New Rugby Division

[Ecky]

Nice arse covering ecky

If you did know it would save you from looking silly when you answered the question. Good to see you still justifying how this was done.

Would you also like the refs to be checking whether all players named to play front row are actually trained to play in that position?

How much time would you like the ref to have with teams in the pre-match talk? I'd have thought the teams would prefer minimal time with ref interruptions.

While we're at it, maybe we need to implement the Player Movement Sheet (as you see in finals and rep games) in every fixture and make it incumbent upon each team to have a manager who brings the sheet to the referee when ever there is a player substitution.

[Piston]

If clubs were advised 6-7 weeks ago, how was that done?. There was another caveat on there too apparently, you've missed it out (apparently no-one who has player premier grade can do this). It's obvious that no-one really has an idea of what is happening - do you know how many "struggling" clubs have used this?

Ok I get the issues of doing this mid season as well as the safety aspect. But if a u/20 player that have played Prem aren't allowed then that means the quality won't affect the u/20 comp that much. Also I think there's a much bigger safety risk for an u/20 player playing Prems than an u/21 player playing u/20's.
Posted via Mobile Device

[rugby_lover]

from what i have heard, if you are 21 you may play under 20s, but only if you can prove you need someone, as well as if you are in the tight five only. kind of makes sense because difficult positions but then also its the most dangerous position for your opponents especially if they are younger. a tough one!

[Sheikh]

Would you also like the refs to be checking whether all players named to play front row are actually trained to play in that position?

That should be easy to identify; any front-rower who can't bind properly, or hinges, or doesn't push straight... oh, hang on!

[PeterM]

I am not quite sure what to make of this ruling with the Under 20 competition.

I am of the view that it should be if you are under the age of 20 at the start of the season then you are able to play under 20's. What benefit is it for a player of 21,22 to play under 20's?

Wouldn't they be better placed to play second or first grade and test themselves against the best players going around in the local comp?

I would imagine that most young players with any sort of ability from age 15 have designs on playing first grade or making the Super rugby be that for the Force or another side depending on country of origin or that of their family. So if they are good enough why should they be prevented from playing at the highest grade possible?

[GIGS20]

That should be easy to identify; any front-rower who can't bind properly, or hinges, or doesn't push straight...

Yep, that's right no front rower currently playing in Australia qualifies

On the bright side, neither does Tony Woodcock, Adam Jones, Martin Castrogiovanni, Andrew Hore, the entire Franks family.

[westies man]

At the end of the day the u20's comp is struggling for numbers and all Shaky and the WARU are doing is trying to keep teams going to keep the comp going so that these guys can have a game of rugby.If anyone has any better ideas I'm sure the WARU would welcome them.It's sounds to me Ralto that the team that your kid plays in got beaten by a team they expected to beat and you now have the shits on,get over it and move on

[Ralto]

Would you also like the refs to be checking whether all players named to play front row are actually trained to play in that position?

One simple thing, not all that rubbish, and overreaction you vented - you were unaware that Rugby WA had changed the ground rules for the competition - same a most of us - welcome to mushroom world.

[Ralto]

Ralto that the team that your kid plays in got beaten by a team they expected to beat and you now have the shits on,get over it and move on

Supposedly what was negotiated - by Shaky, and whoever it was is this:
Must be hard up for players
21 years at max
Can't have played premier grade

Ok - so tell everyone what it is -
Call it an under 21 grade, so everyone is on the same playing field - isn't that fair enough?

As far as I understand the teams that have been using it are:
Neddies - 2nd bottom
Baysie - Bottom
Soaks - top of the under 20s - WTF?


It's pretty clear that no-one knows what is going on. Mine is not a vested interest - I have no kids playing rugby in Perth, so again, wrong in fact.

[Ralto]

I am not quite sure what to make of this ruling with the Under 20 competition.

I am of the view that it should be if you are under the age of 20 at the start of the season then you are able to play under 20's. What benefit is it for a player of 21,22 to play under 20's?

Rugby WA would have had to rule one club out because they were about to forfeit a number of games, and this would have made them ineligible to continue, this adding an extra bye to the competition.
To avoid this unnecessary burden, certain clubs were allowed to play older players.

They should have just renamed the it under 23's. So all clubs new at the same what was happening, and what competition they were playing in. As it stood there were three teams (at least), playing older players while some clubs had no idea the change had taken place.

[Ralto]

Ok I get the issues of doing this mid season as well as the safety aspect. But if a u/20 player that have played Prem aren't allowed then that means the quality won't affect the u/20 comp that much. Also I think there's a much bigger safety risk for an u/20 player playing Prems than an u/21 player playing u/20's.
Posted via Mobile Device

Misread:
If a 23 year old who has played many second grade matches is required, he can play under 20's. If he has played Premier Grade - supposedly he cannot go down to under 20's. Under 20s and 18s who have played Premier Grade can still play 20s and 18s.

[Ralto]

Ralto, I don't think Ecky said anything there that was justifying how it was done ? I read it as Ecky pointing out how it affects refs, nothing else.

I can assure you it isn't Rugby WA and WA Refs (two separate organisations who try and work together) versus the playing community - I can't speak for Rugby WA, although I obviously read fellow posters digruntled views on Rugby WA' modus operandi.

It's obvious from what Ecky said that Rugby WA and Referees are separate - referees had no idea this was happening. I'm pretty sure he can speak for himself anyway, he's bristled a few posts up.

[Piston]

Misread:
If a 23 year old who has played many second grade matches is required, he can play under 20's. If he has played Premier Grade - supposedly he cannot go down to under 20's. Under 20s and 18s who have played Premier Grade can still play 20s and 18s.

So what's the problem in an u/20 or u/18 player that have played prem grade in playing u/20's as well?

Also you said the max age is 21, so how can a 23 year old all of a sudden play 20's?

Looks like a misread from you!
Posted via Mobile Device

[Ecky]

One simple thing, not all that rubbish, and overreaction you vented - you were unaware that Rugby WA had changed the ground rules for the competition - same a most of us - welcome to mushroom world.

I was simply responding to those who reacted to my earlier post:

Refs don't need to be aware of the change. All they need is to be aware of the dispensation. If the team can show the player has dispensation, the player can play.

Any underage comp where dispensations are in place does not require the referee to do anything more than see the dispensation docs.

[chertubler]

Should of left it at a U19 comp like it was, but rugby WA wanted to be like the eastern states they were told it would'nt work but as usual would not listen to clubs and now this is the mess that has occurred.rugbywa you must listen to what the clubs say you do not no everything in fact you no very little but as usual you now need the clubs to sort your mess out.