Schools Rugby 2017 2018 Thread SEE MOD WARNING POST #1773

themont85

Wow, diving in here for the annual look and I see the usual suspects are going on about clubs v schools again. Zzzz

On the point of Roscrea, very poor carry on.

Where were they in 2015? They’ll say there was a lack of BoM- so what? That’s not other schools fault that they couldn’t get their house in order- surprising when they were fielding such good teams on the pitch.

They appear to be appealing over potential language errors. Come on ffs, this is school sport. This is not how you treat what is supposed to be recreation.

Every single one of these guys knew the score when they joined the school. There was no legitimate expectation.

Now they’re challenging just before the Cup to try and get their way when the competition is starting. To great expense of the Leinster Branch and schools funds.

Do it the proper way as mentioned above.

Very poor carry on from the Roscrea BoM.

stellenbosch

D14Rugby wrote: »

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.

CBC play winners of Salesians/Skerries Community school and winners of that play Winners of Wesley/Kilkenny- whovever wins goes into final of VM and also into the Cup.

On other side likely to be KH

MDunne14

irishfan9 wrote: »

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

Who are they?

Stephen Hawkins football boots

Could this delay the senior cup? Roscrea should be kicked out.They are basically a feeder for the connacht academy. I hope IRFU and Leinster branch tell them where to go

Sheep Shearin Farmer

Many of the comments here are so far off the mark and untrue as to be unbelievable.

I am a former pupil of Roscrea and the father of a former pupil.

Roscrea have 9 young lads 8 5th years and 1 repeat leaving cert student who would like to be on the Senior panel.
The repeat leaving cert student didn't get the points he wanted and is repeating this year.
You would swear it was a crime form some of the comments.
None were headhunted/recruited/canvassed/poached and not a cent offered or accepted by way of scholarship or otherwise.
Roscrea don't have the money for that sort of ****e any more. They are too busy keeping the doors open.
As far as I am aware only one came from a "rugby" school.
Scholarships were offered to first years only last year in academics, music and sport.
This was to kick start an increase their numbers and is unlikely to be repeated.
These 9 are ordinary decent lads, sons of ordinary decent hard working parents who choose to send their sons to Roscrea.
They are not "bringing in" Rugby players. It has a long tradition of students enrolling in 5th year. There could be 15 extra students in 5th year every year. They come from every walk of life and every type of school. Some play rugby, some don't.
8 out of the 9 ordinary decent everyday rugby players. 1 good player.
Leinster Schools Committee rejected 9 out of 9. No reasons given just piss off and play for the seconds.

1 student, an interprovincial rugby player leaves Roscrea in October/November and goes to Newbridge College and gets his exemption ( from the wrong committee, see below and Pres Bray take note) within a few days. But to be honest one of the lads involved in Roscrea said they don't want to see that young fellow give up rugby and they wish him well but what they do want is a level playing field.

It appears most other schools get their exemptions on the nod but Roscrea get 100% blanket refusal.

Some stupid remarks that Roscrea should play by the rules.
They are playing by the rules it is the Leinster Schools Committee who are not.
For example Regulation 7.5 of the Leinster Branch Schools regulations state “a school may apply to the Schools Competition Committee to seek clearance for a player, who is otherwise illegible to play …”.
Roscrea applied for 9 exemptions and it was the Schools Committee of Leinster Rugby that rejected all 9.
The Schools Committee had no business going anywhere near the applications and it should have been dealt with by the Committee that was specifically set up to deal with issues relating to the competitions that is The Schools Competitions Committee.
Another example related to repeat leaving cert students. The IRFU policy is
“Branches to decide in exceptional circumstances whether players repeating their Leaving Certificate should be ineligible”
Leinster Schools Committee give their interpretation and say
“Branches to decide in exceptional circumstances whether players repeating their Leaving Certificate should be eligible”
The complete opposite of the IRFU policy.

It is the Leinster Schools Committee who are not playing by their own rules and frankly haven’t a bulls notion what they are doing.

Roscrea do not believe they are above the Law, it is the Leinster Branch Schools Committee who think they can do as they like, ignore the rules and they are untouchable. This is what has driven the lads in Roscrea to this.

Another annoying lie being peddled is that Roscrea want the 20 month rule scrapped. They do not. They want a fair and transparent rule with clear criteria implemented in a consistent manner by an independent committee. What we have is a conflicted secret committee without any criteria spewing out inconsistent decisions.

They have tried to reason and have asked for meetings and have got nowhere. One Schools Committee member threateningly said at one meeting " you should remember this is an invitation only tournament". That is how the dialogue has proceeded. Watch your tongue or we will turf you out of the competition.

I know the lads behind this in Roscrea are open to meetings, discussion and resolution. No one will win except the lawyers if it goes to Court and it seems from what I have been told the Leinster Branch would be well advised to take up Roscrea on this invitation.

MDunne14

Does anybody know who these 9 lads are ?

The Lost Sheep

thebaz wrote: »

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.

How do you or anyone else here know that many of these will actually get in or near the team? Of course it isnt just about Roscrea but a school that was solely a boarding school until this year and opened up to day pupils of course there will be new students in the school.

themont85 wrote: »

Wow, diving in here for the annual look and I see the usual suspects are going on about clubs v schools again. Zzzz

On the point of Roscrea, very poor carry on.

Where were they in 2015? They’ll say there was a lack of BoM- so what? That’s not other schools fault that they couldn’t get their house in order- surprising when they were fielding such good teams on the pitch.

They appear to be appealing over potential language errors. Come on ffs, this is school sport. This is not how you treat what is supposed to be recreation.

Every single one of these guys knew the score when they joined the school. There was no legitimate expectation.

Now they’re challenging just before the Cup to try and get their way when the competition is starting. To great expense of the Leinster Branch and schools funds.

Do it the proper way as mentioned above.

Very poor carry on from the Roscrea BoM.

How is it poor carry on from Roscrea and their BOM? While i agree with this ruling surely you have to make allowances for a school that is in the process of trying to turn from being fully boarding to being a day and boarding school and where pupil numbers have increased 40% just to keep the school open?

Stephen Hawkins football boots

Belvo lost 2015 final because Roscrea were giving scholarships and taking in players in 5th and 6th year, totally not in the spirit of the cup

Sheep Shearin Farmer

MDunne14 wrote: »

Does anybody know who these 9 lads are ?

Totally inappropriate to start teasing out who they are and where they come from. Cop on.

The Lost Sheep

MDunne14 wrote: »

Who are they?

It doesnt matter and if people start saying names this thread should close

Stephen Hawkins football boots wrote: »

Could this delay the senior cup? Roscrea should be kicked out.They are basically a feeder for the connacht academy. I hope IRFU and Leinster branch tell them where to go

No it wont. Roscrea shouldnt be kicked out and if Roscrea are "basically a feeder for the connacht academy" then same can be said for Rockwell/Waterpark RFC/St Munchins/Nenagh Ormond RFC/Young Munster RFC/CBC Cork etc are for Munster academy and Blackrock College/Navan RFC/Terenure College/Clongowes/Naas RFC/Birr RFC are for Leinsters.

MDunne14 wrote: »

Does anybody know who these 9 lads are ?

No and it doesnt matter

Stephen Hawkins football boots wrote: »

Belvo lost 2015 final because Roscrea were giving scholarships and taking in players in 5th and 6th year, totally not in the spirit of the cup

Belvedere lost to the better team. Lots of boarding schools take on students in senior cycle as parents dont want to pay for boarding fees for their kids entire 5/6 years of secondary school

Stephen Hawkins football boots

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

It doesnt matter and if people start saying names this thread should close

No it wont. Roscrea shouldnt be kicked out and if Roscrea are "basically a feeder for the connacht academy" then same can be said for Rockwell/Waterpark RFC/St Munchins/Nenagh Ormond RFC/Young Munster RFC/CBC Cork etc are for Munster academy and Blackrock College/Navan RFC/Terenure College/Clongowes/Naas RFC/Birr RFC are for Leinsters.

No and it doesnt matter

Belvedere lost to the better team. Lots of boarding schools take on students in senior cycle as parents dont want to pay for boarding fees for their kids entire 5/6 years of secondary school

The rule was brought in because Roscrea were taking the p1ss and it had to be changed.9 guys hood enough to be on sct team happen to join the school give me a break

thebaz

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

How do you or anyone else here know that many of these will actually get in or near the team? Of course it isnt just about Roscrea but a school that was solely a boarding school until this year and opened up to day pupils of course there will be new students in the school.

I dont know how good they are are - but based on past few years , I am assuming they are pretty good - as said ther is another 15 teams in competition -it schools rugby - not professional, and ther has to be some rules - granting expemption to some would seam a fairer solution - 9 is too many - would taint any achievement too.

The Lost Sheep

Stephen Hawkins football boots wrote: »

The rule was brought in because Roscrea were taking the p1ss and it had to be changed

It wasnt because of Roscrea it was multiple schools. IE most boarding schools. Look at Clongowes, Blackrock in Leinster. Rockwell in Munster, Campbell Belfast in Ulsgter...

urbanchick

Noscrumnowin wrote: »

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?

Rock!

urbanchick

Noscrumnowin wrote: »

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?

Rock!

The Lost Sheep

thebaz wrote: »

I dont know how good they are are - but based on past few years , I am assuming they are pretty good - as said ther is another 15 teams in competition -it schools rugby - not professional, and ther has to be some rules - granting expemption to some would seam a fairer solution - 9 is too many - would taint any achievement too.

How do you decide exactly how many is enough?
If there is bonafida reasons for someone moving school who are we to decide to stop them. There is many reasons for moving schools. Especially boarding schools where fee's are what 2/3 teams more than most "normal" fee paying schools. So parents make choice to send their kids to the boarding school that they may have attended just for senior cycle.
You are assuming they are going to be on the schools 1st xv side but how do you know? Several may simply be on the 2nds/3rds??
One or two of my underage team couldnt play for us at 18s in the main competitions because they'd moved to a rugby school and but they were only on the 2nds. They couldnt make the firsts.
How does it taint any achievement?
Did Joey Carbery/Conor Oliver/Jeremy Loughman taint the achievement of the Blackrock college schools senior cup winning team they were apart of? Considering all moved to the school at senior cycle?
On exemptions. How do you decide what is too many?

themont85

Sheep Shearin Farmer wrote: »

Many of the comments here are so far off the mark and untrue as to be unbelievable.

I am a former pupil of Roscrea and the father of a former pupil.

Roscrea have 9 young lads 8 5th years and 1 repeat leaving cert student who would like to be on the Senior panel.
The repeat leaving cert student didn't get the points he wanted and is repeating this year.
You would swear it was a crime form some of the comments.
None were headhunted/recruited/canvassed/poached and not a cent offered or accepted by way of scholarship or otherwise.
Roscrea don't have the money for that sort of ****e any more. They are too busy keeping the doors open.
As far as I am aware only one came from a "rugby" school.
Scholarships were offered to first years only last year in academics, music and sport.
This was to kick start an increase their numbers and is unlikely to be repeated.
These 9 are ordinary decent lads, sons of ordinary decent hard working parents who choose to send their sons to Roscrea.
They are not "bringing in" Rugby players. It has a long tradition of students enrolling in 5th year. There could be 15 extra students in 5th year every year. They come from every walk of life and every type of school. Some play rugby, some don't.
8 out of the 9 ordinary decent everyday rugby players. 1 good player.
Leinster Schools Committee rejected 9 out of 9. No reasons given just piss off and play for the seconds.

1 student, an interprovincial rugby player leaves Roscrea in October/November and goes to Newbridge College and gets his exemption ( from the wrong committee, see below and Pres Bray take note) within a few days. But to be honest one of the lads involved in Roscrea said they don't want to see that young fellow give up rugby and they wish him well but what they do want is a level playing field.

It appears most other schools get their exemptions on the nod but Roscrea get 100% blanket refusal.

Some stupid remarks that Roscrea should play by the rules.
They are playing by the rules it is the Leinster Schools Committee who are not.
For example Regulation 7.5 of the Leinster Branch Schools regulations state “a school may apply to the Schools Competition Committee to seek clearance for a player, who is otherwise illegible to play …”.
Roscrea applied for 9 exemptions and it was the Schools Committee of Leinster Rugby that rejected all 9.
The Schools Committee had no business going anywhere near the applications and it should have been dealt with by the Committee that was specifically set up to deal with issues relating to the competitions that is The Schools Competitions Committee.
Another example related to repeat leaving cert students. The IRFU policy is
“Branches to decide in exceptional circumstances whether players repeating their Leaving Certificate should be ineligible”
Leinster Schools Committee give their interpretation and say
“Branches to decide in exceptional circumstances whether players repeating their Leaving Certificate should be eligible”
The complete opposite of the IRFU policy.

It is the Leinster Schools Committee who are not playing by their own rules and frankly haven’t a bulls notion what they are doing.

Roscrea do not believe they are above the Law, it is the Leinster Branch Schools Committee who think they can do as they like, ignore the rules and they are untouchable. This is what has driven the lads in Roscrea to this.

Another annoying lie being peddled is that Roscrea want the 20 month rule scrapped. They do not. They want a fair and transparent rule with clear criteria implemented in a consistent manner by an independent committee. What we have is a conflicted secret committee without any criteria spewing out inconsistent decisions.

They have tried to reason and have asked for meetings and have got nowhere. One Schools Committee member threateningly said at one meeting " you should remember this is an invitation only tournament". That is how the dialogue has proceeded. Watch your tongue or we will turf you out of the competition.

I know the lads behind this in Roscrea are open to meetings, discussion and resolution. No one will win except the lawyers if it goes to Court and it seems from what I have been told the Leinster Branch would be well advised to take up Roscrea on this invitation.

"Former pupil and father of former pupil" :rolleyes:

Cut the crap, we all know you're either a pupil or currently involved in the school.

The Leinster Branch look after this tournament, it is up to them. This is bargain basement stuff running to the Phoenix and Irish Times before the tournament to try and get their way.

themont85

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

It wasnt because of Roscrea it was multiple schools. IE most boarding schools. Look at Clongowes, Blackrock in Leinster. Rockwell in Munster, Campbell Belfast in Ulsgter...

Wrong.

themont85

urbanchick wrote: »

Rock!

He had already mentioned Blackrock, there was no need to do it again.

The Lost Sheep

themont85 wrote: »

Wrong.

Yet all those schools have done the same. It isnt simply due to the actions of one school.

This ruling wasnt because of one school having pupils move there and went on to play on the schools senior side in the cups it was because of the actions of multiple schools.

Bridge93

Why is this only being dealt with now? Surely this exact problem was apparent in September?

Sure the 9 lads have been playing rugby all season so far?

thebaz

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

How do you decide exactly how many is enough?
If there is bonafida reasons for someone moving school who are we to decide to stop them. There is many reasons for moving schools. Especially boarding schools where fee's are what 2/3 teams more than most "normal" fee paying schools. So parents make choice to send their kids to the boarding school that they may have attended just for senior cycle.
You are assuming they are going to be on the schools 1st xv side but how do you know? Several may simply be on the 2nds/3rds??
One or two of my underage team couldnt play for us at 18s in the main competitions because they'd moved to a rugby school and but they were only on the 2nds. They couldnt make the firsts.
How does it taint any achievement?
Did Joey Carbery/Conor Oliver/Jeremy Loughman taint the achievement of the Blackrock college schools senior cup winning team they were apart of? Considering all moved to the school at senior cycle?
On exemptions. How do you decide what is too many?

not going to keep arguing with you - I do not know or want to know the players , but based on past they are usually quite handy - the rules are in place to be fair to all schools - not just boarding schools - ther is an exemption procedure for special cases - 9 or even 7 is far too many for one team- where do you draw the line on these special exemptions - 15 - a complete team - you think 9 is reasonable - I dont - now lets just differ

The Lost Sheep

thebaz wrote: »

not going to keep arguing with you - I do not know or want to know the players , but based on past they are usually quite handy - the rules are in place to be fair to all schools - not just boarding schools - ther is an exemption procedure for special cases - 9 or even 7 is far too many for one team- where do you draw the line on these special exemptions - 15 - a complete team - you think 9 is reasonable - I dont - now lets just differ

I dont care about the individual players its the issue overall thats the concern and you are only assuming that from the past the players that move are handy. People move schools all the time. Myself and my younger brother both moved secondary schools at different stages and under this ruling we wouldnt have been able to pay rugby(not that we were in rugby schools)
This ruling is a good thing and i want this ruling in place but exceptions need to be in place but saying 7 or 9 is too many exemptions isnt fair. Just because that many students got exemptions doesnt mean they all will be playing rugby on the first team in the school playing in the schools cup. You cant put a limit on the numbers who can move and play as how is that fair? What criteria then do you use to say who can move and who cant? Whoever moved to the school first? What if several all moved to the school the same day? How do you differentiate between each pupil?

urbanchick

themont85 wrote: »

urbanchick wrote: »

Rock!

He had already mentioned Blackrock, there was no need to do it again.

Calm down!

urbanchick

themont85 wrote: »

urbanchick wrote: »

Rock!

He had already mentioned Blackrock, there was no need to do it again.

Calm down!

thebaz

Bridge93 wrote: »

Why is this only being dealt with now? Surely this exact problem was apparent in September?

Sure the 9 lads have been playing rugby all season so far?

Were they allowed play in the league ?

The Lost Sheep

thebaz wrote: »

Were they allowed play in the league?

Because players were eligible to play in it and no school objected to team sheets or any players

thebaz

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Because players were eligible to play in it and no school objected to team sheets or any players

so in effect ther cup team will be weaker than the league team ? - thought same rules would apply to both - that i find a bit odd - but ther ya go.

urbanchick

Sheep Shearin Farmer wrote: »

Many of the comments here are so far off the mark and untrue as to be unbelievable.

I am a former pupil of Roscrea and the father of a former pupil.

Roscrea have 9 young lads 8 5th years and 1 repeat leaving cert student who would like to be on the Senior panel.
The repeat leaving cert student didn't get the points he wanted and is repeating this year.
You would swear it was a crime form some of the comments.
None were headhunted/recruited/canvassed/poached and not a cent offered or accepted by way of scholarship or otherwise.
Roscrea don't have the money for that sort of ****e any more. They are too busy keeping the doors open.
As far as I am aware only one came from a "rugby" school.
Scholarships were offered to first years only last year in academics, music and sport.
This was to kick start an increase their numbers and is unlikely to be repeated.
These 9 are ordinary decent lads, sons of ordinary decent hard working parents who choose to send their sons to Roscrea.
They are not "bringing in" Rugby players. It has a long tradition of students enrolling in 5th year. There could be 15 extra students in 5th year every year. They come from every walk of life and every type of school. Some play rugby, some don't.
8 out of the 9 ordinary decent everyday rugby players. 1 good player.
Leinster Schools Committee rejected 9 out of 9. No reasons given just piss off and play for the seconds.

1 student, an interprovincial rugby player leaves Roscrea in October/November and goes to Newbridge College and gets his exemption ( from the wrong committee, see below and Pres Bray take note) within a few days. But to be honest one of the lads involved in Roscrea said they don't want to see that young fellow give up rugby and they wish him well but what they do want is a level playing field.

It appears most other schools get their exemptions on the nod but Roscrea get 100% blanket refusal.

Some stupid remarks that Roscrea should play by the rules.
They are playing by the rules it is the Leinster Schools Committee who are not.
For example Regulation 7.5 of the Leinster Branch Schools regulations state “a school may apply to the Schools Competition Committee to seek clearance for a player, who is otherwise illegible to play …”.
Roscrea applied for 9 exemptions and it was the Schools Committee of Leinster Rugby that rejected all 9.
The Schools Committee had no business going anywhere near the applications and it should have been dealt with by the Committee that was specifically set up to deal with issues relating to the competitions that is The Schools Competitions Committee.
Another example related to repeat leaving cert students. The IRFU policy is
“Branches to decide in exceptional circumstances whether players repeating their Leaving Certificate should be ineligible”
Leinster Schools Committee give their interpretation and say
“Branches to decide in exceptional circumstances whether players repeating their Leaving Certificate should be eligible”
The complete opposite of the IRFU policy.

It is the Leinster Schools Committee who are not playing by their own rules and frankly haven’t a bulls notion what they are doing.

Roscrea do not believe they are above the Law, it is the Leinster Branch Schools Committee who think they can do as they like, ignore the rules and they are untouchable. This is what has driven the lads in Roscrea to this.

Another annoying lie being peddled is that Roscrea want the 20 month rule scrapped. They do not. They want a fair and transparent rule with clear criteria implemented in a consistent manner by an independent committee. What we have is a conflicted secret committee without any criteria spewing out inconsistent decisions.

They have tried to reason and have asked for meetings and have got nowhere. One Schools Committee member threateningly said at one meeting " you should remember this is an invitation only tournament". That is how the dialogue has proceeded. Watch your tongue or we will turf you out of the competition.

I know the lads behind this in Roscrea are open to meetings, discussion and resolution. No one will win except the lawyers if it goes to Court and it seems from what I have been told the Leinster Branch would be well advised to take up Roscrea on this invitation.

Turf them out I say, let Connaught have them.

The Lost Sheep

thebaz wrote: »

so in effect ther cup team will be weaker than the league team ? - thought same rules would apply to both - that i find a bit odd - but ther ya go.

I dont know. But if they had played players ineligible to play in the league then surely they would have been thrown out but they played all 5 of their group games in the league and also a quarter final and quarter final replay.

FrannoFan

Roscrea went out of the league in the quarter final. If these lads were playing it's not like they are world beaters.

I would have thought each of the 9 would have been taken on a case by case basis.

For all the people worried about tbe rights of kids to change school and still play rugby As far as I can see nearly all are granted permission to play. It seems roscrea may have been singled out for undue harshness in this regard. The rule is a deterent for widespread abuse (there had been a few teams in recent years-terenure recruitment of dardis year, rock carbery year, roscrea etc) not as means of preventing kids from playing.

thebaz

FrannoFan wrote: »

Roscrea went out of the league in the quarter final. If these lads were playing it's not like they are world beaters.

i heard they had a good league team - ther or ther abouts - now, if they were to get 9 decent additions, would make them one of the favourites for cup - but take away 9 and I would assume they will struggle to get beyond round 1.

The Lost Sheep

thebaz wrote: »

i heard they had a good league team - ther or ther abouts - now, if they were to get 9 decent additions, would make them one of the favourites for cup - but take away 9 and I would assume they will struggle to get beyond round 1.

These 9 if they were making the team would have played in the league. You are not adding them. And all 9 wont be involved in the firsts.

Noscrumnowin

urbanchick wrote: »

Calm down!

i

Noscrumnowin

urbanchick wrote: »

Rock!

Simmer down, we get it you hate Blackrock.

Tixel

This isn’t a case about the eligibility of 9 players for the cup, apparantly there’s only one stand out player who would make a difference.

This isn’t a case against the 20 month rule. CCR’s statement has said it isn’t against the spirit of the rule.

If the schools committee had been fair in its implementation of the rules there would be no case.

irishfan9

Callum Watson outstanding yesterday for CBC Monkstown.

No sign of James Reynolds must be injured.

irishfan9

Results yesterday

Wilsons 0 CBC Monkstown 43
Carnew 0 Kilkenny 47
Navan 12 Wesley 29

Games today
High School v Mount Temple
CUS v Dundalk
Gorey v Kings Hospital
Salesian v Skerries

urbanchick

Roscrea have a very strong team this year. I saw them a few times, if anyone else on this board saw them they certainly wouldn’t be writing them off for a good cup run. If memory serves ms right they didn’t win league in 2015.

irishfan9

urbanchick wrote: »

Roscrea have a very strong team this year. I saw them a few times, if anyone else on this board saw them they certainly wouldn’t be writing them off for a good cup run. If memory serves ms right they didn’t win league in 2015.

they could get a cup run, but they aren't winning it.

those days are done aslong as the 20 month rule is in place.

Sheep Shearin Farmer

I am who I am. I am not a stalking horse for anyone, I am Roscrea to the core. I don’t know many of this year’s team, in fact I don’t even know the name of the captain or the coach. I only joined this yesterday because of the nonsense being written about Roscrea. You can take that or leave it I don't care.
The Solicitors letter written by Roscrea to the Leinster Branch (which I have seen) is 15 pages long and as you would expect is full of legal jargon and it takes 2 or 3 reads to really understand the enormity of the problem not just for Roscrea and The Schools Committee but for every School in the competition.
Let me explain.
Despite there being 15 pages there is 1 big issue, and that is Regulation 7.5. Short recap- applications for exemptions must go to the Schools Competition Committee but they didn’t, they were decided by the Schools Committee who had no power or authority (jurisdiction to use the legal jargon) to give anyone an exemption.
Roscrea had all 9 applications rejected by the Schools Committee, but that isn’t the problem, it is the exemptions that were granted that are the big problem.
I have been told, and I don’t know how accurate this is, that Newbridge, Clongowes, Michael’s, Blackrock and Terenure were all granted exemptions this year. Newbridge were definitely granted one but the rest I am not certain. In late 2016 Roscrea got their last exemption for a then 5th year student who is now in 6th year and on the senior cup team. Other Schools must have applied around that time for exemptions also, so there appears to be about 7 or 8 Schools affected, and at a guess between 10 and 15 players.
This therefore affects Roscrea, The Schools Committee and about 7 other Schools. That is 50% of the schools in the first round and on the law of averages every match will be affected.
So we know that the exemptions for ineligible players were granted by a committee that had no authority to grant an exemption and are therefore not valid and the 10 to 15 players remain ineligible players.
The 7 or 8 Coaches affected now have to make a call. Will they play the 10 to 15 players that were granted an exemption by a committee that couldn’t grant it and chance their arm that if they win there will be no objection by their opponents that they played an ineligible player? If the Schools Competitions Committee decide, which it seems they must that no exemption was granted then they forfeit the match and are out of the tournament. Coaches have to decide to play Russian roulette with their player selection. The alternative, if they are cautious is to tell those players who may have played consistently with the Senior Cup team, maybe since September 2016, that not only are they dropped from the team, they are dropped from the squad.
If a school didn’t get an exemption since September 2016 then they are wondering if their opponents in the first round did and should they object. It has the potential to really sour relations between all the schools.
So what is going to happen?
I now understand more fully where Roscrea is coming from when they called on the Leinster Branch to “urgently and immediately waive the requirements of the ’20 month rule’ and the ban on repeat Leaving Certificate students for the 2018 Bank of Ireland Leinster Schools Senior Cup”. If that happens then you are back to the default position that every bona fide schoolboy Under 19 is entitled to play and it makes a level playing pitch for everyone, where there is no doubts over any player or any school. It gives everyone a breather and a proper 20 month rule can be implemented. Remember Roscrea have no objection to a clear and fair 20 month rule.
If the Leinster Branch play hardball and Roscrea were to decide not to go to the Courts, for whatever reason, we still have this problem.
Previous comments debated if this would throw the competition into disarray. If the Schools Committee do nothing there is disarray and confusion. They must act to resolve this and must act quickly.
Finally having read the turgid legal 15 page litany of errors by the Schools Committee two or three times I was shown the last letter that the Schools Committee sent to Roscrea and it I nearly wet myself laughing when I read ;-
“The Committee felt all parties involved in all appeals should remember it is not the Committee’s position to make sure all schools are aware of the regulations governing School’s Rugby. All schools have access to the Gamesmaster’s Handbook and School’s Competition Regulations and should be familiar with its content.”
I was reminded of two things, the first the saying that comes from The Book of Proverbs;-
“Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.”
The second is the famous catch phrase of Laurel and Hardy
“Well , here's another fine mess you've gotten us into ".
You can say what you like about sending Roscrea to Connaught or throwing them out of the competition but they did not create this problem. It is the Schools Committee that did not play by their own rules and when you are in a hole it is time to stop digging. Time to sort this mess out as soon as possible for the sake of the schoolboys, the schools and the reputation of Leinster Rugby. It would be completely wrong to try to bring this to the wire in the Four Courts only for a Judge to tell the Schools Committee what is very obvious to me - You stuck your nose in where you had no business and your decisions are invalid.

Straw Hats

You are asking a lot of irrelevant questions there. If the school seeks waivers for 9 players then it doesn't matter how many are subs and how many are starters. With a waiver they would be free to play.
There is a big difference between seeking 1 waiver and seeking 9. By giving Newbridge 1 the board simply showed itself to be reasonable. How many exemptions have SCR already got in the last few years? As a boarding school struggling for numbers they should be afforded some leeway but they want to make the rules themselves.
I was delighted when they won the cup in '15 but is that win a little tainted now?
There is still a lot we don't know. How many of these pupils arrived last September? If they are in 5th year they could get waivers next year perhaps. Repeat leaving cert student? No chance.
You say yourself that it is a good rule but you are trying to question it as well. The rule was brought in after Joey Carberrys year and there is general agreement it was necessary. I haven't heard anybody from Blackrock complaining.

Straw Hats

I haven't heard anybody say you should be sent to Connacht.
Persecution complex? And you're brow beating us here.
What about boys who have spent 5 years at boarding school dreaming of SCT and now find their place being taken by lads just in the door? Is that the sort of "level playing field" you have there?
I expect the board will stand over and validate the exemptions already given. There is plenty room for compromise until they can fine tune the rules for next year.
It was laughable when you said the board "threatened" by pointing out that it was an invitational tournament. Seems like it was a friendly reminder given a bit too late.

stellenbosch

irishfan9 wrote: »

Callum Watson outstanding yesterday for CBC Monkstown.

No sign of James Reynolds must be injured.

Cameron Watson! Yes a very good 13 and surprised he was dropped during the summer for Leinster 18s although L have a number of very good centres at that age group

James Reynolds is in a boot with an ankle - 4 more weeks unfortunately-injured himself in their friendly win over Bandon week before xmas

irishfan9

stellenbosch wrote: »

Cameron Watson! Yes a very good 13 and surprised he was dropped during the summer for Leinster 18s although L have a number of very good centres at that age group

James Reynolds is in a boot with an ankle - 4 more weeks unfortunately-injured himself in their friendly win over Bandon week before xmas

Knew I got his name wrong.

Not convinced by the centres who played for Leinster 18s this summer tbh.

Shame to hear about Reynolds, not having the year I expected him to have when he finished 4th year.

stellenbosch

irishfan9 wrote: »

Knew I got his name wrong.

Not convinced by the centres who played for Leinster 18s this summer tbh.

Shame to hear about Reynolds, not having the year I expected him to have when he finished 4th year.

Yes he has had a few injuries-also i think they/he have yet to settle on a position for him-12 or 15

Zach Zatar is also someone who was cut by Leinster at 19s and ended up playing for Connacht-he didnt look fit yesterday with a knee heavily bandaged and was off after 10mins. There were only 3 6th years playing yesterday-Zatar/Watson and the 15 Shaw. And 4 4th years.

Noscrumnowin

urbanchick wrote: »

Roscrea have a very strong team this year. I saw them a few times, if anyone else on this board saw them they certainly wouldn’t be writing them off for a good cup run. If memory serves ms right they didn’t win league in 2015.

Urban chick you’re delusional, Blackrock demolished Roscrea just there before Christmas, 52-13 I believe

ArmchairQB

With regard to Roscrea I beleive they appealed the original decision of the Leinster Branch and lost that appeal so they have received fair treatment and have been given the right to appeal as they are entitled to.

To my knowledge a lot of recent new recruits to the school for 5th & 6th years have been youth players representing Connacht & Munster and encouraged to go to Roscrea by Province and or school very few are on Leinsters books. The aim of Leinster Branch is to develop Leinster Rugby not improve Connacht and Munster. If Roscrea have gone through the process and don't like the result then maybe they should join the Munster or Connacht leagues and Cups. The rules are there for all they will suit most most of the time but not all all of the time so accept it or move on. That is the system they have now choosen to go outside of the sporting system and governing body and will try to make a legal case that is also their right but not in the spirit of the game.

I beleive the player who mioved from Roscrea and went thru the system is on Munsters books so there was no benefit for Leinster in making that decision and obviously the merits of the case stood up & obviously the merit of the 9 do not stack up in the opinion of the governing body and the appeals committee. Rugby is still availabvle to them they have not been excluded they are deemed ineligble to play in the Lenister Senior Cup Competetion. Thet are not the first to be deemed inelegible and they wont be the last.

ArmchairQB

Noscrumnowin wrote: »

Urban chick you’re delusional, Blackrock demolished Roscrea just there before Christmas, 52-13 I believe

That maybe so but I have also seen Roscrea this year and they have the makings of a very good team whether some of them were some of the inelegible 9 I am not sure

C3PO

Am I the only one that is surprised that a school, that was not financially viable only a couple of years ago, is considering spending significant sums of money on such a court challenge?
Apart from the financial cost it would also inevitably lead to a loss of goodwill and credibility too!