3.6 age grade competition review implementation€¦ · web viewcouncil meeting friday 17 th april...

COUNCIL MEETINGFRIDAY 17TH APRIL 2015

AGE GRADE COMPETITION REVIEW – IMPLEMENTATION ACTION PLAN

1. Introduction and Background

1.1The Age Grade Competition Review (AGCR) commenced in 2011 and has been a wide-ranging and detailed piece of work involving all facets of the Age Grade game for our male and female players in clubs, schools and colleges.

1.2The Review was triggered in order to review and refine the playing offer for all levels of player in all environments up to and including Under 18 rugby. This was as a result of a number of reported issues in the game including:

a) Lack of clarity of the Age Grade competition pathwayb) Conflict between club, school, college and representative rugbyc) Overplaying of the most able and talented playersd) Underplaying of the less able – lack of inclusivity by coachese) Over-emphasis on winning and picking the better players to achieve this

leading to player drop-out

1.3The AGCR began in late 2011 under the chairmanship of Ian Elvin (SRFU Council Representative) with the period up until early 2014 focusing on research, consultation and reviewing; and the last 12 months on developing an implementation plan with an Implementation Development Group (IDG) of practitioners from across the game.

1.4Key principles were agreed by the Community Game Board (CGB) in Spring 2014. These provide the foundations on which to base and implement Age Grade Rugby.

1.5In November 2014, the CGB approved the AGCR Implementation Plan and agreed to recommend its adoption by RFU Council in early 2015.

1.6Alongside New Rules of Play (NRoP) work, the Implementation Action Plan has also been submitted to and checked by RFU Governance (including Schools and Youth Governance) who are supportive and satisfied that regulations work can follow.

1.7Stakeholder consultation sessions have taken place throughout the process including:

Representations from all areas of Age Grade Rugby to the original AGCR Group

On the Mini & Youth Blueprint Roadshows in Autumn 2013 Through the Shaping the Game and New Rules of Play research

programmes

Resulting from the Talent Symposium in 2014 Ongoing contributions and check/challenge by the IDG practitioners Feedback sessions with schools (incl. prep and developing/established

secondary) Club Evenings (incl. Leicestershire and Surrey) CB input (incl. Geographical CBs, ERFSU, ECRFU) Agenda item discussions at a number of RFU sub-committees Council Member formal and informal feedback.

2. AGCR Principles

2.1Key Principles agreed by CGB in Spring 2014

A set of key principles was agreed by CGB in early 2014 as foundations for Age Grade Rugby as follows:

a) RFU to lead the development, promotion and quality management of a new framework of age grade competition

b) Age Grade rugby is “player-centred, development-driven and competition-supported”

c) Age Grade competitive opportunities will take account of the motivations and different developmental stages of the player. They will consider inclusivity, appropriateness, relevance, regularity and levelling/tiering for the player

d) Regular and appropriate inter club, inter school or inter college fixtures/triangulars/festivals are prioritised ahead of the creation and organisation of tournaments and other structured win-focussed competitions

e) A balanced framework between the club and school/college environments is to be implemented by age group to limit clashes between them and overplaying/underplaying

f) The New Rules of Play rollout plan for U7-U12 is completed as per the plan previously agreed by Council

g) The Age Grade Competition Review timetable is harmonised with the Adult Competition Review with major elements of change starting from September 2016

These principles are the basis on which Age Grade Rugby and the Implementation Plan is built.

3. AGCR Implementation Action Plan – Council Approval

3.1The CGB-approved Implementation Action Plan is detailed in Appendix 1. CGB will own and monitor the delivery of the twelve-point Implementation Action Plan. This is applicable to all playing environments and both male and female players (except for detail of Action 2) with implementation from the 2016-17 season.

3.2The Plan also encompasses the England Under 16s Pathway Strategic proposals. This Review is included in full as Appendix 2.

3.3RFU Council approval of thirteen specific elements within the Implementation Plan is essential before moving forward. This is due to these areas requiring regulatory changes. The ongoing interaction between the AGCR work and the RFU Governance structure underpins any resulting work required to reformulate Regulation 15 (Age Grade Rugby).

3.4The specific actions that RFU Council are asked to approve are as follows:

i) Mixed contact rugby finishes after U11ii) U13 Dual age band for girls does not include U11s

iii) 15 a side rugby starts at U14iv) U13 new rules are implemented in 2016-17v) Lineout introduction is delayed to U14vi) A nationally-defined menu of national and county competitions per

age groupvii) No formal league rugby before U15viii) No Tournaments (competitions that find an overall winner) before

U12ix) Competitions and Rep Rugby at all levels (local to CB to national)

to be played in specific, nationally-consistent windows in the season

x) Formation of Regional Player Development Groups to drive player pathway programme

xi) Divisional representative level replaced by Regional level programme at U16 (from 2015-16)

xii) No representative rugby before U15xiii) No district programmes at U16

For decision

1. RFU Council is asked to approve the thirteen specific elements in 3.4 in order to enable adoption of the Implementation Action Plan as recommended by the Community Game Board.

Author: Mark SaltmarshDate: 21st March 2015

AGE GRADE COMPETITION REVIEWIMPLEMENTATION ACTION PLAN

RFU COUNCIL PAPER

APRIL 2015

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1

AGCR IMPLEMENTATION ACTION PLAN

A. FRAMEWORK

Implementation Plan Action 1

Redefinition of consistent age bandings for Age Grade Rugby to align transitions in the game to transitions in education.

This aids the playing of a consistent game in clubs and schools and helps to develop stronger links between clubs and the game in education.

Regulation 15 (Age Grade Rugby) will be revisited to ensure that it reflects this redefinition and the intentions of Implementation Plan Actions 2 to 4 in particular. This is already on the agenda of RFU Governance for 2015-16.

Implications:

Up to and including U13 becomes Mini Rugby U14 and above becomes Junior Rugby U13 Dual age band for girls does not include U11s


Adoption of a revised and consistent player progression model in clubs and schools where incremental progression is in place up to Under 13 and 15-a-side rugby starts at Under 14.

This will be applicable across clubs and schools.

See table on next page.

This includes elements of New Rules of Play for trial counties in 2015-16 that will be reviewed and confirmed for 2016-17 through the established Governance system.

In early 2015, the Independent Association of Prep Schools (IAPS), of which the vast majority of rugby-playing prep schools are members, adopted the New Rules of Play up to U11 for 2015-16 and for U12 and U13 for 2016-17. IAPS have therefore aligned to the club game under the AGCR.

Implications:

Movement by both the club and schools game to create consistency 15 a side starts a year later For some schools utilising the current Dispensation (which will no longer

exist), 15 a side starts 2 years later U12 and U13 new rules implemented in 2016-17

PROGRESSION STRUCTURE - FORMAT AND POSITIONAL

Age Group School YearMax

numbersMax Pitch

sizeBall Size Ruck Maul Max Numbers Contest Max Numbers Contest From hand At goal

U7 2 4 20 x 12 3 No - Tag only N/A N/A N/A N/AN/A - free

passN/A - free

passNo No

U8 3 6 45 x 22 3 No - Tag only N/A N/A N/A N/AN/A - free

passN/A - free

passNo No

U9 4 7 60 x 30 3 Yes - incl 'hold' No No N/A N/AN/A - free

passN/A - free

passNo No

U10 5 8 60 x 35 4 YesYes - limit of 1

supporting player

Yes - limit of 1 supporting

playerNearest 3 None

N/A - free pass

N/A - free pass

No No

U11 6 9 60 x 43 4 YesYes - limit of 2

supporting players

Yes - limit of 2 supporting

playersNearest 3

Strike only, no push

N/A - free pass

N/A - free pass

Yes - 'fly hack' not permitted

No

U12 7 10 60 x 43 4 Yes Yes Yes Nearest 5Strike only, no

pushN/A - free

passN/A - free

passYes - 'fly hack' not permitted

No

U13 8 13 90 x 60 4 Yes Yes Yes6 - trained and

willingStrike and

pushN/A - free

passN/A - free

passYes No

U14 9 15 100 x 70 4 Yes Yes Yes8 - trained and

willingStrike and

push13 No Yes Yes

Scrum LineoutContest for the ball Kicking

Uncontested, lift permitted

Yes Yes YesYes15 100 x 70 5 Yes8 - trained and

willingStrike and

push13

Tackle

U16 11

10U15

Get started

13Contested, lift

permittedYes Yes Yes Yes15 100 x 70 5 Yes

8 - trained and willing

Strike and push

Structure


Introduction of a nationally consistent playing menu across the age grades that rationalises the current offer, includes tiering and increases inclusivity.

This is the main application of the agreed AGCR principles c), d) and e).

See table on next page as a guide to the playing diet at each age grade.

Implications:

Girls competition is integrated National competitions are nationally implemented possibly at a local or

county level only Introduction of representative rugby at Under 15. DPP will support

player pathway work before this age Reduced number of county cup competitions No formal league rugby before Under 15 No Tournaments before U12

School/College Club School/College Club

U7U8U9

U10U11 Friendlies, Tournaments/Festivals, Prep Comp Friendlies, Tournaments/Festivals, Cups

As above + As above +County Cups/Tournaments, Leagues County Cups/Tournaments, Landrover Cup

As above + Friendlies, Tournaments/FestivalsNational Schools Cup, Prep Schools Comp Leagues

Round Robin Tournaments (Girls) County Cups

Friendlies, Tournaments, Leagues, County Cups As aboveERFSU U14 State Schools KO Comp

Friendlies, Tournaments, Leagues, County Cups As above

Tiered National Competition Tiered Local Leagues (Boys) National Schools KO Cup and Vase (Boys) National Round Robin Cup (Girls)

(Local to National level programme) National Round Robin Cup (Girls) National Round Robin Tournament (Girls) (Local to National level programme)

(Local to National level programme)

Friendlies, Tournaments, Leagues, County Cups Friendlies, Tournaments, Leagues, County Cups

Tiered County Cup (Boys)

Friendlies As above +

National U17 Cup (Boys)

Friendlies, Tournaments, Leagues, County Cups Friendlies, Tournaments, Leagues, County Cups

Tiered National Schools Competition (Boys) U17 Tiered County Cup (Boys) National Schools KO Cup and Vase (Boys) National U18 Cup (Boys)

Tiered National Colleges Competition County Leagues & Merits (Boys) National Colleges Leagues and Cups

(Local to National level programme) National Cup (Girls)

(Local to National level programme)

PROPOSED MENU CURRENT MENU

Friendlies, Tournaments/Festivals Friendlies, Tournaments/Festivals

U13

U15

U16

U17 - U18

Friendlies

Triangulars

Local Festivals (incl National Festival Dates)

Friendlies

U12 As above +Local Waterfall/Round Robin Tournament

As above +Local Waterfall/Round Robin Tournament (Schools only for Girls)

As above +Tiered County Cup (Boys)

U14

Friendlies, Triangulars

Friendlies, Triangulars, Festivals +

U17

B. ENABLERS


Adoption of a fit-for-purpose and balanced Competition and Playing Calendar (Youth Structured Season) that dovetails club, school, college competitions in each Age Grade.

This will be focussed on the player as per the guiding principles. It will signify which competitions will take preference at which stage in the season (including Representative and Player Pathway) and therefore where competitions in different environments will be placed in the calendar.

The final calendar will only include the windows for competitions to take place.

This does not mean that for example during a school/college competitions window, club rugby stops. It means that during that window, there will be no inter-club structured competitions which will potentially pull on the same players and create clashes.

Therefore players of all levels, parents, teachers and coaches are better able to plan their playing season and have the choice of both school/college and club rugby.

Implications:

Current competitions at all levels prioritised to specific windows in the season

County competitions become part of national programmes in some ages Regulations needed to support playing but not to create barriers Intense competitions spread through season


Development and launch by September 2016 of an accessible online national fixture exchange system for Age Grade Rugby.

There is a need to provide an accessible, easy-to-use and “nimble” online national fixture exchange for Age Grade Rugby across clubs, schools and colleges. This will support the drive to prioritise local inter-club, inter-school and inter-college fixtures ahead of structured formal competitions as per the CGB recommendations.

It is recognised that with the power of the new RFU GMS and a number of external providers in this field, a national partnership could be the best approach.

Implications

Financial investment may be required Promotion will be required in the Communications plan


Integration of the England Rugby Player Development pathway into the competition framework (including implementation of the Under 16 Strategic Review).

The AGCR co-insides with the strategic review of the Under 16 Player Pathway. The two reviews have been dovetailed to ensure continuity and consistency. As a result, implementation will also be closely aligned.

See Appendix 2 for the full Under 16 Review recommendations. A series of CB and Divisional consultation sessions in January 2015 provided a positive response to proposals.

It is to be noted that this has been aligned to the AGCR rollout with changes to CB representative rugby proposed from September 2016. CGB is currently working on reviewing the financial model to provide a heads-up to CBs well in advance of the 2016-17 season.

The involvement of the England setup from Academy to Senior National Management team will ensure that the talent pathway is supported by the wider grass roots competitive programme and essentially vice versa.

The outcome of this positive work will be included in the calendar of Action 4. However, it is vital to make a statement about the joint approach in order to ensure the game understands when the experts view talent identification should start and what its approach should be. Hence this “enabler”.

Implications

Formation of Regional Player Development Groups Divisional level replaced by Regional level programme at U16 No district programmes at U16 – integrated with DPP at U13-15 No representative rugby before U15 Defined national, regional and county representative windows Positive partnerships to be furthered with Academy programmes CB U16 programmes linked to Academy regions Clarity of the DPP timetable and delivery roles


Introduction of competition principles and practicalities into all training and CPD programmes for coaches, referees, parents, teachers and others.

There will be positive benefits of greater reference to the principles and particularly practicalities of competition in our education programmes. This will complement the current course content and will be included within the training provision for coaches, match officials and medical volunteers. The competitive principles need adding to the content of the UKCC Level 1 and 2 Award courses for coaches and our refereeing training courses.

It is recommended that competitive elements are also included more broadly in volunteer, organiser and administrator support/training programmes so that the

playing formats and the competition framework, once agreed, are understood and implemented universally.

Training delivery will increasingly be through of clusters of clubs, schools and colleges; creating communities of practice to develop relationships that will support rollout, consistency and application of all elements of Age Grade Rugby.

Bespoke workshops focussed on the playing and competitive area are also to be developed. Proposed timescales for roll out are:

Deliverer training process from Spring 2016 Courses going live from Summer 2016 Ready for full AGCR implementation from September 2016.

Implications:

This may add time to the length of courses Impact on the developers and writers of our course content and materials Re-acquaint programme for developers, educators and trainers


Launch of, from April 2015, a communication and engagement campaign that focusses on practicality and rationale, is delivered by high-profile individuals in the game and includes clear support resources and information.

The importance of this action is in the commitment required to deliver the campaign. A series of Support Sessions will be included to support the game with the practicality of implementation. This will be combined with online information and modules. This will link to Action 7 and the rollout of the bespoke workshops referenced there.

Implications:

There is a need to put time, resource and investment into the communication of the Review Implementation

It is vital to mobilise our high-profile “champions” to ensure the impact required

Timescales have already been identified for the headline communications as follows:

Date/By Action Milestone Outcome21 April 2015

Communication – Progress update to the game

Game informed on progression of plan following RFU Council

1 May Final Framework for September 2015 onwards communicated to the Game

Informed clubs, schools and colleges and organisers

1 June Launch Support Sessions programme

Game informed on plans and supported on implementation

15 July Communication – Progress update to the game

Game informed on progression of plan

31 August New season communication Confirmed framework and game-wide reminder at season start

1 January 2016

Communication – Progress update to the game

Game informed on progress and plans

1 April Communication – Season Review to the game

Assessment against the plan shared

1 June Communication – Progress update to the game

Game informed on progression of plan to September 2015

31 August Season Launch communication Confirmed framework and game-wide reminder at season start


Formation of an RFU-led and supported group of practitioners to monitor, evaluate, review, check and challenge the implementation success of the AGCR from 2015-16 onwards.

This will ensure that once we have done the work and started implementation, we don’t take our eye off the ball. The formation of a Review Group is vital to keep this work checked and challenged.

The group should be RFU staff-facilitated but must include the input of people from the club, school, college and CB game for both male and female players where the implications of the AGCR are being experienced. It will mirror the membership of the Implementation Development Group.

Implications:

Some limited costs to the operation of the group The group would start its work from October 2015 and meet as below:

Date/By Action Milestone Outcome31 October 2015

Implementation Group – 1st Review session SWOT available for action

28 February 2016

Implementation Group – 2nd Review session As above + action plan checked

30 June Implementation Group – 3rd Review session As above + action plan checkedDecember & May2016/17 season

Implementation Group – Review/Preview sessions

December & May2017/18 season

Implementation Group – Review/Preview sessions

C. OPPORTUNITIES


Prioritisation clarified for the Age Grade player of club, school, college, DPP and representative rugby.

The work of the AGCR Implementation Group has highlighted the need for there to be a clear guidance or policy decision about priority of which playing environment takes preference in the Age Grade game.

The overplaying of players is a consequence of the current competitive menu but it is also due to coaches pulling on the same players for all matches rather than thinking of what is best for the player.

In order to support this, we will explore and conclude work as a Union to agree the priority order for whether school, college, club, representative rugby, DPP takes preference when a player has multiple playing options at one specific point in the calendar. This will align to the Competition and Playing Calendar (see Action 4).

This work will be a joint piece between PDSC and EDSC. It is proposed that PDSC owns it.


National programme of Age Grade competitive opportunities in the U19 to U22 band to aid retention through the transition to Adult Rugby.

The CGB asked the AGCR group to consider the transition beyond Age Grade Rugby in its work.

There is a clear appetite from players and the people who help them to play to maintain an element of Age Grade competition beyond Under 18. This is seen as an important ingredient to the transition into adult rugby. Examples of best practice collected demonstrate the positive impact of having a local or county opportunity to stay engaged or re-engage with your peer group. The AGCR recommends that a national competitive opportunity is implemented in the U19 to U22 space.

This is now being worked on by the Adult Competition Implementation Group chaired by John Douglas, through Mike Waplington and Stuart Armstrong.

Note:

The AGCR Implementation Development Group believes that the best results may possibly be through continuing with the 2-year age band which forms in the game from U17/U18. Therefore U20s and U22s, although there has previously been success in U19 and U21 competitions also.

Season-long and single age group competitions are not recommended. Competitions that seek to utilise windows within the season/year that bring age grade cohorts of players together to continue their friendships

and rugby journeys together are the key; then mesh these with the adult competition offer to aid the transition into adult rugby.

The key to this recommendation is that there is a national programme. They should be locally delivered but nationally applied across all areas and for all levels of player.


Clearer and co-ordinated RFU system for development of Age Grade Rugby that aids the flow of policy development through regulation development to operational implementation and on to review.

We have committees for Education Development, Player Development, Competitions, AGCR Implementation Development Group, the Women and Girls’ Competition Technical Advisory Group focusing on the Women and girls game, each with their own energy and focus and accountability to the Community Game Board. In addition Schools and Youth Governance reports to RFU Governance.

The AGCR work has crystallised some of these links well but the work has shown that there needs to be a more co-ordinated approach. Issues such as where the Governance role fits in and where is the decision-making voice for the Age Grade Club game need to be clarified so that the game sees more seamless and nimble leadership. This may help support the Governance Review in process as well.

The IDG members with their limited knowledge pointed out on a number of occasions that the decision-making system appeared unclear and cumbersome; very telling coming from such a positive and objective group of people in the game.

This is about us finding the most effective approach to a joined up and well-coordinated strategy to delivery system. If the perception remains that we don’t have this, the buy-in and engagement we can expect from the Age Grade game and our influence with it is greatly diminished.

It is to be noted that work has begun on this area triggered by the RFU Governance review (led by Peter Baines) and the AGCR. Constructive and proactive discussions are advancing to position the Age Grade game most effectively within the CGB and Governance structures.

APPENDIX 2

ENGLAND UNDER 16s PATHWAY STRATEGIC REVIEW

UNDER 16S PATHWAY STRATEGIC REVIEW

FINAL PROPOSAL

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction Page 3

2. Guiding Principles Page 3

3. Proposals Page 3

4. Implementation Process Page 8

5. Implementation Timeline Page 9

6. Communication Process Page 9

7. U16 Strategic Review Group Membership Page 9

8. Appendices

- 8.1 Summary of Recommendations

- 8.2 Proposed Terms of Reference for the ‘Regional Player Development Groups’

- 8.3 Proposed Structured Season

- 8.4 Proposed Residential Camp Format

1. IntroductionIn April 2013 the Community Game Board approved the transfer of operational responsibility for the England U16 programme (including Divisional Rugby) from the Rugby Development Department to the Professional Rugby Department. Following on-going dialogue between the RFU Professional Rugby Director and the ERFSU a strategic review of the Under 16s programme was announced at the end of the 2013-14 season. This review studied the work of the Age Grade Competition Review to ensure consistency in principles and application and reflected on the findings of the RFU Talent Symposium. Alongside these and best practice from other nations the review sought to ensure the existing development and competition structures at Under 15s and 16s best supports the system to achieve its stated purpose: “to provide a first national talent development opportunity and begin the process of talent identification.”

The recommendations of this strategic review will enhance the pathway for talented players by improving connectivity and increasing access to talent development environments. Furthermore, these proposals will also reflect player welfare concerns and take steps to improve retention in our game by reducing the conflict that currently exists between the various playing environments at this age.

2. Under16s Strategic Review - Guiding Principles

Broad numbers accessing talent development opportunities Less ‘layers’ of representative rugby Improved pathway clarity More development, less selection Age appropriate competition Professionally led development Supported by talent coach development

3. England U16s Strategic Review - Proposals

a) District Rugby Commenting on the current rugby union landscape in England, the RFU Talent Consensus Statement observed that “the playing demands are too great, with layers of representative rugby applied in addition to their existing school, college or club commitments. This can too often limit and inhibit skill and physical development, rather than enhancing it.”

A key principle employed by the group was to reduce the layers of representative rugby to lessen the conflict and demands placed upon young players. To reduce the cycle of trials-preparation-play it is proposed that at U16s this sub-county ‘layer’ should be removed [Proposal 1].

RFU Talent Consensus Statement recommended that “the system must continue to recognise that to deliver the world’s best team, Rugby Union in England must begin with a broad base of talent containing valued people of varying abilities, and who will enjoy the sport; some of whom will drop

out for a mix of reasons, some of whom will go on to play professional Rugby, and a small proportion of whom eventually enter the international test Rugby arena.” The recent evolution of the CB School of Rugby to the RFU Developing Player Programme (DPP) has seen the number of players aged U13-15s enrolled in the programme expand to approximately 6,000.

Reflecting this, the Age Grade Competition Review (AGCR) outlined in its Implementation Plan (approved by the Community Game Board in November 2014) for the introduction of representative rugby to be delayed until Under 15, before which time the DPP will support the player pathway.

This review supports these recommendations by the AGCR as they will reduce the duplication between district (sub-county) and the DPP that currently exists.

Proposal 1 – Remove district programmes at Under 16 and integrate with DPP activity at earlier age-groups

b) County U16s The county U16s programme provides a development opportunity to a wide number of players and unearths players not previously engaged in the pathway. The review group is committed to ensuring a broad number of players can access development activities and the group acknowledges the benefit to the game of this representative activity. It is therefore proposed that this opportunity be extended by considering the reintroduction of County U16 A Squads [Proposal 4]. It is recognised that this proposal would necessitate increased investment via the CB PFR process.

It was acknowledged by the group that the issue of overplaying can increase likelihood of injury and lead to disenchantment with the game. Furthermore, the issue of over-playing is particularly prevalent at under 16s for factors that are both structural (e.g. school-district-county-divisional-England) and developmental (e.g. a player can be in both school U16s and 1st XV sides). In order to alleviate the pressures on these young players, the structure and timing of the programmes therefore became important considerations for the group.

During school year 11, there are significant academic and time pressures on these young people as they complete their final preparation for their GCSEs. Potentially adding to this burden, the current county U16s programme is undertaken both at the busiest stage of the season, and being just six months after the U15s county programme is too soon for a further talent sift. Reflecting the recommendations of the AGCR to position school/club competitions during the autumn term and representative programmes after Christmas, this review proposes to reposition the county U16 programme to January-February, thus reducing the conflict and over-playing the existing structure creates [Proposal 2].

At this stage of a player’s development the focus should be placed on the attainment of skills, game understanding and athleticism. To achieve this, the type of competition and its delivery must be age-appropriate. With the removal of selection for divisional programmes a player-centred development approach must prevail in these county matches.

The “Aspirational Player Pathway Programme – Policy and Operations Manual 2014-15” (July 2014) states at Under 16 “there will be no more than four CB matches per year” (p. 7). In view of the proposed amendments to divisional U16s rugby, it is recommended to reduce county U16s matches to three per year [Proposal 3] and where appropriate include fixtures between the counties within an academy region [Proposal 5].

Proposal 2 – Reposition CB matches from autumn to January-FebruaryProposal 3 – Limit the CB programme to three fixtures (and designate number of trials/training)Proposal 4 – Consider reintroduction of County U16 and U16A squadsProposal 5 – Ensure that inter-CB U16 matches reflect ‘Regional Academy’ boundaries

c) Divisional U16s While it is acknowledged that the current divisional programme provides good development opportunities, these are limited to too few players (100 players during 2014-15). The RFU Talent Consensus Statement recommended that “instead of talent identification, we should seek player development programmes organised in ways that create challenges for enthusiastic young players to overcome and develop thereby their abilities to the full – whatever level they end up playing as seniors.” During 2014-15 the regional academy programmes will engage some 400 U16s players for a weekly Elite Player Development Group (EPDG) programme of holistic development.

It is felt the existing divisional programme exasperates the pressures caused by repeated trials and selection and serves to cause duplication and confusion. The regional academies were established in 2001-2 and the academy pathway is now acknowledged as the primary vehicle for the development of elite players. As highlighted by the RFU Talent Consensus Statement “there should be one single clear and easily understood pathway towards the professional and international game” and consequently it is proposed to replace the existing divisional activity with a regional academy programme (see Proposal 10). Consequently, the divisional U16s programme will cease [Proposal 6].

Proposal 6 – The existing Divisional U16 programme to be removed

d) ‘Regional Player Development Group’ Throughout this review process members reiterated the need for the system to be ‘player-centred.’ An identified weakness in the current landscape is the absence of a forum to consider the individual circumstance of a player and make the necessary collective decisions in their best interest.

It is proposed to create fourteen ‘Regional Player Development Groups’ (RPDG) to coordinate CB and Regional Academy player and coach development activities and manage the playing programmes of identified players. A copy of the proposed terms of reference for the group is included in the appendices.

Proposal 7 – The creation of a ‘Regional Player Development Group’ to coordinate CB and academy player and coach development activities, and manage the playing programmes of identified players.

e) ‘Competition windows’ The RFU Talent Consensus Statement highlights that importance of player development being “supported by a carefully considered playing programme and the highest quality medical, sports science and social support.”

Reflecting this, a key principle of the AGCR was to ensure that “age grade rugby is ‘player-centred, development-driven and competition-supported.’” In the AGCR – Implementation Plan it outlines plans for the introduction of ‘competition windows’ to “signify which competitions will take preference at which stage in the season (including Representative and Player Pathway) and therefore where competitions in different environments will be placed in the calendar.” This, the AGCR explains will promote the “integration of the England Rugby Player Development pathway into the competition framework.”

In order to de-conflict the existing U16s season it is proposed that definitive ‘windows’ be introduced for matches involving school-county-regional academy-England [Proposal 8]. During these windows, players will have clear playing priorities (e.g. school rugby in the autumn term). Any deviation from these should be under the direction of the ‘Regional Player Development Group’.

The AGCR also propose the “Introduction of competition principles and practicalities into all training and CPD programmes for coaches, referees, parents, teachers and others.”

This review group support the need for greater understanding, implementation and adherence to best practice in competitive programmes. It is therefore proposed that the principles of optimal competition programming to support player development be produced and published to the game (e.g. 25-30 matches per season, 1 game per week etc. [Proposal 9].

Proposal 8 – Introduce competition windows at Under 16Proposal 9 – Technical Group to develop and publish principles of best practice in the competitive programmes of adolescent rugby union players.

f) Regional Academy Programme The RFU Talent Consensus Statement states that “without more deliberate player development throughout the game, culminating in accurate identification and selection of the very best players, a World Cup winning team will only sporadically emerge. So there must be a change in attitudes, methods and investment throughout the game if England is consistently to top the IRB world rankings and Premiership clubs are to dominate the final stages of European competitions.”

The group acknowledged that following the establishment and the subsequent embedding of the academy system in the English rugby landscape the performance pathway has evolved. This now sees player’s journey from school/club – county – regional academy – England, and consequently the existing U16s pathway is neither consistent nor most effective. The review therefore recommends the regional academies, rather than the existing divisional programme be central to the U16s pathway to reduce the layers of ‘trials and selection’ and provide a greater focus on regular holistic development opportunities for a broader number of players [Proposal 10].

It is proposed that in addition to the weekly EPDG programme, the Under 16s regional academy programme will consist of three key activities:

I. Development Session – An internal or training game (with a neighbouring academy) II. Local Festival - Festival of 3-4 academies organised in divisions

III. Regional Academy Festival - Week-long residential festival for the 14 Regional Academies [Proposal 11].

The role and responsibilities of the Regional Academy will be established by the Professional Game Board Player Performance Group and be monitored via the annual Academy Performance Review Process. It is also proposed that this be included in the future academy licence agreements [Proposal 12].

Proposal 10 – Regional Academy U16s programme to replace U16s Divisional ProgrammeProposal 11 – ‘Regional Academy Festival’ to include an enhanced programme of education and development for a broader number of players.Proposal 12 – Role of Regional Academies to be incorporated into the annual Academy Performance Review Process and future Licence Agreements.

g) England Under 16s International The principle of an international programme at this age was debated at length. From a talent identification perspective there is little evidence to support the efficacy of an U16s international to unearth senior internationals of the future. However, the annual international against Wales is a highly valued ERFSU tradition which provides recognition and reward not only to the players involved but for the wide range of schools they represent. The group supported this view and proposed the continuation of the international fixture that would be selected from the regional academies festival. This international programme must not compromise the principles set out in this review or undermine the structure of the preceding stages [Proposal 13].

Proposal 13 – To continue the tradition of the annual England U16s international fixture versus Wales which recognises and rewards the players and schools involved.Proposal 14 – The ERFSU in conjunction with the RFU to lead the delivery of the international programme.Proposal 15 – ERFSU in conjunction with the RFU to continue to appoint coaching and management staff for the international programme.

h) Coach Development

School/Club County Regional Academ y England

13,000 Players 700 Players 336 Players 24 Players

“The creation of a pool of world-beating players will depend on a cadre of skilled and flexible coaches prepared to develop new strategies to address the development of ability.” Allied to this extract from the RFU Talent Consensus Statement, the importance of an effective development programme for the coaches engaged in the Under 16s pathway was a recurring theme. There is a need for a system of support for coaches involved in the county, regional academy and international programmes to ensure that ‘national themes’ are disseminated and delivered using adaptive games [Proposal 16].

The group highlighted the need to further enhance coaching opportunities to volunteers within the U16s pathway. It was therefore proposed to mandate the inclusion of at least two volunteer coaches in the delivery of the regional academy U16 programmes [Proposal 17]. This would be managed by the Regional Player Development Groups.

Proposal 16 – A proposal for the development of county, regional academy and international programmes to be included in the RFU Coaching StrategyProposal 17 – Regional Academies to each include two volunteer coaches in the U16s programme

i) Governance The pathway at Under 16s spans both the community and professional game and the proposals of this review group will result in a changed landscape requiring an amendment to the existing structure of governance.

To manage the installation of the recommendations of this review and then oversee its workings it is proposed that an Under 16 Implementation Group be formed. Under the direction of the RFU Professional Rugby Director this cross-game stakeholder group will oversee and monitor the implementation of the recommendations and report findings to sub committees of both the Community and Professional Game Boards. At the end of the first year this cross-game stakeholder group will thereafter evolve into a management committee for the U16s programme [Proposal 18].

It is proposed the governance and periodic reporting of the activities of the Under 16s pathway be divided between Community and Professional Game Boards. In particular, the county Under 16s programme report to the Community Game board (via the CGB Player Development Committee) and the regional academy and international U16s programmes to the Professional Game board (via the PGB Player Performance Group) [Proposal 19].

These proposed changes (together with the formation of the Regional Player Development Groups, proposal 7) will necessitate a rationalisation of the existing governance structure and cease the requirement for the U16s Divisional Committees and the U16s National Playing Committee [Proposal 20].

Proposal 18 – The formation of an Under 16 Implementation Group to manage the installation of the recommendations of this review.Proposal 19 – The governance of the county, regional academy and international U16s programmes be divided between Community and Professional Game Boards.Proposal 20 – The roles of the U16s Divisional Committees and the U16s National Playing Committee to be incorporated into the proposed Regional Player Development Groups and the

Under 16 Implementation Group.

4. Implementation ProcessThe recommendations of the U16s Strategic Review will be submitted to both Professional Game Board (via the Player Performance Group) and the Community Game Board (via the Player Development Committee). The proposed timings are as follows:

PGB Player Performance Group – December 2014 (by email) CGB Player Development Committee – 28th January 2015 Professional Game Board – 15th January 2015 Community Game Board – 12th February 2015 RFU Council – 17th April 2015

5. Implementation TimelineIt is proposed to employ a two-stage approach to implementation.

Year 1: (2015-16) Regional academy activity to replace the existing divisional programme (to include changes to the Wellington Festival)

Year 2: (2016-17) Changes to the timing of the county programme and the implementation of competition windows

Proposal 21 – It is proposed that these recommendations be implemented in two-stages –2015-16: Regional Academy activity to replace the existing divisional programme2016-17: Reposition the County programme and implement ‘competition windows’Proposal 22 – Following full implementation in 2016-17 the impact of these changes to be assessed by annual operational review and the undertaking of a full strategic review in 2019.

6. Communication ProcessOnce proposals are finalised, the timely and effective messaging of the new programmes to the stakeholders is critical. A carefully planned and proactive programme of engagement must follow [Proposal 23]. Suggestion of publishing the ‘How of the principles’ (together with the introductory paragraph and the group’s composition) by which the proposals of the Strategic Review have been made (ASAP to all the stakeholders with a timetable for approval).

Priority stakeholders include: Divisional U16s committees, delivery teams and medical personnel Regional academy managers County representatives ERFSU committees

Proposal 23 – The proposals to be accompanied by a communication strategy to ensure timely and effective messaging to key stakeholders.

7. Under 16s Strategic Review Group - Membership Rob Andrew (Chairman) Danny Hodgson (Council Member & CGB PDC Chair) Fred Batchelor (Council Member & ERFSU) Chris Kelly (Council Member & ERFSU) John Fletcher (International Performance) Alun Powell (Professional Rugby) Stuart Armstrong (Development Department) Mike Hynard (Premiership Rugby) Dusty Hare (Recruitment & Academy Manager, Northampton Saints) Phil De Glanville (Independent) Steve Shortland (Head Coach, England U16s)

8. Appendices

8.1 Summary of Recommendations

Proposal 1 – Remove district programmes at Under 16 and integrate with DPP activity at earlier age-groupsProposal 2 – Reposition CB matches from autumn to January-FebruaryProposal 3 – Limit the CB programme to three fixtures (and designate number of trials/training)Proposal 4 – Consider reintroduction of County U16 and U16A squadsProposal 5 – Ensure that inter-CB U16 matches reflect ‘Regional Academy’ boundariesProposal 6 – The existing Divisional U16 programme to be removedProposal 7 – The creation of a ‘Regional Player Development Group’ to coordinate CB and academy player and coach development activities, and manage the playing programmes of identified players.Proposal 8 – Introduce competition windows at Under 16Proposal 9 – Technical Group to develop and publish principles of best practice in the competitive programmes of adolescent rugby union players.Proposal 10 – Regional Academy U16s programme to replace U16s Divisional Programme Proposal 11 – ‘Regional Academy Festival’ to include an enhanced programme of education and development for a broader number of players. Proposal 12 – Role of Regional Academies to be incorporated into the annual Academy Performance Review Process and future Licence Agreements.Proposal 13 – To continue the tradition of the annual England U16s international fixture versus Wales which recognises and rewards the players and schools involved. Proposal 14 – The ERFSU in conjunction with the RFU to lead the delivery of the international programme. Proposal 15 – ERFSU in conjunction with the RFU to continue to appoint coaching and management staff for the international programme.Proposal 16 – A proposal for the development of county, regional academy and international programmes to be included in the RFU Coaching Strategy Proposal 17 – Regional Academies to each include two volunteer coaches in the U16s programmeProposal 18 – The formation of an Under 16 Implementation Group to manage the installation of the recommendations of this review.Proposal 19 – The governance of the county, regional academy and international U16s programmes be divided between Community and Professional Game Boards.Proposal 20 – The roles of the U16s Divisional Committees and the U16s National Playing Committee to be incorporated into the proposed Regional Player Development Groups and the Under 16 Implementation Group. Proposal 21 – It is proposed that these recommendations be implemented in two-stages – 2015-16: Regional Academy activity to replace the existing divisional programme 2016-17: Reposition the County programme and implement ‘competition windows’Proposal 22 – Following full implementation in 2016-17 the impact of these changes to be assessed by annual operational review and the undertaking of a full strategic review in 2019.Proposal 23 – The proposals to be accompanied by a communication strategy to ensure timely and effective messaging to key stakeholders.

8.2 Proposed Terms of Reference for the ‘ Regional Player Development Groups’

REGIONAL PLAYER DEVELOPMENT GROUP

TERMS OF REFERENCE

AIM

The Regional Player Development Group will be the primary forum to coordinate the interface between the Regional Academy and the community game.

Through dialogue, organisation and a player-centred approach, this group of Regional Academy and Constituent Body (CB) stakeholders will manage the planning of player and coach development activities up to U18s and schedule the competitive programmes of identified players.

SPECIFIC FUNCTIONS

1. Schedule CB and Regional Academy player development activities to ensure alignment and alleviate programming conflicts on players. This should include

- CB representative programmes - Developing Player Programme (DPP)- EPDG Programme- Regional Academy fixtures

2. Manage the implementation of the DPP across the region as agreed with the RFU Player Development Officer.

3. Coordinate CB and Regional Academy coach development activities.

4. Plan and deliver stakeholder forums.5. Deconflict and plan the competitive programmes of identified EPDG/EAPs.

6. Oversee the appointment process to DPP and Regional Academy U16s positions.

7. To receive the published EPDG and EAP lists.

8. To receive details of players released from the Regional Academy, support the transition and ensure their continuing participation in the game.

9. To act in the best interests of the game and its players at all times.

In the event that any matters are not resolved then these should be raised with the RFU Playing Pathways Manager or the RFU Head of Regional Academies.Composition:RFU Player Development Officer (Chair)Academy Manager (or designated professional academy staff member) CB Player Development Representative DPP Manager(s) CB Schools Union Representative

For Information:RFU Head of Regional AcademiesRFU Player Pathways Manager

8.3 Proposed Structured Season

8.4 Proposed Residential Camp Format (Day 1-4)

07.00-07.30 Team House

07.30-08.00 Dining Hall Team House Team House

08.00-08.30 Dining Hall Dining Hall

08.30-09.00 Fest. Mtg Driver Room Driver Room Driver Room

09.00-09.30 Team House Team House Team House

09.30-10.00

10.00-10.30

10.30-11.00


11.30-12.00

12.00-12.30 Lecture Theatre

12.30-13.00 Dining Hall



14.00-14.30 Team House Team House

14.30-15.00

15.00-15.30


16.00-16.30 Pitch/Pool Pitch side

16.30-17.00 Team House Team House Team House

17.00.-17.30


18.00-18.30

18.30-19.00

19.00-19.30


20.00-20.30 Driver Room

20.30-21.00

21.00-21.30 Team House Team House Team House Team House

Parents Player Visit 1 1 Pathway 1 England Coach Visit2 2 Education Options 2 Twickenham Tour3456

Team House19.30: Education Session 19.30: Education Session Team House

Dining Hall

16.00: Study Period / Watch Game 5, 6 & 7 Medical Clinic

Team House / Pitches

Medical Clinic / Strapping

Strapping

18.00: Dinner

16.00: Captain's Run Training Pitch

Strapping

Medical Clinic

14.00: Study Period

Medical Clinic

Medical Clinic

17.00: Study Period

10.00: Player 1 2 1's - Match Review Team House

Dining Hall12.30: Lunch

14.30 - 16.00:Training Schedule (l ight on pitch session or classroom session)

18.30: Dinner Dining Hall

Team House17.00: Study Period

Medical Clinic

19.30: Education Session19.30: Festival

Meeting

07.00: Hydration/Wellness

13.30: Lunch

18.00: Dinner

14.30 - 16.00: Training - Core Themes Training Pitch

Snacks & Medic led Recovery Session

Team House

12.00: Parents Presentation - The Player Journey 12.00: Lunch

Team House13.00: Team Meeting -

Programme Introduction

Strapping

11.00: GAME Match Pitch

10.00: Warm Up Training Pitch

Recovery & Medical ClinicChanging Rms /

Team House

11.00 - 12.30: Training Training Pitch

21.00: Snacks 21.00: Snacks 21.00: Snacks

2016

BM

W W

ELLI

NGT

ON

FES

TIVA

L

07.30: Breakfast

21.00: Snacks

19.30: Match Review Team House

18.00: Dinner Dining Hall Dining Hall

16.00: Recovery drinks / Snacks

14.00: Study Period / Watch Game 4

13.00: Lunch

08.30: Festival Mig - Refs & Coaches 08.30: Festival Meeting - al l TM's

11.00: Assemble & Entry Meds


09.00: Team Meeting

Team House / Pitches

Team House

08.00: Breakfast 08.00: Breakfast

MATCH DAY

07.30: Hydration/Wellness 07.30: Hydration/Wellness

Arrival Game Day 1 Recovery & Development Development

Saturday - DAY ONE Sunday - DAY TWO Monday - DAY THREE Tuesday - DAY FOUR

EDUCATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS:PLAYERS: 1. Anti Doping 2. Rugby Career (RPA) 3. Education Options 4. Social Media 5. Nutrition & Hydration 6. Basic Goal SettingPLAYERS VISIT: 1. England Coach Visit 2. Twickenham TourPARENTS: 1. Pathway 2. Education Options

8.4 Proposed Residential Camp Format (Day 5-8)

Team House 07.00-07.30

Team House Team House Dining Hall 07.30-08.00

Dining Hall Dining Hall Team House 08.00-08.30

Driver Room Driver Room Driver Room 08.30: Mtg Driver Room 08.30-09.00

Team House Team House Team House 09.00-09.30



10.30-11.00

11.00-11.30

11.30-12.00

12.00-12.30

12.30-13.00

Changing Rms 13.00-13.30



Team House Dining Hall 14.30-15.00

15.00-15.30

15.30-16.00

Pitch side 16.00-16.30

Team House Team House 16.30-17.00

17.00.-17.30

17.30-18.00

18.00-18.30

18.30-19.00

19.00-19.30

19.30-20.00

20.00-20.30

20.30-21.00

Team House Team House Team House 21.00-21.30

Team House

16.00: Exit Meds & Depart

12.00: GAME

13.30: Parents Meeting

Recovery & Medical Clinic

Munro Pavilion

19.30: Education Session Team House

18.00: Festival Dinner & Social Dining Hall 18.30: Dinner Dining Hall

Recovery & Medical Clinic (inc. snacks etc)

Changing Rms / Team House 17.00: Study Period Team House

TEAM OUTING / ACTIVITY

Medical Clinic

10.00: Player 1 2 1's - Match Review

Medical Clinic

Medical Clinic

Strapping

10.00: Team Meeting

11.00: Warm Up

14.30: Lunch

15.00: Team Meeting - Camp ReviewTraining Pitch

Medical Clinic

17.00: Study Period Team House



10.30 - 12.00: Training Training Pitch

12.30: Lunch Dining HallDining Hall12.30: Lunch

Dining Hall

20.00: Match Review Team House

15.00: Warm Up Training Pitch

18.30: Dinner

16.00: GAME Match Pitch

Match Pitch

11.00: Study Period / Watch Game 1, 2 & 3Team House /

Pitches


08.30: Festival Meeting - al l TM's 08.30: Breakfast

Team House

12.00: Lunch Dining Hall

Training Pitch

21.00: Snacks 21.00: Snacks


08.00: Breakfast

21.00: Snacks

16.00: Recovery drinks / Snacks

08.30: Festival Mig - Refs & Coaches 08.30: Festival Meeting - al l TM's

14.00: Team Meeting

Strapping

Strapping

15.00: Captain's Run

07.30: Hydration/Wellness 07.30: Breakfast

08.00: Breakfast

Development Game Day 3 & Depart

MATCH DAY MATCH DAY

Game Day 2 Recovery & Development

Wednesday - DAY FIVE Thursday - DAY SIX Friday - DAY SEVEN Saturday - DAY EIGHT

3.6 age grade competition review implementation€¦ · web viewcouncil meeting friday 17 th april...

Documents