Australian Schoolboys & National Championships 2017

[WLF]

WLF, every player including the reserves must be given a minimum set time in front of selectors.

I think it is 90 Min and addionally every player must be given a run on start.

The coaches are trying to win but have to give all the players time. So there are players interchanged all tournament.

As for positional changes, I believe that happens a lot. For various reasons including injury.

Last year Rasch (CAS / Trinity) was selected as 4 for NSW II but ended up playing 6 in the final.

He got a late call up for Barbarians. That change did him no harm.

If you are playing at this level you would have played a lot of Rugby, and should have the skills and ability to play where ever you are told. And to get the chance to show selectors you are versatile, got to be a bonus.

Fair enough HB, sideline and amirite,

You have all explained some important rules, and I am not trying to suggest that anyone has any entitlement, all boys must have the same opportunity, for sure.

So from you have explained I fully expect, which I think is reasonable based on what you have outlined, that tomorrow will be different for these boys, ie they should have much more game time and play in their selected positions which to-date they really haven't.

Is that a fair expectation?

Also regardless of the rules you have outlined the boys did not know this, that's why their heads were down, so i think a better explanation may need to be outlined to all boys in future.
Had this been known this discussion may never have taken place.

 

[Rich_E]

Guys.

I've only just caught up with posts in this thread made since early afternoon and I can understand some players, parents and supporters would be a little upset by today's events.

But i think we should wait to see who takes the field, in what positions, and for how long, in the next two games.

HB and WLF, to the best of my knowledge, are spot on re need to rotate squads and ensure certain amount of playing time is achieved for each player.

I could be very wrong, but I'm expecting to see more of what many would consider 'normal' selections tomorrow and on Saturday.

Cheers

.

 

[amirite]

Surely if a young man (who has probably invested many years of training and considerable emotional energy), is selected in a rep team in a particular position then he deserves to play in that position unless there are extraordinary circumstances. In which case I assume that the player would receive a detailed explanation from the coach. We are dealing with adolescents here who don't necessarily have the ability to look at things in the detached and emotionless manner in which you seem able.

EDIT: And with the greatest respect, your invocation of the term "entitlement" is not appropriate in this instance.

Rep teams are run in 23s, not 35 man squads, coaches need positional wiggle room. I would chance many of the boys are selected for traits and ability to cover multiple positions and not one specific position.

If you're selected in a position and that's where you play, why even have coaches? Their only role would be making sure substitutions are run in a timely fashion.

I promise you coaches and selectors have to send in the jersey numbers for these tournaments often before even the first training session. This is done so the jerseys fit to spec, for player ID check (insurance, right age, etc.) and so the match books are all sorted.

You get the blokes into camp and suddenly you work out your reserve center is a better fit for the team than your starting 12, and your bench 9 is better than your starting one, but the starting 9 is too good to leave out of the starting XV so he gets pushed to fullback. Yes, I'm embellishing but it happens. It's not sinister, it's just a reality of the sport.

And yes, I promise you the boys have been told "your jersey number doesn't mean anything, you've got to earn it" behind the scenes, so it IS entitlement.

 

[Rich_E]

Fair enough HB, sideline and amirite,

You have all explained some important rules, and I am not trying to suggest that anyone has any entitlement, all boys must have the same opportunity, for sure.

So from you have explained I fully expect, which I think is reasonable based on what you have outlined, that tomorrow will be different for these boys, ie they should have much more game time and play in their selected positions which to-date they really haven't.

Is that a fair expectation?

Also regardless of the rules you have outlined the boys did not know this, that's why their heads were down, so i think a better explanation may need to be outlined to all boys in future.
Had this been known this discussion may never have taken place.

Haha. I was typing up my post when yours must have dropped in.

I think that is a fair expectation, from what I understand.

Let's at least wait till tomorrow to see what happens.

 

[I like to watch]

You seem like a reasonable person, and I could be misunderstanding as some context is lost on the forum, but honestly the expectation of minutes in certain positions based on jerseys reeks of entitlement to me.

I understand the boys have worked hard, but so have the other 22 and a substantial numbers of players not even lucky enough to be named in any jersey.

Nobody is entitled to a position, jersey, playing minutes etc. (beyond the tournament regulation of "everyone gets a start").

They are entitled to fair time in the position that they were selected in.
This is a rep trial where they had to excel in prior trials, to be given this opportunity.
For this opportunity to be taken away by a coach, who was appointed more by networking than anything else, in a decision that is contrary to what the selectors decided,is pretty fucking ordinary.

 

[CatchnPass]

We don't know whether it was coaches or selectors who asked for the positional changes and as has been pointed out by many, there are min game time/starting team rules. The coaches/selectors may have planned this well in advance in the expectation this might be the least tough game for NSW 1, so the best one to sit out top players, give others their guaranteed one run on and experiment elsewhere. To be fair, the result would seem to vindicate them. Give them benefit of the doubt until tomorrow. If repeated, then lynch em.

 

[WLF]

Surely if a young man (who has probably invested many years of training and considerable emotional energy), is selected in a rep team in a particular position then he deserves to play in that position unless there are extraordinary circumstances. In which case I assume that the player would receive a detailed explanation from the coach. We are dealing with adolescents here who don't necessarily have the ability to look at things in the detached and emotionless manner in which you seem able.

EDIT: And with the greatest respect, your invocation of the term "entitlement" is not appropriate in this instance.

Quick Hands,

I think you have summed up my, and others, position on this, SPOT ON.
We are dealing still with, boys.

 

[WLF]

Guys.

I've only just caught up with posts in this thread made since early afternoon and I can understand some players, parents and supporters would be a little upset by today's events.

But i think we should wait to see who takes the field, in what positions, and for how long, in the next two games.

HB and WLF, to the best of my knowledge, are spot on re need to rotate squads and ensure certain amount of playing time is achieved for each player.

I could be very wrong, but I'm expecting to see more of what many would consider 'normal' selections tomorrow and on Saturday.

Cheers

.

Agree Rich, let's hope so.

 

[Rich_E]

In NSW 1 side, for example, there have been a few players who have had limited game time so far and who I would have thought would be in the teams best 15, that I suspect coaches are holding on to, to be able to give them lots of game time in the final. I wont name any of them, as not fair on anyone. So please don't ask. But you can probably work it out for yourselves.

.

 

[Quick Hands]

If you're selected in a position and that's where you play, why even have coaches? Their only role would be making sure substitutions are run in a timely fashion.
.

In this context, that is their role. What genius are you suggesting that they possess which could possibly transform individuals in one or two training sessions?

 

[CatchnPass]

Agreed Rich. This is not unusual in tournament rugby and i think a sound strategy to ensure your firepower is ready willing and able come the matches that really count. It's only a shame it appears the coaches may not have communicated this. Though imo that too is not all that unusual in tournament rugby.

 

[WLF]

WOW guys,

If you check your own comments I have just LIKED about 10 comments, unfortunately I also tried to LIKE my own but there is no such icon!

 

[sidelineview]

The coaches have 3 games to make sure all their players have played at least 60 minutes and have started at least one game. Or at least those not in his starting 15.
A bit of a juggling act but it allows them to play their best team in the Final play offs on Sat.

The Wallace issue can wait but something is amiss with the Donaldson thing. I originally thought it was just sharing or the influence of the selectors but not now. Someone should ask the coach for an explanation tomorrow morning and what his plans are for the next 2 games.

For the players sake if he hadnt already received an explanation.

 

[Nightstalker]

People have mentioned playing times min requirements, where are these rules?
the players are not aware of them, one person says 60 the other 90
, is this all some of these young men will get to shine, along with the strong possibility not even in a position they been crafting for years

ACT by far and away showing true character on the field compared to the "superstars"

"who will explain to these young men that guts and character aren't what the selectors are looking for...

I really hope i am wrong about the ACT boys regarding the future national team,
have to wait till Sat arvo, when the real ranting will begin from all who believe their side was dudded in the selection rooms (again)

 

[Quick Hands]

Quick Hands,

I think you have summed up my, and others, position on this, SPOT ON.
We are dealing still with, boys.

Exactly right. The sort of glib explanations we've seen on the last couple of pages might sound alright to 40 or 50 year olds, possibly not to the participants though.

 

[sidelineview]

The rule last year was definitely that a player was required to play the equivalent of one full game ( which is 60 mins) and has to be in the run-on XV for at least one game.

They must have forgotten to include the rules in the program this year.

 

[amirite]

In this context, that is their role. What genius are you suggesting that they possess which could possibly transform individuals in one or two training sessions?

I think the fact the coach made the decisions he did probably proves that his role does extend outside of your parameters, even if you and many others would prefer it didn't.

However, you are absolutely correct that they cannot coach skills or implement advanced tactics is such a short period. The can however manage combinations and other things, which was the larger point from the post you took your excerpt from.

The rule last year was definitely that a player was required to play the equivalent of one full game ( which is 60 mins) and has to be in the run-on XV for at least one game.

They must have forgotten to include the rules in the program this year.

At most junior representative tournaments there is certainly the rule of "every players must start", "the equivalent of one full game" rule is a new one to me but that does make sense. Parents spend a lot of money to send their kids to these tournaments and they want to know they get an experience out of it.

I believe the two rules you've stated are the sum of what a player is entitled to, not a particular position, a starting role, or certain sums of playing minutes.

To further my original point, why would the bench even rock up if their only role is injury cover and junk time minutes? They need to be given opportunities, and if successful that means some starters must play elsewhere because you've only got 8 subs.

 

[The Honey Badger]

We don't know whether it was coaches or selectors who asked for the positional changes and as has been pointed out by many, there are min game time/starting team rules. The coaches/selectors may have planned this well in advance in the expectation this might be the least tough game for NSW 1, so the best one to sit out top players, give others their guaranteed one run on and experiment elsewhere. To be fair, the result would seem to vindicate them. Give them benefit of the doubt until tomorrow. If repeated, then lynch em.

You would expect the reserves to get more minutes and probably start against the sides you think you should beat. So if the match is against CS or WA or this year VIC, if you are a good player you want those minutes on the bench.

But you don't always know who are the weaker teams.

 

[amirite]

You would expect the reserves to get more minutes and probably start against the sides you think you should beat. So if the match is against CS or WA or this year VIC, if you are a good player you want those minutes on the bench.

But you don't always know who are the weaker teams.

I'd say WA are better than VIC this year, unless their pool is worse (and it may be, hard to tell).

 

[I like to watch]

I believe the two rules you've stated are the sum of what a player is entitled to, not a particular position, a starting role, or certain sums of playing minutes.

To further my original point, why would the bench even rock up if their only role is injury cover and junk time minutes? They need to be given opportunities, and if successful that means some starters must play elsewhere because you've only got 8 subs.

There's enough game time to ensure everyone gets 60 minutes in their preferred/selected position. Then if kids need to be moved around fine.
This is a trial for the kids, not an opportunity for a coach to enhance their resume.