Doctor calls for ban under 18s playing rugby

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.

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.