Weight classes in rugby?

Are any of you like me, that you would love to play rugby but are too small?

I played at an under age level but gave it up when everyone else kept growing and my growth stopped.In my opinion the only bad thing about this sport we love is that the small guys dont get a chance. I havent the time to put on the bulk necessary to play senior rugby. I think an under 80 kilogram weight division could be a good idea. The most appealing thing about professional rugby is its physicallity, so I dont think a lighter division would take off to a professional degree, but at an amateur level it could appeal to many, and possibly a sevens game.

Is there anything like this around?
Would it appeal to anyone?

Sevens.

you should eat more pie, drink more beer and hit the gym....there is no such thing as too small in rugby, ask Shane Williams. Some of the best scrum halves and wingers are tiny. Just go play and concentrate on your skills, strength and fitness

I know that a couple of Ulster players would be less than 80kg and a few others would not be much over that.

It is a bit of a shame that rugby is becoming less of a game for all sizes but I think there is still a place for skill over bulk.

How small are you Cotupina?

I doubt you are too small to play rugby, one of the best fullbacks in the Top14 is 5'5 and most scrumhalfs are around 5'8/5'9.

what's the old saying?....

"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the fight in the dog that's important"

Im 5 foot 8 and about 11 and half stone and I play rugby every week, played all over the backs and even at openside a few times before, if your technique and skill is good enough you can easily make up for a lack of bulk.

Im 5f 9in, and about 10 and a half stone. Could probably get away with it as a scrum half but as one of the outside backs, I'd just get trampled on. Even at amateur level thats very small.

Peter Stringer is about 5'5, but he's a beast, as is Shane Williams, they're small in height but they are very stocky.

Look mate, if you want to play rugby, regardless of your height or weight it's very simple if you follow these 3 steps...


1. Man the feck up
2. Grow a pair
3. Go and do it

There's a place for everyone on a rugby pitch somewhere at some level so long as you follow those three steps.

Good luck.

Ozzy3213 wrote:what's the old saying?....

"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the fight in the dog that's important"

that tosh was written by a chihuahua though Shane v Banahan kind of supports the theory

We have under 80kg social rugby here somewhere in NZ, Wellington

ngan,

Don't NZ arrange their underage rubgy on the basis of weight/size too?

Gio Aplon and Peter Stringer both have the frame of 14 year old boys yet both are international rugby players of exceptional talent and very highly regarded. Stringer isnt even fast at all.

Its like everything you just have to play the hand that was dealt to you to the very best of your ability.

Sometimes the biggest guys on the pitch consistently disapoint, Pierre Spies, Devon Toner, Matt Banahan etc. Forget about what you cant change just put plans in place to improve what you can.

I heard the other day about players becoming bigger and getting more injuries. It got me thinking about the future possibility to bring in weight restrictions in rugby like they have in boxing eg a pack cannot weight more than 900kg.

The more likely change will be in increasing the speed of the game to suit smaller players.

Paul Marshall 5' 8" and 12 st 6 lb (79kg)

Spoiler:

Tee hee - when I was 14-15 - 6ft and 13 stone playing 2nd row was no problem. When I was 18-19 still 6ft and 13 stone and the only guy who knew how to play 2nd row things weren't so much fun. It was funny playing 2nd row with a 6ft9 20stone scottish hammer thrower once but in general the size thing was a major contributing factor to me stopping playing. (That and the fact that the uni team was much more about drinking and behaving like... rather than playing)

You cant be "too small" for rugby, sure you may never make it at the professional level but not every player on your average local team is 6'4.

In Auckland we have an open age grade but restricted to under 85 kgs.its a brilliant little grade as games are often played at a very fast pace, brilliant for small quick touch type players in the backs, and guys who are just too small to play senior level but very good players in the forwards.

The big advantage about this grade is that most of these players know they will never be big enough to play for the top side in their clubs (let alone be All Blacks) but play for the love of the game, these guys also when they get a bit long in the tooth become the stalwarts of our clubs, and we all know the contribution these people make to rugby, especially with bar takings.

It is also good for players around 18 or 19 years of age who arent big enough to play senior grade, they learn off playing with guys with many years experience, they arent lost to the game, and as they physically mature they can go on to play in the senior grades.

mowgli wrote:

Ozzy3213 wrote:what's the old saying?....

"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the fight in the dog that's important"

that tosh was written by a chihuahua though Shane v Banahan kind of supports the theory

I had a chihuahua that killed my neighbours rottweller in a fight.....








Got stuck in her throat and choked the bitch.

As a coach of youth rugby (u14's) I'd really like to see teenage players teamed by weight/height rather than age, we have boys who are 5-10 and 15 stone and boys the same age who are 5 ft and about six stone. At that point it's not about ability or even courage it's about who's bigger and stronger 90% of the time.

Mate, Peter Stringer is not a beast. He's skinny as anything! Most scrum halves are athletic rather than stacked

Danny Care was told he was too small to play FOOTBALL.

Irish Londoner wrote:As a coach of youth rugby (u14's) I'd really like to see teenage players teamed by weight/height rather than age, we have boys who are 5-10 and 15 stone and boys the same age who are 5 ft and about six stone. At that point it's not about ability or even courage it's about who's bigger and stronger 90% of the time.

I whole heartedly agree with this.

There are several issues which arise from the size differences in age grade rugby.

-The smaller kids can get put off because they get flattened by the bigger kids.

-The bigger kids always get picked and so some of the smaller kids lose heart.

-The bigger kids do not develop ball skills as these are not required when you are twice the size of everyone else and can just run over them.

-The smaller kids never learn any skills because they don't get to play.

-In a few years when the size differences are less pronounced you are left with fewer good players, either because they have no skills or because they have been put off.

MrsP wrote:

Irish Londoner wrote:As a coach of youth rugby (u14's) I'd really like to see teenage players teamed by weight/height rather than age, we have boys who are 5-10 and 15 stone and boys the same age who are 5 ft and about six stone. At that point it's not about ability or even courage it's about who's bigger and stronger 90% of the time.

I whole heartedly agree with this.

There are several issues which arise from the size differences in age grade rugby.

-The smaller kids can get put off because they get flattened by the bigger kids.

-The bigger kids always get picked and so some of the smaller kids lose heart.

-The bigger kids do not develop ball skills as these are not required when you are twice the size of everyone else and can just run over them.

-The smaller kids never learn any skills because they don't get to play.

-In a few years when the size differences are less pronounced you are left with fewer good players, either because they have no skills or because they have been put off.

NZ works by weight in those age groups. It's one reason why basic skill levels tend to be higher for the NZ players once they hit the JRWC level.

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

MrsP wrote:

Irish Londoner wrote:As a coach of youth rugby (u14's) I'd really like to see teenage players teamed by weight/height rather than age, we have boys who are 5-10 and 15 stone and boys the same age who are 5 ft and about six stone. At that point it's not about ability or even courage it's about who's bigger and stronger 90% of the time.

I whole heartedly agree with this.

There are several issues which arise from the size differences in age grade rugby.

-The smaller kids can get put off because they get flattened by the bigger kids.

-The bigger kids always get picked and so some of the smaller kids lose heart.

-The bigger kids do not develop ball skills as these are not required when you are twice the size of everyone else and can just run over them.

-The smaller kids never learn any skills because they don't get to play.

-In a few years when the size differences are less pronounced you are left with fewer good players, either because they have no skills or because they have been put off.

NZ works by weight in those age groups. It's one reason why basic skill levels tend to be higher for the NZ players once they hit the JRWC level.

I seriously think that over anything else NZ rugby does well (which to be honest, is pretty much everything) this is their best decision. Like you say, it teaches younger players to flourish because of skill and intelligent play, rather than simply relying on body size and being made to look good because they're so much larger than the other players. Such a great incentive for more slight youngsters to take up the game too.

I don't know about everyone but maybe the fact we are having this is a sign, by that I mean if we keep telling people only big guys can play rugby then smaller guys like me or kids who are smaller won't play because eventually that kind of negativity wins out. I have played rugby since I was 15 at school, university and club level. I have been about 5 foot 8 since I was 16 and have been between 10-11 and half stone most of that time, I have played for every team I have tried to play for and haven't had the negativity of people saying I can't. I have won championships and tournaments and played over most of the back line and even at openside. If we keep telling people they can't then they will believe you, it is my belief that a lot of this comes down to attitude if you are positive and think you can play you will if you think you can't then you will believe that you can't then you won't even try maybe we should start by being more positive for smaller players and encourage them.

MrsP wrote:ngan,

Don't NZ arrange their underage rubgy on the basis of weight/size too?

I thought you did Kiwi!

It really is an excellent idea.

Do you think there would be a greater range of sizes in the age grades amongst Kiwis than in the UK? Would there be a tendancy for Maori lads to reach adult height and weight at an earlier age than the average caucasian? I know not all Kiwi rugby players are Maori and not all UK players are caucasian but I wondered if there was a signifiantly greater range?

MrsP wrote:

MrsP wrote:ngan,

Don't NZ arrange their underage rubgy on the basis of weight/size too?

I thought you did Kiwi!

It really is an excellent idea.

Do you think there would be a greater range of sizes in the age grades amongst Kiwis than in the UK? Would there be a tendancy for Maori lads to reach adult height and weight at an earlier age than the average caucasian? I know not all Kiwi rugby players are Maori and not all UK players are caucasian but I wondered if there was a signifiantly greater range?

Maori and other Polynesian kids do tend to mature faster, so if there weren't weight classes you'd see some absolutely monstrous size mismatches in youth teams.

It's bad enough here Kiwi.

I remember my lad playing against guys who would have weighted probably 2-3 times his weight. I would say that age 11-13 was probably the stage where the difference was most noticable.

Once they all have started to get that muscle bulk and bone mass that comes with puberty the difference become less important.

You're 5'9 and you think you're too small? Look at Marc Andreau! He's just 5ft 5 and he was in the French Grand Slam squad. I'm sure there are ways you can bulk up if necessary but surely that depends on which position you'd be playing in anyway so you might not need to put on so much bulk.

If you haven't got the size focus on other things. Skill and vision can make up for size. Technique too.

For a scrum half you can focus on nippy passes, your kicking game and being unpredictable. Mix up your game with quick tap penalties. Most important for a scrum half is quick distribution.

Stringer as mentioned isn't a particular big or fast guy but what he does well is ship the ball well. He's calm and cool in a high pressure situation.

Quick ball is essential for a backline to perform.

I've heard that in Aussie they don't do contested scrums until a certain age (16 onwards i think).
So most school teams tend to pick *ahem* slimmer players who can get around the field. Maybe this explains a few things...

I'm 5'10" and 13 and a half stone but I still play tighthead! Love it! Sometimes it's about technique not power, although it helps my loosehead is 6'3"!

I was (and still am I guess) one of the big lads in my team

The part that I did not like was that due to the cut off date, I was able to play rugby for the year below where the majority of my friends were in. Because I was eligable to play at the younger level, the coaches obviously put me in there as its all about the winning.

I would smash thorugh some tiny wee waifes but I learnt nothing from the experience of what became up the jumper rugby, I didn't like it so much that I took matters into my own hands and rather than looking for contact I started side-stepping and throwing ridiculous spin passes all over the field. And what did this result in? The coach shouting at me to run into contact.

Weight class rugby in the UK would be a great idea at jnr level, but what happens when you come out of the jnr lvl and you come face to face with the behemoths again? You'll have no experience in dealing with them!

it's a bit of a catch 22!

When doing tackling drills, I hate going up against our scrum half. Two reasons for this!
1. He is damm hard to get a hold of to actually put a hit on.
2. Because he is a shorty, he has spent years making up for his lack of strength by developing a sound technique. And 95% of the time the wee bugger manages to get me to the ground

Makes you feel a right plum.

Guess the point is that practising skill and technique will easily sort you out if lacking on weight!

"Rugby is a game for all sizes" is a saying that unfortunately doesn't relate to the modern game unless you are a scrumhalf and the very odd exeption to an outside back.

Or a 10.

Or in fact, a few rare 12s

Jason Robinson played centre at times... he's an athletic freak though!

What about the huge and very heavy England pack of forwards in the early 1990's which destroyed every single opposition pack of forwards in the Five Nations Championship. With beanpole towers like the 6ft 8 Wade Dooley, the 6ft 10 Martin Bayfield and the 6ft 6 Paul Ackford, these guys won England plenty of lineout ball when they came up against smaller and shorter inferior opposition lock forwards such as the 6ft 6 Damian Cronin, 6ft 5 Chris Gray, and the 6ft 4 Neil Edwards. I also remember that in the 1987 Calcutta Cup match at Twickenham, Scotland suicidally went into that match using 2 back-row players as lock forwards. Both of the two 6ft 4 Scottish locks fielded in that game Derek White and Iain Paxton got totally overshadowed and got totally cleaned out of the lineout by the giant 6ft 7 English lock Steve Bainbridge who had a field day in the lineout area in that match which England won comfortably in the end.

No, terrible idea. If you aren't big and strong enough then that is just tough look really. Maybe we could introduce an under 6ft basketball tournament?

Yes the under 80kg league sponsored by- FAGGOTS pies.
I would be gutted if i weighed under 80kg

If I were over 80kg I'd be fat.
Actually I'm 85kg so I am fat. My brother dropped 15kgs this year and is down to 120kg he's not fat.

The point is people are just built differently

viewtothegym wrote:Yes the under 80kg league sponsored by- FAGGOTS pies.
I would be gutted if i weighed under 80kg

Maybe you need to lay off the pies there view.....

If its rugby yawnion then its ok to be fat. There are lots of fatties in that sport.