Doctors call for ban of tackling in Schools Rugby

sjwpjw

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

The letter refers to tackling in general, and not just protection from head injuries, although that has been a high profile topic in rugby for the last few years (even 10 years ago, I dont think we considered it an issue particularly - two weeks off (damn it!) and right as rain after that).
They arent speaking about tinkering with the details - but banning collisions and contact. Much as I have, and continue to, enjoy the game, I think they are probably right.
Yet hard to see the game exist without it. Which suggets maybe we are better without the game.

It would be sad to see the demise of the game. I would much rather try to improve safety in the ways suggested before conceding defeat. I don't see what there is to lose by reducing risk by lowering the tackle line and possibly improving the excitement and appeal by increasing the opportunities to offload than the constant ruck ruck ruck we see now...

Years ago when I played the object in the tackle was to bring the man to the ground. Nowadays not so much...

JPNelsforearm

sjwpjw wrote: »

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/opinion/77423260/super-rugby-sizzles-while-six-nations-fizzles

I would argue that lowering the tackle line would reduce (not eliminate note) risk whilst encouraging more passing/offloading out of the tackle.

But if you know as the ball carrier that the player can not tackle above X height, which means he has to constantly adopt a set body position you have a much greater advantage in terms of your own body position and the speed at which you can change direction and/or run over your opponent. Imo it puts defenders at a massive disadvantage.

JPNelsforearm

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

It isn't a completely mock version of it. Dismissing tag as not a proper sport is nonsense.

The idea of going for tags and aiming at hips and following the hips helps with tackle tech. It helps with training people to pass out of contact rather than during contact. Its designed to take ball carrier and tackler out of game just like full contact.

Going "tag rugby isn't rugby" adds nothing to your argument. A huge amount of kids in Ireland are thrown into full contact rugby considering there is no alternatives. Tag has many benefits and it can be used(and is) as a stepping stone to full contact so I don't see why it should be discounted/discouraged to the extent that you're saying...

Play tip in its many variations, fiji touch, league rules, etc etc, as a player I find tag to be the greatest waste of time, its completely artificial. It bears no resemblane in the way you play real rugby, touch rugby at least encourages proper defensive line, proper backline attack etc, tag doesnt.

I completely disagree that it in any way aids tackling, if anything it makes people more likely to use their hands and get into bad habits/body positions, its an alien action to perform on a ball carrier. lining someone up to hit them is completely different to lining someone up to rob a tag, just look at the body positions in both actions.

If anyone, kid or adult, is thrown into full contact rugby without numerous training sessions teaching proper tech, that coach should be fired.

sjwpjw

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

But if you know as the ball carrier that the player can not tackle above X height, which means he has to constantly adopt a set body position you have a much greater advantage in terms of your own body position and the speed at which you can change direction and/or run over your opponent. Imo it puts defenders at a massive disadvantage.

If it helps reduce risk that would be fine. So, if we accept what you say the attacking team might have an advantage - great. As long as the same rules apply to both teams then both will have this advantage so there is nothing unfair but it might be safer. We might even see more tries instead of so many penalties. Not the main reason (being player safety) but a bonus.

frostyjacks

frostyjacks wrote: »

This sounded like an April fool's story, but sadly no, people really are advocating this silly idea.

Some of the 'experts' who signed the letter are sociologists, gay rights campaigners and other assorted loony lefties. They'll do more harm than good if they have their way.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3474062/What-rugby-balls-Experts-demanding-ban-tackles-18s-rugby-reveal-motley-scrum-lefties-gender-obsessives-gay-campaigners-worryingly-insidious-agenda.html


Mod: Do not post this rubbish again. Debate the topic, not the politics or sexuality of people involved.

I made no mention of the sexuality of people involved. I pointed out, as have others, that many of the signatories of this letter have no background in either medical science or rugby. That is quite relevant to the topic.

jeamimus

sfbdqc wrote: »

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

If some people had their way, everything would be banned, including doing nothing because everything else was banned...

I dont believe its doctors in general behind this, its the risk avoidance industry, which is riding high at the moment. Anything with a risk is bad... One night recently, on the BBC news, all five items consisted of 'scientists warn' and 'doctors warn' type of stories. Most were scare stories and several had 'charities' or NGOs pushing them.

The Rape of Lucretia

Why would you believe that? In this case the letter to the relevant public officials is written by medical people. Not 'the risk avoidance industry'.

JPNelsforearm

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Why would you believe that? In this case the letter to the relevant public officials is written by medical people. Not 'the risk avoidance industry'.

eh, not quite

"The list of signatories includes two sociologists whose academic subjects are sexuality and sport.
Another specialises in sport and race, still another studies homophobia, two concentrate on children's rights, and there's an expert in environmental pollution as well as a specialist in masculinity.
As for the letter's two main signatories, neither are experts in broken bones and spinal injuries. First, let us look at Allyson Pollock. Yes, she's a professor of public health research at Queen Mary University, London. But she specialises in attacking the Government's NHS reforms, particularly any suggestion of the private sector intervening in the hallowed NHS.
To be fair to Professor Pollock, her son was injured on the rugby field — a shattered cheekbone — which must be distressing for any parent. But does that really give her the authority to try to emasculate the game for children across the country?
Not according to Dr Ken Quarrie, Senior Scientist (Injury Prevention & Performance) for the New Zealand Rugby Union. Five years ago, when Professor Pollock called for 'high tackles and scrums to be banned in schools', he accused her of wilfully misrepresenting research about schoolboy injuries to prove her case.

Professor Eric Anderson of the University of Winchester. He is an American sociologist and sexologist, 'specialising in adolescent men's gender and sexualities'.
Until now, he's been most prominent for getting into a row with Alan Titchmarsh, the Chancellor of Winchester University, who wasn't happy with Professor Anderson's views on having sex with young men.
Several of the signatories specialise in gender and sexuality issues in sport. Step forward, Dr Adi Adams, a sociologist at the University of Bath, and author of I Kiss Them Because I Love Them: The Emergence of Heterosexual Men Kissing in British Institutes Of Education.
It's hard to avoid the conclusion that this letter is more about political views than medical science and children's safety. Rugby is a sport often associated with public schools, grammar schools and the middle classes — although try telling that to the rugby players of Wales, where the sport is a national religion.
It's a sport associated, too, with old-fashioned male aggression — and salty jokes in the rugby club bar after too many pints of lager.
All this is anathema to the gender neutral, politically correct views of so many Left-wing lecturers on today's college campuses.
They're intent on the feminisation of sport despite the fact that competitive exercise is an extraordinarily effective way of diverting male testosterone away from violence and thugishness on the High Street."

2smiggy

sjwpjw wrote: »

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/opinion/77423260/super-rugby-sizzles-while-six-nations-fizzles

I would argue that lowering the tackle line would reduce (not eliminate note) risk whilst encouraging more passing/offloading out of the tackle.

more tries does not always mean better entertainment, and i'd imagine the weather is a fair bit better over there at the moment

The Lost Sheep

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Play tip in its many variations, fiji touch, league rules, etc etc, as a player I find tag to be the greatest waste of time, its completely artificial. It bears no resemblane in the way you play real rugby, touch rugby at least encourages proper defensive line, proper backline attack etc, tag doesnt.

I completely disagree that it in any way aids tackling, if anything it makes people more likely to use their hands and get into bad habits/body positions, its an alien action to perform on a ball carrier. lining someone up to hit them is completely different to lining someone up to rob a tag, just look at the body positions in both actions.

If anyone, kid or adult, is thrown into full contact rugby without numerous training sessions teaching proper tech, that coach should be fired.

Ive been coaching for few years now and tag has many benefits especially at lower grades and tag encourages proper defensive line, backline attack and it does aid tackling. It helps tackling through aiming for hips but instead of wrapping you simply pull the tag. Going for both tags at the one time is like going for a tackle.

Trojan

Tag rugby is not rugby. It's a different sport with its own set of injury problems.

It has a totally different set of rules that is mostly a small subset of one aspect of rugby union. No tackles, rucks, mauls, lineouts or kicking. It's closer to rugby league or even to basketball than rugby union.

sydthebeat

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

It helps tackling through aiming for hips but instead of wrapping you simply pull the tag. Going for both tags at the one time is like going for a tackle.

it doesnt help in preparing for full contact tackling as it rewards a "reaching out" action (especially diving tags) and not the "lead foot in the hoop" which is vital for a driving tackle.

Id go so far as to say it promotes bad tackling habits.

The Rape of Lucretia

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

eh, not quite



Quote:
"The list of signatories includes two sociologists whose academic subjects are sexuality and sport.
Another specialises in sport and race, still another studies homophobia, two concentrate on children's rights, and there's an expert in environmental pollution as well as a specialist in masculinity.
As for the letter's two main signatories, neither are experts in broken bones and spinal injuries. First, let us look at Allyson Pollock. Yes, she's a professor of public health research at Queen Mary University, London. But she specialises in attacking the Government's NHS reforms, particularly any suggestion of the private sector intervening in the hallowed NHS.
To be fair to Professor Pollock, her son was injured on the rugby field — a shattered cheekbone — which must be distressing for any parent. But does that really give her the authority to try to emasculate the game for children across the country?
Not according to Dr Ken Quarrie, Senior Scientist (Injury Prevention & Performance) for the New Zealand Rugby Union. Five years ago, when Professor Pollock called for 'high tackles and scrums to be banned in schools', he accused her of wilfully misrepresenting research about schoolboy injuries to prove her case.

Professor Eric Anderson of the University of Winchester. He is an American sociologist and sexologist, 'specialising in adolescent men's gender and sexualities'.
Until now, he's been most prominent for getting into a row with Alan Titchmarsh, the Chancellor of Winchester University, who wasn't happy with Professor Anderson's views on having sex with young men.
Several of the signatories specialise in gender and sexuality issues in sport. Step forward, Dr Adi Adams, a sociologist at the University of Bath, and author of I Kiss Them Because I Love Them: The Emergence of Heterosexual Men Kissing in British Institutes Of Education.
It's hard to avoid the conclusion that this letter is more about political views than medical science and children's safety. Rugby is a sport often associated with public schools, grammar schools and the middle classes — although try telling that to the rugby players of Wales, where the sport is a national religion.
It's a sport associated, too, with old-fashioned male aggression — and salty jokes in the rugby club bar after too many pints of lager.
All this is anathema to the gender neutral, politically correct views of so many Left-wing lecturers on today's college campuses.
They're intent on the feminisation of sport despite the fact that competitive exercise is an extraordinarily effective way of diverting male testosterone away from violence and thugishness on the High Street."

The extend and selective nature of that blatant ad hominem would make it look like there really is little genuine case for rebuttal of the substance of the missive itself.

JPNelsforearm

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

The extend and selective nature of that blatant ad hominem would make it look like there really is little genuine case for rebuttal of the substance of the missive itself.

Why are proponents of pseudoscience involved in a campaign of a medical nature?

JPNelsforearm

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Why are proponents of pseudoscience involved in a campaign of a medical nature?

Trying to be relevant and attention seeking.

Throw in some axe grinding and I'd imagine skewed perception of the participants.

LorMal

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Why are proponents of pseudoscience involved in a campaign of a medical nature?

You seem determined to attack the man, not the ball (an apt analogy in this case).
Doesn't matter who they are. They have a point - the game may be dangerous to younger kids whose bodies and brain tissue have not yet developed to cope with the type of collisions expected in rugby today.
Or maybe not. But definitely worth considering. No sport is worth long term damage.

frostyjacks

LorMal wrote: »

You seem determined to attack the man, not the ball (an apt analogy in this case).
Doesn't matter who they are. They have a point - the game may be dangerous to younger kids whose bodies and brain tissue have not yet developed to cope with the type of collisions expected in rugby today.
Or maybe not. But definitely worth considering. No sport is worth long term damage.

If they are citing medical grounds, then it does matter who they are. The science doesn't support their conclusions, as this doctor articulates in a debate.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/mar/02/rugby-union-debate-tackling-banned-schools

He is a medical professional, and the pro-ban debater is a professor of masculinity, Eric Anderson. He was one of the main signatories and if you read some of the stories about him you would take everything he says with huge buckets of salt.

LorMal

You seem to be deliberately missing my point. I don't care if it was Fr Dougal's letter.
Is there an argument for considering adapting rugby in schools to avoid serious injury?

JPNelsforearm

LorMal wrote: »

You seem determined to attack the man, not the ball (an apt analogy in this case).
Doesn't matter who they are. They have a point - the game may be dangerous to younger kids whose bodies and brain tissue have not yet developed to cope with the type of collisions expected in rugby today.
Or maybe not. But definitely worth considering. No sport is worth long term damage.

I have no doubt that repeated heavy impacts from a young age can have detrimental effects on ones cognitive ability. Im not decrying medical professionals who are only looking out for people . Im not decrying education on the potential dangers of high impact sports from a young age, Im not decrying campaigns on the dangers of concussion etc etc

I do, however, have a massive problem with pseudoscientists with an obvious bias, and possible loathing of of a game like rugby and the people who play(or rather, the people who they perceive to play rugby) sticking their oar in with calls for a ban on the sport.

If you cant see a problem with a campaign to ban rugby that numbers sociologists and gender studies folk, who see problems with masculinity and traditional male pursuits, well, you are being deliberately ignorant. I wouldnt trust them to lace a pair of shoes, never mind lobby "in the name of safety", I would be inherently suspicious of those types of people using Helen Lovejoy tactics to ban something they dont like, or to suit an agenda.

As for "no sport not being worth the damage", show me the studies performed on the hundreds of thousands, probably millions of men who have been playing rugby for the past twenty years. The data does not support the calls for an outright ban.

The Rape of Lucretia

frostyjacks wrote: »

If they are citing medical grounds, then it does matter who they are. The science doesn't support their conclusions, as this doctor articulates in a debate.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/mar/02/rugby-union-debate-tackling-banned-schools

He is a medical professional, and the pro-ban debater is a professor of masculinity, Eric Anderson. He was one of the main signatories and if you read some of the stories about him you would take everything he says with huge buckets of salt.

I find his arguments very weak - to the point of, if this is the best that can be done to counter the claims of the 70, then it looks like the 70 have a very strong case.

The 'No' doctor arguments can be summarised as :
- significant work has been done to improve player safety : that does not say they have reached a safe level
- should you ban all sports if there is a risk of death or injury : clearly no, but that does not mean you should not ban rugby if its risks are high. On the contrary, if there are safer sports, then the case to ban it is even stronger, since you can retain the benefits of sport by playing a safer one
- it develops confidence in learning, confidence, discipline, self esteem and exercise : this is relevant to team sport and not exclusive to rugby
- 'I' and other parents are happy for our children to play it : thats about as weak and removed from science an argument as you can get.
- one of the signatories used hyperbole on a radio show debate with me : come on now....
- sport is good : again, not in dispute. The point is for rugby the risks out weigh the good, and there are lots of alternative sports, without the collission risk, that bring benefits of fun, exercise, development, team building, discipline, etc,
- we are working on treating concussion : so there are issues, as yet unsolved

Very weak isnt it ?

LorMal

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

I have no doubt that repeated heavy impacts from a young age can have detrimental effects on ones cognitive ability. Im not decrying medical professionals who are only looking out for people . Im not decrying education on the potential dangers of high impact sports from a young age, Im not decrying campaigns on the dangers of concussion etc etc

I do, however, have a massive problem with pseudoscientists with an obvious bias, and possible loathing of of a game like rugby and the people who play(or rather, the people who they perceive to play rugby) sticking their oar in with calls for a ban on the sport.

If you cant see a problem with a campaign to ban rugby that numbers sociologists and gender studies folk, who see problems with masculinity and traditional male pursuits, well, you are being deliberately ignorant. I wouldnt trust them to lace a pair of shoes, never mind lobby "in the name of safety", I would be inherently suspicious of those types of people using Helen Lovejoy tactics to ban something they dont like, or to suit an agenda.

As for "no sport not being worth the damage", show me the studies performed on the hundreds of thousands, probably millions of men who have been playing rugby for the past twenty years. The data does not support the calls for an outright ban.

Again you are deriding the person, not the point.

LorMal

LorMal wrote: »

Again you are deriding the person, not the point.

I see what you are getting at, but at the end of the day - this thread is about that specific article. Furthermore it's a distinctly medical issue so I'm not sure what there is to discuss unless there happens to be experts on here that are willing to get into it.

The contents of the article merit discussion sure. But the authors of the article are probably not best placed to be on either side of that discussion, nor for that point am I.

Anything and everything else is armchair speculation.

FortySeven

My uncle, who is a doctor. Played rugby throughout his childhood and into his adult years. He eventually had to stop playing when he suffered a catastrophic back injury while bending over to pick up a plantpot in his greenhouse. I say we ban gardening. Terrible, dangerous pursuit!

His son plays rugby, he is also now a doctor.

Both of these highly qualified individuals are much more concerned about the effects of refined sugars than cuts and scrapes while playing sports.

We can heal most collision injuries fairly easily. There will always be those exceptions but if we were to ban a sport because of the few then we should also ban driving.

Diabetes, obesity and food related behavioral disorders are not so easy to deal with and these pontificating PHDs should perhaps grasp the nettle in front of them instead of seeking out a subject too small to mount a proper defence. I'm sick to death of these seemingly daily assaults on our way of life from people who have based their lives around gender studies. Absolute waste of learning, ridiculous, meaningless tripe used to justify an attempted temporal castration on the male species.

The Rape of Lucretia

FortySeven wrote: »

My uncle, who is a doctor. Played rugby throughout his childhood and into his adult years. He eventually had to stop playing when he suffered a catastrophic back injury while bending over to pick up a plantpot in his greenhouse. I say we ban gardening. Terrible, dangerous pursuit!

His son plays rugby, he is also now a doctor.

Both of these highly qualified individuals are much more concerned about the effects of refined sugars than cuts and scrapes while playing sports.

We can heal most collision injuries fairly easily. There will always be those exceptions but if we were to ban a sport because of the few then we should also ban driving.

Diabetes, obesity and food related behavioral disorders are not so easy to deal with and these pontificating PHDs should perhaps grasp the nettle in front of them instead of seeking out a subject too small to mount a proper defence. I'm sick to death of these seemingly daily assaults on our way of life from people who have based their lives around gender studies. Absolute waste of learning, ridiculous, meaningless tripe used to justify an attempted temporal castration on the male species.

Whataboutery, and personal attacks.

This letter certainly seems to be attracting a lot of very weak and desparate sounding attack.

former total

I'm at a loss as to why a medical doctor's opinion should carry more weight than anyone else.

The only medical questions are:
- is it good for the health of children to get exercise?
- does rugby cause injuries?
and we don't really need a doctor to answer either of those.

After that, you're into sociology and psychology.

The Rape of Lucretia

former total wrote: »

The only medical questions are:
- is it good for the health of children to get exercise?
- does rugby cause injuries?
and we don't really need a doctor to answer either of those.

Yes.
No.

Which makes it a slam dunk for, the banning of rugby for kids.


But I dont think its quite so simple. But certainly worth a serious examination.

JPNelsforearm

LorMal wrote: »

Again you are deriding the person, not the point.

Because he is a quack relying on partial research, if he was an actual medical professional I would say "you are a medical professional relying on incomplete research due to misplaced concern", come back with a heap of research papers backing up your letter.

In his case I am saying he is a quack relying on incomplete research to further a political agenda, he is actually dangerous, damn right I'll play the man before I play the ball when his motives are so blatant.

Why should you not call out a snake in the grass, because he's using kids health as a protection for his own agenda? Nonsense.

irishbucsfan

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Whataboutery, and personal attacks.

This letter certainly seems to be attracting a lot of very weak and desparate sounding attack.

If you try to use the letters after your name to further an argument then you can't cry when they are criticised or called into question.

Hagz

Reading over the last few pages, tag rugby certainly seems to be getting a bad rap. Personally I think it can be of real benefit to young players. Of course it offers little in the way of defence, but it's a great platform to develop passing, footwork and cardio. I would absolutely encourage any young school or club player to try it out.

LorMal

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Because he is a quack relying on partial research, if he was an actual medical professional I would say "you are a medical professional relying on incomplete research due to misplaced concern", come back with a heap of research papers backing up your letter.

In his case I am saying he is a quack relying on incomplete research to further a political agenda, he is actually dangerous, damn right I'll play the man before I play the ball when his motives are so blatant.

Why should you not call out a snake in the grass, because he's using kids health as a protection for his own agenda? Nonsense.

Yep, same again.