Schools Rugby 2017 2018 Thread SEE MOD WARNING POST #1773

irishfan9

The skinny prop wrote: »

This is about 10 talented ambitious young lads who moved from non rugby day schools to a boarding school for 5th and 6th year and the Leinster branch said to all 10 it doesn’t matter how hard you train, how talented you are, or how committed you are you will never represent your school at the highest level. Senior seconds is good enough for you and the only reason is that their parents decided ( or could only afford to) to send them to a boarding School in 5th year.
To deny those 10 lads that ambition and sense achievement is simply wrong and it could lead to a lack of fulfilment, disappointment and discouragement.
The Leinster branch should be encouraging young schoolboys to be ambitious , to achieve , and to reach their full potential instead of keeping them down and telling them senior seconds is good enough for you.
Shameful really.

What bollix, the rule was implemented for a reason certain schools were abusing it and recruiting players from all over the country.

thebaz

Radioheader wrote: »

We are talking Ireland here. The sort of money sloshing around means we will never end up in an American football type situation. I agree though, you would never want a situation where more than 4 or 5 on a team were in receipt of partial scholarships.

Why would it give private boarding schools an advantage over private day schools? Surely the bigger private day schools have just as much money if not more to dole out in rugby scholarships?

Also the issue is more acute for boarding schools, because some parents can not afford to send their kids for the full six years.

again, I sort of agree with you - shouldnt have said boarding school - just would like an equitable compition for all schools , that to me is and was the beauty of the competition.

irishfan9

thebaz wrote: »

again, I sort of agree with you - shouldnt have said boarding school - just would like an equitable compition for all schools , that to me is and was the beauty of the competition.

it's not even if some schools are recruiting the best club rugby players to prop up their squad.

urbanchick

irishfan9 wrote: »

What bollix, the rule was implemented for a reason certain schools were abusing it and recruiting players from all over the country.

I agree : we all know what’s going on here,TEN lads have come from non rugby playing schools yet are strong enough to play 1XV rugby: it is a schoolboy competition and should be competitive but recruiting players, talking lawyers,finding loopholes, legal action? cop on!

urbanchick

The skinny prop wrote: »

This is about 10 talented ambitious young lads who moved from non rugby day schools to a boarding school for 5th and 6th year and the Leinster branch said to all 10 it doesn’t matter how hard you train, how talented you are, or how committed you are you will never represent your school at the highest level. Senior seconds is good enough for you and the only reason is that their parents decided ( or could only afford to) to send them to a boarding School in 5th year.
To deny those 10 lads that ambition and sense achievement is simply wrong and it could lead to a lack of fulfilment, disappointment and discouragement.
The Leinster branch should be encouraging young schoolboys to be ambitious , to achieve , and to reach their full potential instead of keeping them down and telling them senior seconds is good enough for you.
Shameful really.

Roscrea need to chill out.

Radioheader

urbanchick wrote: »

I agree : we all know what’s going on here,TEN lads have come from non rugby playing schools yet are strong enough to play 1XV rugby: it is a schoolboy competition and should be competitive but recruiting players, talking lawyers,finding loopholes, legal action? cop on!

That assumes that all 10 have been recruited. One or two might be on scholarships but I seriously doubt all 10 are on scholarships?

I assume it would not make financial sense to give scholarships to guys who are ineligible for senior cup rugby?

urbanchick

Radioheader wrote: »

That assumes that all 10 have been recruited. One or two might be on scholarships but I seriously doubt all 10 are on scholarships?

I assume it would not make financial sense to give scholarships to guys who are ineligible for senior cup rugby?

It’s an odd one .....one or two lads moving schools would be within the realms of normality, one or two scholarships is acceptable if that’s the way the school operates, in which case everyone knows the 20 month rule: but 10 is the number being bandied around and playing 2XV isn’t good enough according to skinny prop. I don’t like this type of behaviour: how can it make financial sense to involve lawyers in this?

irishfan9

urbanchick wrote: »

It’s an odd one .....one or two lads moving schools would be within the realms of normality, one or two scholarships is acceptable if that’s the way the school operates, in which case everyone knows the 20 month rule: but 10 is the number being bandied around and playing 2XV isn’t good enough according to skinny prop. I don’t like this type of behaviour: how can it make financial sense to involve lawyers in this?

I doubt the school is covering those costs.

Bridge93

Kids move school all the time. Between 4th and 6th year p, my year lost about 15-20 lads and gained another 10-15. It's not unusual that one maybe two of them might be good rugby players. There was one such guy in my year and he'd been on the school waiting list since first year.

But when you get ten guys joining and they all happen to be rugby players of a certain ability there is something very wrong with that. Leaving their effect on the cup aside, they could be jumping a waiting list of other students for unfair reasons

Noscrumnowin

urbanchick wrote: »

It’s an odd one .....one or two lads moving schools would be within the realms of normality, one or two scholarships is acceptable if that’s the way the school operates, in which case everyone knows the 20 month rule: but 10 is the number being bandied around and playing 2XV isn’t good enough according to skinny prop. I don’t like this type of behaviour: how can it make financial sense to involve lawyers in this?

How if more than “one or two” young lads move school do you decide which one doesn’t get to play SCT. Also if you’re good enough to play SCT why shouldn’t you second fifteen is just wasting their potential.

D14Rugby

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

It wouldnt even have to be that creative. It works well in Connacht though schools there by and large dont play any games on weekends or play that many games against schools outside the province. The schools play midweek and clubs play weekends. so you have a 15 year old in the Jes/Bish in Galway. They play Junior schools cup/league games mid week then play with NUIG, Galwegians or Corinthians under 15/16 at the weekend.
There isnt a need for the training plans/S&C to be as high as it is but when one goes to one level the rest will follow.

It's completely different in leinster as the amount of schools available to play is so much greater meaning that in first and second year teams regularly play Wednesday and Saturday, that only stops after there because the intensity ramps up so much that 2 games in a weak wouldn't be good for the players so playing club and school would be detrimental. Best option for leinster in terms of getting schools and clubs to work together is like what happens in Gonzaga and Lansdowne, Terenure and Terenure RFC, Wesley and Old Wesley, get coaches involved in both clubs and schools so the players form bonds. For example if you go to an AIL game in Terenure you'll regularly have people that go and watch the school SCT or JCT then go, along with the school players, and watch the club, which is part of the reason why Terenure have such a high percentage that continue playing.

As fotlr the S&C thats very much needed or else we'd fall behind other countries that have academy's from young ages and the players not in the system would be left further behind.

Noscrumnowin wrote: »

A lot of lads from previous years Blackrock Sct’s we’re going to Mary’s as Peter Smith was involved but now that Steve Lamb is heavily involved in the SCT and stradbrook it will re-establish that route for Rock players. Even from last years SCT you have Stephen McLoughlin and Alan Francis starting for the senior firsts.

Rocks 20s have notably more players from last years seniors this year, not where it should be but getting better, last years seniors 10 comes to mind as being at the club.

The skinny prop wrote: »

This is about 10 talented ambitious young lads who moved from non rugby day schools to a boarding school for 5th and 6th year and the Leinster branch said to all 10 it doesn’t matter how hard you train, how talented you are, or how committed you are you will never represent your school at the highest level. Senior seconds is good enough for you and the only reason is that their parents decided ( or could only afford to) to send them to a boarding School in 5th year.
To deny those 10 lads that ambition and sense achievement is simply wrong and it could lead to a lack of fulfilment, disappointment and discouragement.
The Leinster branch should be encouraging young schoolboys to be ambitious , to achieve , and to reach their full potential instead of keeping them down and telling them senior seconds is good enough for you.
Shameful really.

You could, and people have, make that argument for 1/2 players and they'd probably get an exemption but 10 is taking the piss, surely there's something going on there.
Its a different case when they've been on the waiting list for years or doing the same thing parents or siblings did and in those cases they'll be allowed to play but 10 1st XV quality players happening to move to the school in time for senior cub, somethings going on there.

irishfan9

Noscrumnowin wrote: »

How if more than “one or two” young lads move school do you decide which one doesn’t get to play SCT. Also if you’re good enough to play SCT why shouldn’t you second fifteen is just wasting their potential.

because schools abuse it... 20 month rule was good very schools rugby and club rugby

The Lost Sheep

D14Rugby wrote: »

It's completely different in leinster as the amount of schools available to play is so much greater meaning that in first and second year teams regularly play Wednesday and Saturday, that only stops after there because the intensity ramps up so much that 2 games in a weak wouldn't be good for the players so playing club and school would be detrimental. Best option for leinster in terms of getting schools and clubs to work together is like what happens in Gonzaga and Lansdowne, Terenure and Terenure RFC, Wesley and Old Wesley, get coaches involved in both clubs and schools so the players form bonds. For example if you go to an AIL game in Terenure you'll regularly have people that go and watch the school SCT or JCT then go, along with the school players, and watch the club, which is part of the reason why Terenure have such a high percentage that continue playing.

As fotlr the S&C thats very much needed or else we'd fall behind other countries that have academy's from young ages and the players not in the system would be left further behind.

Rocks 20s have notably more players from last years seniors this year, not where it should be but getting better, last years seniors 10 comes to mind as being at the club.

You could, and people have, make that argument for 1/2 players and they'd probably get an exemption but 10 is taking the piss, surely there's something going on there.
Its a different case when they've been on the waiting list for years or doing the same thing parents or siblings did and in those cases they'll be allowed to play but 10 1st XV quality players happening to move to the school in time for senior cub, somethings going on there.

It isnt "completely different" and yes there is some weeks where first years play wednesday and saturday but that isnt regular and wont always involve same kids.
There is links between schools and clubs but there needs to be actual links on the pitch especially for kids when in school. And this can also help get more kids playing who dont attend rugby schools. It isnt so much that we need all kids to go from one school to one club but we need more playing/involved in clubs
The S&C is needed to a point but the focus on it is a bit OTT to some extent.
Great that a lot of Blackrocks schools 1st xv from last year are playing with the clubs 20s but what of most of last years 6th years who may have been playing 3rds/4ths/5ths?? Where is the real targeted attempts to get them playing after school?

urbanchick

Noscrumnowin wrote: »

How if more than “one or two” young lads move school do you decide which one doesn’t get to play SCT. Also if you’re good enough to play SCT why shouldn’t you second fifteen is just wasting their potential.

The 20 month rule is there for a reason - the dogs on the street know why it was introduced. It’s the rule and everyone knows it.

skinny prop has advised the cup will be thrown into disarray and 1st round of LSSC 2018 will be in the courts - for 10 schoolboys who want to flout the rules: WTF!!!!!

milosh

I have heard of numerous cases where exemptions were granted as those moving school did not do so for rugby playing reasons. The 20 month rule is supported by nearly all schools from what I understand.

Noscrumnowin

urbanchick wrote: »

The 20 month rule is there for a reason - the dogs on the street know why it was introduced. It’s the rule and everyone knows it.

skinny prop has advised the cup will be thrown into disarray and 1st round of LSSC 2018 will be in the courts - for 10 schoolboys who want to flout the rules: WTF!!!!!

Simmer down, the cup will most probably not be thrown into disarray and you’re acting as if the boys themselves have done something wrong which is a very bad attitude in my eyes, they just want to play rugby.

irishfan9

Noscrumnowin wrote: »

Simmer down, the cup will most probably not be thrown into disarray and you’re acting as if the boys themselves have done something wrong which is a very bad attitude in my eyes, they just want to play rugby.

join a club.

Noscrumnowin

irishfan9 wrote: »

join a club.

Why join a club when there is top coaches and facilities already available to them on their door step!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

irishfan9

Noscrumnowin wrote: »

Why join a club when there is top coaches and facilities already available to them on their door step!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's no surprise that a blackrock man would defend the practice of recruiting players for senior cycle.

If they just "want to play rugby" then play for a club... now if they just "want to play cup rugby" that is different.

Noscrumnowin

irishfan9 wrote: »

It's no surprise that a blackrock man would defend the practice of recruiting players for senior cycle.

If they just "want to play rugby" then play for a club... now if they just "want to play cup rugby" that is different.

Well considering that Roscrea is the biggest recruiter of players for senior cycle I think that is irrelevant. Also considering Roscrea have won more cups in the last 4 years than Michaels something must be working for them.

irishfan9

Noscrumnowin wrote: »

Well considering that Roscrea is the biggest recruiter of players for senior cycle I think that is irrelevant. Also considering Roscrea have won more cups in the last 4 years than Michaels something must be working for them.

Not sure why you are bringing up either school.

Roscrea were the worst offenders and used recruited players to win a cup.

So yes bringing in the top club players from Munster/Connacht/Leinster worked for them.

Noscrumnowin

Dream teams over the years.
Interested to see what other schools consider their dream teams. From Rock it would be ‘95 bod etc and ‘09 Jordi Murphy, Andrew Conway etc

FrannoFan

Noscrumnowin wrote: »

Dream teams over the years.
Interested to see what other schools consider their dream teams. From Rock it would be ‘95 bod etc and ‘09 Jordi Murphy, Andrew Conway etc

clongowes back to back winners with the byrnes and coaghlan etc was pretty good. Reckon the D'arcy year was better though. Des Dillon was one of the best schools players i've ever seen. Couldn't be tackled!

Michaels team led by Leavy was very good- only 2 cup winning sides so i guess it has to be one of them(even though a load of representative lads from the side O'Mara wasted!)

irishfan9

FrannoFan wrote: »

clongowes back to back winners with the byrnes and coaghlan etc was pretty good. Reckon the D'arcy year was better though. Des Dillon was one of the best schools players i've ever seen. Couldn't be tackled!

Michaels team led by Leavy was very good- only 2 cup winning sides so i guess it has to be one of them(even though a load of representative lads from the side O'Mara wasted!)

has to be 2012 for Michaels.

RugbyRugby2016

Best sides from Michaels, Rock, Terenure etc not to win the cup?
Probably go with Michaels' 2013 team (7 professionals I think) over their 2015 team. 
For Rock it might be their 2016 team (if it hadn't been missing those three players who were injured before the cup) although the team with Luke Fitzgerald in 2005 which lost to Belvo was very talented. 
Belvo's 2015 team had a lot of talented players although many of them were quite young

irishfan9

https://t.co/cOMvm63Yk7

Good old roscrea.

Quint2010

https://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/neil-francis-the-day-my-life-changed-because-of-the-outcome-of-a-game-of-rugby-36464367.html

Good read this by Neil Francis. All those schools rugby fans of a middle aged vintage will remember this period of rivalry when Terenure had the temerity to beat Blackrock in five successive schools finals. And this was finally the game that stopped the rot. Back in the day when Donnybrook was jammed to the rafters for games. Enjoy.

irishfan9

Now Nure....

Quint2010

Noscrumnowin wrote: »

Dream teams over the years.
Interested to see what other schools consider their dream teams. From Rock it would be ‘95 bod etc and ‘09 Jordi Murphy, Andrew Conway etc

Best Terenure team was 1984. Best Terenure team not to. Win the cup 2000

irishfan9

Disappointing that Ireland u18 got no coverage over christmas and nothing really leaked.

irishfan9

quite the coincidence that 9 players capable of playing senior cup rugby all joined the school this summer.

awec

irishfan9 wrote: »

quite the coincidence that 9 players capable of playing senior cup rugby all joined the school this summer.

I am sure the Leinster branch had a right laugh to themselves when Roscrea put in their application for exemptions.

Radioheader

irishfan9 wrote: »

quite the coincidence that 9 players capable of playing senior cup rugby all joined the school this summer.

There's 170 in the whole school, less than 30 per year, so I would say any new players are capable of making the team given the lack of numbers. I would guess they are not 9 starters, just 9 players.

The Lost Sheep

irishfan9 wrote:

quite the coincidence that 9 players capable of playing senior cup rugby all joined the school this summer.

well considering the school was to close over the summer and they said thy were introducing scholarships then is it as bad if it meannt the school was kept open?

awec wrote:

I am sure the Leinster branch had a right laugh to themselves when Roscrea put in their application for exemptions.

schools committee could have but to be fair it was an all boarding school til this year and with fees so high many students o ly did 2 maybe 3 years there and spent junior cycle elsewhere

Radioheader wrote:

There's 170 in the whole school, less than 30 per year, so I would say any new players are capable of making the team given the lack of numbers. I would guess they are not 9 starters, just 9 players.

yeah. Just 3 teams at senior cycle and same at junior

D14Rugby

irishfan9 wrote: »

https://t.co/cOMvm63Yk7

Good old roscrea.

3 interesting schools to pick out as historical poachers? Wouldn't have any of those 3 down as schools who do that myself.

RugbyRugby2016

Knowing the author he probably picked those schools randomly

Quin_Dub

D14Rugby wrote: »

3 interesting schools to pick out as historical poachers? Wouldn't have any of those 3 down as schools who do that myself.

RugbyRugby2016 wrote: »

Knowing the author he probably picked those schools randomly

To be fair , he could have picked any of the schools as examples - They all did it to a greater or lesser extent over the years...

The Lost Sheep

Vinnie Murray results
Wilsons Hospital 0 CBC Monkstown 43
Colaiste Bhride 0 Kilkenny 48

Bridge93

D14Rugby wrote: »

3 interesting schools to pick out as historical poachers? Wouldn't have any of those 3 down as schools who do that myself.

Terenures team of 2013 had a handful of poached players. Dardis and Madigan from Newbridge, Trenier from KH and Doyle from Clongowes

Noscrumnowin

D14Rugby wrote: »

3 interesting schools to pick out as historical poachers? Wouldn't have any of those 3 down as schools who do that myself.

Anyone know what school author has ties with?

milosh

I really think Roscrea's behaviour is disgraceful and it will not go down well with any of the other schools. The school's committee, elected by the schools is made up of teachers who run all of the competition on behalf of the schools. If Roscrea want a rule changed they can do it at the AGM. They are showing complete disregard for their fellow schools who brought in the rule with the best interests of all schools in mind. Roscrea will lose a lot with this. Do you think the schools of the committee members will be happy to travel at significant cost to a school who is willing to go to court to force a rule change when there is a perfectly fine avenue to look for a rule to be changed. Go to the AGM, get support and vote.

The fact that 9 school children who wanted to repeat chose not to because they would not be allowed play rugby shows that they were repeating for rugby purposes and not academic purposes. How many of these 9 repeated elsewhere? I wish the school's committee all the best in facing down this nonsense.

D14Rugby

Bridge93 wrote: »

Terenures team of 2013 had a handful of poached players. Dardis and Madigan from Newbridge, Trenier from KH and Doyle from Clongowes

Wouldn't call them poached no idea about madigan but Dardis and Trenier had pre existing ties to the school i believe and Doyle was from the area.

Anyway this conversation happens almost word for word every year so I'm going to step out now for my own sanity.

D14Rugby

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Vinnie Murray results
Wilsons Hospital 0 CBC Monkstown 43
Colaiste Bhride 0 Kilkenny 48

Some serious thumpings there, same as last year where i think there were two competative games in the whole first round.
Wesley vs High School and CBC vs Pres.

The Lost Sheep

milosh wrote: »

I really think Roscrea's behaviour is disgraceful and it will not go down well with any of the other schools. The school's committee, elected by the schools is made up of teachers who run all of the competition on behalf of the schools. If Roscrea want a rule changed they can do it at the AGM. They are showing complete disregard for their fellow schools who brought in the rule with the best interests of all schools in mind. Roscrea will lose a lot with this. Do you think the schools of the committee members will be happy to travel at significant cost to a school who is willing to go to court to force a rule change when there is a perfectly fine avenue to look for a rule to be changed. Go to the AGM, get support and vote.

The fact that 9 school children who wanted to repeat chose not to because they would not be allowed play rugby shows that they were repeating for rugby purposes and not academic purposes. How many of these 9 repeated elsewhere? I wish the school's committee all the best in facing down this nonsense.

It is disgraceful? Complete disregard? No. Roscrea's circumstances are so different to virtually all other schools so of course they'll challenge this. I agree in part with the ruling but it seriously affects Roscreas ability as a school to stay open as many students will only go boarding for 2 years or 3 years for senior cycle and this ruling affects them from playing for those years.
Going to AGM is fine but AGM is in 5 months after this competition and without students who only moved to school Roscrea most likely wouldnt be able to field.

thebaz

irishfan9 wrote: »

https://t.co/cOMvm63Yk7

Good old roscrea.

i have fond memories of playing against Roscrea , and was delighted it did not close last summer , but this selfish court case against the majority of other schools , is staggering. Do they believe they are above the laws, they alone can recruit 9 extra players - I'm sure most teams could do with an extra talented out-half or tight-head to complete ther school team - Sport as in life can be unfair, but rules are rules - some players are born a day to early to play - should they also sue ?? - seriously does it mean that much to Roscrea to win a cup??
I just hope the Leinster branch stand up to ther bully boy tactics and call it for it what it is.

The Lost Sheep

thebaz wrote: »

i have fond memories of playing against Roscrea, and was delighted it did not close last summer , but this selfish court case against the majority of other schools, is staggering. Do they believe they are above the laws, they alone can recruit 9 extra players - I'm sure most teams could do with an extra talented out-half or tight-head to complete ther school team - Sport as in life can be unfair, but rules are rules - some players are born a day to early to play - should they also sue?? - seriously does it mean that much to Roscrea to win a cup??
I just hope the Leinster branch stand up to ther bully boy tactics and call it for it what it is.

But the school was to close this time last year. And only reopened as the style of the school changed so of course there was going to be a lot of extra pupils especially as the school was now open to day and day boarders. That many pupils who did join are rugby players isnt surprising as its a renowned rugby school.
Surely that is part of the reason they are going to such measures to get some of these kids playing rugby. Its a boarding school so rugby may not be available if you do stop them playing for the school.

milosh

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Going to AGM is fine but AGM is in 5 months after this competition and without students who only moved to school Roscrea most likely wouldnt be able to field.

Firstly this is not a new rule this year so they could have canvassed for change for the past two AGMS. They didn't because nearly every school in Leinster supports this.

Secondly if the only reason that a school can stay open is by bringing in 5th and 6th year rugby players it is patently not viable as a school. Schools exist to educate primarily not just to play sport.

thebaz

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

It is disgraceful? Complete disregard? No. Roscrea's circumstances are so different to virtually all other schools so of course they'll challenge this. I agree in part with the ruling but it seriously affects Roscreas ability as a school to stay open as many students will only go boarding for 2 years or 3 years for senior cycle and this ruling affects them from playing for those years.
Going to AGM is fine but AGM is in 5 months after this competition and without students who only moved to school Roscrea most likely wouldnt be able to field.

but surely fielding a rugby team should only be a part of a schools existence - Education should be the primary function - sport secondary -

The Lost Sheep

milosh wrote: »

Firstly this is not a new rule this year so they could have canvassed for change for the past two AGMS. They didn't because nearly every school in Leinster supports this.

Secondly if the only reason that a school can stay open is by bringing in 5th and 6th year rugby players it is patently not viable as a school. Schools exist to educate primarily not just to play sport.

This is not a new ruling and do you know for sure they didnt canvass for change?
I didnt just say rugby players. Fees to all boarding schools like Roscrea used to be can be extremely expensive so many parents choose to send their child boarding only for senior cycle.

thebaz wrote: »

but surely fielding a rugby team should only be a part of a schools existence - Education should be the primary function - sport secondary -

Yes but for all schools sport(not just rugby) is a huge part of the school and building of pupils into adults.

thebaz

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

But the school was to close this time last year. And only reopened as the style of the school changed so of course there was going to be a lot of extra pupils especially as the school was now open to day and day boarders. That many pupils who did join are rugby players isnt surprising as its a renowned rugby school.
Surely that is part of the reason they are going to such measures to get some of these kids playing rugby. Its a boarding school so rugby may not be available if you do stop them playing for the school.

i do understand that - but given circumstances - maybe the exemption could be applied to 4 or 5 - 9 is far too many - assuming they are good players - i know i would be pretty angry if i was knocked out by a Roscrea team that was allowed include all 9 by challenging the rules legality in court - its not all about roscrea - ther are at least another 15 teams/schools to consider.