Mat Rogers is wrong when it comes to league's weight division discussion

I lost my car keys i. 2006 and you can be damn sure it was Matt Rogers fault!

Players could drop down in Illawarra JRU but that was a few years back

I once decided to hold off on doing my laundry for another day and then unfortunately had no clean underwear. I guess that disqualifies me from commenting on how a dishwasher uses less water than washing dishes in the sink. This is more or less the logic you’ve used here.

Not true . I just picked that part out of the report . The report is very, very extensive and covers a lot more than the part I mentioned. 59 pages actually. ask you local District club for a copy

Did the Gemba report also ask the players who actually decided to play the following year why they decided to continue on playing? The above report probably just went to the minority of children who decided not to continue on playing and decided to interview them. But that shows no relevance to the topic if the report doesn't explore the other side of the fence. I bet if the other children were asked why they still like playing rugby league, they'll probably state reasons such as the love of the sport or I'd like to be the next Slater, etc..., or I love scoring tries, I like competing, I like kicking goals, etc... You can't just take one reason from just one perspective and decide that that is true for everybody. Does it occur to you that perhaps some of the kids who gave up are bigger than the average kid but did not want to continue playing coz he was just too slow or winded quickly and than stating the reasons for unevenness or size difference? Or did this interview only conveniently ask the average sized, skinny kids only? There is a lot of factors to consider before assuming that one report's findings supports your argument. If a younger JT, Langer, Adrian Lam, Johns, where asked why they kept playing while their buddy gave up, they would have had their reasons Whatever the reasons SOME STAY; SOME GO! This report doesn't conclude anything but seems a bit biased or just want to throw League's junior system under the bus.

'I think junior union allows for players to drop down an age group if they are small.' Nope you can play up (usually up one age group), not drop down.

Then I ask again what do we do with the fat kid? What do we do with the year 5 kid who is bigger although not better than his mates, do we send him to play with the year 7 kids who I am sure will welcome him with open arms. WE ARE ASSUMING THAT BIGGER MEANS BETTER. It my be the case in some circumstances but not all.

Mother's don't want little 9 year old Tommy playing against 90-100kg kids hence their decision to go to another code or sport. Duty of care applies just as much to the kids as it does adults and rugby league has a serious problem with this. The weight divisions started off at primary school level so it wasn't so bad. Maybe weight divisions up to 12 -13 and then try open weights as most boys are starting to mature.

There is no need for weight group Boz. If he is under 9 years old and performs well with the weight he has than advise him to move up to higher age group. Some kids maybe huge but aren't strong or mentally weak to just be thrown up just like that.

Well answer this for me tonyv. The Gemba report commissioned by the NSWRL and released in 2016 when kids around 11 to 15 years old were asked what discourages you most and the reason you may not return next year was 1. Size difference and 2. Uneven competition It's not about who scores the tries it's about do the kids, and the parents, feel it is a safe environment. By all the latest research every year a lot more kids and parents do not and they are switching to AFL and Soccer.

This article is a ridiculous waste of resources however the topic does deserve some discussion. As always this is an argument that will disadvantage the majority to make up for a minority. For every change you make there are unforeseen consequences. On the surface it sounds a good idea kids playing against others the same size as them great! Makes good sense right. Well consider the following. What about the fat kid who tips the scales a little bit more than his class mates. Not all heavy kids are physical specimens. Then there is the main reason most kids play footy- to play with their mates - for the most part kids they go to school with. So when you say to Johnny that he can't play with his mates in year five he has to play with the kids in year 7, an impossibly intimidating situation . Can we please have a show of hands from everybody commenting here who regularly watches Junior Rugby League. If you do tell me how many tries are scored by size and how many are scored by speed.

Have a weight limit for each age group. If the child is above that weight, they can only be moved ahead 2 age groups maximum - as Bakkies said happens with the NZRU. This would still give some variation in size, but would be a much better balance than dividing kids by age alone.

We are making the assumption that bigger means better. What about the less athletic kids who are carrying a bit of extra weight that may not be beneficial. As someone currently involved in teenage league I can tell you that the majority of tries are scored by speed and footwork rather than size. It's a beat up by lazy journalists and Hollywood actors who are given way too much cred in the game.

The two things are totally unrelated. Because he made a bad decision in the heat of the moment trying to win a big game IN A DIFFERENT SPORT then somehow he is disqualified from having an opinion about Rugby League! How are the two things related?? I would argue that throwing a phone at a hotel concierge in a fit of "don't you know who I am" was probably a poor decision.

I was just guessing with the weights. I have no idea what the average boy weighs... But the idea is divide kids up into larger age groups (than just 1 year) and then separate them based on weight...

Bazza, I'm a Melanesian so I know how it is with poly guys. My point above, however, was that if they mature they move up an age group NOT a weight group. If he is overweight and plays well in under 10s he can than be moved up to under 12s (afterall under 10s is under 12s too). And if he is phenomenal than he can move up further. This can be done better in age groups only. Weight class will disadvantage a young overweight kid who is not mentally fit to challenge older children in a same weight group/class. And also not all big body boys are good players, some can't even play and are scared, believe me I've met some huge pacific islanders who are scared to even run a strong hit-up. So while they may be big, the mental state has to be determined first and that can only be seen when he plays his age group first. Another point also is that with Rugby League, and even Rugby Union, each position in a team are subconsciously related to the size of a body. We know upon first impression of putting a team together that the forwards are always and have to be bigger than the faster but smaller backs. So in stating that, RL or RU, are team sports that requires a variety of different physique players. So encouraging a young player to only challenge there same size, in my opinion, isn't learning the sport at all.

"He made the dumbest call possible in the 2003 Rugby World Cup final in Sydney." I take it you did not watch Ireland defeat France last week in the 6 nations? I think it was 41 phases that went well beyond the final siren before the winning field goal was kicked. England had as much time as they wanted to get back into position, all they had to do is play safe rugby and keep ball in hand, which is exactly what this side was good at. I do think Rogers would have been seeking the touchline around halfway and came slightly off the side of the boot under the heavy pressure. Not to mention, that kick was the first phase off the restart. George Gregan would have made that decision to kick for touch before England had kicked off and Rogers would have been performing the task requested of him. The smart play was to keep ball in hand, work into a position where Australia could take a shot or wind down the clock and kick for touch to reboot for extra, extra time. But that call would not have been made by Rogers no matter what. Back on topic. Something needs to be done, however weight alone is a poor indication of a player and it really needs to be dealt with case by case. The thing that comes to mind is playing junior rugby against Anthony and Saia Faingaa at around under 14's. From what I heard a club put in a complaint about these boys who were a lot larger than most at the time, the next season they were ordered up an age group, however I do believe they went straight into St Edmund's 1st 15. Playing against others 3 years their senior did not effect these guys. They went on to play australian school boys, Act Brumbies and the Wallabies. This is more a reflection of ability than their weight and their ability (along with their size) was above and beyond at a young age. A child who lacks speed, co-ordination and muscled development and is simply overweight would not cope with going up 2-3 age groups. Their needs to be a balance to make both union and league safe to play for all junior players but a simple weight gauge is probably not enough.

yep and the team should have set up for a right footer there for that one but according to the expert author the loss is all down to rogers

Ok. I guess I can see that working. I still think there’s a mismatch in terms of strength, coordination etc...but maybe that helps bring the younger, bigger kids on.

Amen to that Bernie. Only one way to solve this problem is to get actual statistics then we'll know for sure how many kids of all ages are between 30-40kg, 40-50kg, 50-60kg, 60-70kg etc. Maybe then a solution can be made. Why NSWRL doesn't ask for weight on rego's is baffling !