Irish rugby's inability to produce scrumhalves

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

No it isn't and I know you're not being serious...
But being serious what can be done to help create more players?

A complete change in how the game is run. There would be pain for a few years and long term gain.

1. More development officers.
2. More vetting of coaches. You are not allowed coach unless you have done appropriate courses and have been assessed.
3. Payment of refs (and if they are not up to safety, fitness standards they are out).
4. A youths cup that has the same prestige of the SCT and JCT.
5. Restructure the AIL completely. Get rid of division 3.
6. Shorter season for amateur teams - less matches.
7. finances of clubs audited to ensure none of them are doing an Anglo, remortgaging their grounds to play some Kiwis or South Africans to play front row.
8. Banning of the Jackal position at youth levels up to U15. Ruck over the player. If the ball doesn't come back - it's a turnover. Scrum.
9. Tip only until U9.
10. Rugby done by weight for all amateur levels.
11. Innovative scoring systems - more bonus points for tries etc at all amateur levels
12. Banning of kicking of all sorts until U14. Even conversions.
13. Development games to played in four quarters. Giving coaches times to coach players.
14. At dev levels, player only to score twice.
15. Tap penalties - you must pass twice before tackle. Encourage fast passing and stop giving it to big man.
16. Waist down tackles only until U15.
17. An analysis of player injury at all levels. How did it happen? And an effort to ensure that any observable pattern that is causing injury is dealt with.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

A complete change in how the game is run. There would be pain for a few years and long term gain.

1. More development officers.
2. More vetting of coaches. You are not allowed coach unless you have done appropriate courses and have been assessed.
3. Payment of refs (and if they are not up to safety, fitness standards they are out).
4. A youths cup that has the same prestige of the SCT and JCT.
5. Restructure the AIL completely. Get rid of division 3.

Answers....
1. Where does this funding for more development officers come from. There has been a reduction in development officers in recent years as the funding hasn't been there.
2. Who do you want to do this vetting of coaches. How feasible do you think that is? Its a significant struggle to get people to coach kids as it is without extra levels of bureaucracy to jump through.
3. Where does the payment for referees come from? We get travel expenses from the branch but payment? I actually like that we simply have expenses that cover our costs and we are refereeing simply because there is an enjoyment in doing it and providing a service and that we don't need payment to do it.
4. How do you propose for youths competitions to reach the same level of prestige as schools cups? That just isn't feasible.
5. You clearly don't follow the AIL that much do you? There is 5 divisions of 10 teams. There has been 4 divisons for 6/7 years since division 1 split into 1A/B and then this season saw reshuffle so there is 5 divisions.

6. Shorter season for amateur teams - less matches.
7. finances of clubs audited to ensure none of them are doing an Anglo, remortgaging their grounds to play some Kiwis or South Africans to play front row.
8. Banning of the Jackal position at youth levels up to U15. Ruck over the player. If the ball doesn't come back - it's a turnover. Scrum.
9. Tip only until U9.
10. Rugby done by weight for all amateur levels.

Most people when being talked to about competitions etc want more games as they don't feel they get enough so why do you want less games.
Banning the jackal? Why? Its a key skill and should be rewarded.
I disagree about tip only until u9. Its until u7 now and then you have tackling which must be below the waist.
Weight grade rugby at all amateur levels is fantasyland. It just will not and cannot happen.

11. Innovative scoring systems - more bonus points for tries etc at all amateur levels
12. Banning of kicking of all sorts until U14. Even conversions.
13. Development games to played in four quarters. Giving coaches times to
coach players.
14. At dev levels, player only to score twice.

Banning kicking at all sorts at mini level perhaps but limiting it to certain areas of field should be permissible. Kicking shouldn't be outright banned as you lessen the chances for players to learn when to kick and when not to.
When you say development games/levels what exactly are you referring to?

15. Tap penalties - you must pass twice before tackle. Encourage fast passing and stop giving it to big man.
16. Waist down tackles only until U15.
17. An analysis of player injury at all levels. How did it happen? And an effort to ensure that any observable pattern that is causing injury is dealt with.

Who is to do this player injury analysis? Where are you going to get all the stats? Who will compile them etc?

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Answers....
I disagree about tip only until u9. Its until u7 now and then you have tackling which must be below the waist.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
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

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 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.

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?

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.

The system is allowing players with potential higher ability/ceiling to slip through but what to do?

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.

Do they do this in GAA? Not from my experience in Tipp/Limerick/Galway....
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.

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.

Because I refereed minis recently and we were doing tackling with under 7s...
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.

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.

+1.
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 things

New Zealand they rippa rugby at U7.
http://www.aucklandrugby.co.nz/Weights-and-Ages-Chart.aspx

Then there are weight restrictions.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

New Zealand they rippa rugby at U7.
http://www.aucklandrugby.co.nz/Weights-and-Ages-Chart.aspx

Then there are weight restrictions.

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

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Coaches said nothing before, during or after this and had been playing contact for quite a while.

Makes it even more crazy. They are kids. All the coaches and refs should know the regs. Do the U12 do lifting at lineouts?

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.

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.

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.

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.
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.

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.

Brian O Driscoll was son and nephew of internationals etc. That is all related to his upbringing in the sport.
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.

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.

pickarooney wrote: »

Below the waist only until, I think, U10.

It's below waist up to U12.

http://www.irishrugby.ie/downloads/Mini_REGULATIONS_2015_to_2016.pdf

pickarooney wrote: »

Once again, I'm in France.

Hope you are getting weather than us here.

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.

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.

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: »

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 thing

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.