongs done to his boy, who while playing for a club in the district gets special dispensation to play in the West Harbour rep team without trialling for his district rep team. No way, that couldn't happen, all make believe???

Its pretty direct no punches are pulled and presumably someone will denounce it as wrong if it is.
I wait for that to happen knowing I have more chance of winning $70m in next Thursday's powerball.
Now, I have had my run ins with Chatswood and Gordon for that matter and even 10 to 12 but this is bigger than any of us.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Excellent post.
When did this SJRU take over take place?

Not too long ago. The first chinks in the armour started happening around 2004 or thereabouts when the MSZ U16's basically folded up their tents and played in the MNZ U16 competition. The West Zone held out for longer than the Southern Zone.

There was a need for some centralisation under SJRU Banner. In the olden days, some Districts were playing 15 aside Tackle rugby at Under 6's, whilst others were playing 7 aside Walla. Country didn't introduce tackling until Under 10, while Metro were doing it at Under 8's. There was severe lack of standardistion.

ARU got compliance with their Walla, Mini, Midi, Under 19 "pathway" model by threatening to withhold the ARU insurance cover from clubs/districts that didn't comply with their model.

As well as the impact of Private Schools on Saturday Rugby, in different parts of Sydney Mungo is played on different days. I may be wrong but out West, Mungo was predominantly a Sunday activity and that impacted their playing stocks as much as Private School Saturday footy impacted those in Gordon and the East. I think that parts of the Shire have Mungo on Saturday, so it was a real buggers muddle trying to placate those clubs impacted by Mungo vs those impacted by Private Schools.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

So presumably the grandfather clause was post 2004?
What is the rationale for its abolition - i.e. how is it envisaged that getting rid of it will help the u16s comp?
As I said many posts ago a lot of kids only played u15s to get grandfathered into U16s - if its gone why won't that negatively impact on u15s?

 

[Quick Hands]

Excellent post.
When did this SJRU take over take place?

Not sure exactly sometime between 2006 and 2010 I think. They took over the refs as well.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

@Inside Shoulder, What 10to12 has written about is just one of the most recent incarnations of the nepotism and WII-FM culture that has been in SJRU (NSW JRU and the ill fated AJRU) for many years. Absolutely no surprises.

The good administrators eventually get jack of farting against the thunder of the Self Interest Lobby and either join them, or realise that they have better things to do with their time than to try and hold back the tide, and they depart the scene. Thus the cycle perpetuates itself.

The whole shooting box is nearly as bad as the NSW political system. I could reel off a stack of names that have done almost precisely what 10to12 has written about, as I am sure that you probably could as well. It is pointless naming names because it will not result in any change, nor undo the mischief that has been caused. The most likely outcome would be a flame war that would get out of hand very quickly.

 

[Quick Hands]

HJ - that's fine and I don't disagree with the policy: as usual it is the implementation that is completely dumfounding.
That it is the right policy does not justify stuffing around with kids hopes and dreams just because it suits you to and you have the power to do so and it may advantage a near relative.
There's just zero integrity in the process - both in the coming and going of the grandfather clause.
QH's post shows (I think) that people were trying to do the right thing: the difference here is that people wished to harm the interests of some kids in favour of their own.
Are you not absorbing the implications (if not the direct allegations) of 10 to 12's post?



Its pretty direct no punches are pulled and presumably someone will denounce it as wrong if it is.
I wait for that to happen knowing I have more chance of winning $70m in next Thursday's powerball.
Now, I have had my run ins with Chatswood and Gordon for that matter and even 10 to 12 but this is bigger than any of us.

This is what I find so hard to get my head around. People in the past made mistakes, took bad decisions, But and it's a big BUT, they were mostly if not always doing it for what they saw as the greater good.

I may have been exceptionally lucky in my first 3 trips around junior club, but almost all my experiences as player, coach and referee were positive. In the 4 seasons I coached a team which finished 17s in 2000, every other coach in the competition understood the problems that we all faced and we all just made it work. It was a Saturday competition and one particular team had a lot of players doubling up from school rugby in the morning everyone always agreed to their requests to play late afternoon matches - as late as 4pm kick off. And we managed to play all these matches without ropes around fields, without sign on tables and without dickheads trying to claim forfeits for spurious reasons. In fact I don't think there was one forfeit in the age group ever.

It's why I just can't believe what has happened to junior rugby. It's just so sad.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

So presumably the grandfather clause was post 2004?
What is the rationale for its abolition - i.e. how is it envisaged that getting rid of it will help the u16s comp?
As I said many posts ago a lot of kids only played u15s to get grandfathered into U16s - if its gone why won't that negatively impact on u15s?

Correct, and probably yet another reason that ARU got jack of the nonsense from SJRU, NSW CJRU and NSW Schools with respect to the National U16's and pulled the pin on funding it.

IIRC the clause was first introduced to help Easts, and Norths primarily to have a team at State Champs at U14's and above. You would be well aware of the challenges faced by Easts Wallaroos once the kids hit high school. Being a little flexible with eligibility meant that a team that would otherwise struggle to be at State Champs was able to compete.

It didn't take long for the Loophole to start being used for purposes other than it was originally intended and the rest is history.

The application of the rather simple principle that you must be registered in and actively participate in a competition to be eligible to represent that union at the next higher level has long been abused.

While schoolboy rockstars will probably desert the Under 15s (and U14s), with the removal of the loophole. There is as good a chance that it will not impact on the numbers of players in the U15B's, C's and D's, most of whom play footy because they love the game. The standard of play at the State Championships tournament may "suffer" because some of the <insert derogatory word> kids will now make reps instead of the rockstars, but the rep team will be more accurately representative. Player numbers may even increase because the battlers know that they are less likely to have to front up to the man-boys who are now locked up exclusively in the Schools system.

There are just as likely to be good as well as bad consequences from the removal of the Grandfather clause. Just depends which side of the fence you are sitting on, and how long term a view you have.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Good stuff, gentlemen.
It is too important to be left in the hands of amateurs and vested interest.