9-a-Side/11-a-Side/13-a-Side Underage Competitions

[DownFanatic]

With emigration, supposed lower birth rates and fewer children playing sports, do any counties operate 9-a-Side or even 11-a-Side underage competitions from U-14 level up to Minor?

In Down, there is the option to play at 13-a-Side from U-14 to Minor. Personally, I feel that introducing the likes of 9-a-Side competitions would be a good move. This would enable small clubs to field on their own without having to amalgamate.

Any thoughts?

[fearglasmor]

Roscommon allows 11 a side for Div 3 (smaller clubs supposedly)  The club i'm involved with really need 9 aside but the board dont want to go there so there may be no u-14 team this year, definitely no U-12.

[brokencrossbar1]

Roscommon allows 11 a side for Div 3 (smaller clubs supposedly)  The club i'm involved with really need 9 aside but the board dont want to go there so there may be no u-14 team this year, definitely no U-12.

The other option then is to remove the restrictions on levels that kids can play at.  The restricitions in only playing 1 level above can be a hindrance to some smaller clubs as well.  It is no an ideal situation but may be an option instead of reducing team numbers.

[Rasharkin Gael]

Playing kids anymore than one level above their age might help the club at the time, but does the kids no good. To much difference in physical strength in underage to ensure kids safety which has to be paramount. I think reducing numbers, while not ideal, is the best option for struggling clubs.

[fearglasmor]

Roscommon allows 11 a side for Div 3 (smaller clubs supposedly)  The club i'm involved with really need 9 aside but the board dont want to go there so there may be no u-14 team this year, definitely no U-12.

The other option then is to remove the restrictions on levels that kids can play at.  The restricitions in only playing 1 level above can be a hindrance to some smaller clubs as well.  It is no an ideal situation but may be an option instead of reducing team numbers.

This is not a safe option. There is too much physical difference between an u-12 and an u-14 or u-14 and u-16  Of course you'll get the odd exception but but generally not a good idea.

Leitrim have 9 a side leagues which is a much better option.  Maybe the club should cross the county boundary for juvenile teams  ?  Has it ever happened ?

[DownFanatic]

Id be very much in favour of 9-a-side games. It means a player can still play for his club and get competitive weekly football. It is a far better alternative than clubs amalgamating.

[brokencrossbar1]

I don't agree with this 'mammy' attitude towards kids games. Sure there will be a size difference between a 12 year old and a 15 year old but I have rarely, if ever, seen a lad getting hurt badly from running into a bigger kid (apart from a heavy winding). The reality is that in my own experience younger kids develop as footballers when played with older kids. We did it as kids ourselves, be it on the field or in general playing around the streets/park and it didn't cause any long term harn. I think the cotton woolization of kids at a lot of levels is turning out soft kids who don't understand that you have to work hard to get to the top. At 13 I played u16 as did a lot of my team mates, at 15 I won my first county medal on an adult team, as did a few of my team mates, at 16 there were at least 5 of us played u21 championship. The reality is that 20 years later we are all still involved at playing at some level. It didn't do us a button of harm and we didn't have the protection under the rules that the current players have, it was a brutal time of hitting. We all played at least 2 years above our age. Anyway, rant over.

[6th sam]

I don't agree with this 'mammy' attitude towards kids games. Sure there will be a size difference between a 12 year old and a 15 year old but I have rarely, if ever, seen a lad getting hurt badly from running into a bigger kid (apart from a heavy winding). The reality is that in my own experience younger kids develop as footballers when played with older kids. We did it as kids ourselves, be it on the field or in general playing around the streets/park and it didn't cause any long term harn. I think the cotton woolization of kids at a lot of levels is turning out soft kids who don't understand that you have to work hard to get to the top. At 13 I played u16 as did a lot of my team mates, at 15 I won my first county medal on an adult team, as did a few of my team mates, at 16 there were at least 5 of us played u21 championship. The reality is that 20 years later we are all still involved at playing at some level. It didn't do us a button of harm and we didn't have the protection under the rules that the current players have, it was a brutal time of hitting. We all played at least 2 years above our age. Anyway, rant over.

Agree entirely,BC,and surely your own club's success reinforces that playing across age groups is OK.However,I would say that the current rule ,ie allowing u14s but not under12s to play under 16,is reasonable,as there can be a large size discrepancy across 3 age groups.The other factor is the organisation of kids playing across 3 age groups,can be difficult for the club and for parents.
Regarding 9-A-SIDE ,I think there is a place for this,but I would be concerned that small-sided games does not prepare kids for the 15-a-side,which they will be playing at Senior level.
Going forward,is it possible that changing all football to 13-a-side,will improve the game,and secure the future of alot of rural clubs?

[fearglasmor]

I wouldnt be talking about short sided games as a choice. From u-14 up I think its better they play as close to full size as possible. This is where there just arent the numbers and the choice is short sided games or none.
As regards the ages, I think playing across one age group is enough. Generally not a problem with good u-12's playing u-14 but I would never put an under 12 on an u-16 team in any circumstances.

[Rasharkin Gael]

I do understand what BC is saying and many of us have played at age levels much above us and come out with no ill effects. Yet i have seen last season u8s playing u12 football when they have neither the ability or physicality for this level just to ensure a team is fielded. Not a good thing. Perhaps a two tier league in some counties would help where teams with big numbers could play in a full 15 aside league with clubs with poor numbers having the option of playing in a 9 or 11 a side league, that way the clubs with good numbers are not having to put lots of fellas on the bench.

[JUst retired]

In Armagh the Minor board have a graded system in place all the way up to minor level. Games of 15 aside, 13 aside and 11 aside. Teams are now starting to find their own level after 2 years.
They also have amalgations in the leagues although there need to be some restrictions on numbers in these clubs,as the notion of amalgation to win things is not the way forward. It is to give kids football where they would not get it in a club with say only 5 players in a particular age group
On the subject of playing players out of their age levels that is ok until something goes wrong,and a child is badly hurt.

[HiMucker]

Is the rule not that a player cant play for the grade above if he is the first year of his own grade.  Ie: a player on his first year at U14 cannot play U16, but if your on your second year U14 you can?