Junior Rugby! Is it fair?!

[Heres me WHAATT!]

Nice piece and seems to show how the Ulster Branch again favour the bigger clubs!

http://www.inishowenonline.com/irfc/vie ... ebench.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Anyone any views?

[moondance]

Some interesting points raised in the article.

The idea of player registration and photo ID has been intoduced this season by the IRFU - for mini rugby!

[pwrmoore]

OK,

since you think no-one cares YM.

You say Lisburn did everything by the book. That they re-registered their First team players as Second XV players before the match and therefore Inishowen have nothing to complain about. I think that is fair enough if Lisburn registered the players in the spitit of the rules as well as to the letter of the rule book with the intention that those players remaind as second XV players for a prolonged period. If however, they re-registered several first team players as second team for the purposes of this match and then re-listed them as first team players afterwards that is clearly not in the spirit of the game.

[Heres me WHAATT!]

It is a little disheartening that very few people care about Junior Rugby. If those people who just turn out for Ulster matches or occassionally head down to a AIL then rugby in Ulster I feel would benefit.

Back to the topic, if those re-registered players have been dropped or returning from injury then yes, they should be playing for the 2nds, however in this case it would appear that these players were registered for the sole purpose of 'stacking' to beat a league rival, which I think is unfair! Teams should not have to look in fear to see if the club they are playings 1s or 2s have a game which is always the case!

The point of these 1st XV sides should be playing in qualifying 3, indeed if capable of it I think they should. I think both Inishowen and Grosvenor would be capable of competing in that league but they are both only growing and getting there and may do in the near future having seen these sides playing Grosvenor in particular are a young side who are finding their feet!

But the main thing which can be seen here is for the great rugby followers within this board and beyond to go out and watch some Junior rugby!! It's bloody good!

[Cap'n Grumpy]

To be fair, it was stated at the start of the article that the views expressed were NOT those of the club.

Not that they weren't necessarily those of the club, but specifically that they were NOT those of the club.

They were simply the views of an unnamed person who (unless I have gone totally blind - no insults please), couldn't even put their name to the article. (although probably/possibly known within the club and closer circles)

Strange though that the club should permit someone to put across views which they did not agree with on their own medium ........ unless they REALLY DID agree with them.

Disingenuous?

Clumsy?

Strikes me that the writer has maybe more gripe with the rules and might be better served trying to have those changed (or tightened up) to closer fit his interpretation. I don't know enough about who makes the rules, but presumably it is through the collective wishes of the clubs (in one way or another). It hardly seems fair to blame the administrators for simply applying the rules or another club for complying with them.

[pwrmoore]

PWR are you aware of the rules for reinstatement of player? i am, and Lisburn have done nothing wrong,as ruled upon by the Competitions Committee.

To be honest I'm not fully conversant with the details of the rules, I'm not even fully conversant witht he facts of this particular case so if you are telling me that Lisburn acted correctly I would not dare to gainsay you. I was just throwing in my tuppenceworth about what I think should be allowable in the spirit of fair play and what I would consider to be unfair even if the letter of the rules permits it.

I follow Schools rugby most closely at the moment as what is were my personal (by proxy) involvement is.

[pwrmoore]

And now that I have read it, while I do detect an undercurrent of gripe, there is no real request there for any sanction against Lisburn or for the result of that match to be overturned. I tdon't hink the suggestion that Inishowen should play in a different league is at all pertinent to the point raised.

It seems to me that, as the writer understands the rules to operate, there is a possibility that the ruling of the 18th December sets a precedent which could allow re-listing of players from 1st XVs to teams playing in much lower leagues which could impact player safety. Whether this is a realistic fear or not I don't know. I'm not sure that a 1st XV player would want to turn out for the 4th XV just to help them top their league. If this is not allowed within the Rules then perhaps the answer would be for someone to explain to the author .

[Rooster]

To be fair, it was stated at the start of the article that the views expressed were NOT those of the club.

Weird one Grumps, if that is so why have Inishowen allowed it to be placed on the home page of their website ? I would take it that it is the club view or else there is an internal split in the club and one of the minority runs and updates the website, if that is the case he should be relieved of that post immediately.

He does quote this in his ramblings,

After our loss to Lisburn 2nd XV on 1st December we lodged a complaint to the IRFU Ulster Branch providing evidence that 3 players of that Lisburn side have played regular first team rugby this season, &, as such, may not be eligible for their 2nd XV.

that is in effect an admission that Inishowen may have been wrong to bring this up, but they did so in getting clarification from Ulster Branch, which they have now got and this individual, (or the club) does not like the ruling and is now venting his own views in a public website, very shoddy on the clubs behalf for allowing this page to remain on the net.

[browner]

If they (Lisburn)had to reinstate players to fill gaps for injuries or for to fill gaps of players not available then whats wrong with that, as long as it was all above board then that's the way the cookie crumbles. Have Inishowen never done the same??, i am sure that they have some time over the past few years (maybe even played a player or two that was not registered or reinstated

That's about the height of it, life's a bitch................i know.

Can still sympathise with the sentiment though.

[cables]

Don’t think gaps for injuries / unavailability is all that should be considered.

Disqualification from playing in a League:
A player becomes disqualified if, during the current season, he has played, in aggregate, four or more cup and league matches for a team in the Club playing in the next highest grade of League, or once for a team in a higher grade of League than the next highest grade, or has ever played international or senior representative rugby football.

Reinstatement to play in a League:
The CMC (Competitions Management Committee) shall have the power to reinstate players who have become disqualified from league or cup competitions, provided that application is made in writing to the Branch on the form provided for this purpose and same is received by the Branch by 10am 3 working days before the match in which the player seeks to play.

Feels like this is actually required by Clubs playing in more than one level of league. Fair enough, it may seem tough on Clubs playing against them in the lower level League but that is the way it is and probably the way it should remain.

It does not have to be a situation where gaps require to be filled or even that the 1st XV do not have a game that the Club applies for reinstatement of players – the Club could actually do so on a rolling basis as each player becomes disqualified. Not to do so could mean a player not getting a game at all if not selected for the 1st XV in a particular week.

Match Saturday. Player disqualification check Sunday – present paperwork for reinstatement to CMC Monday.

I can’t run with Inishowen on this one it seems.

[moondance]

What I find sad about this thread/subject is not what did or did not happen regarding the registration of players

- it is the thought that a very large number of Ulster rugby fans have no idea what is meant by the term "Junior Rugby" or Q3 or Junior 4.

They have probably never seen a rugby match at any level below Magners League or been inside a rugby club.

It is the clubs who are the lifeblood of Ulster rugby - without them where will the future Ulster players come from? It is the rugby clubs who get kids hooked at P3 mini level and bring them through into Maxi then Youth level - how many of our current players started out playing Mini?

[pwrmoore]

And following on that thought YM - what are the criteria for reinstatement? Are there any published or is it simply enough to have requested it?

[pwrmoore]

I have no axe to grind here YM I'm just trying to understand the playing field. As far as I can see - if you request reinstatement in time for the match you wish to play in there are no other criteria to be applied. So you could have played 1st XV rugby in a higher league, become disqualified as a result, but as long as you apply for reinstatement in time there are no written criteria by which you can be denied reinstatement to play for a lower team in your desired match - am I reading this wrong?

As you have probably guessed I'm not involved in Senior, Junior or Qualifying League rugby at the moment having quit playing on leaving school - I regret that now but believe me it is too late for me to restart now. I openly admit I don't understand the finer points of your discussion of who should play in which league. My simple brain expected most teams to move between leagues on a promotion and relegation basis rather than on an elective basis. But there are obviously some things I need to learn to improve my understanding.

[pwrmoore]

Thanks YM. That clears a few things up.

It seems as if you can't drop multiple levels in one go which probably dismisses the safety concern that the Inishowen author was trying to raise.

And I agree that you obviously have to allow a mechanism for movement between the teams at a club or else you stifle opportunity for player development. I guess that the reinstatement process is designed exactly for the purpose of your example - allowing players returning from injury or whose form has dropped to play in a lower league. It does look open to abuse should a club want to stack the team below with better players for a cup or league campaign's matches as there doesn't seem to be any test applied as to the reason for the reinstatement. However the point about not being allowed to drop multiple levels will prevent the most serious abuses anyway.

You and I are the same age withing a year or so YM. I think it is definitely too l ate now to start again after so many years without playing.

[browner]

I think it is definitely too l ate now to start again after so many years without playing.

Never too late pwr.........................in fact, what are you doing this Saturday?