GAA Go Games

HurlingBoy

For age categories that are Go Games i.e U6 -U12 can you play competitive matches i.e keep the score, have a winner and present a cup or give medals to the winners. I understand in general that these age group are meant to be about taking part and non competitive but can a club run a competition where scores are kept and cup presented or is this in violation of the the rules.

joebloggs32

The short answer is no, you can't.

If you seek permission from your county board to sanction a blitz or tournament etc they will not provide it.

However, this being the GAA plenty of clubs put in for a tournament following the go games rules and then just ignore them the day.

Uncle Pierre

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058364157/gaa-go-games

First thing is that the 'Go Games' model only actually applies up to U11. For U12s, you can run a League all right, but not a championship. From the Rule Book:

County Boards therefore won't run competitive tournaments for U11s down. As for tournaments organised by clubs - strictly speaking, they're against the rules, but like @joebloggs32 said, it's one of those rules that's 'more honoured by the breach than the observance'.

Have been to quite a few tournaments at U10 and U11 levels myself over the past few years, and also involved in an U11 tournament my own club runs. Generally the case that everybody gets a medal, no matter what their results. Also often the case that everybody plays a 'final' of some sort - e.g. if there are two groups of four, then first plays first in their 'final', second plays second in their 'final', etc.

You're not supposed to hand out a trophy to overall winners, but I've never heard of a club facing sanction for this. And there are ways round it too. For example, in the tournament we run ourselves, we say the cup winners are judged on the basis of things like sportsmanship and respect for opponents and mentors, as well as their results. It's just coincidence that the ones showing most respect etc. every year are also the ones who win most or all of their group matches, and the "first-placed" final as well!

HurlingBoy

Thanks for the info. I remember years ago U12 was normal competitive games. I know its all about participation but 11/12 year old know if they have won or lost so not sure why these are GO Games at that age.

Uncle Pierre

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122503157#Comment_122503157

Again, Go Games go up to U11 only. But yes, it's true that nine, ten and eleven-year-olds keep the score of Go Games themselves and know if they're winning or losing, even if it's not supposed to matter.

So, what you're asking is actually a big question, that was considered at length before Go Games were introduced at all.

The whole ethos of Go Games is literally that everybody gets a go. At U9 for example, if you've a squad of 30, you'll divide them up into teams of seven and run somebody in and out every few minutes to make sure that the other two get plenty of game time as well. You'll also mix your teams up so that each one has some of your stronger lads, some of the weaker, and some of those in between, instead of putting out an 'A' team, 'B' team, etc.

And while the young lads may experience temporary joy at winning on the day itself, or temporary disappointment at losing, it doesn't really matter in the long run as there are no trophies or titles at stake.

Issue arises then however at the cut-off age where things transition from Go Games to competitive matches. Twelve-year-olds are in their first year out of Go Games, and some parents who are used to seeing their lad play in every match (no matter how he goes) start asking questions and maybe getting argumentative when he's no longer guaranteed a run.

You stand accused then of being an egotistical coach who's only concerned with winning, rather than making sure everybody gets to play. It's a no-win situation.

Fact of the matter is that sooner or later, things will become competitive, and if you're not in the top 18 to 20 of your squad, then you're not going to play much. Currently this happens at age 12, which some people argue is too young. But if you make it any later, you're only postponing the inevitable anyway.

As I said, it's a big question….

MattressRick

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122507169#Comment_122507169

Are you not supposed to have no subs for Go Games? We have U6, they always keep the score, well boys always do anyway. But we never have subs. Always have 5 or 6 per team, no subs, take turns in goal etc

beggars_bush

I've no issue with go games

The issue is adults forcing adult rules on children

Once every child gets to play, a good rule is that every child must play one half of a game and the keeper must be changed

Coaches are often the problem, unwilling to split their squads into smaller teams and keep their stronger players together

celt262

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122508404#Comment_122508404

When stronger and weaker are mixed the weaker ones get very little ball and when they don't get on the ball they are not going to improve.

Uncle Pierre

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122508393#Comment_122508393

Whether or not you end up with subs is simply a numbers thing on the day. You wouldn't decide in advance that you were going to leave off Tommy and Billy and Jack. But if you turn up with 30 players and the other club only has 27, then obviously you have to leave three off somewhere if the games are to be between even numbers, and you just run lads in and out every few minutes.

At the younger groups like the U6s you mention, the other club might allow you to put in an extra player per team anyway, so that maybe you end up with seven playing against six. But that's less likely to happen when you get up to the older Go Games groups of U10s & U11s.

Uncle Pierre

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122508704#Comment_122508704

Yes, that's a valid consideration.

An equally valid one is that if you consistently split the group into A, B, C and D teams (with A being the strongest players and D being the weakest), there can be a stigma to always or nearly always being on the C or D team. And coaches have to deal with parents asking "why is my lad always on the D team, he's every bit as good as Johnny on the B team?"

Another point of view is whether or not lads will actually improve if they only ever play on a D team, against other D teams? They'd get away with things that you wouldn't get away with against stronger players, and so may not even see the need to improve, "because I always do well in my games".

Anyway, the important thing here is that both clubs do the same when they meet. No point in one club mixing lads up, and the other streaming them according to playing strength. That just makes for lop-sided games at both ends.

HurlingBoy

It is certainly a huge balance act trying to keep everyone happy, children, parents opposition coaches etc. The stronger, competitive kids want to win and come of the field demoralised with a defeat. The coach has to give everyone equal game time. Parents of the stronger kids want them to win and come home happy. There is a risk that these kids may lose interest and stop coming if they don't win games(even though scores are not meant to be kept but kids know they have lost). Unfortunately the weaker kids are possibly going to fall away once they get to competitive age groups. It's a no win situation.

celt262

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122509018#Comment_122509018

We don't have big numbers so we only ever have a A & B and switch some of the middle of the road ones over and back during the games.

Uncle Pierre

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122509263#Comment_122509263

That sounds fair enough. Anyway, has to operate differently across clubs, depending on the numbers they have.

I'm with one of the larger rural clubs in Co. Wexford, where the underage grades are done on an "even age" basis - i.e. U6, U8, U10, U12, etc.

There's the occasional blitz run here for U6, and regular Go Games for U8 and U10. At U6 and U8, we'd have 40-something players, so on a match day, we'd be looking at maybe seven or eight groups of six, or something like that.

At U10, we'd still have close to 40, so we'd be fielding maybe six groups of six. Again, the exact breakdown depends on the numbers that the other club or clubs bring (we're often put against two other clubs at the same time, because many other clubs only have around half the number of players we do).

At U12, things move to a League basis (13-a-side, but with the clubs having the option to agree to play 15-a-side). We have numbers in the low 30s here, so we field two teams. This is where we start splitting them according to ability all right. Our 'A' teams are in Div. 1 of both codes, and our 'B' teams in Div. 6

celt262

Is there many Counties running competitive competitions at u12 grade?

I says

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122590208#Comment_122590208

Westmeath is. We had a league earlier this yr with no scores published only ref and county board knew the scores, then they matched up teams at equal levels. Then a big finals day was played were teams of equal ability and level played each other so there was no hammerings.

Now it’s a league system again with tables visible on website but no results. You can see for and against scores with wins, losses and points. So the young lads have played 12/13 competitive games this year so far split in two. That’s not including league final and possibly shield finals in both divisions yet. Football and hurling.

celt262

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122593351#Comment_122593351

Thanks I think Monaghan do something similar which is a good idea.

Tombo2001

Just because some kids keep the score - is far far from saying, the ref should be keeping the score and announcing at the end who the winner is.

Honestly, who cares who wins the game at U9 - it is so unimportant in the scheme of things.

Far far more important for both teams is a good even game, where both teams come of the pitch feeling good about themselves.

As for streaming, dont get me started….. the arguments are always the scheme, oh its better for the weaker kids because they dont get on the ball - however, if you listen to WHO is making the argument for streaming, its always always the parents of the strong kids (or parents who think their kids are strong). And you can be guaranteed that the kid cares a lot less about streaming than the parent does.

celt262

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122593736#Comment_122593736

The weaker ones don't get on the ball though when it's mixed ability playing together. We had a game yesterday and a few of them might aswell have been on the line beside me. How that is any benefit to them I don't know. If they are playing with kids with similar ability they might improve a bit and get a bit off confidence.

I've also noticed the stronger ones are not wanting to pass to them now either which were pulling them on, the ball always goes to the player in best position. This is at U10.

mooz

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122593796#Comment_122593796

Always see that. When we split our teams in 2 x 11 even teams, 2/3 on both teams will get very few touches because 4 or 5 players will always dominate, same as opposition.

We went with an older and stronger 11 and a younger and weaker 11 a few times and it works best. Players are competing against their own ability and level and can flourish, lads who ordinarily wouldn't get touches were delighted coming off the pitch having scored 1-2 etc. Worth doing in my view

Tombo2001

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122593868#Comment_122593868

If you tell me hand on heart that your own kid went on the weaker team, then happy to accept your argument - but whenever I heard people arguing 'what about the weaker kids, its in their interest' it was always parents whose kid would be on the strong team.

Counterargument to what ye are saying lads is that if a U10 or u11 team has players of mixed ability then (i) there will be no more than 2 or 3 strong players and they are divided across the pitch, one is a defender, the other a goalie, the other is an attacker or whatever and (ii) as ye know there are rules in place about how many solos they can take which limits what one player can do with the ball.

Of course the stronger players go looking for the ball - but guess what, that still happens even after you stream. In your weaker 11, you will have 5 or 6 very weak players, and then 5 or 6 half decent players who are wondering WTF did I do wrong, that your man over there who is no better than me is on the A team and I'm on the B team. In fact the gap between the best player and the worst player on your weak team will be a lot wider than the gap between the best player on the strong team and the best player on the weak team. You still have that issue of the weakest players not getting on the ball. So the argument for me is while not quite redundant, its a weak one.

And while everyone - and I mean everyone - will say, we have movement between the teams, if players are doing well, we move them up and so on; in practice this simply doesnt happen to nearly the extent that it should. Teams become rigid. (Oh….but not in our club…. yeah right).

To be moved up, a player has to improve very dramatically; they have to be so good, that they are streets ahead of the players that went into the strong team in the first place. Merely being as good as them wont be enough.

Mentors are averse to moving players down unless its really necessary, I've seen this across so many groups. Often driven by parents, I've seen parents threaten to take the kid out of the club, kids breaking down crying over it.

So a huge part of the problem with streaming isnt that its a good idea or bad idea, but that its invariably implemented badly.

Another example - for the group thats in the middle, how do they get divided up between the stronger and weaker teams - its completely arbitrary and then becomes influenced by sub-concious things like, well I know that kids dad from the schoolgate so I dont want to have to tell him his son is on the weak team.

The reality is in any club at underage there are 15% of kids that are exceptional, 15% of kids that sports just isnt their thing but they enjoy the craic or their parents make them go or whatever; and then there are 70% in the middle that are all in around the same. So what is the argument for streaming that 70% - I just dont see it. At all. Clubs are doing basically to suit the strongest 15%.

By all means stream at 12 yrs old, but before that …..

Final comment - I dont mean to damn underage coaches or mentors here, they do an incredible job and are greatly underappreciated. I just really dont like streaming for young children.

mooz

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122595289#Comment_122595289

Or counter argument that we are probably suiting the weakest 15% more often than not. The kids who have zero interest, don't train, won't practice their skills, their parents don't have any interest and won't bring them to any blitz if it involves driving more than 20 mins, stand like statues, miss most of the summer as they're away yet will expect them to get same crack at it as the strongest 15%. Do the ones who who show good ability not deserve to play and compete with like minded children against kids at their own level? Not much fun for them when you see them having to make up for shortfall or dearth in talent. I've often seen them disengage, lose interest and wonder what is the point. Kids know the score fairly well by 11/12, it's the parents who struggle to accept the limitations of their children and are usually the most vocal.

celt262

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122595397#Comment_122595397

It's hard to please everyone. If you take the weakest 15% i find that they are the ones that we end up tailoring the training drills to suit as if you put anything complicated in atall the drill falls apart and is impossible to complete and everyone gets frustrated. They are holding the group back at training and we don't intend to allow it happen during games.

Out of 20 we have 6 really good lads and and another 4 who are decent enough and clued in. When we split into two teams we have 5 lads who have to do all the work and we have come up against teams who have a good bunch of lads we get slaughtred and can't keep the ball kicked out to them. We end up with two teams getting hammered which is not "fun" for anyone.

I will say that the majority of clubs that we play want to mix them up but it doesn't work for us we have to many with little or no football ability.

Tombo2001

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122595397#Comment_122595397

I've already answered that argument - even when you stream they are still the weakest players, and still see very little of the ball.

On your other point - at age 12 (or under 13) they play in competitive leagues with scores recorded on publice websites.

At age 11 or u12 they dont. The teams know who won usually, they probably dont know the score, the ref will usually say who won if asked - why does it matter if its recorded somewhere.

One other point - any time a parents starts complaining - they are immediately asked to come down and help with coaching themselves; if they wont then take a hike. This business of 'I am not happy with the free service I get from other parents that give up their time 3 days a week to coach/ childmind my kids'….. seriously.

Tombo2001

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122596241#Comment_122596241

What age?

I find it hard to believe that in a group of 20 kids you have a full 10 that couldnt even be called 'decent enough'.

One other problem with this - someone rightly makes the point that for a lot of the weaker kids, the parents have no interest. But that means when streaming does happen, there is a glut of coaches for the strong team, and big shortage for the weak team. Obviously with fixed teams, the coaches have to come from the parent cohort with that particular team.

Not unusual at all to see an A team with 5/6/7 coaches all looking to help out; and a B team with 1 lad doing everything, and locked into it because if he/she leaves the whole thing falls apart. And moreover, his kid is also locked into that team no matter how well he/she plays because the parent needs to be there to coach, so the kid has to be there too.

As I said - in theory there are some good arguments for streaming, but the implementation is very often brutal for the weaker team. Much better for the stronger team.

celt262

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122597658#Comment_122597658

U10. As i said before it is a mixed group there are 5 girls and four of them are just there as there brought by the parents or go because there friends are going and then 5 very weak boys so that is around 10 who don't have a whole pile of interest or just don't have any ability. I wish we had 5/6/ or 7 coaches.

Tombo2001

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122597857#Comment_122597857

A country club I'm guessing? thats a very small cohort. I'm based in Dublin, clubs would be generally a lot bigger. But each situation has its challenges, wouldn't say one is easier than the other.

HurlingBoy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122597949#Comment_122597949

Rural clubs have the problem with numbers while city clubs have the problem with streaming so you are right that both have their problems. Still as a coach I think I would prefer to have numbers over disgruntled parents. From surveys one of the main reasons why kids drop out of sport is not feeling wanted. In rural clubs it takes huge effort from coaches and administrators to keep team's going chasing parents, players etc but even if the child is of lesser ability they still feel wanted. With huge numbers in city clubs they don't need to get chase parents as much but have probably a higher drop out rate.

Tombo2001

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122598108#Comment_122598108

Agreed - there is a bit of a paradox with success. If an underage team goes from say division 6 to division 3 or 4, it means it has to play its best players all the time to compete. And so the weakest players stand on the sideline. And tbh even if they are brought on they could end up costing the team the game, they know that and so do the other players. So they understand why they are on the sideline. Just the way it is. Nobodies fault, but it shows the attraction of staying in a lower league.