‘I didn’t have to tackle humungus people’: An ecological investigation into a dispensation policy in New Zealand Junior Rugby

Abstract

The purpose of the study was to gain insight into the perceptions, experiences and practices of stakeholders, i.e. players, coaches and parents, involved in players being dispensated to play down a grade due to their small stature at one New Zealand metropolitan rugby union club. The discussion is organized around the perceptions, experiences, and practices of the various stakeholders and provides insight into how the various stakeholders perceive and experience the dispensation process. Bronfenbrenner’s work was used to inform the design of the current study and the subsequent analysis because his ecological systems model of development is a generative and evolving conceptual framework for analysing human development throughout the life course as well as providing opportunities for development to be studied from the perspective of the person and their environment. The findings of this study provide insight for those involved in sports where playing numbers drop off round the teenage years. In addition, the findings contribute to further understanding the role emotions play in sport coaching, the ‘birthdate effect’, and ‘relative age effect’, the importance of developing connection, competence and confidence when focusing on youth development, the weight young people place on playing with friends as motivation to continue to playing sport.

Keywords

Player development relative age effect rugby union sport drop-out youth sport

Introduction

In 2016, Rieko Ioane became an All Black at the age of 19. In describing his pathway to the All Blacks, he explained that as a junior rugby player, he and his older brother ‘played in the same teams because we only had one car so we couldn’t get to two games so I played up with Akira’.¹ A few years earlier, another account of a junior rugby player playing out of his grade caught the attention of the media. In 2013, Joshua Moe was 10 years old, but he was told he had to play in the under 13 age group because at 71 kg he was ‘too heavy to play in his own age group’. His mother ‘queried the ruling, but was told he could either play in the under-13s or not at all’.² That these two boys were allowed, or were required, to play outside their age grade for different reasons reflects the variability in New Zealand Rugby’s (NZR) dispensation policy. The focus of this article is on the experiences of boys who were dispensated to play in a lower age group because of their small size and the responses of their parents and coaches to the enactment of the dispensation policy.

Junior rugby in New Zealand is primarily club and aged based (Under 6–Under 13)^a and while the club is responsible for the administration of the game, it also has to abide by the regulations of their Provincial Union (PU) and NZR.

Most New Zealand PUs have dispensation policies. While the policies are distinctly provincial, they share many similarities because as Anderson³ explains the PU rugby development officers regularly meet and within the group there is a culture of sharing ideas. For example, when staff in the Canterbury PU designed a ‘weight and grading’ framework^b to support their dispensation policy regarding who can play in what age grade they shared it with staff in the other PUs, who were then encouraged to modify it to best suit their playing populations. This is illustrated in the similarity of Canterbury and Wellington PU ‘weight and grading’ frameworks, yet Wellington’s weight cut-off points for eligibility to play in particular age grades are generally heavier than the cut-off points used by Canterbury.^4,5

The purpose of the study was to gain insight into the perceptions, experiences and practices of stakeholders^c involved in players being dispensated to play in the Under 11 grade at one New Zealand metropolitan rugby union club. Prior to competing in the Under 11 grade, players can gain permission to be dispensated from their clubs, but once they wish to compete in the Under 11 grade, they have to gain permission from the PU to be dispensated to play down a grade.

The findings of this study are significant for junior rugby in New Zealand because at the time of the study, there had been a sharp drop in numbers of children playing rugby at the top end of the junior grades.³ The study is also significant because the findings have the potential to provide insight for those involved in sports, particularly contact sports, where playing numbers drop off round the teenage years.^6,7 In addition, by focusing on the experiences of the stakeholders, it is possible the study can contribute to further understanding the role emotions play in sport coaching,^8,9 the ‘birthdate effect’,¹⁰ the ‘relative age effect’,¹¹ the importance of developing connection, competence and confidence when focusing on youth development,^12,13 the weight young people place on playing with friends as motivation to continue to playing sport,¹⁴ and the way in which practices within various systems (e.g. macro- meso- and microsystems) interact with each other,^15–17 to influence the athletic development of young people.

In this article, the findings are organized in a way that reflects the purpose of the study, that is discussion focuses on the perceptions, experiences and practices of the stakeholders involved in the dispensation process associated with junior rugby in one metropolitan rugby union club in New Zealand.

A conceptual model

A broad goal of many qualitative researchers is to understand phenomenon and often theory can inform researchers’ work at the design and analysis stage, particularly when theory is used as a ‘lens’ through which observed phenomena are interpreted.¹⁸ Bronfenbrenner’s¹⁹ ecological systems model of development is a generative and evolving conceptual framework for analysing human development throughout the life course²⁰ as well as providing opportunities for development to be studied from the perspective of the person and their environment.²¹ It was for these reasons that Bronfenbrenner’s^19,22 work was used to inform the design of the current study and the subsequent analysis. Bronfenbrenner²² proposes that individuals influence the people and institutions of their ecology as much as people and institutions influence the individuals within their ecology. Sometime earlier, Bronfenbrenner¹⁹ discussed the concept of interlinking social ‘systems’ as a means of talking about different contexts surrounding the developing child, which can be drawn as concentric circles preceding outwards from the microsystem.^23,24 The microsystems are the immediate influences such as family, peers and teammates, the mesosystems are a series of interlinking microsystems such as school or sports club, the exosystems refer to larger social systems such as communities and neighbourhoods while the macrosystems are the large cultural patterns. Finally, there is the chronosystem, which reflects how these patterns emerge over time.¹⁹ The dispensation policy is a particular cultural pattern associated with NZR (macrosystem), which influences various microsystems, i.e. practices of the Under 11 coaches and effects the perceptions and experiences of the parents and players as well as the interactions between the stakeholders (mesosystem) which, in turn, can influence coaches’ practices and policies of the PU.

Case study

To achieve the purpose of the current study, a case study approach was adopted. There are many descriptions and interpretations of case studies,²⁵ and as such, it is important to define how case study is being used. Here, case study is understood as ‘an in-depth exploration from multiple perspectives of the complexity and uniqueness of a particular project, policy, institution, program or system in a “real life” context’ (p. 63).²⁵ Moreover, case study is considered to be a ‘bounded context’ (p. 25),²⁶ where the N is small, there is contextual detail, identifiable settings, operational research questions and multiple data sources.²⁵ The above definition and features explain why the choice was made to conduct a single case study, with one metropolitan rugby union club, where the focus was on four boys (they were the only ones in the team dispensated due to their small size), their two coaches and six parents. According to Stake,²⁷ when a case has an instrumental purpose, as it does in the current study, the case plays ‘a supportive role’ and ‘facilitates our understanding of something else’ (p. 445), which here was to provide insight into the dispensation process as it was perceived, experienced and practiced in one team in one metropolitan rugby union club.

Participants

Purposeful sampling was employed to identify information-rich participants who had specific characteristics linked to the purpose of the research.²⁸ The participants were four boys (there were no girls in the team) who were dispensated due to their small size, two coaches and six parents. The players, Tyron, Sean, Cody and Johnny, were all born in 2001, which meant they were already 11 years old when they applied, and were granted dispensation, to play in the Under 11 grade. The reasons the boys gave as to why they applied for dispensation all related to their small stature, as reflected in Tyron’s explanation; ‘I was tiny and everyone else was huge’. None of the boys mentioned the ‘birthday effect’. But size and birthdate, relative to age group cut-off date are connected.¹¹ In New Zealand, the cut-off date for entry into junior rugby union age grades is 1 January. Three of the boys were born in the second half of the year, specifically, July, November and December. The fourth boy was born in April so his small stature may have been less to do with the ‘birthdate’ effect and more to do with his genes (e.g. his father had been a jockey in the horse racing industry).

The players had varying lengths of experience playing rugby; Sean and Cody began playing when they were five years old, with Cody taking one year off when he was eight to play field hockey. Johnny began playing rugby when he was seven years old, taking one year off when he was 10, while Tyron began playing rugby when he was nine years old. Tyron and Cody had been dispensated the previous year, whereas Sean and Johnny had only been dispensated in the year of the study. All the boys lived with both parents and all parents had been invited to participate in the interviews. Both parents of Sean (Trish and Graeme) and Cody (Gail and Chris) and the mothers of Tyron (Sally) and Johnny (Ainslie) participated in the interviews. The non-participating parents declined to participate for functional reasons such as looking after younger siblings during the interview. The coaches (Bruce and Peter) were fathers of two non-dispensated players in the team and had been coaching the team for several years as their sons progressed through the various age group teams in the junior rugby club.

Data collection and analysis

Interviewing was the method used to gain insight from the study participants with the interview questions being informed by the author’s seven years’ experience of watching junior club rugby, knowledge of the existing literature and Bronfenbrenner’s¹⁹ ecological model of development. The interview questions for the players focused on their experiences of being dispensated down a grade and how they thought their friends and coaches viewed them as dispensated players. For example: what do you like about being able to play in the Under 11’s this year?; what do the players in the Under 11’s who are not dispensated think about those of you who are dispensated? and what do your coaches think about those of you in the Under 11’s who are dispensated? The interview questions for the parents focused on their experiences of getting their son dispensated to play in the Under 11’s and what they perceived to be the benefits and challenges of their son being dispensated to play down a grade. For example: what role did the junior committee of the rugby club play in the process of obtaining a dispensation for your son to play down a grade?; what challenges occurred as a consequence of your son being dispensated to play down a grade? and how has your son benefited by being dispensated to play down a grade? The interview questions for the coaches focused on their involvement in the dispensation process and how it influenced their coaching practice. For example: what involvement do you have with the parents in the process of deciding who gets dispensated? and how does having the dispensated players in your team influence what you do in the practices and games?

Semi-structured interviews were used in the current study to gain information from the participants because this method provided: flexibility for interviewer and interviewee; opportunities for the interviewer and interviewee to explore additional areas, and options for the interviewer to rephrase questions and ask additional ones to clarify responses. Given that data collection and analysis phases are interlinked, and the analysis was a recursive and iterative exercise,²⁹ it was possible to use the preliminary findings to shape the subsequent analysis and interpretation,³⁰ all the time being mindful of the purpose of the study.

Braun et al.³¹ argue for adopting a ‘flexible’ thematic analytical approach to provide researchers with opportunities to make ‘active choices about how to engage with the data’ (p. 192) rather than be constrained by some of the more rigid coding approaches that are favoured by post-postivist/quantitative researchers. According to Braun et al.,³¹ a thematic analysis is a valuable analytical tool when the purpose of the research is to understand ‘people’s experiences in relation to an issue, or the factors and processes that underlie and influence particular phenomena’ (p. 193) as is this case in the present study. Yet, it is important to note that a ‘flexible’ analytical approach does not mean ‘anything goes’. Instead, the analysis occurs via the intersection of ‘theoretical assumptions, disciplinary knowledge, research skills and experience and the content of the data themselves’ all the while being mindful that the interview data needs to be ‘considered in context’ (p. 196). The data analysis process used in this study was recursive and iterative and occurred implicitly and explicitly throughout the data collection phase, which was conducted inductively, deductively and abductively.^32,33 The recursive and iterative process is a complex procedure because it requires researchers to actively make links to the theoretical and methodological assumptions of the study as well as to existing literature.¹⁸

The themes generated in the current study related to the perceptions, experiences and practices of stakeholders. The theme developed from the focus on perceptions was ‘keep the kids in the game’. A Nigerian proverb – ‘it takes a whole village to raise a child’ – was an apt theme to describe stakeholders’ experiences, while the themes for the practices were ‘the influence of the dispensated players’ and ‘becoming competent and confident’.

Judging the quality of the research

The issue of what constitutes quality qualitative research is part of a broader debate about knowledge produced by qualitative researchers.³⁴ Contributing to the debate, Burke³⁴ discusses the approaches to judging the quality of qualitative research under two headings: criteriological and relativist. Sparkes and Smith³⁵ contend that a relativist approach does require criteria; yet, these criteria can be used as a ‘starting point’. Moreover, the criteria are recognised as flexible, context specific, open to be challenged, and their application depends on the type enquiry and writing skills of the researchers. Aligned to this view, Smith and Caddick³⁶ offer nine criteria that qualitative researchers can use as starting points to guide their research and for others to judge the research. Drawing on these criteria and others,^37,38 the current study can be judged to be a quality piece of research because it makes a substantive contribution to our understanding of the policy/practice nexus, specifically the stakeholders practices and experiences of the dispensation policy. Furthermore, it adds to the limited amount of literature that examines the role of emotion in sports coaching⁸ and provides insights into why young people do, and do not, drop out of rugby. By utilising Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model of development, the study illustrates coherence by bringing together the views of many of the stakeholders involved in the dispensation process in the junior rugby context. The findings of the study also resonate with existing literature on the ‘relative age effect’,¹¹ the 4C’s¹² and ‘pain and fear’ associated with playing rugby,⁹ thereby highlighting the confirmability and transferability of the study. Harris³⁸ suggests that the quality of the interview data is increased when the researcher is integrated into the community. This was the case in the current study as I had a degree of rapport with many of the participants as a consequence of having been a regular sideline supporter of the club’s junior teams for seven years and being known as a relative of one of the dispensated players. Finally, the analysis was transparent due to the study design and findings having been scrutinised and discussed at national and international conferences.

Results and discussion

The purpose of the study was to gain insight into the perceptions, experiences and practices of stakeholders involved in players being dispensated to play in the Under 11 grade at one New Zealand metropolitan rugby union club. Using Bronfenbrenner’s^19,22 ecological systems conceptual model of development as a ‘lens’ provided opportunities to understand the views of the stakeholders, the place of rugby in New Zealand culture, and to see how individuals influence people and institutions as well as how people and institutions influence individuals. The results and discussion section begins with a description of what Bronfenbrenner¹⁹ calls the macro- and exo-systems, in this case, New Zealand Rugby and the Provincial Union, respectively, in an attempt to contextualise the subsequent interview data. Following on from this description, the discussion focuses on the stakeholders, who not only interact to various degrees with the macro- and exo-systems but also with the microsystems, in this case the club, peers and family, thus illustrating the mesosystem in action.

New Zealand rugby

In the introductory sentence of the New Zealand Rugby 2020 strategy (http://files.allblacks.com/nzr2020/NZR-2020-Strategic-Plan-WEB.pdf), it states that rugby is ‘a sport that is part of the fabric of our country’. As such New Zealand Rugby can be viewed as a macrosystem because it influences the cultural patterns of society and sporting policy. While increasingly the place of rugby in New Zealand is being questioned, Pringle and Markula⁹ note that ‘[r]egardless of whether New Zealanders celebrate, resist, or are ambiguous about rugby’s influential position, the sport is an omnipresent reality in their lives’ (pp. 472–473). When exploring the socio-cultural background of rugby in New Zealand, Hokowhitu et al.³⁹ draw on the work of Jock Phillips to explain that rugby’s influence on contemporary New Zealand society stems from a ‘hybrid culture resulting from the mixture of British discourse of muscular Christianity and the physical robustness of pioneer New Zealand masculinity’, which in turn ‘created a hyper-masculine or intensified rugby culture, where a high degree of pain tolerance was normalised’ (p. 4).

In New Zealand, there are 26 rugby provincial unions (PU) to which local rugby clubs are affiliated. These PUs can be understood as exosystems because they are the social structures that encompass the direct environment in which the individual is located and influences what occurs in that environment.²² The PU associated with this study primarily dispensates junior players based on weight and ability. Nonetheless, the PU’s Junior Committee dispensation sub-committee can use their discretion as issues arise, such as clubs needing numbers to field a team, or to transport players to games. As mentioned above, this PU only becomes involved in the dispensation practices for players in the Under 11–13 grades who want to be dispensated down a grade. If a player wants to play up a grade, then the club has to facilitate a discussion between the parents^d and the junior committee of the club. The discussions that occur between the PU’s Junior Committee dispensation sub-committee, the club, and the parents before a player is dispensated illustrates the interlinking of various microsystems associated with a player’s development and how people and institutions, can and do, influence individual practices.^19,22

The process of dispensation for the player begins on registration day at their local rugby club where, on a recommendation of parent(s) or coach, the player indicates that he/she wants to apply to be dispensated. The rugby club, parents and coaches can each be viewed as a microsystem,²² within which the dispensated player is acting at a particular moment. Each microsystem is an integral part of the mesosystem associated with the player’s development because they constitute an ‘individual’s developmental niche within a given period of development’ (p. xiii). After registration is completed, the club generates a list of the applicants wanting to be dispensated to play down a grade and sends the names to the PU. If a player applies to be dispensation based on weight, before approval can be given, the player has to be sighted by a member of the PU’s junior dispensation sub-committee and they have to agree to be publicly weighed.^e

Perceptions of the dispensation policy

‘Keeps kids in the game’

All participants in the study perceived the dispensation process to be a way of keeping young people playing rugby. From a coaching perspective, Bruce said that the dispensation policy ‘keeps kids in the game’. Peter agreed and developed this by saying the dispensation policy enables ‘the smaller kids who were going to give up rugby because of size [to get] into the right [team], albeit a year out’. He pointed out that the dispensation policy was especially ‘relevant’ for ‘December born kids [who] miss out from playing with their schoolmates’. This is consistent with the literature, which has identified that ‘summer-born children [which ‘December born kids’ are in the southern hemisphere] appear to be strongly disadvantaged’ in the English education system (p. 2)¹⁰ as well as in the sporting realm.¹¹ It is highly likely that one of the reasons the PUs designed the dispensation policy was to reduce the disadvantage and the number of junior players dropping out of the game.

The player’s perceptions of the dispensation policy supported the views of their coaches. All the players said they would not be playing rugby if they had not been dispensated. Cody, Johnny and Sean said they would play other sports, while Tyron said he would not be playing any sport if he had not been dispensated to play rugby. The parents’ perceptions coincided with those of their sons. According to Trish, Sean ‘loved’ playing in the Under 11’s, which was such a contrast to the previous year where he had pulled out half way through the season because he was not enjoying it. She went onto say that ‘it was so nice to see him … running with the ball, you know just stepping, you know the smile and he’d come home and he would have had a great game’. Trish’s comments about Sean enjoying and smiling hint at the role emotions play for those participating in junior sport. There has been limited research on the role emotions play in the coaching process⁸ and that which does exist rarely focuses on the emotions of young people. In the following sections, it becomes clear from the player’s comments that emotions do play a role in their decision to continue to play junior rugby.

A possible unintended consequence of the dispensation policy identified by some of the parents was that their sons got to play rugby with their friends. Gail pointed out that in the case of Cody, ‘the children he went to school with were in that grade anyway so he probably had more friends in that grade than where he was originally [prior to being dispensated]’. Similarly, Sally said Tyron ‘was playing with kids in his class and his year at school, so they had a little gang’. In contrast Graeme and Trish mentioned that at times Sean did say that he missed his friends from the previous team, which were now playing in the Under 12 grade. Upon reviewing the literature in youth sport, Hedstrom and Gould⁴⁰ note that while there are multiple motivations for young people wanting to participate in sport one of the main reasons was social interaction. In the New Zealand context, Burrows and McCormack¹⁴ found that having fun with friends was a key reason young people became, and remained, involved in sport.

Another possible unintended consequence of the dispensation policy was how it impacted upon Sean’s sense of masculinity. Graeme and Trish said they had observed that Sean was initially ‘a little hesitant’ about being dispensated because of a perceived ‘stigma’ associated with playing down a grade. It is possible that the stigma occurred because, as Pringle and Markula⁹ note, in New Zealand participation in rugby is ‘a prime normalizing practice for males’ and helps ‘mark boys’ bodies as appropriately masculine’ (p. 481). When Pringle and Markula interviewed men about their experiences of playing junior rugby, it was clear that even as boys they were aware of how their ability to play rugby constituted their body and masculinity. Sean’s initial hesitancy to be dispensated highlights that for him playing down a grade was not a simple decision, instead it was made knowing that whatever he decided others would be making judgements about his ability, body and masculinity.

Experiences of the dispensation process and policy

It takes a whole village to raise a child (Nigerian proverb)

While parents are key influencers on a young person’s decision to play sport,⁴¹ they are not the only influencers in a young person’s life. As Bronfenbrenner^19,22 points out, the microsystem of parents/family interlink with other microsystems, such as peers and clubs, making up what he called the mesosystem. Understanding the complexities of the mesosystem enables insight to be gained into the stakeholders’ experiences of the dispensation process. The players provided a variety of responses when asked who it was who suggested they apply for dispensation. Tyron thought it was his mother, Cody said it was Tyron, Sean said ‘I just randomly came up with it’, while Johnny said it was his mother and father. Johnny’s mother qualified his answer by explaining that the President of the junior rugby club ‘wanted to get him back and kept saying we could dispensate him, because we kept saying he is too small for rugby’.

All the parents agreed that the actual dispensation process was easy, albeit to varying degrees. What was noticeable was how serendipity and key people played a part in how the parents found out about the possibility of their son being dispensated to play in the Under 11 grade. Sally explained how, at the end of Tyron’s first season playing rugby, he decided that he ‘didn’t want to play anymore’. At the time, Sally was on the committee of the junior rugby club and happened to mention Tyron’s reluctance to the President of the club who suggested because of Tyron’s small size ‘that I might want to get him dispensated, which meant he could be put down to a team with kids he cobbered around with at school’. The President also played a big part in Johnny becoming dispensated. Johnny was very capable at playing a number of sports and this was influential in him deciding not to play rugby, because he did not want to get injured and then not be able to play the other sports. The year he decided not to play rugby Johnny was on the sideline supporting his younger brother who was playing the game. It was then that the President of the junior rugby club suggested to his parents that he could be dispensated to play down a grade; an option that appealed to Johnny. Ainslie said ‘I’m not sure we would have known’ about the dispensation policy had the President not mentioned it.

It was not only from the President that parents heard about the possibility of dispensation. Gail initially heard about dispensation from her son Cody. She explained after the last game of the previous season Cody had said ‘I am not playing again next year because I am sick of getting squashed by the big kids’. He was still of this mindset at the beginning of the next season, until one day he came home from school and said ‘Mum, Tyron is playing in the Under whatever grade and they need more players and he said I could play because I am small. So it just went from there.’ At that point, Gail approached Sally (Tyron’s mother) who had said ‘because they only had 10 kids … and because Cody was pretty much the same size as Tyron it would be fine’. Gail went on to say that knowing Sally was key to getting Cody dispensated because ‘she knew the system’ and ‘I didn’t know anything about it, I didn’t even know they could do it’.

Graeme and Trish were alerted by ‘word of mouth’ to the possibilities of Sean being dispensated to play down a grade due to his size. They had heard about the process the previous year so when Sean said he was not going to play rugby again Trish ‘discussed it with her friends [and] we rang the club up to see if it was doable and it was. So when we went along to registration, we just asked about dispensation and they just put us down’. The parents’ descriptions of their experiences of the dispensation process lend weight to a talent development model proposed by Bailey et al.,^42,43 which identifies the part luck plays in the development of talent. Moreover, the various actions the parents took to assist their son to become dispensated support the findings of others,^44–46 who contend that the family plays an influential role in youth sport performance and participation. The actions of the parents, and the desire of the boys to continue to play rugby despite their small size, also illustrates the cultural significance of rugby in the New Zealand culture.

Practices and playing the game

The influence of the dispensated players

The dispensation policy influenced the practices of the coaches and the experiences of the players and parents in various ways. Initially, Peter said there was no difference between the way he coaches his dispensated and non-dispensated players before qualifying that: ‘the only part that we have got to watch is when we play our 7-a-side team. They [the dispensated players] are not eligible at all for the 7-a-side tournament …. in our age group.’ Later, Peter contradicted his previous position by discussing the coachability of the dispensated players. He said there was ‘definitely’ a difference between those who were dispensated for size and those who were not dispensated. He explained that

the dispensated players [based on size] usually end up being the better players in the team. Even though they are small they have got that year, [they are] older, [there is a] toughness about them, compared with the slightly younger kids that are a little less mature …. They probably get the pick of the positions based on their skill level. On pivotal places, for example, first five, fullback, two positions that come to mind, and flankers and probably props, but that is. Probably the most influential are the first five and fullback and that is where we pick our best players and it just happens to be dispensated players.

He went on to say ‘they don’t stand out as much [with their skill] in their correct age group because of their size, but bring them into the correct size … they have just got extra skills, they are just a bit unlucky that they are little.’ This is consistent with the finding of Baxter-Jones⁴⁷ that the relative age effect is more prevalent in physically demanding and strength based sports and contributes to the discussion that is generated by Baxter-Jones’ question; ‘should competition levels be age related’? (p. 59).

According to Peter, the skill level of the dispensated players ‘definitely’ influence team dynamics because

it lifts the confidence of the other kids to be able to strive to their level. To score tries like they do, run like they do, catch the ball like they do, train hard like they do rather than mucking around.

At least for the most part, Bruce did not believe the dispensated players made a difference to the team dynamics or were more coachable. He explained his position by saying ‘once that kid is in your team you just forget that he is dispensated and you play them wherever your team can get an advantage’. Yet, he did acknowledge that at times he did treat the dispensated players differently compared to those who were not dispensated.

We had a few incidences where they [the dispensated players] were a bit “clicky” so I tried to divide them up. They can dominate a wee bit because they are more mature, they think they are a bit more mature, yea at the ripe old age of 10 [sic^f], they might think they are better than the others.

Another example Bruce gave of when he treated the dispensated and non-dispensated players differently was when he used some of the dispensated players to assist the non-dispensated players to learn the new rules associated with the Under 11 grade such as pushing in the scrum. He said he would say to the dispensated players ‘you guys have done this last year so you should know what to do’. But he was keen to stress that his message to the players was ‘you are in our team and you are all just one. That is the best way to be’.

Becoming competent and confident

The players had their own interpretation of the coaches’ practices. Tyron and Cody played in the forwards, historically where the bigger players can be found, while Sean and Johnny played in the backs, generally where the smaller, faster players are located. Not surprisingly, it was Tyron and Cody who were more responsive to questions about how being dispensation assisted them to play their positional game. Tyron said he enjoyed playing in the forwards in the Under 11’s because ‘the people weren’t huge and they didn’t have all the muscle, so it was easier to do everything’. Cody, who said he was ‘normally number 7 or number 8’, explained that he thought the coach put him in that position because he was ‘good at stealing the ball off the other team’. When asked why was he so good at this skill, he said ‘probably ‘cause I did wrestling, that might help’. Cody’s statement about transferring his skills from one sport to another supports the position of the International Society of Sport Psychology that sampling multiple sports ‘most favorably affects positive youth development’ (p. 12).⁴⁸

While none of the boys thought the coaches treated them any differently from the non-dispensated players in the team, three of them did say that they thought their non-dispensated teammates saw them in a positive light. Cody said ‘they liked having us’ because Johnny ‘was really fast, and was a good tackler’, while he and Tyron ‘were kind of like the leaders in the forwards’. Tyron thought that the non-dispensated players liked them playing in the team because ‘they got some more experienced people in their team … . we had already done that grade, had the skills and stuff ’. Similarly, Sean thought the non-dispensated players liked them because ‘we are older than them and they think it is better for the team’. Here, the players’ illustrate how their connections with non-dispensated teammates developed their sense of ability, leadership and character, which again are desirable outcomes in youth sport.¹³

What came through strongly in the interviews with the boys was that being dispensated to play in the Under 11’s really enhanced their confidence to play the game and provided them with opportunities to improve their competence. Three of the boys said that playing against opposition of similar size made it much easier for them to play the game. For example, Cody said ‘I don’t hesitate now because I know I am not going to get hurt by all the big people’. He went on to say that when he was not dispensated and tackled the opposition ‘you get hit quite hard and then you get piled at the bottom and get stood on by all the big people’. Now that he was playing in the Under 11’s, Cody said he was enjoying playing rugby more because he was ‘not getting smashed by all the big people … I’m playing with most of my friends … It was fun because I wasn’t getting annihilated.’ Not getting hurt and being able to play with friends were also reflected in Johnny and Tyron’s responses, while Sean added he liked being dispensated because ‘I could actually tackle people … [and] I get the ball more often’. Also Johnny said being dispensated made the game ‘a bit easier … I didn’t have to tackle humungus people’.^g Tyron explained that being dispensated helped his confidence ‘heaps’ because he ‘could easily tackle people ‘cause they were the same size as me and not huge and mean so I wouldn’t get wrecked. So it was good when I was little and everyone else was little as well’. Sean said being dispensated gave him the confidence to ‘just run with it [i.e. the ball] and sometimes just pass’ as well as ‘just tackling and getting the ball more often’ and try new things like ‘going into rucks more often’, which he said he would not do if he was playing in the Under 12’s. Both Cody and Tyron said that being dispensated helped them to develop their rugby skills. Specifically, Cody said his skills had improved because he was ‘not hesitating so much’, while Tyron said that he could ‘tackle a bit better with the smaller fellas ‘cause they were easier to put on the ground instead of the big fellas’.

The players perceived being dispensated had enhanced their development because they had the opportunity to be connected with their teammates, demonstrate competence and gain confidence. Developing connection, competence and confidence are three elements Côté et al.¹³ suggest are ‘desirable outcomes that should emerge from the interactions of coaches and athletes in a sporting environment’ (p. 65). The players’ responses also illustrate the degree to which the fear of being hurt playing rugby was ever present and getting hurt was one of the reasons why they did not want to continue playing rugby. Fear of being hurt while playing junior rugby was a theme that some of the men talked about in Pringle and Markula’s⁹ study. Some of these men said they did not share their fears with family or friends at the time because the topic was considered ‘taboo’, while others were aware that ‘as males, they were expected to play the potentially damaging sport of rugby and remain overtly fearless throughout’ (p. 483). The players in the current study appeared to have no problems sharing with me, friends or and family that they were afraid of getting hurt playing rugby. A number of factors could contribute to this being the case, including the increasing challenges to the dominance of rugby in New Zealand and the view that getting injured in sport is acceptable and normal, and there being a lot more sports are available for young people to play that do not necessarily have the same injury rates as rugby. The willingness of young boys to stop playing rugby may be one of the reasons why the PUs introduced the dispensation policy in junior rugby and illustrates how the actions of junior players can influence older people and institutions within their ecology.

The parents also recognised that the dispensation process reduced their son’s fear, reintroduced the fun and developed their confidence and competence. Their comments specifically focused around their son’s increased confidence, willingness to take risks and openness to learn. Sally said that Tyron’s confidence grew because without the fear of getting hurt by the bigger opposition he would commit wholeheartedly to a tackle or a ruck, which resulted in spectators and coaches commenting that ‘he was a gutsy wee player’. She went onto say that Tyron’s lack of ‘fear’ of playing against bigger opponents meant that he could ‘get out there and practice what he learnt at training’. Trish and Graeme also made a point of saying that Sean had become a lot more confident in his rugby playing ability. In the previous year, Graeme said Sean was not tackling very effectively because the opposition ‘were too big’ and when he was on the field he lost his confidence to try to do anything and this in turn ‘effected how much game time he was getting on the field’. However, playing in the Under 11’s, and with the fear of the bigger opposition gone, he was a lot more confident, which positively impacted on his skill development and he subsequently got more game time. Graeme was definite that as a result of Sean playing in the Under 11’s his ‘passing, his running, his kicking game, tackling especially have been developed’. Both Gail and Ainslie said their sons were generally more confident. Gail explained that while Cody would always give ‘it a good go before … I think he was just getting to the stage where it was starting to hurt and he was just not wanting to do it’, whereas now that he is dispensated ‘he’s a lot more confident’. Ainslie reflected that Johnny ‘had a really enjoyable year’ playing in the Under 11’s, which was reflected in him doing ‘things with the ball, jinking and kicks’ which he was not able to do when playing against bigger opponents because ‘he would have struggled to find the space’. She was pleased that the coaches ‘really encouraged’ Johnny to try ‘those tricky bits and pieces’, because by developing his competence it increased his confidence to try more tricky moves.

Conclusion

The purpose of the study was to gain insight into the practices, perceptions and experiences of stakeholders involved in players being dispensated to play in the Under 11 grade at one New Zealand metropolitan rugby club. The experiences the stakeholders had of the dispensation process supports existing literature that highlights the pivotal role coaches, families, cultural contexts and luck play in athlete development.^41–46 These findings also contribute to our understanding of the way in which practices within various systems (e.g. macro- meso- and micro systems) interact with each other^15–17 to influence the athletic development of young people and in turn how the practices of young people influence the development that occurs within institutions.

The finding that the coaches, parents and players perceived the dispensation policy to be a valuable mechanism for reducing the disadvantage experienced by children who are born in the few months prior to the 1 January cut-off date for the age-group-based competition makes a contribution to the literature on ‘birthdate effect’¹⁰ or ‘relative age effect’,¹¹ which is especially prevalent in sports that are physically demanding and strength based, such as rugby. The players in the study made it very clear that had they not been dispensated to play in the Under 11’s they would not being playing rugby. Three out of the four players perceived one of the benefits of being dispensated was that they could play with their friends and this was a motivating factor to carry on playing. This finding supports existing literature¹⁴ and is a reminder to administrators, parents and coaches involved in junior sports of the importance young people place on being able to play with their friends.

The findings were also consistent with existing literature which has shown the value of coaches emphasising connection, competence and confidence when focusing on youth development.^12,13 What was interesting in these findings was the way in which the dispensated players perceived that their increased competence and confidence had a benefit to the non-dispensated players. Future research could explore if indeed there is a carryover effect across team members when some players develop more confidence and competence.

For one of the players, being dispensated did not result in him playing with his friends, and he was initially worried about the perceived ‘stigma’ of being dispensated. This finding suggests there would be some value in future research focusing on the perceived ‘stigma’ associated with being dispensated, and how being dispensated impacts on the way in which the players, and others, perceive their ability, body, and in this case, masculinity. Additionally, future research could investigate if there is any perceived stigma associated with playing in weight based competitions.

The New Zealand Rugby 2020 strategy has a vision of the game being ‘inclusive’ (http://files.allblacks.com/nzr2020/NZR-2020-Strategic-Plan-WEB.pdf). Future research could explore what inclusion means to NZR and what role, if any, the dispensation policy plays in achieving the vision. This future research could draw upon the work of Fitzgerald and Jobling⁴⁹ who suggest that if practices are to be inclusive, then those designing and enacting the practices need to be cognizant of the interactions that occur ‘between the individual, activity and environment’ (p. 162). The findings of this study illustrate the role emotions, particularly the fear of being hurt, played in the decision to continue, or not, playing rugby. This contributes to the limited research on the role of emotions in the coaching process and sports coaching more generally.^38,39 Future research could also focus on the role emotions play in young people’s decision to play or not to play sport and how emotions influence the perceptions of sport being inclusive.

Dedication

This study is dedicated to the memory of Colin.^h

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

Napier L. Matter of time before Ioane Brothers Follow Savea Duo into All Backs, www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/84374501/Matter-of-time-before-Ioane-brothers-follow-Savea-duo-into-All-Blacks?cid=app-iPhone (2016, accessed 24 March 2018).

Moir J. Size does matter, 71 kg 10-year-old gets told, www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/8476408/Size-does-matter-71kg-10-year-old-gets-told (2013, accessed 24 March 2018).

Anderson B. General Manager of Community and Provincial Union Rugby, New Zealand Rugby Union, Personal communication, 2011.

Canterbury Metropolitan Junior and Teenage Rugby. Weights and Grading for the 2017 Season, www.hornbyrugby.co.nz/uploads/9/6/4/7/9647456/2017_weight_chart.pdf (accessed 24 March 2018).

WRFU Junior Club Rugby. Weight and Grading for the 2016 Season, www.wrfu.co.nz/fileadmin/Junior_Rugby/2016_Grade_Chart.pdf (accessed 24 March 2018).

Sport New Zealand. Sport and recreation in the lives of young New Zealanders, Wellington: Sport New Zealand, 2012.

Woods

. Social issues in sport, Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2016.

Potrac

Smith

Nelson

. Emotions in sport coaching: an introductory essay. Sports Coach Rev 2017; 6: 129–141.

Pringle

Markula

. No pain is sane after all: a Foucauldian analysis of masculinities and men’s rugby experiences of fear, pain and pleasure. Soc Sport J 2005; 22: 472–497.

10.

Sykes

Bell

Vidal Roderio

. Birthdate effects: a review of literature from 1990-on, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Assessment, 2016.

11.

Andronikos

Elumaro

Westbury

, et al. Relative age effect: implications for effective practice. J Sports Sci 2016; 34: 1124–1131.

12.

Côté

Gilbert

. An integrative definition of coaching effectiveness and expertise. Int J Sports Sci Coach 2009; 4: 307–334.

13.

Côté

Bruner

Erickson

, et al. Athlete development and coaching. In: Lyle

Cushion

(eds). Sport coaching: professionalization and practice, Oxford, UK: Elsevier, 2010, pp. 63–83.

14.

Burrows

McCormack

. School culture meets sport: a case study in New Zealand. Eur Phys Educ Rev 2011; 17: 301–312.

15.

Balish

Côté

. The influence of community on athletic development: an integrated case study. Qual Res Sport Exerc Health 2013; 6: 98–120.

16.

Lidor

Côté

Arnon

, et al.

Relative age and birthplace effects in division 1 players – do they exist in a small country?

Talent Dev Excell 2010; 2: 181–192.

17.

Pennell K, Cassidy T and Gilbert W. The ‘Small Town’ effect on youth athletic development: insights from New Zealand ‘Touch’. Qual Res Sport Exerc Health 2017; 9: 339–353.

18.

Cassidy

The role of theory, interpretation and critical thought in qualitative research. In: Smith

Sparkes

(eds). Handbook of qualitative research in sport and exercise, London: Routledge, 2016, pp. 397–408.

19.

Bronfenbrenner

. The ecology of human development: experiments by nature and design, Boston: Harvard University Press, 1979.

20.

Araújo

Davids

. Ecological approaches to cognition and action in sport and exercise: ask not only what you do, but where you do it. Int J Sport Exerc Psychol 2009; 40: 5–37.

21.

Moen

Elder

Lüscher

. Examining lives in context: perspectives on the ecology of human development, Washington, DC: American Pyschological Association, 1995.

22.

Bronfenbrenner

. Making human beings human: bioecological perspectives on human development, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 2005.

23.

Drewery

Bird

. Human development in aotearoa: a journey through life, 2nd ed. Australia: McGraw Hill, 2004.

24.

McMillan

. An ecological perspective on individual human development. Early Child Dev Care 1990; 55: 33–42.

25.

Hodge

Sharpe

Case studies. In: Smith

Sparkes

(eds). The Routledge handbook of qualitative research in sport and exercise, London: Routledge, 2016, pp. 62–74.

26.

Miles

Huberman

. Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 1994.

27.

Stake

Qualitative case studies. In: Denzin

Lincoln

(eds). The Sage handbook of qualitative research, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 2005, pp. 443–466.

28.

Armour

Griffiths

Case study research. In: Armour

Macdonald

(eds). Research methods in physical education and youth sport, Oxon: Routledge, 2012, pp. 204–216.

29.

Taylor

Analysis of qualitative data. In: Nelson

Groom

Potrac

(eds). Research methods in sports coaching, London: Routledge, 2014, pp. 181–191.

30.

Chang

. Autoethnography as a method, USA: Left Coast Press Inc., 2008.

31.

Braun

Clarke

Weate

Using thematic analysis in sport and exercise research. In: Smith

Sparkes

(eds). The Routledge handbook of qualitative research in sport and exercise, London: Routledge, 2016, pp. 191–205.

32.

Jenkins S. Beyond ‘Crude Pragmatism’ in sports coaching: insights from C.S. Peirce, William James and John Dewey. Int J Sports Sci Coach 2016; 12: 46–49.

33.

Sparkes

Smith

. Qualitative research methods in sport, exercise and health. From process to product, London: Routledge, 2014.

34.

Burke

Rethinking ‘Validity’ and ‘Trustworthiness’ in qualitative inquiry. How might we judge the quality of qualitative research in sport and exercise sciences? In: Smith

Sparkes

(eds). The Routledge handbook of qualitative research in sport and exercise, London: Routledge, 2016, pp. 330–339.

35.

Sparkes

Smith

. Judging the quality of qualitative inquiry: criteriology and relativism in action. Psychol Sport Exerc 2009; 10: 491–497.

36.

Smith

Caddick

. Qualitative methods in sport: a concise overview for guiding social scientific sport research. Asia Pacific J Sport Soc Sci 2012; 1: 60–73.

37.

Hastie

Hay

Qualitative approaches. In: Armour

Macdonald

(eds). Research methods in physical education and youth sport, New York: Routledge, 2012, pp. 79–94.

38.

Harris

. Interviewing friends and the feminist research process. Women Welfare Educ 2002; 5: 44–53.

39.

Hokowhitu

Sullivan

Williams

LRT

. Rugby culture, ethnicity and concussion. MAI Rev 2008; 1: 1–9.

40.

Hedstrom R and Gould D. Research in youth sports: critical issues status, Institute for the Study of Youth Sports, www.researchgate.net/publication/247397067_Research_in_Youth_Sports_Critical_Issues_Status (2004, accessed 24 March 2018).

41.

Maddison

Pfaeffli Dale

Marsh

, et al. Results from New Zealand’s 2014 report card on physical activity for children and youth. J Phys Activity Health 2014; 11: S83–S87.

42.

Bailey

Morley

. Towards a model of talent development in physical education. Sport Educ Soc 2006; 11: 211–230.

43.

Bailey

Toms

Collins

, et al. Models of young player development in sport. In: Stafford

(ed). Coaching children in sport, New York: Routledge, 2011, pp. 38–56.

44.

Côté

Hay

Family influences on youth sport performance and participation. In: Silva

Stevens

(eds). Psychological foundations of sport, Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 2002, pp. 503–519.

45.

Fraser-Thomas

Strachan

Jeffery-Tosoni

Family influence on children's involvment in sport. In: Côté

Lidor

(eds). Conditions of children's development in sport, West Virginia: Fitness Information Technology, 2013, pp. 179–196.

46.

Kay

Bass

The family factor in coaching. In: Stafford

(ed). Coaching children in sport, New York: Routledge, 2011, pp. 169–197.

47.

Baxter-Jones

. Growth and development of young athletes. Should competition levels be age related? Sports Med 1995; 20: 59–64.

48.

Côté

Lidor

Hackfort

. ISSP position stand: to sample or to specialize? Seven postualtes about youth sport activities that lead to continued participation and elite performance. Int J Sport Exerc Psychol 2009; 7: 7–17.

49.

Fitzgerald

Jobling

Future directions in disability and youth sport. Development, aspirations and research. In: Fitzgerald

(ed). Disability and youth sport, London: Routledge, 2009, pp. 160–170.