Junior rugby league weights - post for people involved in kids sport

[Parra]

Article in yesterdays Tele regarding parents concerns around the issue of weight / size differences for kids in aged-based competitions.

This is an issue that has been around for a long time. I believe kids footy was weight-based at some stage in the past.

If you are involved in kids sport now is this an issue in your comp? Do you think anything needs to be done?

I don't think a weight-based competition is the answer. The age and maturity differences are every bit as important as physical size. However, maybe a weighted limited comp to run alongside an open aged-based competition would work. Problem with this is that you need a lot of players to make up the teams.

The problems I have seen are the result of not just big kids, but a concentration of big kids in the one team. The move to weight based divisions would mean that entire squads would have to play against much older players. A system of limiting each team to a set number of big kids would work. But is it workable.

Resolving this issue and the perceptions of safety would go a long way to boosting junior player numbers. It is these issues that provide soccer with such a large junior player base and allow aussie rules to gain a foothold in areas where it never existed. These perceptions have nothing at all to do with the pro levels of the game.





http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/nrl/little-league-sizes-up-the-issue/story-e6frfgbo-1226081608941

 

[adamkungl]

Very simple imo and i've said it before...have a reasonable weight limit per age up to u16s, BUT make it so a kid can't be forced to play more than 1 age up.

 

[Tigger Madness]

I like the idea of limiting teams to 2 or 3 big kids.

 

[Parra]

Very simple imo and i've said it before...have a reasonable weight limit per age up to u16s, BUT make it so a kid can't be forced to play more than 1 age up.

Even so, I have seen very big kids in younger age groups that would not be effective in an age group down. And little kids who are terriers and could play an age up with their attitude, aggression and understanding.

You risk losing the big softies, who may well mature into keen, decent players, while also providing the little goers an even smaller pond to play in.

Graded competitions are probably the most effective mechanism, however you need adequate player & team numbers for this to work.

 

[adamkungl]

Graded competitions are probably the most effective mechanism, however you need adequate player & team numbers for this to work.

Well yeah. When I was in the Parra junior comp 10-15 years ago it was never that big an issue for us. We weren't a big side, not many islanders, we were usually in 2nd or 3rd division. When you come up against big blokes get numbers in the tackle. But if there aren't enough teams for 3 divisions it becomes a problem.

 

[RHCP]

There needs to be some sort of system so that kids can still play alongside their mates. A blanket weight division division won't work well imo, I think a big 10 year old forced to play with 14 year olds would be just as likely to walk away from the game as a small kid playing against bigger kids his own age.

And limiting teams to 'big kids' is unfair too. These are kids we're talking about, how are we supposed to tell them they can't play because there's already too many big kids?

Perhaps up until U/14s if a player is below the weight threshold, they can choose to drop down to the division below. If they want to play against the bigger kids, more power to them and if they don't want to, no problems.

I don't think weight divisions are necessary at all, but it seems inevitable.

 

[Parra]

The threshold with an option for the kids is a good idea RHCP.

Current dispensation rules that enable a kid to play in the age group below are too restrictive.

 

[MightyBronco]

Sort the comps out by race - problem solved.



j/k!

 

[cleary89]

I like the idea of limiting teams to 2 or 3 big kids.

And do what with the rest? Tell them they can't play? Have trials in u8's for the best 3 big kids and tell the rest to piss off.

Kids need to be able to play with their friends. The only way it could work is like with cricket we go to an u8's u10's and have every second year and then being broken up into two divisions in that.

But then you have a grade full of wingers and halfbacks and a grade full of forwards. Parents just need to toughen the f**k up and learn kids will be kids, they might get hurt, but how hurt can a kid in u8s get?

So many benefits being in a football team. I don't think anyone I knew who played footy got bullied at all in high school and every school fight you had half your team there backing you up.

 

[RHCP]

And do what with the rest? Tell them they can't play? Have trials in u8's for the best 3 big kids and tell the rest to piss off.

Kids need to be able to play with their friends. The only way it could work is like with cricket we go to an u8's u10's and have every second year and then being broken up into two divisions in that.

But then you have a grade full of wingers and halfbacks and a grade full of forwards. Parents just need to toughen the f**k up and learn kids will be kids, they might get hurt, but how hurt can a kid in u8s get?

So many benefits being in a football team. I don't think anyone I knew who played footy got bullied at all in high school and every school fight you had half your team there backing you up.

That was another of my concerns. Player development will definitely be on the slide when we're forcing props to play halfback and vice versa.

 

[kbw]

The best idea is to pool competitions. This way you can have more divisions and smaller kids can play in the lower divisions if they are unable to handle big kids.
I am involved in the ICCC with Souths, Easts, Canterbury, Balmain and St George in the U15s. There are some very big kids and some very strong muscular kids. There are 3 divisions so kids not real good can play in 3rd division (Which still has some good players)

There is def a duty of care involved here, but I notice more and more its not about kids getting hurt but kids not winning.

 

[Snappy]

Last week in the Courier there was a story about a 'star' junior player who scored 15 tries in six games. The kid was in under 12's, was 180 cm tall and 90 kgs. Hardly a star, more just an adult sized kid playing against normal size 12 year olds.

 

[bottle]

Sort the comps out by race - problem solved.



j/k!

Apartheid eh? Was tried elsewhere, failed.

 

[innsaneink]

The best idea is to pool competitions. This way you can have more divisions and smaller kids can play in the lower divisions if they are unable to handle big kids.
I am involved in the ICCC with Souths, Easts, Canterbury, Balmain and St George in the U15s. There are some very big kids and some very strong muscular kids. There are 3 divisions so kids not real good can play in 3rd division (Which still has some good players)

There is def a duty of care involved here, but I notice more and more its not about kids getting hurt but kids not winning.

Involved in the same comp and grade.
Not a fan of driving an hour plus to and an hour from grounds most sundays nowadays....with it occuring in the 13s and 14s as well this year i think you may find some more drop out as a result of this.
Our team has parents that cant get their kids to game coz they dunno how to get there...sad but true.

 

[Parra]

Longer travel times are an issue, particularly when other sports may not required the travel. This issue affects all families, particularly those with more than one kid involved in the sport. For many, this is still the best option after weighing up the pros & cons.

I agree with kbw - "There is def a duty of care involved here, but I notice more and more its not about kids getting hurt but kids not winning"

But even in the age groups where no comp ladder is kept, kids understand results and no-one wants to get flogged every week. It is another factor that can drive families from the sport.

It is not a matter of grading three big kids per Under 8's as per the example above.

The issue I come across is one team with none or one bigger kid, who come up against a team composed of nearly all big kids. Injuries don't have to occur - the perception is what drives some families away.

Maybe alternatives like semi-contact option-comps, more generous dispensation rules or a mix of age/size rules need to be developed.

There are plenty of people playing touch/tag footy - so demand is out there.

 

[LESStar58]

I ref VRL juniors up to under 10s and there are a handful of teams where kids are playing 2 age groups up. One of the new teams has an under 8s that plays under 10s and these are NOT big kids but gee whiz they can handle it. Some of the 8s are better than the 10s.

Some of the teams have bigger players who I have no doubt could handle playing up a few age groups but there needs to be emphasis on coaches to teach kids Safe Play code etc as I find a lot of the BIGGER kids like shoulder charging, face palming etc.

It's a contentious issue, no doubt.

 

[dogslife]

I played for 12 years, having to deal with blokes bigger than me was a non issue really as I learnt at a young age how to tackle big blokes effectively. However I do recall the only time I was concussed in a game I tried tackling a bloke who was bigger than my dad and ended up worse for wear, probably because I was 11, and my old man is a solid 110kg. Instances like that could be avoided with weight limits on certain players

 

[VodafoneWarriors1995]

Just leave it how it is. I mean, when i played for my school a month ago. I versed guys who were at least twice my size and i'm nearly 6'0" tall. Everyone should just play with kids their own age.

 

[LineBall]

IMO junior player weights should come into consideration - as there are a lot of kids, and kids' parents who are concerned about their child's safety playing rugby league, and like it or not - we are in competition with other codes to attract juniors to play our game, as those kids that play, are most likely going to be fans of the game for life.

As other posters have said, a balance with age and weight would be ideal, and having a maximum weight level for each age should apply - with the exception that a child cannot play more than 2 years above his age level.

 

[ozenzud]

In Wellington NZ we have a small RL comp and a very, very high proportion of the kids are maori/polyensian. Probably 99%. You still get big variations in size amongst polyensian community as well. We have age divisions with no weight restrictions.

We compete against Rugby which have weight restrictions, but they have literally hundreds and hundreds more kids than League does.

Its fair to say, that on average, the kids playing league are generally bigger/faster or better than their rugby counterparts because they more or less have to be!

I'm sure not having a weight restriction scares kids away from league, though we get the occasional rugby player who is too big for his rugby team who plays league because he can play in his age division.

We are unlikely in the short term to get weight restrictions because we simply do not have the player numbers. We already have kids playing up a year for eg. and under 12 playing under 13's because there is no under 12's side at their club. They are against giant under 13s and they might be a small under 12. So you could commonly have a 45 kilo kid up against 110 kilos.

My view is that it is fairly simple, put in weight restrictions (where you have the playing numbers) but only allow a kids to play one year older than their age. If they are still big, well so be it. we need to encourage participation. League is a contact sport and its a physical one. No system is perfect and that is the best we can get.

In my 45 kilo v 110 kilo example, this system would push the 110 kilo kids to under 14's and the 45 kilo kid would then have to only deal with 85-90 kilos.

In areas with plenty of kids, their should always be an open weight top division!