Doctor calls for ban under 18s playing rugby

The Lost Sheep

Thought this deserved its own thread as very relevant to all grades of rugby and wont be seen in the schools thread as much as in its own thread.
And here is another article on the same topic
https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/how-head-injuries-will-end-sport-as-we-know-it-1.3105943

Dr Omalu, after giving the keynote address at MyHealth public lecture Knocking Out Concussion in Sportthis Tuesday in Dublin, will receive an honorary doctorate from the Royal College of Surgeons.
The talk will be streamed live at rcsi.ie/myhealth.

thebaz wrote: »

Doctor calling for ban of schoolboy rugby and other sports :-

https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/under-18s-should-not-play-rugby-says-concussion-doctor-1.3105970

Think it is way over the top, can speak with experience as I suffered concussion playing schoolboy rugby - sure there is risk, there is risk in life, but the benefits of playing rugby, American football and boxing far outweigh the guaranteed safety of playing ther equivalent in a virtual safe world on a playstation. Life is risky and underage sport too, by all means try cut the risk but banning the sport, seams crazy given there enjoyment and health benefits - many I know who gave up sport early went down the road of addiction and much more serious dangerous activities.

sydthebeat

Round and Round we go....

Jawgap

I would've thought only allowing full contact at age 18 would be a recipe for disaster......if the first experience full grown, or effectively full grown, players have of physicality is at age 18 then the physics, combined with their lack of experience, is going to result in a lot of injuries......you may reduce the incidence of concussion and head trauma, but at what cost? Increased back and joint injuries? And certainly a lot of soft tissue injuries.

bilston

I'm only basing this on the headline but what a load of nonsense. Lets van everything with an element of risk for under 18s then. What does that leave for them? Walking around in circles in a locked room?

frozenfrozen

forget banning anything - there should just be emphasis put on testing for concussion and a change in the stigma for coming off the pitch after being hit hard in the head

happened all the time when I played in school, you'd be walking around gee eyed after a big hit to the head but wouldn't tell anyone

The Lost Sheep

Jawgap wrote: »

I would've thought only allowing full contact at age 18 would be a recipe for disaster......if the first experience full grown, or effectively full grown, players have of physicality is at age 18 then the physics, combined with their lack of experience, is going to result in a lot of injuries......you may reduce the incidence of concussion and head trauma, but at what cost? Increased back and joint injuries? And certainly a lot of soft tissue injuries.

It would cause chaos.

frozenfrozen wrote: »

forget banning anything - there should just be emphasis put on testing for concussion and a change in the stigma for coming off the pitch after being hit hard in the head

happened all the time when I played in school, you'd be walking around gee eyed after a big hit to the head but wouldn't tell anyone

How do you do put emphasis on testing for concussion. If any doubt on concussion at any level below pro the player should leave field and cant return for 21/23 days if diagnosed.
The stigma has changed considerably at age grade and adult and the monitoring/recording of concussive injuries is significantly better than even 2/3 years ago.

Former Former

People should read the article

D14Rugby

I love this quote from him

In 2017 there is no justifiable reason why a child under the age of 18 must continue to play rugby.

I respect the man for all he did in regards to concussion in the nfl and the wider impact that has had,but that is just a ridiculous statement to make. How about for the enjoyment, the numerous health, mental and physical, benefits and because if you tell people that they can only play at 18 there will be tonnes more injuries.

pickarooney

Former Former wrote: »

People should read the article

Why?

sydthebeat

Former Former wrote: »

People should read the article

which of the posters here are you assuming hasnt ??

jdeego10

How can a doctor ban a sport

JPCN1

bilston wrote: »

I'm only basing this on the headline but what a load of nonsense. Lets van everything with an element of risk for under 18s then. What does that leave for them? Walking around in circles in a locked room?

A locked and padded room. Virtually every sport carries risks. Not playing sport carries risks...
Seems to me like a Dr trying to get a bit of attention for himself.

irishbucsfan

JPCN1 wrote: »

A locked and padded room. Virtually every sport carries risks. Not playing sport carries risks...
Seems to me like a Dr trying to get a bit of attention for himself.

Ah now, whatever else this is not someone looking for attention for himself. He already has that.

I don't doubt at all that he completely believes what he says and the work he's done in the past will save lives. It's important to have doctors like him and O'Driscoll reminding us that there is very real risk involved.

He's entitled to his opinion. And he's far more qualified to give that opinion than most others. But it's just an opinion.

Tim Robbins

My own view, as I have said before the issues at the various levels of the game are very different.

At mini's, youths etc it can be because the post tackle is a mess, not properly coached and reffed and at the upper levels of the game it's because players are eating 10 chickens a day, playing too many matches in too physical a style.

Think we need different solutions for different levels of game. If we are talking about grass roots of the game... in terms of health and safety, I think you shouldn't be allowed to coach the game unless you have done a certain number of courses and have been assessed. Similarly, all matches should have properly trained ref's who are also assessed. You also shouldn't be allowed assess unless you are at a certain level. This would inevitably mean more funding needed for the grass roots but I think it would help increase safety levels,

I am parent and to be honest, I don't like the idea of my own kid playing a match when a ref can't keep up with play, doesn't understand how important it is to keep players on feet post tackle etc. I would prefer increased cost and a guarantee of proper standards.

ectoraige

Tim Robbins wrote: »

My own view, as I have said before the issues at the various levels of the game are very different.

At mini's, youths etc it can be because the post tackle is a mess, not properly coached and reffed and at the upper levels of the game it's because players are eating 10 chickens a day, playing too many matches in too physical a style.

Think we need different solutions for different levels of game. If we are talking about grass roots of the game... in terms of health and safety, I think you shouldn't be allowed to coach the game unless you have done a certain number of courses and have been assessed. Similarly, all matches should have properly trained ref's who are also assessed. You also shouldn't be allowed assess unless you are at a certain level. This would inevitably mean more funding needed for the grass roots but I think it would help increase safety levels,

I am parent and to be honest, I don't like the idea of my own kid playing a match when a ref can't keep up with play, doesn't understand how important it is to keep players on feet post tackle etc. I would prefer increased cost and a guarantee of proper standards.

Personally I would introduce a second official on the pitch who is specifically focused on the breakdown and player safety. There's so much for the ref to do and at underage and amateur levels you can't expect to always have the highest calibre referees.

Guy:Incognito

I kn9w rugby has been the big focus I the last couple of years but surely boxing has to be much worse no? The head is the main target and the goal is to knock each other out. Presumably kids train similar amounts in boxing as other sports so 2 - 3 times a week they are getting their brains rattled around their heads?

pickarooney

An extra ref on the sideline with a cheap drone?
Handy for scrum infringements too.

Former Former

There are two different arguments here.

What is best for the sport is the status quo and this guy should f**k off.

What is best for the prevention of chronic brain injury in rugby players probably isn't the status quo and this guy may have something to contribute.

Just read it.

Tim Robbins

ectoraige wrote: »

Personally I would introduce a second official on the pitch who is specifically focused on the breakdown and player safety. There's so much for the ref to do and at underage and amateur levels you can't expect to always have the highest calibre referees.

Refs have different styles and sometimes have to make subjective calls. Players want consistency
so think an actual second ref on pitch would be difficult.

Touch Judges should be looking out for anything to do with foul or dangerous play and feeding that back into a ref in an agreed format. They should have more of them and the only way you get that (I think) is to pay them. GAA and Soccer ref's get paid. Rugby ref's get mileage (unless you are doing AIL rugby) but that's it. For youth's, mini's a lot of the time they can't get a ref so it's a Dad or an inexperienced coach.

When a pitch is flooded, we say unplayable match too dangerous. If you haven't got a properly trained ref for a contact sport, it should be the same.

The Lost Sheep

Tim Robbins wrote: »

My own view, as I have said before the issues at the various levels of the game are very different.

At mini's, youths etc it can be because the post tackle is a mess, not properly coached and reffed and at the upper levels of the game it's because players are eating 10 chickens a day, playing too many matches in too physical a style.

Think we need different solutions for different levels of game. If we are talking about grass roots of the game... in terms of health and safety, I think you shouldn't be allowed to coach the game unless you have done a certain number of courses and have been assessed. Similarly, all matches should have properly trained ref's who are also assessed. You also shouldn't be allowed assess unless you are at a certain level. This would inevitably mean more funding needed for the grass roots but I think it would help increase safety levels,

I am parent and to be honest, I don't like the idea of my own kid playing a match when a ref can't keep up with play, doesn't understand how important it is to keep players on feet post tackle etc. I would prefer increased cost and a guarantee of proper standards.

Some very big generalisations there Tim. Like saying areas of game are not refereed.
All well and good saying you cant coach until you attend courses and be assessed but that is far from feasible across the entire country. And how many courses should you need to attend before coaching a team?
Development officers will get involved if called upon or if they see they need to.
Ideally every game would have a branch association/society referee in charge but unless you get a couple of hundred people to join the 4 associations/societies then that wont happen
And you are not officially an assessor unless you are an experienced referee and even then you are really a coach to the referee you are watching and not simply assessing them.

ectoraige wrote: »

Personally I would introduce a second official on the pitch who is specifically focused on the breakdown and player safety. There's so much for the ref to do and at underage and amateur levels you can't expect to always have the highest calibre referees.

Its difficult enough to get one official for most games and a second official isnt needed. You need to work harder with the training and development of referees and that is happening through P Fitzgibbon, S Gallagher etc in refs department.

pickarooney wrote: »

An extra ref on the sideline with a cheap drone?
Handy for scrum infringements too.

And who funds that and that isnt really going to help..

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Refs have different styles and sometimes have to make subjective calls. Players want consistency
so think an actual second ref on pitch would be difficult.

Touch Judges should be looking out for anything to do with foul or dangerous play and feeding that back into a ref in an agreed format. They should have more of them and the only way you get that (I think) is to pay them. GAA and Soccer ref's get paid. Rugby ref's get mileage (unless you are doing AIL rugby) but that's it. For youth's, mini's a lot of the time they can't get a ref so it's a Dad or an inexperienced coach.

When a pitch is flooded, we say unplayable match too dangerous. If you haven't got a properly trained ref for a contact sport, it should be the same.

Tim that already happens. Paying is far from the only way to get more people involved in officiating and even if you do you will far from likely get the best people most suited to being in the middle of a game.
And while Soccer referees get an actual match fee do GAA refs? Isnt it just expenses???
And AIL refs dont get paid. If amatuer they get expenses just like anyone else.
Well you dont need a qualified branch referee to do minis and the associate and community refereeing schemes were created to help give coaches who end up refereeing quite a bit some direction and coaching to help them for when they do have to referee.

D14Rugby

Former Former wrote: »

There are two different arguments here.

What is best for the sport is the status quo and this guy should f**k off.

What is best for the prevention of chronic brain injury in rugby players probably isn't the status quo and this guy may have something to contribute.

Just read it.

But that's not what he's saying. He's saying u 18's shouldn't play at all. Not let's look at how to prevent head injuries.
There is a mix, something needs to be done but this guy hasn't put any thought into it other than not play the sport which is lazy and stupid

Former Former

D14Rugby wrote: »

But that's not what he's saying. He's saying u 18's shouldn't play at all. Not let's look at how to prevent head injuries.
There is a mix, something needs to be done but this guy hasn't put any thought into it other than not play the sport which is lazy and stupid

World renowned medical expert on sport-induced brain trauma is lazy and stupid?

READ. IT.

D14Rugby

Former Former wrote: »

World renowned medical expert on sport-induced brain trauma is lazy and stupid?

READ. IT.

I HAVE, MULTIPLE TIMES
He's not lazy and stupid, his "solution" is and would only cause more injuries and of increased severity.

Former Former

D14Rugby wrote: »

I HAVE, MULTIPLE TIMES
He's not lazy and stupid, his "solution" is and would only cause more injuries and of increased severity.

There is no other solution.

We either ban full-contact for under 18s

Or

We accept the significant possibilty of brain injury.

After 18, the risk is still there but at least you're an adult and you can make your own decisions. That's not the case for kids at schools level.

D14Rugby

Former Former wrote: »

There is no other solution.

We either ban full-contact for under 18s

Or

We accept the significant possibilty of brain injury.

After 18, the risk is still there but at least you're an adult and you can make your own decisions. That's not the case for kids at schools level.

There are many other solutions to not even attempt to firstly think of any or to entertain any suggestions made is lazy.
Football is being linked to concussion too do we banned that? You could get hit by a cricket ball, ban it. Oh tennis you could get hit by the ball with that too, ban it. Chasing you could trip and hit your head. Getting the point? Every piece of exercise has risk, you can't just say let's ban it and call that a solution.
We can't wrap kids in cotton wool or else all they'll have is their PC friendly video games and TV and then we'll have a bunch of overweight lazy 18 year old who won't want to play sports.
Rugby should be made safer, yes, and people are working towards that. Banning it until you're 18 is a good way to end up with a lot more severe injuries to a lot more people.

sydthebeat

everyone who steps onto a field, court, arena, track etc knows there is a risk of injury, and potential serious injury at that.

the administrators of the game have the responsibility to make the game as safe as possible while still maintaining the ethos of the game.

calling a spade a spade, this doctor wants to make rugby "adults only". that wont happen.

the administators of the game constantly update the laws to make it a safer game while maintaining the ethos of the game.
there will still be serious injuries, and no doubt, fatalities in the future... in rugby as well as other sports... but i believe that is human nature, and the human condition, and we cannot protect our kids from every ill in the world no matter how much we'd like to.

Tim Robbins

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Tim that already happens. Paying is far from the only way to get more people involved in officiating and even if you do you will far from likely get the best people most suited to being in the middle of a game.
And while Soccer referees get an actual match fee do GAA refs? Isnt it just expenses???
And AIL refs dont get paid. If amatuer they get expenses just like anyone else.
Well you dont need a qualified branch referee to do minis and the associate and community refereeing schemes were created to help give coaches who end up refereeing quite a bit some direction and coaching to help them for when they do have to referee.

GAA refs get paid even at U8.
AIL refs used to get different fees depending on the level.

Paying rugby refs and TJs would mean we could demand higher levels of fitness and standards at all levels from U8 right up.

Most assessors are very good but think standards would be better again if they were paid. Paying refs, TJs and assessors would attract more talent into the game. For example, if a TJ was getting paid 50 euro for doing a J4 game and had to be of a certain standard, you are more likely to get one. But it all comes at a cost - it would mean an average of a fiver per player for every game they play.

Testosterscone

D14Rugby wrote: »

Rugby should be made safer, yes, and people are working towards that. Banning it until you're 18 is a good way to end up with a lot more severe injuries to a lot more people.

I agree with the point that banning u18's is a recipe for disaster.

The last 15 years have seen rugby players dramatically change. The hits haven't changed that much but the explosive power behind them definitely has.

For me I would probably be more incline to make changes to try and change the dynamics of underage rugby - reduced pitch size for example. Things that can change the sport at underage level to reduce the physical aspect while still preparing players for long term development.

Having a more skill based emphasis at underage level while players are still physically maturing can only be a good thing for developing the sport while protecting players.

irishbucsfan

A reduced pitch size would have the opposite effect.

Testosterscone

irishbucsfan wrote: »

A reduced pitch size would have the opposite effect.

Might be wrong but I would imagine it would reduce some of the high velocity hits.

pickarooney

Testosterscone wrote: »

Might be wrong but I would imagine it would reduce some of the high velocity hits.

It would definitely increase the total number of collisions.

Jawgap

Testosterscone wrote: »

Might be wrong but I would imagine it would reduce some of the high velocity hits.

Unlikely. The acceleration involved in most hits is generated within a few metres of the point of contact. A smaller pitch (unless you reduced the number of players) would mean less space and an increase in the frequency of contact.

Making the tackler responsible for executing the tackle, and penalising quite severely any poorly executed tackles on a strict liability basis might help as it would discourage tackling when there is a low probability of a good contact being made. Quite harsh on the tackler though.

pickarooney

Can anyone quantify if offloading in contact/from the floor is more likely to generate dangerous hits as defenders hit high to prevent them than going to ground and the subsequent clean outs?

The Lost Sheep

Tim Robbins wrote:

GAA refs get paid even at U8. AIL refs used to get different fees depending on the level.
Paying rugby refs and TJs would mean we could demand higher levels of fitness and standards at all levels from U8 right up.
Most assessors are very good but think standards would be better again if they were paid. Paying refs, TJs and assessors would attract more talent into the game. For example, if a TJ was getting paid 50 euro for doing a J4 game and had to be of a certain standard, you are more likely to get one. But it all comes at a cost - it would mean an average of a fiver per player for every game they play.

gaa refs don't get straight fee for refereeing games and I've done the odd game or two of Gaelic in championships. ..
Ail refs get their travel covered. More if theyve to overnight before a game but an actual match fee. No they don't.
Paying people doesn't make them better.
Paying people doesn't mean we will get more involved and certainly not for right reasons.

Testosterscone wrote:

The last 15 years have seen rugby players dramatically change. The hits haven't changed that much but the explosive power behind them definitely has. For me I would probably be more incline to make changes to try and change the dynamics of underage rugby - reduced pitch size for example. Things that can change the sport at underage level to reduce the physical aspect while still preparing players for long term development.

a smaller pitch just makes things worse and gives everyone less space and more time to run at people.

Testosterscone wrote:

Having a more skill based emphasis at underage level while players are still physically maturing can only be a good thing for developing the sport while protecting players.

how don you build this higher emphasis on skills when so many main underage competitions are cup based and therefore sides will focus much more on playing risk free less skill orientated rugby

Jawgap wrote:

Making the tackler responsible for executing the tackle, and penalising quite severely any poorly executed tackles on a strict liability basis might help as it would discourage tackling when there is a low probability of a good contact being made. Quite harsh on the tackler though.

the tackler is already responsible in law for executing the tackle and is penalised for dangerous tackles.what do you want changed with how tackle is refereed?

D14Rugby

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

how don you build this higher emphasis on skills when so many main underage competitions are cup based and therefore sides will focus much more on playing risk free less skill orientated rugby

I don't know if it would work but I've always wondered if a bonus point or two for making x number of passes in the phase or two before scoring would encourage more open rugby.
Also id be of the opinion a second ref would help.
And an Branch doctor present at each match, though not necessarily one per match maybe one per every 3 matches. It would bring extra cost but to have a fully qualified person there with no reason to allow the kid to continue playing might help a lot.

The Lost Sheep

D14Rugby wrote:

I don't know if it would work but I've always wondered if a bonus point or two for making x number of passes in the phase or two before scoring would encourage more open rugby. Also id be of the opinion a second ref would help. And an Branch doctor present at each match, though not necessarily one per match maybe one per every 3 matches. It would bring extra cost but to have a fully qualified person there with no reason to allow the kid to continue playing might help a lot.

bonus points only work in leagues. You need to change schools cups but nobody will alter golden goose.
Who is to monitor these passes before scores?? The referees?? Theyve enough to do.
A branch doctor at each game. What you mean by branch doc??
There isn't enough docs to have one at each game.

super_furry

Maybe start grading kids by size rather than age? There's such a huge difference at 16/17 that it can be like full grown adults playing against children.

yabadabado

JPCN1 wrote: »

A locked and padded room. Virtually every sport carries risks. Not playing sport carries risks...
Seems to me like a Dr trying to get a bit of attention for himself.

You are talking complete rubbish. You may not agree with his opinion but the man doesn't need to use rugby to get attention.

The Lost Sheep

ArmchairQB wrote:

Very few under 20s getting anything from clubs universities yes they give moreo help but to many going to the universities and getting it to easy very pampered life style evidence by how many are leaving universities this season and last. School system supports academy but actual academies are beginning to lag behind the top English academies

there is significant number.ber getting something at 20s. If I was able to get €€ playing 20s then guys who're very talented will be...
Schools system needs more integration with clubs.

super_furry wrote:

Maybe start grading kids by size rather than age? There's such a huge difference at 16/17 that it can be like full grown adults playing against children.

that isn't needed and there isn't enough to warrant it. It's needed in NZ because of islanders etc.

D14Rugby

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

bonus points only work in leagues. You need to change schools cups but nobody will alter golden goose.
Who is to monitor these passes before scores?? The referees?? Theyve enough to do.
A branch doctor at each game. What you mean by branch doc??
There isn't enough docs to have one at each game.

I meant bonus point as in if you score a try with x passes its 6/7/8 points plus conversion
That's partially why I'd have 2 refs. I'd have one that focuses on the tackle and other areas that concussion is likely and maintains pass count and the other that does normal ref stuff.
A doctor that works for the branch as opposed to for the clubs, like a branch ref.
As i said not each game at every group of games as you tend not to just have one game at a time, its generally 2/3 at a time. Plenty of doctors are rugby fans im sure priority for tickets would be enough to convince a few to spend their spare saturday/sunday mornings supervising kids.

He's right on the HIA anyway, it's useless and could even be dangerous.

Stopping underage rugby, or even stopping contact in underage rugby, would completely kill the sport as we know it.

Is concussion a big issue in underage rugby, are the studies or facts on this? I can't really remember it being so from my own days. I did get knocked out once though in maybe 5th year.

The Lost Sheep

D14Rugby wrote:

I meant bonus point as in if you score a try with x passes its 6/7/8 points plus conversion That's partially why I'd have 2 refs. I'd have one that focuses on the tackle and other areas that concussion is likely and maintains pass count and the other that does normal ref stuff. A doctor that works for the branch as opposed to for the clubs, like a branch ref. As i said not each game at every group of games as you tend not to just have one game at a time, its generally 2/3 at a time. Plenty of doctors are rugby fans im sure priority for tickets would be enough to convince a few to spend their spare saturday/sunday mornings supervising kids.

I do the think it's necessary
There isn't enough docs you could employ to do it. Possibly get ambulances/order of Malta mandatory if more than 2/3 games are being played at one venue at same time.
We have enough issues getting one ref at games so 2 is just completely unrealistic

Milana Creamy Stipend wrote:

He's right on the HIA anyway, it's useless and could even be dangerous.
Stopping underage rugby, or even stopping contact in underage rugby, would completely kill the sport as we know it. Is concussion a big issue in underage rugby, are the studies or facts on this? I can't really remember it being so from my own days. I did get knocked out once though in maybe 5th year.

by big issue? The awareness of it is much higher and in most cases if there is any thoughts of concussion player is removed. There has been small studies in Ireland of injuries of underage players but specifically on concussion

Jawgap

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

.....

the tackler is already responsible in law for executing the tackle and is penalised for dangerous tackles.what do you want changed with how tackle is refereed?

I appreciate that (I do ref) my point was that instead of only penalising 'dangeorus' tackles, the standard of care would be raised from dangerous/reckless to careless - and it would be dealt with as a strict liability offence - in other words, the outcome is judged on its merits rather than any consideration being given to what the intent was of the the player in making the tackle.

As I said, it would be very harsh on the tackler, but it might discourage players from trying high risk/low probability of success tackles. Dangerous tackling is already adequately dealt with, imo, but you still do get knocks capable of causing head trauma when a player tries their best to execute a compliant tackle but the circumstances in which they are required to do so exceed their talent/ability.

Personally, I think teaching players to tackle better and look after themselves is a better approach than relying on officials to look after players. Clearly officials have an important role in that regard, but they can't be everywhere and watch everything.

Guy:Incognito

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

that isn't needed and there isn't enough to warrant it. It's needed in NZ because of islanders etc.

I coach at u13 at the minute. There's a fairly big size difference between the smallest and biggest in our squad. We've also come up against more than 1 team with players 6 foot and a bit bigger.

There are teams that have one massive big heavy kid that runs through everyone like skittles . That doesn't do anyone any good. That kid might not get properly hit for years.

D14Rugby

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

I do the think it's necessary
There isn't enough docs you could employ to do it. Possibly get ambulances/order of Malta mandatory if more than 2/3 games are being played at one venue at same time.
We have enough issues getting one ref at games so 2 is just completely unrealistic

I'm guessing thats supposed to say don't. Yeah it's not necessary but it would encourage a more open game.
Well I didn't mean doctors as in doctors probably should have said independent first aid experts.
If there's a will there's a way, 2 refs I think would improve safety as just now the ref can't see everything, it would be like a tmo on the pitch.

Jawgap

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

I coach at u13 at the minute. There's a fairly big size difference between the smallest and biggest in our squad. We've also come up against more than 1 team with players 6 foot and a bit bigger.

There are teams that have one massive big heavy kid that runs through everyone like skittles . That doesn't do anyone any good. That kid might not get properly hit for years.

I used to coach, and 'twas always as thus......there should be some mechanism whereby age and weight are used to grade players - if you are big for an age class, you can step up, if you're a bit slight you hang back.....saying that you'll always get teams/clubs who'll abuse it.

.....and yeah, it does no one any good, including the big kid, if they don't learn how to run, tackle and pass in competitive situations. I always found that the big kids tended to suffer once they lost their physical advantage.....and the kids who started off slight but developed physically ended up in their mid to late teens as the outstanding players as being 'skittled' made them improvise, and then the physical development removed that disadvantage........which is not an argument for stacking U-11 and below with a few well placed big players

The Rape of Lucretia

D14Rugby wrote: »

I love this quote from him

In 2017 there is no justifiable reason why a child under the age of 18 must continue to play rugby.

I respect the man for all he did in regards to concussion in the nfl and the wider impact that has had,but that is just a ridiculous statement to make. How about for the enjoyment, the numerous health, mental and physical, benefits and because if you tell people that they can only play at 18 there will be tonnes more injuries.

Let them play soccer.

D14Rugby

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Let them play soccer.

Even that's being linked to concussion and alzheimers

The Lost Sheep

D14Rugby wrote: »

I meant bonus point as in if you score a try with x passes its 6/7/8 points plus conversion
That's partially why I'd have 2 refs. I'd have one that focuses on the tackle and other areas that concussion is likely and maintains pass count and the other that does normal ref stuff.
A doctor that works for the branch as opposed to for the clubs, like a branch ref.
As i said not each game at every group of games as you tend not to just have one game at a time, its generally 2/3 at a time. Plenty of doctors are rugby fans im sure priority for tickets would be enough to convince a few to spend their spare saturday/sunday mornings supervising kids.

Again i dont think its necessary and 2 refs isnt practical. Very hard to justify having some games with 2 refs while there is some with none and even with 2/3 games at a time you wouldnt have enough docs to do it. You would be lucky to get an ambulance. The only games ive been involved in that have had ambulances there from the kick off have been AIL and then provincial league/cup finals.
I dont think tickets would be enough incentive. It would be fantastic if we could get more to help but i dont see it.
A "branch doc" isnt realistic though. The only docs who work with branches are those who work in the pro game bar the IRFU medical department

Jawgap wrote: »

I appreciate that (I do ref) my point was that instead of only penalising 'dangeorus' tackles, the standard of care would be raised from dangerous/reckless to careless - and it would be dealt with as a strict liability offence - in other words, the outcome is judged on its merits rather than any consideration being given to what the intent was of the the player in making the tackle.

As I said, it would be very harsh on the tackler, but it might discourage players from trying high risk/low probability of success tackles. Dangerous tackling is already adequately dealt with, imo, but you still do get knocks capable of causing head trauma when a player tries their best to execute a compliant tackle but the circumstances in which they are required to do so exceed their talent/ability.

Personally, I think teaching players to tackle better and look after themselves is a better approach than relying on officials to look after players. Clearly officials have an important role in that regard, but they can't be everywhere and watch everything.

The outcome of the tackle is what is refereed and not simply looking at intent. An unintentional dangerous tackle is still, or at least should be, refereed the same as someone intentionally carrying out a dangerous tackle.
Totally agree with your last paragraph

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

I coach at u13 at the minute. There's a fairly big size difference between the smallest and biggest in our squad. We've also come up against more than 1 team with players 6 foot and a bit bigger.

There are teams that have one massive big heavy kid that runs through everyone like skittles . That doesn't do anyone any good. That kid might not get properly hit for years.

Hard to do anything about it and i dont think weight grading is way to do it. We dont have the numbers playing to play weight grade even at under 13/14s

D14Rugby wrote: »

I'm guessing thats supposed to say don't. Yeah it's not necessary but it would encourage a more open game.
Well I didn't mean doctors as in doctors probably should have said independent first aid experts.
If there's a will there's a way, 2 refs I think would improve safety as just now the ref can't see everything, it would be like a tmo on the pitch.

We dont have anywhere near enough people who will volunteer to referee games at the moment. Looking for 2 refs per game is crazy. There is good reason the 4 provinces have associate and community refereeing schemes in place as there isnt enough people becoming association/society referees
Having 2 refs per game makes that harder and there's enough games that dont get any qualified ref in the middle. Looking for 2 per game would just reduce number of games getting any ref at all.

Jawgap wrote: »

I used to coach, and 'twas always as thus......there should be some mechanism whereby age and weight are used to grade players - if you are big for an age class, you can step up, if you're a bit slight you hang back.....saying that you'll always get teams/clubs who'll abuse it.

.....and yeah, it does no one any good, including the big kid, if they don't learn how to run, tackle and pass in competitive situations. I always found that the big kids tended to suffer once they lost their physical advantage.....and the kids who started off slight but developed physically ended up in their mid to late teens as the outstanding players as being 'skittled' made them improvise, and then the physical development removed that disadvantage........which is not an argument for stacking U-11 and below with a few well placed big players

But kids can only play up one age grade bar schools which is a total hypocrisy and double standards. Weight shouldnt solely be a reason to grade players as it can stop some bigger kids from playing as they could have to play up a level when theyre nowhere near ready rugby wise and that can be totally offputting and can turn them off the sport.

The Lost Sheep

D14Rugby wrote: »

I meant bonus point as in if you score a try with x passes its 6/7/8 points plus conversion
That's partially why I'd have 2 refs. I'd have one that focuses on the tackle and other areas that concussion is likely and maintains pass count and the other that does normal ref stuff.
A doctor that works for the branch as opposed to for the clubs, like a branch ref.
As i said not each game at every group of games as you tend not to just have one game at a time, its generally 2/3 at a time. Plenty of doctors are rugby fans im sure priority for tickets would be enough to convince a few to spend their spare saturday/sunday mornings supervising kids.

I honestly dont see the need. A pass count is just unnecessary and having more passes before a score shouldnt mean more points.
There isnt enough docs working for the branch and even if they didnt work strictly for the IRFU medical department is the money there for them?

D14Rugby

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

I honestly dont see the need. A pass count is just unnecessary and having more passes before a score shouldnt mean more points.
There isnt enough docs working for the branch and even if they didnt work strictly for the IRFU medical department is the money there for them?

you asked how would a more flowing game be encouraged. Extra points for more passing would do that.
Well obviously there arent enough right now, but you can get people in you know, and you wouldn't necessarily need to pay them incentives would do, lots of doctors and first aid qualified people enjoy rugby but may not know enough to coach so if you make like a credit system of each game they supervise in one credit and then credits can be used to get priority tickets, more high profile games the more credits needed. I'm sure if there was something like that in place you'd have more than enough qualified people willing to provide their expertise and time. You dont need brain surgeons just people who know a concussion when they see one and how to help people with them.