Doctor calls for ban under 18s playing rugby

blackeyedpeat

I left school when scrums were fully contested adult rules. Stepping up to McCorry cup was fine as it was just last year schools teams but we also played J1. There was a huge physical strength difference at J1 with the "social players" even though the speed levels were much lower.
In my opinion a child need to learn to tackle and be tackled by their peers. As they move up the age grades the player speed and strength gradually increases and your's will too in order to stay competitive.
Parachuting 18 year olds into full contact would be a disaster. Over the years I saw a few late GAA converts who tried rugby to keep fit in the winter and found the technical aspects of contact and the physicality difficult to handle despite being in the full of their fittness.

The Lost Sheep

D14Rugby wrote:

Ye but the point would be these people have no interest in the match outcome so they'll call a spade a spade and there's no chance of them risking the player.

match officials can always step in with 3.10 to stop players from continuing. Then

blackeyedpeat wrote:

I left school when scrums were fully contested adult rules. Stepping up to McCorry cup was fine as it was just last year schools teams but we also played J1. There was a huge physical strength difference at J1 with the "social players" even though the speed levels were much lower. In my opinion a child need to learn to tackle and be tackled by their peers. As they move up the age grades the player speed and strength gradually increases and your's will too in order to stay competitive. Parachuting 18 year olds into full contact would be a disaster. Over the years I saw a few late GAA converts who tried rugby to keep fit in the winter and found the technical aspects of contact and the physicality difficult to handle despite being in the full of their fittness.

j1 isn't social rugby. J2/3/4 depending on the area is what is "social rugby"

blackeyedpeat

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

match officials can always step in with 3.10 to stop players from continuing. Then

j1 isn't social rugby. J2/3/4 depending on the area is what is "social rugby"

And J1 is not AIL either. 25 odd years ago we were still dragging hungover lads out of their beds on a Sunday morning to go and play matches.

The Lost Sheep

blackeyedpeat wrote: »

And J1 is not AIL either. 25 odd years ago we were still dragging hungover lads out of their beds on a Sunday morning to go and play matches.

J1 isnt AIL but its certainly not "social rugby" or should be used as it. There should be other rugby available for players who are more suited/interested in playing less seriously/more social basis/more relaxed basis

Interested Observer

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

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

I'm just wondering if a lot of them occur in underage rugby.

Chiparus

http://www.ylolfa.wales/en/newyddion.php?&ID=603


"The changes in the tackle law ...have introduced the pile-up, as players seek to keep the ball off the ground and opponents seek to smother it.

The solution is obvious. Return to the old law which required a player immediately to release the ball once he had been brought to the ground.'"




What the game has developed now is physicality. These days the first thing you look at in a player is how big he is, how strong he is. You don't see the ball go down the line from set pieces. What you see is a mess. You would be penalized in our day for a pile-up. But now they just dive in jumping on each other. I can't understand how the referee allows it. Playing physically as they do now injuries will increase'.

Dawes's injuries prediction has proved all too true while in April 2015 Prof Allyson Pollock argued the game was too dangerous in its existing form for schools.

irishbucsfan

The release laws are not the problem, nor are they the answer. And concussions are not occurring there.

They need to start recording and releasing concussion statistics. At the very least how many are occurring so they can be trended, but also it would be helpful if they recorded how they are occurring in order to stop people barking up the wrong tree.

The Lost Sheep

Chiparus wrote: »

http://www.ylolfa.wales/en/newyddion.php?&ID=603

"The changes in the tackle law ...have introduced the pile-up, as players seek to keep the ball off the ground and opponents seek to smother it.

The solution is obvious. Return to the old law which required a player immediately to release the ball once he had been brought to the ground.'"

What the game has developed now is physicality. These days the first thing you look at in a player is how big he is, how strong he is. You don't see the ball go down the line from set pieces. What you see is a mess. You would be penalized in our day for a pile-up. But now they just dive in jumping on each other. I can't understand how the referee allows it. Playing physically as they do now injuries will increase'.

Dawes's injuries prediction has proved all too true while in April 2015 Prof Allyson Pollock argued the game was too dangerous in its existing form for schools.

The release laws and people on ground passing ball away are not an issue. And that isnt where concussion is occuring.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The release laws are not the problem, nor are they the answer. And concussions are not occurring there.

They need to start recording and releasing concussion statistics. At the very least how many are occurring so they can be trended, but also it would be helpful if they recorded how they are occurring in order to stop people barking up the wrong tree.

The concussion stats are being recorded with referees recording any player they see leave field with concussion symptoms or suspected concussion and then they fill out a report which is sent into the provincial branches who forward them onto IRFU medical department.

irishbucsfan

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

The concussion stats are being recorded with referees recording any player they see leave field with concussion symptoms or suspected concussion and then they fill out a report which is sent into the provincial branches who forward them onto IRFU medical department.

Yes, but they should be released publically

Chiparus

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

The release laws and people on ground passing ball away are not an issue. And that isnt where concussion is occuring.

The concussion stats are being recorded with referees recording any player they see leave field with concussion symptoms or suspected concussion and then they fill out a report which is sent into the provincial branches who forward them onto IRFU medical department.

Concussions are occurring in the tackle , most often it is the tackler. The game is now like rugby league with very little similarity to the game played 20 years ago.
The amateur game and schoolboy game needs to move away from the bashing type game it has become.

irishbucsfan

Chiparus wrote: »

Concussions are occurring in the tackle , most often it is the tackler. The game is now like rugby league with very little similarity to the game played 20 years ago.
The amateur game and schoolboy game needs to move away from the bashing type game it has become.

Yes, it is most often the tackler. Which is why the tackle laws are changing to address this. Not the laws about releasing on the ground.

D14Rugby

Chiparus wrote: »

Concussions are occurring in the tackle , most often it is the tackler. The game is now like rugby league with very little similarity to the game played 20 years ago.
The amateur game and schoolboy game needs to move away from the bashing type game it has become.

Releasing on the ground comes after the tackle. It has absolutely no impact in whether or not the tackler gets concussed.

The Lost Sheep

Chiparus wrote:

Concussions are occurring in the tackle , most often it is the tackler. The game is now like rugby league with very little similarity to the game played 20 years ago. The amateur game and schoolboy game needs to move away from the bashing type game it has become.

i never said they were not occuring in the tackle and the tackle laws have been adapted to improve player safety. The game of course has changed a lot in past 20 years. Players now have no knowledge​ of playing in amatuer era.
You keep throwing out these open statements like amatuer game needs to... Which is total generalisation of what actually is happening.

Chiparus

D14Rugby wrote: »

Releasing on the ground comes after the tackle. It has absolutely no impact in whether or not the tackler gets concussed.

Actually it does because it encourages more aggressive ball carrying as there is a high probability that the ball will be recycled , if you remove the ability to "place the ball" or pass off the ground you are less likely to have the Rugby league like game that we have now.
More often it is the tackler that is getting concussed.

http://www.ylolfa.wales/en/newyddion.php?&ID=603

I have taken several schoolboys to hospital for CT scans in the last two years, there is no doubt that one sustained a brain injury.

irishbucsfan

Chiparus wrote: »

Actually it does because it encourages more aggressive ball carrying as there is a high probability that the ball will be recycled , if you remove the ability to "place the ball" or pass off the ground you are less likely to have the Rugby league like game that we have now.
More often it is the tackler that is getting concussed.

http://www.ylolfa.wales/en/newyddion.php?&ID=603

This really doesn't follow. Aggressive carrying is not only made possible by a very slight allowance for holding on the ground. It is absolutely not any change to the ball being held on the ground that has led to aggressive carrying. It's professionalism and increased physicality.

It would ruin the game for no reason. Defenses are far too good to expect players to do this.

D14Rugby

Chiparus wrote: »

Actually it does because it encourages more aggressive ball carrying as there is a high probability that the ball will be recycled , if you remove the ability to "place the ball" or pass off the ground you are less likely to have the Rugby league like game that we have now.
More often it is the tackler that is getting concussed.

http://www.ylolfa.wales/en/newyddion.php?&ID=603

serious question. Have you ever played rugby? You'll still get offloads mid tackle if you make placing the ball illegal which is what going high is actually trying to stop

Chiparus

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

i never said they were not occuring in the tackle and the tackle laws have been adapted to improve player safety. The game of course has changed a lot in past 20 years. Players now have no knowledge​ of playing in amatuer era.
You keep throwing out these open statements like amatuer game needs to... Which is total generalisation of what actually is happening.

?

thebaz

Irish Times now reporting no evidence of brain damage from playing schools rugby :-

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/no-startling-evidence-of-brain-damage-found-in-rugby-study-1.3108587?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fhealth%2Fno-startling-evidence-of-brain-damage-found-in-rugby-study-1.3108587

a bit more balance and perspective - lets make the sport safe as possible, but calling for bans of rugby and football is extreme , especially as many are worried about many children today not getting enough sports, and the rise of obesity and other modern unhealthy issues .

Interested Observer

They say in that piece there's still more to be done on cumulative impacts, which is a bit of a catch. It makes sense to me though that the risk of concussion will go up as the players get older/faster/stronger/fitter/bigger/heavier and collisions in a match get bigger with that.

Tim Robbins

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Paying people doesn't make them better.
Paying people doesn't mean we will get more involved and certainly not for right reasons.

Not sure where you are involved but GAA refs get paid from U8. Maybe your club are a bit scabby? Or just don't think you are worth it

No-one is saying paying people makes them better. That's a straw man.
Paying will mean you will get more people to choose from. Simple as and hence better officials.

Tim Robbins

Jimbob1977 wrote: »

A return to the clean tackle around the hips and waist.

Rugby has become a war of attrition in the past twenty years.

Will I side-step this player..... or will I smash through him and maybe knock him out of the game?

One interesting rule in GAA is you can't actually charge through a player. You'd wonder should rugby try this - as in you had to aim for a shoulder? Thoughts?

Tim Robbins

thebaz wrote: »

a bit more balance and perspective - lets make the sport safe as possible, but calling for bans of rugby and football is extreme , especially as many are worried about many children today not getting enough sports, and the rise of obesity and other modern unhealthy issues .

+1 on this. Some lads don't like Soccer, GAA etc and prefer Rugby. Also, I think what you can learn from Rugby in terms of team spirit, commitment, honesty, tactical thinking, sportsmanship etc gets lost when people just talked about risks.

The Lost Sheep

Tim Robbins wrote:

Not sure where you are involved but GAA refs get paid from U8. Maybe your club are a bit scabby? Or just don't think you are worth it

they don't get paid and certainly not under8s. They get expenses

Tim Robbins wrote:

No-one is saying paying people makes them better. That's a straw man. Paying will mean you will get more people to choose from. Simple as and hence better officials.

Paying people doesn't necessarily mean you will get more and certainly doesn't mean you will get more "better"/"suitable" people refereeing.
And simply paying officials won't make better officials

D14Rugby

Tim Robbins wrote: »

One interesting rule in GAA is you can't actually charge through a player. You'd wonder should rugby try this - as in you had to aim for a shoulder? Thoughts?

Then you'd just have people buying penalties by stepping into the player running on. Slightly different in GAA as they have to do something with the ball every so often so have to have their hands free whereas in rugby you can just hold onto the ball.
Might be worth a trial though, no harm in trying new rules.

Tim Robbins

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

they don't get paid and certainly not under8s. They get expenses

They do where I live and leagues I'm involved with so. I appreciate the recession isn't over for everyone

Paying people doesn't necessarily mean you will get more and certainly doesn't mean you will get more "better"/"suitable" people refereeing.
And simply paying officials won't make better officials

Karl Marx and Joe Higgins might agree but human nature doesn't.

Tim Robbins

D14Rugby wrote: »

Then you'd just have people buying penalties by stepping into the player running on. Slightly different in GAA as they have to do something with the ball every so often so have to have their hands free whereas in rugby you can just hold onto the ball.
Might be worth a trial though, no harm in trying new rules.

Yes, I think that's the attitude we need an open mind.

GAA tackle law is a mess anyway.

The Lost Sheep

Tim Robbins wrote: »

They do where I live and leagues I'm involved with so. I appreciate the recession isn't over for everyone

Well they dont where i live or where im from

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Yes, I think that's the attitude we need an open mind.

GAA tackle law is a mess anyway.

tackle rule doesnt exist essentially as whats there isnt enforced or good enough

Guy:Incognito

He's on news talk now

Tim Robbins

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

He's on news talk now

Podcast here: http://www.newstalk.com/podcasts/Newstalk_Breakfast/Highlights_from_Newstalk_Breakfast/195140/Should_kids_be_banned_from_playing_contact_sports

D14Rugby

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Podcast here: http://www.newstalk.com/podcasts/Newstalk_Breakfast/Highlights_from_Newstalk_Breakfast/195140/Should_kids_be_banned_from_playing_contact_sports

First thing he says is that kids playing contact sports have a "100% risk exposure chance of brain damage". Sorry but what sort of statement is that to make? To me that sounds a lot like trying to scare as many people as possible by putting in the 100% bit but then adding on everything after that so he's technically telling the truth.