Bio Banding Bandwagon? Why I am not advocating the use of weight categories or Bio-Banding

I read with interest the recent piece on Bio-Banding in which I felt that there were a number of valid points made about the current nature of school rugby, however I was concerned with some of the arguments in favour of bio-banding and/or use of weight categories.

I think the first point to make is that there is a clear difference between weight banding and biological age banding. One is a measure of body mass and the other is the age of an individual relative to Peak Height Velocity (PHV). It is of course possible to have two players of the same weight who are also at very different stages of maturation. Similarly, it is possible to have two children at the same stages of maturation who have dramatically different weights. Measurements of biological age are difficult, requiring the use of trained practitioners and potentially parents being measured. Certainly it is not as simple as standing on a set of scales.

A not uncommon sight on a Saturday afternoon is the overweight player in his/her early teens who are not physically mature. Use of weight categories puts them up against older, more socially and cognitively mature players who have much greater force expression potential. As such, leaving them competing in a totally inappropriate learning environment.

Even if a school were to deploy Bio-Banding, using measures of maturation and they managed to completely level the playing field with players all the same distance from PHV, you would have a wide variety of different physical abilities. Some players would still be physically superior, especially in a school environment where there is such a range of physical abilities.

We also need to bear in mind that the successful player is far more than simply a function of physical attributes. We need to consider other developmental factors; how do we challenge the relatively immature, but yet able performer? The boy or girl who is able to dominate a game through technical, tactical or psychological skills, but has not yet reached Peak Height Velocity. If we arbitrarily state that they have to play with peers of similar maturation, how do we give them the challenge levels that they need to develop and avoid the very same issues as ‘Bearded Bill’ who runs over his peers every Saturday.

Similarly, we also need to consider cognitive maturity, early physical maturers are more prone to risk taking behaviours. Is putting them with a peer group who are more socially advanced, at a transitional stage a positive thing? It may be, however bio-banding doesn’t enable the flexibility for you to make this professional decision.

It is this professional decision making that should lie at the heart of how we operate. Nobody wants to have Bill running over Little Johnny every weekend. Bio-banding might give each of them the challenge that they need, not by design, rather by happy coincidence. There are plenty of other ways that players who dominate games can be challenged. This might be through playing up an age group, playing out of position or with their own challenges/restrictions appropriate to their development. At the heart of these decisions is the skill of coaching and the deployment of challenge and support.

I would also take issue with the perceived application of strength and conditioning, which if aligned to the wider aims of a programme it is a key tenet of any development programme. We live in a world where children are growing up having not developed Fundamental Movement Skills (FMS) either as a result of specialisation or inactivity. FMS have consistently been shown to underpin long term participation and orthopaedic health. The real value of an excellent school S&C programme offers is through the support of performance and long term health. They are not mutually exclusive.

I would certainly agree that there are issues with playing philosophies in schools rugby, the concept that school teams need to win every game and the celebration of unbeaten seasons is not helpful for the development of better rugby players or people. It is this culture that leads to U13 ‘Bearded Bill’ playing at number 8 or inside centre and carting the ball up at every opportunity. If one or two pupils are physically dominating across a whole fixture card, a school should be considering how they are damaging the long term prospects of all involved. Schools should also be considering the playing loads of their pupils. It is not uncommon to see boys completing as much playing volume as training volume. This is clearly not appropriate and detracts from the ability of the coach to individualise for each player’s needs.

What I hope to have got across is that we need to understand the bigger picture before we all decide Bio-Banding or weight categories are the way to go. It might be useful sometimes, but certainly not all the time. It is for this reason that rather than an arbitrary attempt at levelling the playing field, we all need a clear purpose and developmental philosophy that underpins how we make professional decisions about challenge and support. If the children we coach are to achieve the best possible outcomes, they will need plenty of both. 

Jamie Taylor is the Director of Rugby at Denstone College