Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Irish rugby's inability to produce scrumhalves
Options
Comments
-
CMOTDibbler wrote: »Exactly this.
Schools sharing coaching staff with nearby clubs would help coach club players and develop them to a higher standard. This could be cost neutral if the schools were to co-operate.
Great idea. Coaches should be shared.
I know in GAA a lot of clubs do this. Including my own. The club pay for half of the development officer and the GAA pay the rest. This encourages the club to fundraise etc. If you can't afford one of your own, you can join up without another club.0 -
Having clubs play against schools isn't feasible at all especially in sports like rugby where the season is at the same time as the school year. Schools play mid week during school time bar only the top schools. The clubs will improve through training more, better coaching of coaches. Playing the schools isn't feasible.JPNelsforearm wrote: »Its entirely feasible, you have divisions leading to a play off, for the first few years nothing will change, the usual schools will still be playing each other barring the odd shock, but the clubs will be playing a higher standard(thus improving) and the fact one does not need to go to a rugby school to play a high standard of rugby would help the myriad of players who just miss out on SC rugby to play at that level for a club.
There are no downsides aside from the schools monopoly being broken. You are basically just restructuring the season, the end result is the best teams still play each other in a play off and final. The same players will still be playing.
One doesn't need to attend a rugby playing school to play a high standard of rugby but to improve they don't need/have to play against these schools in competitions. How do you get these divisions working to get it right between schools and clubs?
How do you see either agreeing to this.
The season needs to be restructured but not to have schools play against clubs. You get more schools playing schools competitions and you get more clubs playing. Teens should be able to play in certain competitions for both schools and clubs. There should be 'closed' competitions open to those not in rugby schools or at least those not on the main squads within schools and then 'open' competitions where anyone can play in them
I got number wrong and I have no involvement in mini rugby bar helping out at my own club on a Sunday morning if not otherwise engaged refereeing or coaching which is the overwhelming majority of Sunday mornings. Its Under 8 and I don't see the need to change it to under 9.Tim Robbins wrote: »You're 100% wrong there. It's U8.
http://www.leinsterrugby.ie/files/downloads/Youths_Handbook_14-15.pdf
And I don't care about people having different opinions, we're all opinionated and passionate. But, you should know any of the laws and regulations that are to do with safety.
I am pretty certain this was pointed out to you before.
In England it's U10. In Ireland it's U8. The IRB should decree here. And all Ref's / coaches should know it.
Could you imaging some J5 match being played with full scrums. It's not on.
I would much rather the rugby schools which have different rules for those with primary schools and mini rugby in them to change to what occurs in clubs mini rugby.
Youre fully sure what was pointed out to me before?
The system is allowing players with potential higher ability/ceiling to slip through but what to do?Tim Robbins wrote: »It's not going to happen.
Just saying if you are a selector, you pick the best players. And a player of lesser skill who trains 6 days a week with a great coach, is going to be a better player than a player with more skill who only trains once a week with an average coach.
This means, the system allows players of higher ability to slip thru.
Do they do this in GAA? Not from my experience in Tipp/Limerick/Galway....Tim Robbins wrote: »Great idea. Coaches should be shared.
I know in GAA a lot of clubs do this. Including my own. The club pay for half of the development officer and the GAA pay the rest. This encourages the club to fundraise etc. If you can't afford one of your own, you can join up without another club.
In rugby Munster pay wages of some of the development officers while clubs pay rest of the wages and then there is other development officers the provinces pay wages in full.0 -
Well what made you think it was U7? If you know someone doing tackle at U7 you should tell them to stop it. The reason to change it to U9 if not U10 is because at that age a lot of kids are completely clueless in every sport. Their parents are just dieing for them to participate and in something like Soccer it really doesn't matter that much if you are useless at tackling in Rugby it does.The Lost Sheep wrote: »I got number wrong and I have no involvement in mini rugby bar helping out at my own club on a Sunday morning if not otherwise engaged refereeing or coaching which is the overwhelming majority of Sunday mornings. Its Under 8 and I don't see the need to change it to under 9.
At older ages - kids tend to decide more what they play than parents.
Anyway this is going off the point.0 -
Because I refereed minis recently and we were doing tackling with under 7s...Tim Robbins wrote: »Well what made you think it was U7? If you know someone doing tackle at U7 you should tell them to stop it. The reason to change it to U9 if not U10 is because at that age a lot of kids are completely clueless in every sport. Their parents are just dieing for them to participate and in something like Soccer it really doesn't matter that much if you are useless at tackling in Rugby it does.
At older ages - kids tend to decide more what they play than parents.
Anyway this is going off the point.
I don't think changing it to later is better. Most kids from my experience relish the contact etc of tackling and while yes lots of kids at that age are a bit clueless I don't think pushing back contact until kids are nearly 10 will keep a lot playing.0 -
Kids need to learn tackle properly from the get go. At U6 level here in France it's one of the first skills we teach them and we have a few 7 year olds who are brilliant tacklers. For their own safety more than anything they need to get the basic technique right.0
-
Advertisement
-
+1.pickarooney wrote: »Kids need to learn tackle properly from the get go. At U6 level here in France it's one of the first skills we teach them and we have a few 7 year olds who are brilliant tacklers. For their own safety more than anything they need to get the basic technique right.
Tackling is improved with practice. Obviously safety is primary concern which is why you start at a young age and then build on that as you go up the grades...
Technique is most important in tackling over all else and that is built up through practice and waiting a year or two later doesn't help things0 -
Jaysus. At any level, check out what the laws are before you Ref it.The Lost Sheep wrote: »Because I refereed minis recently and we were doing tackling with under 7s...
That's crazy.I don't think changing it to later is better. Most kids from my experience relish the contact etc of tackling and while yes lots of kids at that age are a bit clueless I don't think pushing back contact until kids are nearly 10 will keep a lot playing.
Some kids will relish contact at age 3 but you don't start tackling at age 3 either.0 -
New Zealand they rippa rugby at U7.
http://www.aucklandrugby.co.nz/Weights-and-Ages-Chart.aspx
Then there are weight restrictions.0 -
Coaches said nothing before, during or after this and had been playing contact for quite a while.Tim Robbins wrote: »Jaysus. At any level, check out what the laws are before you Ref it.
Its not crazy at all. You build good habits by starting at a younger age and waiting until kids are older is needless. Starting contact at 8/9 is needed from my experience especially if promoting good habits around the tackle.That's crazy.
Some kids will relish contact at age 3 but you don't start tackling at age 3 either.0 -
And weight restrictions are not needed here while they are in NZ/Oz due to influence of children playing rugby who are from ethnic backgrounds where children tend to develop earlier. We also don't have the numbers overall playing the sport to play weight restricted grades. Using weight restrictions here would stop people from playing rugbyTim Robbins wrote: »New Zealand they rippa rugby at U7.
http://www.aucklandrugby.co.nz/Weights-and-Ages-Chart.aspx
Then there are weight restrictions.0 -
Advertisement
-
Tackling laws should run like this:
U7s light contact two hands in hips
U8-9s tackling only allowed at hip level or below, no tackling of ball allowed. Tackled player to drop in call of 'tackle'
U10-12s tackling only allowed hip level or below, players allowed to break the tackle. No lift allowed
13s+14s tackling hips and below, lifting allowed.
Targeting the ball allowed but no turnover ball in maul.
15s onward full tackle rules apply.
These simple changes would do a few things. First they encourage the ball carrier to offload in contact as they have free hands, which also encourages players you run at space rather than the man. Second they teach basic proper tackling technique to all at an early stage, and a big young player cannot rely on pure mass to stop a runner. Thirdly they reduce the major collisions until players are physically bigger and better trained to deal with these collisions.0 -
Makes it even more crazy. They are kids. All the coaches and refs should know the regs. Do the U12 do lifting at lineouts?The Lost Sheep wrote: »Coaches said nothing before, during or after this and had been playing contact for quite a while.
You think they should start scrummaging then as well? And rucking? Get all the habits right from age 5 and 6 so!Its not crazy at all. You build good habits by starting at a younger age and waiting until kids are older is needless. Starting contact at 8/9 is needed from my experience especially if promoting good habits around the tackle.
Reality check: a few kids will get what a coach says in any sport when they are that age - most won't. They just don't have the attention span. Games like hide and seek and chasing were invented for kids. Games like Rugby were invented for Adults not for 6 year olds.
Kids are starting organised sports much younger now. There are a variety of reasons for this. From clubs using it as a way to generate some funds to it suiting families as kids don't play on the street as much.
However, that doesn't mean you need to start doing tackle at a young age.
Brian O'Driscoll, the most skilful we have produced in a long while, player predominately Soccer and GAA when he was under 10. Shucks - if only he started learning to tackle properly when he was younger.0 -
I disagree with you there. A lot of clubs have huge numbers at mini level.The Lost Sheep wrote: »And weight restrictions are not needed here while they are in NZ/Oz due to influence of children playing rugby who are from ethnic backgrounds where children tend to develop earlier. We also don't have the numbers overall playing the sport to play weight restricted grades. Using weight restrictions here would stop people from playing rugby
More parents would let their parents play if they knew every step was being taken to make it safe.0 -
I don't agree with that. I was physically one of the smallest players at every grade but I was always comfortable as I had my technique perfect. That was down to coaching. You improve the coaching and you don't need to change these laws. You need to encourage offloads of course but you don't need to remove the tackle to do so. You need to change how teams are coached.sydthebeat wrote: »Tackling laws should run like this:
U7s light contact two hands in hips
U8-9s tackling only allowed at hip level or below, no tackling of ball allowed. Tackled player to drop in call of 'tackle'
U10-12s tackling only allowed hip level or below, players allowed to break the tackle. No lift allowed
13s+14s tackling hips and below, lifting allowed.
Targeting the ball allowed but no turnover ball in maul.
15s onward full tackle rules apply.
These simple changes would do a few things. First they encourage the ball carrier to offload in contact as they have free hands, which also encourages players you run at space rather than the man. Second they teach basic proper tackling technique to all at an early stage, and a big young player cannot rely on pure mass to stop a runner. Thirdly they reduce the major collisions until players are physically bigger and better trained to deal with these collisions.
You can encourage players to run at the space not the face through work in training sessions. You don't need to remove the tackle to encourage offloading and passing before contact. You do that through repetitive handling drills and fitness drills and reinforcing the basics of pass and move.
Brian O Driscoll was son and nephew of internationals etc. That is all related to his upbringing in the sport.Tim Robbins wrote: »Makes it even more crazy. They are kids. All the coaches and refs should know the regs. Do the U12 do lifting at lineouts?
You think they should start scrummaging then as well? And rucking? Get all the habits right from age 5 and 6 so!
Reality check: a few kids will get what a coach says in any sport when they are that age - most won't. They just don't have the attention span. Games like hide and seek and chasing were invented for kids. Games like Rugby were invented for Adults not for 6 year olds.
Kids are starting organised sports much younger now. There are a variety of reasons for this. From clubs using it as a way to generate some funds to it suiting families as kids don't play on the street as much.
However, that doesn't mean you need to start doing tackle at a young age.
Brian O'Driscoll, the most skilful we have produced in a long while, player predominately Soccer and GAA when he was under 10. Shucks - if only he started learning to tackle properly when he was younger.
Kids are starting organised sport much younger and from my experience of coaching these young ages playing rugby. Huge numbers relish the contact part of rugby as its something that isn't possible elsewhere and its a significant part of the sport that needs to be taught correctly.0 -
Big numbers but we don't have the ethnicity issues that are in NZ/Aus which are an extremely significant part of the change to weight grade rugby.Tim Robbins wrote: »I disagree with you there. A lot of clubs have huge numbers at mini level.
More parents would let their parents play if they knew every step was being taken to make it safe.0 -
In my limited knowledge experience, touch rugby at low age level only suits a few fast players with a good step. The rest spen their time frustratedly chasing shadows. It's only when they get the concept of a line defence in their heads that they can really defend against the faster, stronger players and that takes a while.
We do a lot of rucking at U6 and conversely it's something that involves each player and they get the hang of it very quickly.0 -
pickarooney wrote: »In my limited knowledge experience, touch rugby at low age level only suits a few fast players with a good step. The rest spen their time frustratedly chasing shadows. It's only when they get the concept of a line defence in their heads that they can really defend against the faster, stronger players and that takes a while.
We do a lot of rucking at U6 and conversely it's something that involves each player and they get the hang of it very quickly.
Not sure you should be doing rucking at U6. Pretty sure you shouldn't. Check the regs. Give your development officer a call.
You should be teaching ball handling skills (passing, catching) and evasions skills (stepping, swevring, switches, loops, dummies) and there's plenty there to make a good session with a game of tip at the end. If they can't do tip at the hip (even a two handed one), they shouldn't be doing tackle.
You walk then you run. There's a pile of stuff you can do as well to do with just general physical literacy as well - obviously get the ball involved as much as possible. Every kid should have a ball in their hands as much as possible. One ball for every two kids, and they should get their hands on it 200 times per hour - or set yourself a target and then work backwards from that. There's tonnes of stuff you can to do work on hand to eye and this is all the stuff you should be doing before going anywhere near rucking. You could even have drills like offloading from the deck, that don't involve contact but if they can get that right, when contact happens they will have skills that will make them really good at certain aspects.
Here's some drills from the IRFU site: http://www.irishrugby.ie/agegrades/bull_dog.php
BTW one of the best youth teams I ever came across was a U14 that hardly ever rucked. Why? Because every tackle they usually offloaded. Ball carriers were excellent at it and support runners were usually at both sides (or they had the skill to know side he was most likely to offload from so ran that line). My thinking would when contact comes, they should be offloading more and rucking less - especially at younger ages. To get that to happen they need the agility, hand to eye, balance and spatial awareness skills first. 50% of that can be taught without any contact (or very little).0 -
FFR rules. When I say rucking, it's the basic tackle/release/protect/steal. no clearouts or crocodile rolls yet!Tim Robbins wrote: »Not sure you should be doing rucking at U6. Pretty sure you shouldn't. Check the regs. Give your development officer a call.
Honestly, anything above a simple one-metre pass is beyond most of them. Getting them to run in the right direction and remember not to pass forward is a major achievement at that age.You should be teaching ball handling skills (passing, catching) and evasions skills (stepping, swevring, switches, loops, dummies) and there's plenty there to make a good session with a game of tip at the end.
Yes, literally so. Tackle drills are done at walking pace and gradually brought up to game speed. It's vital that they learn how to fall, where to put their heads and to get low. Below the waist only until, I think, U10.If they can't do tip at the hip (even a two handed one), they shouldn't be doing tackle. You walk then you run.
No argument here, all of that is important, and concentrated on. They're told to bring the ball with them everywhere they go if they want to improve their skills.There's a pile of stuff you can do as well to do with just general physical literacy as well - obviously get the ball involved as much as possible. Every kid should have a ball in their hands as much as possible. One ball for every two kids, and they should get their hands on it 200 times per hour - or set yourself a target and then work backwards from that. There's tonnes of stuff you can to do work on hand to eye and this is all the stuff you should be doing before going anywhere near rucking. You could even have drills like offloading from the deck, that don't involve contact but if they can get that right, when contact happens they will have skills that will make them really good at certain aspects.
I think it should be encouraged as soon as it's physically possible, provided the kids learn when not to do it. I've seen it go horribly wrong at U14 level when up against more pragmatic teams that intercepted almost every attack and wrap tackled.BTW one of the best youth teams I ever came across was a U14 that hardly ever rucked. Why? Because every tackle they usually offloaded. Ball carriers were excellent at it and support runners were usually at both sides (or they had the skill to know side he was most likely to offload from so ran that line). My thinking would when contact comes, they should be offloading more and rucking less - especially at younger ages. To get that to happen they need the agility, hand to eye, balance and spatial awareness skills first. 50% of that can be taught without any contact (or very little).0 -
Agreed. Most of them, just don't have the attention span or physical literacy at that age. Hence why I would agree with the regs and avoid contact until U8. In my own opinion I would go further and introduce it at U9, U10.pickarooney wrote: »Honestly, anything above a simple one-metre pass is beyond most of them. Getting them to run in the right direction and remember not to pass forward is a major achievement at that age.
At younger ages, it should just be little games that variations of chasing and ball handling stuff etc. I am with you on the learning to fall - that's good. But it can be done without any contact / danger and then you are giving them a skill for when they do contact later. That makes sense.
Anyway, I am involved with the sport, have opinions. But, your development officer is the person to talk to. They are the pro's at the end of the day.0 -
I've long pondered this question. Scrum half is the position in which we have traditionally always been deficient in producing great players. It's not just a temporary issue caused by coaching problems in the academies; it's much more long lasting than that.
Think back for as long as you can remember (for me that takes you to about 1970) and ask who was the greatest Irish scrum half you have seen. There are not many.
When I update my "Greatest Irish XV from the Irish Players I Have Watched in My Lifetime" every so often (which I do) I am struck by the riches in some positions and the paucity of options in others. Keith Wood, Ray McLoughlin, Willie John McBride, Paul O'Connell, Fergus Slattery....these forwards would merit comparison with the best players of any era. As would backs like Ollie Campbell, Brian O'Driscoll and Mike Gibson.
And there are some very good players in some positions that don't make my cut: Ken Kennedy, Phil Orr, Donal Lenihan, Brendan Mullin, Geordan Murphy, Tommy Bowe (My wings are Simon Geoghegan and Dennis Hickie---maybe wouldn't feature on a team of all-time greats but they were good enough for us).
But Scrum Half? Who would you have from the past 40 years?
Peter Stringer? Very good at what he did, ie pass and kick, and with his speed and accuracy of delivery he was a perfect match for our golden era of great backs but he did not have the all-round game to be considered an all time great.
Perhaps Colin Patterson (the long-time occupant of the no 9 spot in my all time team) did but he had a very short career.
Michael Bradley? When he was good he was very very good but when he was bad, which was frequently..........
John Robbie in his day was often considered to be potentially the best scrum half in the world. He had a stellar reputation in England when he won the Varsity Match (then a big deal) for Cambridge on his own and later in South Africa to where he emigrated. But the sad fact is that he had a short Irish career during which he never won a match
Going further back we had the likes of Robbie McGrath, John Moloney, Roger Young, all good players without being great and more recently we had Eoin Reddan, Tomas O'Leary, to mention only the ones who weren't complete rubbish.
I actually think Murray is the best Irish scrum half from an all round point of view that we have had. Certainly in my experience.
Which probably says more about our traditional weakness in the position than his world-beating capabilities.
I think the prioritising of other positions at schools level might have something to do with it, as has been said. Other countries put more emphasis on the number 9. Scotland, for example, has produced generations of extremely competent scrum halves. As has France.
And of course in New Zealand they usually produce the best. I remember reading a book about a Lions tour there in the 1970s which pointed out the importance of the position in New Zealand and offered by way of support that in the 30 matches they played, the Lions only came across two scrum halves that wouldn't have been good enough to challenge for a place on the Lions team.
They'd never say that about us.0 -
Advertisement
-
brokenhooker wrote: »I think it's fairly notable that in the past decade: 2006 to 2016, irish rugby have failed utterly to develop top quality scrumhalves, apart from Conor Murray, so much so that there is talk of a 3rd string scrumhalf for a NZ super rugby franchise being a strong contender for an Ireland cap once he fulfills the silly project player rule.
What is it about irish rugby that has cause it to be so ineffective at developing scrumhalves?
Nothing.
Thats just the way the cookie crumbles.0 -
It's below waist up to U12.pickarooney wrote: »Below the waist only until, I think, U10.
http://www.irishrugby.ie/downloads/Mini_REGULATIONS_2015_to_2016.pdf0 -
Once again, I'm in France.0
-
-
Twenty degrees and sunny. So I'll spend most of training tomorrow tying shoelaces and putting on sunscreen.0
-
Snickers Man wrote: »
And of course in New Zealand they usually produce the best. I remember reading a book about a Lions tour there in the 1970s which pointed out the importance of the position in New Zealand and offered by way of support that in the 30 matches they played, the Lions only came across two scrum halves that wouldn't have been good enough to challenge for a place on the Lions team.
They'd never say that about us.
Thanks for saying nice things about NZ but I have to disagree with you. HB was always a problem position for me when I picked my all time XV or 23 from my lifetime. It usually came down to Loveridge, Bachop or Kirk (Going was before my time). Now Smith gets it easily because he is the first kiwi HB I have seen that is the best in the world.
I always felt the Aussies and Saffas produced quality HBs.0 -
Being apart of Connacht Junior rugby, this is something Ive noticed, our club has a decent outhalf and the difference it makes compared to other teams is massive. He actually was a fullback his whole life, he only played their because of injury. My point even at Junior level, the best scrumhalf in the province is a lad who played fullback till 2 years ago.0
-
This is often the case. Players aren't really tested at an early age for their abilities at half back. It's often a case of the smallest lad plays scrum half and the best kicker plays out half whether he can read a game or not. Very few coaches seem to be able to recognise the potential needed and often select on a process of elimination.astonaidan wrote: »Being apart of Connacht Junior rugby, this is something Ive noticed, our club has a decent outhalf and the difference it makes compared to other teams is massive. He actually was a fullback his whole life, he only played their because of injury. My point even at Junior level, the best scrumhalf in the province is a lad who played fullback till 2 years ago.0 -
CMOTDibbler wrote: »This is often the case. Players aren't really tested at an early age for their abilities at half back. It's often a case of the smallest lad plays scrum half and the best kicker plays out half whether he can read a game or not. Very few coaches seem to be able to recognise the potential needed and often select on a process of elimination.
Thats funny, they played me scrumhalf for 4 years cause I was small, my passing was weak of one hand but for 4 years they tried. It actually made me quit rugby for soccer. It was only when I came back to rugby at 28 :eek: that I played wing then got moved to full back cause they realised I can counter and kick out of hand far better than anyone else, plus our fb got moved to scrum half :pac:
The outhalf needing to take kicks infuriates me so much, it took me 2 years to get kicking duties cause our outhalf had to take kicks even though in training I would beat him everytime, its like a ego thing0 -
Advertisement
-
I'm not surprised. I've seen it so many times at different levels. The main quality half backs need is ignored: Ability to read a game and take on the responsibility of directing things is ignored. It requires better coaching methods at the lower age grades to be able to identify these abilities early and nurture them. Unfortunately that just doesn't exist unless by chance.astonaidan wrote: »Thats funny, they played me scrumhalf for 4 years cause I was small, my passing was weak of one hand but for 4 years they tried. It actually made me quit rugby for soccer. It was only when I came back to rugby at 28 :eek: that I played wing then got moved to full back cause they realised I can counter and kick out of hand far better than anyone else, plus our fb got moved to scrum half :pac:
The outhalf needing to take kicks infuriates me so much, it took me 2 years to get kicking duties cause our outhalf had to take kicks even though in training I would beat him everytime, its like a ego thing0
Advertisement