No Tackle Minis

[kbw]

I have been reading a bit lately about the push to have U6s and possibly U7s not tackle.
I am not a fan of this for various reasons. The sooner they get the confidence and ability to tackle the better.
In my many years involved in junior RL I can't remember seeing a mini's player get serious hurt.
Especially when my own kids were young, many RU parents were sending their kids to RL in the U6s to learn to tackle as they don't until u8s.

Its crazy, one of the greatest rule changes in JRL was to reduce U6s and U7s to have only 6 on the field, it increases the participation of the kids on the field a huge amount but now they want this.

Most kids want to tackle and they get a lot of enjoyment out of it when they learn. Its also very satisfying when a kid is scared ot tackling eventually learns that its not too bad/

 

[unforgiven]

I have been reading a bit lately about the push to have U6s and possibly U7s not tackle.
I am not a fan of this for various reasons. The sooner they get the confidence and ability to tackle the better.
In my many years involved in junior RL I can't remember seeing a mini's player get serious hurt.
Especially when my own kids were young, many RU parents were sending their kids to RL in the U6s to learn to tackle as they don't until u8s.

Its crazy, one of the greatest rule changes in JRL was to reduce U6s and U7s to have only 6 on the field, it increases the participation of the kids on the field a huge amount but now they want this.

Most kids want to tackle and they get a lot of enjoyment out of it when they learn. Its also very satisfying when a kid is scared ot tackling eventually learns that its not too bad/

It's also not just learning how to tackle, its learning how to be tackled as well. How to fall in a tackle is vitally important, a lot of kids I've seen take up the sport at an older age tend to receive injuries as they do not know how to tackle or be tackled effectively.

 

[adamkungl]

It's just rubbish. Tackling is perfectly safe for children, they're too small and light to inflict any injury upon each other. and as has been said, the younger you learn the better.

 

[Valheru]

I don't like it either but it probably would placate the worried mum brigade out there who mistakenly believe rugby league is more dangerous than any other sport at that age.

 

[LineBall]

I have been reading a bit lately about the push to have U6s and possibly U7s not tackle.
I am not a fan of this for various reasons. The sooner they get the confidence and ability to tackle the better.
In my many years involved in junior RL I can't remember seeing a mini's player get serious hurt.
Especially when my own kids were young, many RU parents were sending their kids to RL in the U6s to learn to tackle as they don't until u8s.

Its crazy, one of the greatest rule changes in JRL was to reduce U6s and U7s to have only 6 on the field, it increases the participation of the kids on the field a huge amount but now they want this.

Most kids want to tackle and they get a lot of enjoyment out of it when they learn. Its also very satisfying when a kid is scared ot tackling eventually learns that its not too bad/

If they want to make the game safer for juniors, they would be better looking at having weight restrictions for age groups rather than this. Please note that I'm not trying to start a thread about weight for age because its already been done.

 

[unforgiven]

I don't like it either but it probably would placate the worried mum brigade out there who mistakenly believe rugby league is more dangerous than any other sport at that age.

Except we already have non tackle versions of the game.

 

[Valheru]

Except we already have non tackle versions of the game.

None that provide a direct pathway to the full contact version.

Anyways, I said I don't like the idea but I can see what they are trying to achieve.

 

[unforgiven]

None that provide a direct pathway to the full contact version.

Anyways, I said I don't like the idea but I can see what they are trying to achieve.

Probably better to create stronger linkages with the non contact versions then take away the tackling option.

 

[The Great Dane]

They tried this at the ACTRU (and broadly speaking in RU in general) back in the day (they may still be doing it, IDK I haven't really had anything to do with them at all for 15 or so years now), they played touch up till u10s from memory (may have been u9s or whatever), and for all the reasons above it was a massive f**king disaster.

But in RU's case on top of not tackling they had non-contested scrums and rucks and mauls with heavily modified rules until the same age as well, which made everything significantly worse, I'm sure you can imagine the injuries that were sustained when bigger kids who didn't have a clue what they were doing collapsed a scrum...

The ironic and slightly sad thing is that it actually worked... The whole idea was the same as it is in this case, to make rugby 'safer' so more mums would let their kids play at a younger age, of course it rather ironically and quickly became clear that the attempt to make rugby safer for young kids made it a whole lot more dangerous for slightly older kids, but the perception amongst mums in the community as a result of the change was that RU was safer and there was a measurable increase in juniors in the younger age groups because of that. So the policy achieved it's intended purpose of an increase in juniors, but at what cost... I guess it's just another case of the age old saying of the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

The other ironic thing is that despite the perception of mums at the time (we're talking back in late 80's through the 90's) the data showed that in the local area at least, kids were significantly more likely to get serious injuries (particularly to the legs and hips) playing soccer at a young age then they were playing either RL or RU (I honestly cannot remember the numbers for Aussie rules, then again I never had anything to do with AFL or cared about it at all), those stats basically swapped once you got past the 15-16 year old age group, but you'd kind of expect that and it's beside the point.

The really bad thing in the ACTRU's case was that everybody who had a clue what they were talking about knew what the result of the policy would be because of the age old problem in ACTRU of private high school rugby programs getting a bunch of kids most of which had never played rugby before to form teams starting at the age of 13, so we all knew what the outcome would be and warned those that supposedly didn't of what would happen and were ignored...

On a lighter note, one of the funny side effects was that some coaches would actively go out and recruit kids that'd been playing RL their whole lives once their teams hit u10s, cause when you put those kids that were competent at tackling on the field it was like putting a fox in amongst the chickens, but I digress.

 

[adamkungl]

Puberty plays havoc with RL injuries but before u11s they're basically non existent. Minor sprains, bumps and bruises.

 

[Canard]

I have been reading a bit lately about the push to have U6s and possibly U7s not tackle.
I am not a fan of this for various reasons. The sooner they get the confidence and ability to tackle the better.
In my many years involved in junior RL I can't remember seeing a mini's player get serious hurt.
Especially when my own kids were young, many RU parents were sending their kids to RL in the U6s to learn to tackle as they don't until u8s.

Its crazy, one of the greatest rule changes in JRL was to reduce U6s and U7s to have only 6 on the field, it increases the participation of the kids on the field a huge amount but now they want this.

Most kids want to tackle and they get a lot of enjoyment out of it when they learn. Its also very satisfying when a kid is scared ot tackling eventually learns that its not too bad/

The Eels have been playing this way for several years.

 

[no name]

The earlier they are taught to tackle, the better.
You can almost always tell the kids that have been exposed to tackling from a young age when they are in 7s and 8s.

 

[T-Boon]

I have been reading a bit lately about the push to have U6s and possibly U7s not tackle.
I am not a fan of this for various reasons. The sooner they get the confidence and ability to tackle the better.
In my many years involved in junior RL I can't remember seeing a mini's player get serious hurt.
Especially when my own kids were young, many RU parents were sending their kids to RL in the U6s to learn to tackle as they don't until u8s.

Its crazy, one of the greatest rule changes in JRL was to reduce U6s and U7s to have only 6 on the field, it increases the participation of the kids on the field a huge amount but now they want this.

Most kids want to tackle and they get a lot of enjoyment out of it when they learn. Its also very satisfying when a kid is scared ot tackling eventually learns that its not too bad/

Do they still teach kids to tackle around the legs or do they get taught to wrestle at that age?

 

[kbw]

The Eels have been playing this way for several years.

I was sure I watched some u6s at Cabra last year and they were tackling.

 

[kbw]

Do they still teach kids to tackle around the legs or do they get taught to wrestle at that age?

no wrestle in minis, although some idiots do try and teach kids that.
When I have coached the little ones I love when they tackle around the legs, but its more about getting them confident to put their body into the tackle safely.

I had a kid in the u7s last year that tackled like a demon round the legs. but then he basically stopped tackling altogether. He had figured out if he didn't tackle and they scored he (or his team) got to have runs with the ball

 

[unforgiven]

I was sure I watched some u6s at Cabra last year and they were tackling.

It was a joke about Parra 1st grade side.

 

[kbw]

It was a joke about Parra 1st grade side.

god I am getting old, that was actually very good, but zip straight over my head

 

[unforgiven]

god I am getting old, that was actually very good, but zip straight over my head

lol, it happens to the best of us.

 

[Cheap Charlie]

They tried this at the ACTRU (and broadly speaking in RU in general) back in the day (they may still be doing it, IDK I haven't really had anything to do with them at all for 15 or so years now), they played touch up till u10s from memory (may have been u9s or whatever), and for all the reasons above it was a massive f**king disaster.

But in RU's case on top of not tackling they had non-contested scrums and rucks and mauls with heavily modified rules until the same age as well, which made everything significantly worse, I'm sure you can imagine the injuries that were sustained when bigger kids who didn't have a clue what they were doing collapsed a scrum...

The ironic and slightly sad thing is that it actually worked... The whole idea was the same as it is in this case, to make rugby 'safer' so more mums would let their kids play at a younger age, of course it rather ironically and quickly became clear that the attempt to make rugby safer for young kids made it a whole lot more dangerous for slightly older kids, but the perception amongst mums in the community as a result of the change was that RU was safer and there was a measurable increase in juniors in the younger age groups because of that. So the policy achieved it's intended purpose of an increase in juniors, but at what cost... I guess it's just another case of the age old saying of the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

The other ironic thing is that despite the perception of mums at the time (we're talking back in late 80's through the 90's) the data showed that in the local area at least, kids were significantly more likely to get serious injuries (particularly to the legs and hips) playing soccer at a young age then they were playing either RL or RU (I honestly cannot remember the numbers for Aussie rules, then again I never had anything to do with AFL or cared about it at all), those stats basically swapped once you got past the 15-16 year old age group, but you'd kind of expect that and it's beside the point.

The really bad thing in the ACTRU's case was that everybody who had a clue what they were talking about knew what the result of the policy would be because of the age old problem in ACTRU of private high school rugby programs getting a bunch of kids most of which had never played rugby before to form teams starting at the age of 13, so we all knew what the outcome would be and warned those that supposedly didn't of what would happen and were ignored...

On a lighter note, one of the funny side effects was that some coaches would actively go out and recruit kids that'd been playing RL their whole lives once their teams hit u10s, cause when you put those kids that were competent at tackling on the field it was like putting a fox in amongst the chickens, but I digress.

I reckon the main reason mums want their boys to play RU instead of RL is social climbing.

And having spent 9 footy seasons of my own youth and 15 yeays of parenthood watching (some) rl mums, I don’t blame ‘em.

Or, to quote tyrannosaurus ex, “sh!t! f**king (xxxx club) this weekend.”, lovelyand eloquent flower she is/was/forever will be.

Edit to add, in all fairness: the worst, most obnoxious mums, and dads, are found around the junior tennis courts, followed closely by those cadging for little Johnny’s average in the under 10s at the cricket club.

 

[kbw]

I reckon the main reason mums want their boys to play RU instead of RL is social climbing.
.

the Dads just as much