Doctors call for ban of tackling in Schools Rugby

2smiggy

so doctors are calling for tackling in schools rugby to be banned, in the UK and Ireland. I would not be for it, but concussions do happen, as they do in other sports. Surely they are taking this a bit too far ?

BBC link

2smiggy

Johnny Sexton on todayfm now talking to Anton ..

sfbdqc

If some doctors had there way, contact sports would be banned.

irishbucsfan

The figures are completely out of context amongst the other sports available. How likely are kids to get injured playing rugby rather than football, soccer or hurling? Should we ban the contact element of those as well? Should kids be banned from riding horses, I've played rugby all my life and by far my most serious injuries came on horseback and I don't believe I'm an outlier. Seems like a bit of a hatchet job, there is a risk to any sport, it's completely outweighed by the benefits in my opinion.

former total

I'm going to go ahead and assume no-one will actually read the letter, but it's here if anyone wishes to do so:

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/mar/02/uk-health-experts-call-for-ban-on-tackling-in-school-rugby

It's not just about concussion, it's about injuries in general. And the risk of it is much higher than other school sports, that's not in question.

It's never going to happen but that doesn't mean it's a terrible idea.

2smiggy

played plenty of rugby, along with GAA , only serious injuries and broken bones came from playing hurling. Think all of this is coming from the concussion issue in American Football. Ex players suing/dying young/suicide, and this new film about concussion.

irishbucsfan

former total wrote: »

I'm going to go ahead and assume no-one will actually read the letter, but it's here if anyone wishes to do so:

Actually, some of us already read the letter :rolleyes:

former total wrote: »

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/mar/02/uk-health-experts-call-for-ban-on-tackling-in-school-rugby

It's not just about concussion, it's about injuries in general. And the risk of it is much higher than other school sports, that's not in question.

It's never going to happen but that doesn't mean it's a terrible idea.

This claim is not made in the letter whatsoever.

former total

irishbucsfan wrote: »

This claim is not made in the letter whatsoever.

I didn't say it was, that's my own statement.

irishbucsfan

former total wrote: »

I didn't say it was, that's my own statement.

I haven't seen any evidence to say that rugby is a much higher risk sport at underage level than football or hurling.

This letter also completely ignores how dangerous rugby would become at u19 level when you have very powerful developing young adults suddenly learning to tackle, lineout and scrummage rather than being slowly introduced to these concepts individually over time as they are currently

errlloyd

Dunno why the doctors went for the all out ban on rugby. That was something was always going to be rubbished. Policies could come in to make it safer without banning tackling completely, they should be aiming to do these things in phases.

For example.

U13s Tag Rugby
U14s Rugby League style Tackle area (no Ruck)
Juniors No Tackling above waist.

TY: Sevens
Fifth and Sixth year: Full Contact but zero tolerance for dangerous play.

ArnieSilvia

Can't figure out myself how a responsible parent would put a game over health of their own child. My son was playing hurling but as soon as I saw that there's a risk of injury I took him out and organised some other activities instead. He didn't suffer from not playing it. Never played rugby but it's crazy sport. Not a sport really as it brings injuries rather than good health effects, it's just an organized fight

Straight Edge Punk

ArnieSilvia wrote: »

Can't figure out myself how a responsible parent would put a game over health of their own child. My son was playing hurling but as soon as I saw that there's a risk of injury I took him out and organised some other activities instead. He didn't suffer from not playing it. Never played rugby but it's crazy sport. Not a sport really as it brings injuries rather than good health effects, it's just an organized fight

Not a sport? Oh wow.

irishbucsfan

ArnieSilvia wrote: »

Can't figure out myself how a responsible parent would put a game over health of their own child. My son was playing hurling but as soon as I saw that there's a risk of injury I took him out and organised some other activities instead. He didn't suffer from not playing it. Never played rugby but it's crazy sport. Not a sport really as it brings injuries rather than good health effects, it's just an organized fight

Well obviously you don't really know anything about rugby so there won't be much that will change your mind on that one.

sullivlo

ArnieSilvia wrote: »

Can't figure out myself how a responsible parent would put a game over health of their own child. My son was playing hurling but as soon as I saw that there's a risk of injury I took him out and organised some other activities instead. He didn't suffer from not playing it. Never played rugby but it's crazy sport. Not a sport really as it brings injuries rather than good health effects, it's just an organized fight

:rolleyes:

It's actually your son that I feel sorry for in this situation.

I'm not a parent, but I do (have) played rugby. The worst injuries I endured were from tag rugby or my most recent one - needing surgery after falling in my kitchen. I would have no qualms about my future kids playing.

As for no health benefits? I lost 5 stone after taking it up.

From a point of view of playing women's rugby. I took it up at 19. Most other females were the same. However when I was 25, I played with 18 year olds who had come thru the minis and underage levels and their skill was far superior. The younger you learn, the better. IMO.

shuffol

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I haven't seen any evidence to say that rugby is a much higher risk sport at underage level than football or hurling.

This letter also completely ignores how dangerous rugby would become at u19 level when you have very powerful developing young adults suddenly learning to tackle, lineout and scrummage rather than being slowly introduced to these concepts individually over time as they are currently

Yes, a lot of concussions are caused by poor tackle technique. I think it's an area where Irish players don't excel and better education and training is needed.

jacothelad

Ulster have already introduced this in the Pro 12.

Learning to tackle and be tackled before players start getting into the gym is possibly a good thing.

The one point I would however make is that my SCT year the lads on the 1st team were marginally bigger than the other normal lads in the year and this isn't that long ago (99). Plenty of lads who played in the Leinster schools final that year would however look no different than someone playing GAA or Soccer at the same age bracket.

Now not only are many of the SCT lads noticeably and substantially larger than an average 5th / 6th year student but the JCT guys are starting to stand out also.

This has corresponded to a perceived increase in injury across schools rugby. I don't have any facts or figures to back this up, but of the one or two SCT schools coaches that I have spoken with it's a much bigger issue for them now than it was even a decade ago.

Supporting this further I know a couple of physio's that work with schools rugby teams and they can't believe the level of churn these days and feel that far too much pressure is being put on young frames in a punishing sport.

Again, I've nothing but opinion to back up these ideas but I do believe the sources of those opinions are informed.

former total

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I haven't seen any evidence to say that rugby is a much higher risk sport at underage level than football or hurling.

This letter also completely ignores how dangerous rugby would become at u19 level when you have very powerful developing young adults suddenly learning to tackle, lineout and scrummage rather than being slowly introduced to these concepts individually over time as they are currently

But see this is why I was so keen for people to actually read the letter.

It's NOT advocating removing the tackle from UNDERAGE rugby, it's advocating removing the tackle from SCHOOL rugby. It specifically raises concerns about schools where rugby is a mandatory part of the PE curriculum.

So, if you want to send your kid off down the local rugby club on a Sunday morning, then that's a free choice, and he/she can learn about tackling, scrummaging etc down there.

It's a different thing having a full-on contact sport as a mandatory part of a school curriculum.

It is not the remit of PE in schools to be churning out athletes capable of making the step up to u19 rugby.

irishbucsfan

former total wrote: »

But see this is why I was so keen for people to actually read the letter.

It's NOT advocating removing the tackle from UNDERAGE rugby, it's advocating removing the tackle from SCHOOL rugby. It specifically raises concerns about schools where rugby is a mandatory part of the PE curriculum.

So, if you want to send your kid off down the local rugby club on a Sunday morning, then that's a free choice, and he/she can learn about tackling, scrummaging etc down there.

It's a different thing having a full-on contact sport as a mandatory part of a school curriculum.

It is not the remit of PE in schools to be churning out athletes capable of making the step up to u19 rugby.

These doctors (the lady in charge specifically, I've forgotten her name now and I'm on my phone) are out to remove contact from underage rugby altogether and I believe certain of these have a previous for similar suggestions.

If the problem was the mandatory element of the contact in PE classes then why not just call for the removal of contact in PE classes? It would be a much more realistic proposal and I don't think that would have been nearly as controversial, which coincidentally is also why I think the suggestion wasn't made.

Also a lot of kids cannot play schools and clubs rugby simultaneously, and a lot more wouldn't have the time. I'd also suggest playing more than one sport is a lot more beneficial than playing rugby for two teams.

Dravokivich

sfbdqc wrote: »

If some doctors had there way, contact sports would be banned.

Turkeys voting for Christmas. Surely that'd give them less business no?

racso1975

I coach mini rugby and Juvenile GAA. I coach primarily cause my son plays at these sports and the same age group I coach.

1) At under 7 there is no contact it is tag only in rugby. This is not the case in GAA football or hurling and he has got hurt a lot more in these then he has in Rugby

2)This year under 8's rugby. New rules. No player is allowed tackle above the waist. First time is a warning and second time they are to be taken out for 5 mins (don't really agree with this part as don't think any child should be excluded). I try to keep pitches tight as it does not allow anybody to build up a big head of steam meaning its easier to tackle. To date nobody has been hurt. (i do exclude children from contact who turn up without gumshields.....parents who do this are crazy).

This is a change I would consider implementing if one was to be. Playing based upon size and not age. My son is big for his age I have seen him cover a ridiculous amount of ground with 4 kids hanging out of him. However when he meets a kid his own size he is stopped in his tracks. Also children like my own think they can just run through everybody they dont try to look for space or side step etc they would have to develop these skills if they were playing kids the same size.

Children grow and develop at such a huge variance that there is and element of craziness about putting a 5ft 10 10 stone 11 year old up against and 5ft 8 stone 11 year old.

We also have to consider in some cases these children can also spend a huge amount of time stuck in front of screens. The days of spending hours out horsing around in the back garden and fields seem to be mostly gone. This was where children developed physically in massive ways.

Also just to consider outside of concussion the any physio will tell you the amount of damage being done to kids through Irish dancing is horrific in comparison to any field sport.

dub_skav

ArnieSilvia wrote: »

Can't figure out myself how a responsible parent would put a game over health of their own child. My son was playing hurling but as soon as I saw that there's a risk of injury I took him out and organised some other activities instead. He didn't suffer from not playing it. Never played rugby but it's crazy sport. Not a sport really as it brings injuries rather than good health effects, it's just an organized fight

I have no knowledge of these "other activities" that you mention and I may in fact have no experience of them whatsoever.
However, I have no hesitation in calling them crazy and decrying them as having no benefits at all.

thebaz

more nanny statism - give up rugby and ban tackling in soccer , and the same doctors moaning our children are not getting eneogh exercise - sure , make rugby safer where possible , but life is also about living , thats my mantra

sydthebeat

former total wrote: »

I'm going to go ahead and assume no-one will actually read the letter, but it's here if anyone wishes to do so:

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/mar/02/uk-health-experts-call-for-ban-on-tackling-in-school-rugby

It's not just about concussion, it's about injuries in general. And the risk of it is much higher than other school sports, that's not in question.

It's never going to happen but that doesn't mean it's a terrible idea.

if the crux of the argument is that schools who promote compulsory playing of rugby at PE are putting kids unnecessarily at risk of injuries, then where is the study to show why they are at higher or greater risk than general club rugby?
is it because kids dont want to play and are forced to so?
is it because the standard of coaching isnt good enough to ensure proper techniques?

the letter reads like the 'compulsory' factor is an addendum to the other reasons to be honest.. and not the main factor.

awec

Deleted User wrote: »

Learning to tackle and be tackled before players start getting into the gym is possibly a good thing.

The one point I would however make is that my SCT year the lads on the 1st team were marginally bigger than the other normal lads in the year and this isn't that long ago (99). Plenty of lads who played in the Leinster schools final that year would however look no different than someone playing GAA or Soccer at the same age bracket.

Now not only are many of the SCT lads noticeably and substantially larger than an average 5th / 6th year student but the JCT guys are starting to stand out also.

This has corresponded to a perceived increase in injury across schools rugby. I don't have any facts or figures to back this up, but of the one or two SCT schools coaches that I have spoken with it's a much bigger issue for them now than it was even a decade ago.

Supporting this further I know a couple of physio's that work with schools rugby teams and they can't believe the level of churn these days and feel that far too much pressure is being put on young frames in a punishing sport.

Again, I've nothing but opinion to back up these ideas but I do believe the sources of those opinions are informed.

It was on UAFC that someone's child was sent home from rugby practice at one of the big rugby schools with instructions to start taking creatine when he was only about 15.

This is crazy, and I am sure not isolated.

ChippingSodbury

I wouldn't agree with the "no tackle" suggestion as, as other posters have pointed out, if you don't learn early, it's very difficult to learn how to properly tackle later on.
The biggest issue I see is that the opinion in most possible head injury scenarios is "(s)he's probably not concussed, let's leave them on in case we take them off when they're not concussed and risk weakening the team"
instead of "(s)he's possibly concussed, let's take them off to avoid a potential catastrophe. If we get it wrong, it's not the end of the world."

I coach GAA and I know it's very difficult to change the mindset (often including my own!) of "sure they'll be OK and we'll keep and eye on them" but I'd never forgive myself if a person under my charge came to serious harm because of something I did (or didn't) do.

Jump_In_Jack

IMO, parents should have the right to make the decision over whether or not their child should play full-contact rugby in school. It should not be a compulsory part of PE.

IMO, the state should have guidelines for how rugby is taught in schools, all the ideas so far from other posters seem perfectly reasonable and should be there to protect children.

A few examples off the top of my head would be:
The coach should have sufficient coaching experience to teach rugby safely,
The progression from non-contact to full-contact rugby should be gradual,
There should be a big emphasis on learning the correct technique and body positions for full-contact rugby as early as possible, and should be well-practiced before being allowed play full-contact rugby.
The idea of considering the size of children as well as their age when putting them into groups is a very good suggestion also.

sydthebeat

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

A few examples off the top of my head would be:
The coach should have sufficient coaching experience to teach rugby safely,
The progression from non-contact to full-contact rugby should be gradual,
There should be a big emphasis on learning the correct technique and body positions for full-contact rugby as early as possible, and should be well-practiced before being allowed play full-contact rugby.
The idea of considering the size of children as well as their age when putting them into groups is a very good suggestion also.

im not involved in schools rugby but i would be flabbergasted to find out that the bolded above is NOT already in place.

Jump_In_Jack

sydthebeat wrote: »

im not involved in schools rugby but i would be flabbergasted to find out that the bolded above is NOT already in place.

It may be in place in individual schools, but I mean as a guideline from the Board of Education, if it is being introduced as part of the curriculum, there should be guidelines, hopefully there are already guidelines, but I'm not sure what's there now.

former total

sydthebeat wrote: »

if the crux of the argument is that schools who promote compulsory playing of rugby at PE are putting kids unnecessarily at risk of injuries, then where is the study to show why they are at higher or greater risk than general club rugby?
is it because kids dont want to play and are forced to so?
is it because the standard of coaching isnt good enough to ensure proper techniques?

the letter reads like the 'compulsory' factor is an addendum to the other reasons to be honest.. and not the main factor.

I don't think I get your point. There is no claim by anyone that rugby at school is any higher risk than club rugby. My point is that engaging in a high-risk activity of your own volition in your spare time is very different to having to do it in a school-mandated activity.

sydthebeat

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

It may be in place in individual schools, but I mean as a guideline from the Board of Education, if it is being introduced as part of the curriculum, there should be guidelines, hopefully there are already guidelines, but I'm not sure what's there now.

if they are "rugby schools" that compete in schools competitions then those competitions are under the auspices of the IRFU, and child welfare insists that all coaches are ticketed, players registered etc.

however if we're talking about non rugby schools using rugby as a physical exercise then it would simply be nonsensical to play anything other than touch / tag.

I know that our club CCRO, when introducing rugby to schools, promote tag only

sydthebeat

former total wrote: »

My point is that engaging in a high-risk activity of your own volition in your spare time is very different to having to do it in a school-mandated activity.

i completely agree... but id ask WHY is that.... and id ask why that wasnt investigated as a precursor to that letter.

irishbucsfan

I certainly don't want anyone to be mandated or forced to play rugby. Don't think it helps anyone, don't really agree with forcing any kids to play sports they don't want to at school but I'm no educator or developmental psychologist so I'm probably quite wrong on that. What I do know about is coaching kids who want to play rugby and removing contact for them would be a big mistake.

Jump_In_Jack

sydthebeat wrote: »

if they are "rugby schools" that compete in schools competitions then those competitions are under the auspices of the IRFU, and child welfare insists that all coaches are ticketed, players registered etc.

however if we're talking about non rugby schools using rugby as a physical exercise then it would simply be nonsensical to play anything other than touch / tag.

I know that our club CCRO, when introducing rugby to schools, promote tag only

IMO, there should be guidelines for what age it becomes acceptable for a child to start playing full-contact rugby, whether in schools or otherwise.
I would rather the age were increased to U13, and perhaps there should be a minimum weight included to be allowed play.
Perhaps there should be a maximum weight allowed also.
In any case I think it's the responsibility of the Ministers for Health/Sport/Education/Children to debate the issue and come up with a legally binding set of guidelines with specific details that schools and clubs have to abide by.
The IRFU as a subject matter expert of course should inform that debate.

sydthebeat

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

1. IMO, there should be guidelines for what age it becomes acceptable for a child to start playing full-contact rugby, whether in schools or otherwise.
I would rather the age were increased to U13, and perhaps there should be a minimum weight included to be allowed play.
Perhaps there should be a maximum weight allowed also.
2. In any case I think it's the responsibility of the Ministers for Health/Sport/Education/Children to debate the issue and come up with a legally binding set of guidelines with specific details that schools and clubs have to abide by.
The IRFU as a subject matter expert of course should inform that debate.

1. well, there is guidelines... both nationally and world wide.

2. its absolutely not in the remit of government to set guidelines for specific sports. The absolute arbiter of the sport of rugby is 'world rugby'

PearlJ

ArnieSilvia wrote: »

Can't figure out myself how a responsible parent would put a game over health of their own child. My son was playing hurling but as soon as I saw that there's a risk of injury I took him out and organised some other activities instead. He didn't suffer from not playing it. Never played rugby but it's crazy sport. Not a sport really as it brings injuries rather than good health effects, it's just an organized fight

I'd say its great craic in your house. So what is allowed? Chess? Table tennis?. Or are you concerned with eye strain and tennis elbow?

racso1975

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

IMO, there should be guidelines for what age it becomes acceptable for a child to start playing full-contact rugby, whether in schools or otherwise.
I would rather the age were increased to U13, and perhaps there should be a minimum weight included to be allowed play.
Perhaps there should be a maximum weight allowed also.
In any case I think it's the responsibility of the Ministers for Health/Sport/Education/Children to debate the issue and come up with a legally binding set of guidelines with specific details that schools and clubs have to abide by.
The IRFU as a subject matter expert of course should inform that debate.

How can you even see that playing out?? How can it only be rugby especially given the recent concussion controversy in the GAA during an inter county game or the recent publication in relation to the huge increase in hip surgeries in younger players. You are talking about a complete nanny state situation.

Scythica

Only thing in my mind right now

Flipper22

former total wrote: »

I don't think I get your point. There is no claim by anyone that rugby at school is any higher risk than club rugby. My point is that engaging in a high-risk activity of your own volition in your spare time is very different to having to do it in a school-mandated activity.

I don't think any schools play contact rugby during PE, it's not really practical.

Some of the rugby schools do have 'compulsory' rugby for the first couple of months of first year, but the reality is that parents have a veto on this which they will excercise if either they or the kid really doesn't want to play. My experience would be that the ones who do play but have no real interest won't really involve themselves in any proper contact anyway, and then give up after the two months. They're not the ones who get injured. I'm not sure it's a great idea anyway, but that's not because kids with no ability or interest are likely to get hurt. That's not really the case.

irishbucsfan

Flipper22 wrote: »

I don't think any schools play contact rugby during PE, it's not really practical.

Some of the rugby schools do have 'compulsory' rugby for the first couple of months of first year, but the reality is that parents have a veto on this which they will excercise if either they or the kid really doesn't want to play. My experience would be that the ones who do play but have no real interest won't really involve themselves in any proper contact anyway, and then give up after the two months. They're not the ones who get injured. I'm not sure it's a great idea anyway, but that's not because kids with no ability or interest are likely to get hurt. That's not really the case.

I think it might be different in England, no idea if it's the case or not but from the letter I get the impression that it goes on during PE during schools and is mandatory.

Flipper22

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I think it might be different in England, no idea if it's the case or not but from the letter I get the impression that it goes on during PE during schools and is mandatory.

Yeah I think that's true.

zl1whqvjs75cdy

Seems like a bad idea to not teach kids how to tackle properly and then to throw them out against mammoth French forwards who will make bits of them. Unless the entire world operates this policy it is a total non runner. And that won't happen.

shrapnel222

why not look at the NZ system where they match kids by weight and not by age?

Surely that reduces a significant part of the "dangerous" side of the game (weight mismatches and poor tackling technique=injury), and this also has the advantage of encouraging running rugby as there is no advantage gained by running at people.

sydthebeat

shrapnel222 wrote: »

why not look at the NZ system where they match kids by weight and not by age?

Surely that reduces a significant part of the "dangerous" side of the game (weight mismatches and poor tackling technique=injury), and this also has the advantage of encouraging running rugby as there is no advantage gained by running at people.

thats not exactly correct

they grade by age..... but if kids are above certain weight bands, they will move up to the next age grade

http://playerwelfare.worldrugby.org/?subsection=64

and this is there for ethnic reasons amongst others

This has been done in these territories due to the concerns regarding the larger size of some children, especially from ethnic backgrounds where children tend to develop earlier, compared to the average for their age and the perceived injury risk to smaller children when playing with or against them

awec

Flipper22 wrote: »

I don't think any schools play contact rugby during PE, it's not really practical.

Some of the rugby schools do have 'compulsory' rugby for the first couple of months of first year, but the reality is that parents have a veto on this which they will excercise if either they or the kid really doesn't want to play. My experience would be that the ones who do play but have no real interest won't really involve themselves in any proper contact anyway, and then give up after the two months. They're not the ones who get injured. I'm not sure it's a great idea anyway, but that's not because kids with no ability or interest are likely to get hurt. That's not really the case.

This is exactly my experience.

There was no point in full contact rugby in my school during PE because the skill levels and understanding of the rules weren't at a sufficient level that you'd actually learn anything from it. It would just be a big waste of time for everyone.

The only people who played contact were the teams and they trained seperately, everyone else just played touch (which has most of the more complicated laws of rugby are removed).

Webbs

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I think it might be different in England, no idea if it's the case or not but from the letter I get the impression that it goes on during PE during schools and is mandatory.

Most schools in South Wales would have had mandatory rugby for a while in secondary schools during PE.

Our school had a guy who had played for Pontypridd and a couple of spots on the Welsh bench so I suppose we were lucky but we were taught all the basics for a long time before a tackle was made in anger. Once it became clear who wanted to play then it was either rugby for them, and a kick around soccer game for those not interested or the dreaded cross country run.

nice_guy80

It is about competitive rugby in the school systems

Children being forced to play full contact rugby when clearly they are not ready physically for it

the UK government is forcing rugby on the schools system (Tories)

2smiggy

i went to a 'Rugby school' but i was never forced to play. There were other sports like GAA for those who did not like rugby. If you preferred to do nothing and just smoke fags , you could do this as well

Those who were good at rugby were definitely encouraged, but I never seen anyone forced to play.

sydthebeat

just heard the doctor on the last word... 'scaremongering' doesnt cover his language

awec

2smiggy wrote: »

i went to a 'Rugby school' but i was never forced to play. There were other sports like GAA for those who did not like rugby. If you preferred to do nothing and just smoke fags , you could do this as well

Those who were good at rugby were definitely encouraged, but I never seen anyone forced to play.

I didn't play and spent my PE sessions in the pool, sauna and Jacuzzi. Much more rewarding.

former total

Awec went to school in the Playboy Mansion apparently