On Rugby: The long-standing, on-off tug of war between the schools lobby and some clubs, mostly "community based", appears to be reaching a climax in the light of the High Court case being taken by the parent of one 15-year-old schoolboy against the IRFU and the Leinster Branch. And not only is it a principle which goes to the very soul of the game, it's ripple effects are almost endless.
The protectionist policies of the union and their branches, in conjunction with schools and youths committees, has for many years been brazenly exploited by the schools lobby. One of the many debilitating effects for some clubs, aside from the difficulty in fielding sides from under-13 to under-18 level, has been that these players might be lost to them forever.
The effects are not so damaging for clubs with feeder schools, which in many instances don't field teams in those age groups. Even a cursory look at this season's Leinster Under-20 League underlines the point.
Whereas Blackrock, St Mary's, Old Belvedere, Trinity and UCD, along with Lansdowne, Wanderers and Clontarf, are able to field two teams, Barnhall, Greystones, DLSP and Seapoint can only field one each, and none of them are in the Premier Division.
At least in the past, as in the other provinces, clubs were able to play schoolboys in friendlies, if not in competitions under the control of the Leinster Branch. But as of last March a revised interpretation of the branch's controversial regulation 1.12 (which states that written consent has to be provided by any Section B and some Section A schools for one of their players to be released) highlighted insurance implications covering schoolboys.
A heated debate at the Leinster Branch agm last May to have rule 1.12 rescinded - despite compromise proposals from clubs which would have allowed the leading schools to ringfence JCT and SCT panels of 35 - was defeated by one vote.
This season, the parent of one boy who plays for one of the leading schools but also wished to play for his club, issued notice of intent to start High Court proceedings against the IRFU and the Leinster Branch. Well, that concentrated a few minds, although, needless to say, it takes time for the wheels of rugby bureaucracy to get moving.
The letter from Davis and Co Solicitors, along with letters from the Seapoint and Greystones clubs pleading for regulation 1.12 to be rescinded, were read out at last Tuesday's meeting of the Leinster Branch executive committee, prompting a one-and-a-half hour debate.
A vote was taken to suspend regulation 1.12 until October 31st, pending details of the proposed new competitions at under-14, 16 and 18 levels which were outlined to all the clubs after Thursday's youths committee meeting.
However, the principle of a schools' consent remains and, amazingly, thus far the only response from the Leinster Branch (there has been none from the union) to the solicitors acting for the parent, was a request yesterday to wait until Friday for the branch's response pending legal advice.
It always seemed incredible that a school could prevent a pupil from playing for a club in their free time, and that it would stand up in a court of law. Of course a young, developing player can be at risk of playing too much rugby, but no one can convince me this is the principle at work, not when you regularly hear of SCT and JCT teams training four or five times a week in addition to matches.
Quite why those not on SCT or JCT panels cannot be released to clubs, or indeed those whose cup commitments end in February or early March, seems to have little to do with protecting boys. (This extends to the Irish Schoolboys being given precedence over the Irish Under-19s).
One of the laughable side-effects is that schools players can play Gaelic football, football or any other sport competitively in their spare time, but not rugby.
Senior IRFU figures, such as the director of rugby, Eddie Wigglesworth, believe that the schools do far more to nurture young players than clubs.
But is it any wonder when the union's rules and those of their branches blatantly discriminate against the clubs and in favour of the schools?
All of this at a time when there is a documented drop-off rate of almost 60 per cent after school years, as is shown by the Clubs of Ireland report in June 2002 and the Schools of Ireland Scheme.
Surely this haemorrhaging would not be so high if schoolboys were allowed to retain links with their clubs? A core of players introduced by clubs to the game who then go on to play schools rugby can often backbone teenage teams.
But if clubs are unable to field teams from under-13 to under-18 level, then there would be no playing outlet for those players they attract from outside rugby-playing schools.
As well as future adult members, coaches, often former players and superior coaches to those at school level, would also be lost to the game.
Links with other clubs both at home and abroad would be cut off, and some clubs might begin to wonder whether it's worth their while having mini-rugby sections.
As an aside, it would also be interesting to know what the National Sports Council thinks of this protectionist policy given it gives €3 million to the IRFU toward player development, when clearly such regulations actively works against the clubs' nurturing of teenage players and beyond.
gthornley@irish-times.ie
