Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Doctors call for ban of tackling in Schools Rugby

Options
1356

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    FortySeven
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,296 ✭✭✭FortySeven


    The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »
    The success of Irish rugby I'll wager !

    I'm Scottish. Don't even talk to me about success. :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #63
    stephen_n
    Registered Users Posts: 12,920 ✭✭✭✭stephen_n


    FortySeven wrote: »
    What needs to improve and what are we moving forward to exactly?

    I think he forgot to use the irony emoticon ;)


    It was compulsory to an extent when I was in school I think. Can't really remember as I was never forced to play. It was just about the only thing in school I ever did willingly. I don't think that should be the case though. If a kid doesn't want to play he shouldn't be forced.

    However the thought of having a bunch of 18/19 year olds running around having never tackled seems insane to me. That could seriously lead to injuries.


  • Options
    #64
    The Rape of Lucretia
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,440 ✭✭✭The Rape of Lucretia


    stephen_n wrote: »
    However the thought of having a bunch of 18/19 year olds running around having never tackled seems insane to me. That could seriously lead to injuries.

    They just wont in any numbers. Only a fraction of players even playing the non-tackle rugby would be interested in getting into the violent version. If such a non-tackle version even got going. Any serious sporting talent will already have left for other sports long before they reach 18/19.

    End of the sport I tells ya, end of the sport.

    (Pity poor Blackrock College, which will be known only for churning out barristers and chartered accountants, and no more as the the breeding ground of Irish rugby legends.)


  • Options
    #65
    Melodeon
    Registered Users Posts: 2,290 ✭✭✭Melodeon


    its_phil wrote: »
    Does anyone know any schools where full contact rugby is compulsory? Can't say I heard of any myself.
    Rugby was compulsory up to fourth year in my time (early 70's :( ).
    Full contact from day 1, no matter whether you were big or small, beefy or scrawny, sporty or otherwise, had been playing for years or had never before in your life even seen a rugby ball.
    I'm sure things have changed dramatically since then.


  • Options
    #66
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,254 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    Melodeon wrote: »
    Rugby was compulsory up to fourth year in my time (early 70's :( ).
    Full contact from day 1, no matter whether you were big or small, beefy or scrawny, sporty or otherwise, had been playing for years or had never before in your life even seen a rugby ball.
    I'm sure things have changed dramatically since then.

    correct spelling, good grammar, properly punctuated .... those belts on the head don't seem to have done you any harm ;)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Melodeon
    Registered Users Posts: 2,290 ✭✭✭Melodeon


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    correct spelling, good grammar, properly punctuated .... those belts on the head don't seem to have done you any harm ;)
    I was 'playing' non-contact/tag rugby long before they were recognised variants of the sport! :D


  • Options
    #68
    sjwpjw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 108 ✭✭sjwpjw


    I suppose the letter has had the desired effect in that it has got people talking and World Rugby rushing to put out a statementetc.

    No contact in schools is too much to ask but the other extreme which we have currently is not great either, ie, kids wanting the 'big hit' on the upper body, not binding in the tackle etc.

    Surely what needs to happen here is that the laws around the tackle need to change. And why not. The 'tip tackle' and the 'chop tackle' have been made illegal and are penalised now. Why not also ban the 'choke tackle'? I saw a boy getting choked round his neck the other day and it went on a while and the ref did nothing, not one thing about it even though it was perfectly obvious and the boy was clearly in pain but could not move.

    Or, even better why not lower the height of a high tackle to below the ribcage or below the waist? It will improve the safety of players and I should think lead to more offloading and accordingly more attractive rugby?


  • Options
    #69
    Jump_In_Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 3,677 ✭✭✭Jump_In_Jack


    sjwpjw wrote: »
    I suppose the letter has had the desired effect in that it has got people talking and World Rugby rushing to put out a statementetc.

    No contact in schools is too much to ask but the other extreme which we have currently is not great either, ie, kids wanting the 'big hit' on the upper body, not binding in the tackle etc.

    Surely what needs to happen here is that the laws around the tackle need to change. And why not. The 'tip tackle' and the 'chop tackle' have been made illegal and are penalised now. Why not also ban the 'choke tackle'? I saw a boy getting choked round his neck the other day and it went on a while and the ref did nothing, not one thing about it even though it was perfectly obvious and the boy was clearly in pain but could not move.

    Or, even better why not lower the height of a high tackle to below the ribcage or below the waist? It will improve the safety of players and I should think lead to more offloading and accordingly more attractive rugby?

    The choke tackle is a metaphor for trying to choke the release of the ball, not about choking a person.
    A choke tackle is when a player is prevented from going to ground with the ball to form a ruck, at which time the tackler must release the player and the player can feed the ball back.
    If a choke tackle is successful the ref will blow the whistle after it becomes obvious that the player can't get to ground or pass the ball back and then the tackler's team wins the put in to the resulting scrum.

    If you saw someone actually being choked around the neck then that would warrant at least a yellow card.


  • Options
    #70
    The Rape of Lucretia
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,440 ✭✭✭The Rape of Lucretia


    The choke tackle is a flaw in the rules that should be closed from a rugby point of view quite apart from the safety risks it might bring.
    It is a valid ploy today, and fair reading of the rules. But not one that is really within the spirit of the game, or one that adds to it. A player with the ball should be tackled to the ground. Holding him up to gain a turnover due to a rule designed to discourage teams from killing the ball in a maul and gaining a scrum from it, is an unfortunate side effect of a good intention.


  • Options
    #71
    frostyjacks
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,951 ✭✭✭frostyjacks


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    LorMal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,372 ✭✭✭LorMal


    I am amazed at the narrow mindedness displayed in many of the posts here. This letter was written by professionals whose only 'agenda' is the medical safety of children.
    Attacking them as 'the looney left' is the type of stunt pulled by Trump and his ilk.
    The letter has a strong point to make. My own son wrecked his knee from receiving ridiculously aggressive tackle aged 14. I remember the coach of the opposing team repeatedly assuring me that the tackle was legal - the idiot couldn't see past his narrow little rugby perspective (his first reaction was to praise the tackler for a 'great hit').
    This letter is important. We need to examine how this game is causing so many catestrophic injuries. That might ruin your fun but that doesn't stop it being the right thing to do.


  • Options
    #73
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,254 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    LorMal wrote: »
    I am amazed at the narrow mindedness displayed in many of the posts here. This letter was written by professionals whose only 'agenda' is the medical safety of children.
    Attacking them as 'the looney left' is the type of stunt pulled by Trump and his ilk.
    The letter has a strong point to make. My own son wrecked his knee from receiving ridiculously aggressive tackle aged 14. I remember the coach of the opposing team repeatedly assuring me that the tackle was legal - the idiot couldn't see past his narrow little rugby perspective (his first reaction was to praise the tackler for a 'great hit').
    This letter is important. We need to examine how this game is causing so many catestrophic injuries. That might ruin your fun but that doesn't stop it being the right thing to do.

    Many posts?
    It's only the previous poster to you that attacked them as the 'Looney left' so please have some perspective.

    I can only speak from experience but I have not seen any evidence myself that rugby suffers from more "catastrophic injuries" than other common sports such as soccer and football. I know guys who by 30 have had to have their ankles fused because of footballing injuries, I've seen a guys knee completely split open from a sliding tackle in soccer, I've seen more bloody heads from clashes in soccer than I have from rugby. These are team contact sports which have injury risk. The contact is the fun aspect, and the spirit of the game is to be played in such a manner to reduce the risk of injuries. Its everyone's responsibility to ensure this...players, parents, coaches and referees. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.


  • Options
    #74
    LorMal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,372 ✭✭✭LorMal


    My reference to 'many posts' is in relation to their total dismissal of the letter. You are perhaps missing some perspective. The fact that the contact is 'fun' should really not be part of the debate. Many argue that fox hunting is 'fun'.
    Doesn't make it right.


  • Options
    #75
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    LorMal wrote: »
    My reference to 'many posts' is in relation to their total dismissal of the letter. You are perhaps missing some perspective. The fact that the contact is 'fun' should really not be part of the debate. Many argue that fox hunting is 'fun'.
    Doesn't make it right.

    So if I'm reading this correctly the solution is some weird mash up of fox hunting and rugby?


    fox_watches_rugby_4d7e0d364ee8a.jpg


  • Options
    #76
    2smiggy
    Registered Users Posts: 20,203 ✭✭✭✭2smiggy


    neil prendeville giving out about rugby now, and how it sickens him with the injuries !! but wánking on planes is ok ....


  • Options
    #77
    OldRio
    Registered Users Posts: 5,952 ✭✭✭OldRio


    LorMal wrote: »
    My reference to 'many posts' is in relation to their total dismissal of the letter. You are perhaps missing some perspective. The fact that the contact is 'fun' should really not be part of the debate. Many argue that fox hunting is 'fun'.
    Doesn't make it right.

    Loony left wing agenda strikes again. Surely you could have mentioned saving the planet in that post. Gender equality and hugging trees missing as well.


    I hunt foxes regularly with the local hunt. Great fun on horseback. One should try it. Great fun.


    Many health care professionals would be happy to see an end of all contact sports. I see an agenda here.


  • Options
    #78
    shrapnel222
    Registered Users Posts: 3,118 ✭✭✭shrapnel222


    OldRio wrote: »
    Loony left wing agenda strikes again. Surely you could have mentioned saving the planet in that post. Gender equality and hugging trees missing as well.


    I hunt foxes regularly with the local hunt. Great fun on horseback. One should try it. Great fun.


    Many health care professionals would be happy to see an end of all contact sports. I see an agenda here.

    unless you're the fox


  • Options
    #79
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    LorMal wrote: »
    I am amazed at the narrow mindedness displayed in many of the posts here. This letter was written by professionals whose only 'agenda' is the medical safety of children.
    Attacking them as 'the looney left' is the type of stunt pulled by Trump and his ilk.
    The letter has a strong point to make. My own son wrecked his knee from receiving ridiculously aggressive tackle aged 14. I remember the coach of the opposing team repeatedly assuring me that the tackle was legal - the idiot couldn't see past his narrow little rugby perspective (his first reaction was to praise the tackler for a 'great hit').
    This letter is important. We need to examine how this game is causing so many catestrophic injuries. That might ruin your fun but that doesn't stop it being the right thing to do.

    Keep on mind that there are PLENTY of professionals, far more than those who signed the letter, who oppose the suggestion. There are also plenty of extremely qualified healthcare professionals who regularly play the sport and whose children regularly play the sport.

    Also I would suggest looking up the background of Dr. Pollard, the reason she is personally invested in this issue, and the controversy and criticism surrounding her research.


  • Options
    #80
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,254 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    LorMal wrote: »
    My reference to 'many posts' is in relation to their total dismissal of the letter. You are perhaps missing some perspective. The fact that the contact is 'fun' should really not be part of the debate. Many argue that fox hunting is 'fun'.
    Doesn't make it right.

    "total dismissal" ??

    there are not "many posts" in this whole thread which totally dismisses the points made in the letter? in fact the only one has been moderated.

    The letter is being debated, and properly so. The fact that its being highly questioned should not at all be surprising in a "rugby" forum.

    What i do not like about the letter, and something that doctor was picked up on by brendan fanning last night on the last word, is the fact they argue their point is based on the "compulsion" by schools to make novice children play full contact rugby against their wishes. That does not happen in ireland, pure and simple.


  • Options
    #81
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    "total dismissal" ??

    there are not "many posts" in this whole thread which totally dismisses the points made in the letter? in fact the only one has been moderated.

    The letter is being debated, and properly so. The fact that its being highly questioned should not at all be surprising in a "rugby" forum.

    What i do not like about the letter, and something that doctor was picked up on by brendan fanning last night on the last word, is the fact they argue their point is based on the "compulsion" by schools to make novice children play full contact rugby against their wishes. That does not happen in ireland, pure and simple.

    The guy on Matt Cooper's show last night seemed to have a fundamental difficulty in distinguishing between the ROI and the United Kingdom and even kept referencing the RFU. Don't think he really knew what he was talking about.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Button_y
    Registered Users Posts: 77 ✭✭Button_y


    I have been watching this carefully as my son plays rugby (non school). It’s not something I let him join lightly and I continue to have my doubts about. I had secretly hoped he would hate it but I figured I would rather him learn how to protect himself now, than when he is older and the players are a lot larger. What I have witnessed with the club and coaches so far is very different than the media portrays. There is a level of discipline and respect for the coaches and other kids that you don’t see in other sports. I have watched them teaching the kids how to tackle and how to take a tackle and what not to do. His age group is a large group and I have noticed that the coaches keep the smaller kids in the group together and the bigger kids in the group together. I know as they go up through the years this will likely change but for now it seems a good approach. I do worry a lot about what will happen when he moves up through the ages and the level at which they play becomes more intense along with the bulk of the players. I am all for making the game safer and protecting player welfare but I don’t know how non tackle up to a point would help. I guess it will benefit the players that never go beyond school level rugby but will not prepare the players who do.
    There are risks in all sports some more so than others but does that mean we not play them, I don’t believe so. I have known from when my son was very small that he was likely to want to be involved in high adrenaline, dangerous sports and activities. Does it worry me? Hell yes but I can’t wrap him up in cotton wool. The best I can do is to help him understand his limits and how to protect himself. I am glad that these debates are going on and all the research around injuries in rugby and other sports along with the impact these injuries have. We should continue to question the safety of the sport and adjust rules and guidelines to protect players but we can't ban everything because of the risks!


  • Options
    #83
    The Lost Sheep
    Registered Users Posts: 14,967 ✭✭✭✭The Lost Sheep


    The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »
    The choke tackle is a flaw in the rules that should be closed from a rugby point of view quite apart from the safety risks it might bring.
    It is a valid ploy today, and fair reading of the rules. But not one that is really within the spirit of the game, or one that adds to it. A player with the ball should be tackled to the ground. Holding him up to gain a turnover due to a rule designed to discourage teams from killing the ball in a maul and gaining a scrum from it, is an unfortunate side effect of a good intention.
    The choke tackle is simply the creation of a maul from open play. How do you propose stopping it. How is it not within the spirit of the game?
    LorMal wrote: »
    I am amazed at the narrow mindedness displayed in many of the posts here. This letter was written by professionals whose only 'agenda' is the medical safety of children.
    Attacking them as 'the looney left' is the type of stunt pulled by Trump and his ilk.
    The letter has a strong point to make. My own son wrecked his knee from receiving ridiculously aggressive tackle aged 14. I remember the coach of the opposing team repeatedly assuring me that the tackle was legal - the idiot couldn't see past his narrow little rugby perspective (his first reaction was to praise the tackler for a 'great hit').
    This letter is important. We need to examine how this game is causing so many catestrophic injuries. That might ruin your fun but that doesn't stop it being the right thing to do.
    There is a point but bear in mind there is significantly more of these medical professionals who oppose the suggestion. World Rugby and its member unions are consistently looking at ways to improve the game, making it safer.


  • Options
    #84
    awec
    Administrators Posts: 53,553 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    The Lost Sheep wrote: »
    The choke tackle is simply the creation of a maul from open play. How do you propose stopping it. How is it not within the spirit of the game?

    There is a point but bear in mind there is significantly more of these medical professionals who oppose the suggestion. World Rugby and its member unions are consistently looking at ways to improve the game, making it safer.

    Don't allow defending teams to form mauls in open play?

    I don't know if that'd really work though.


  • Options
    #85
    JPNelsforearm
    Registered Users Posts: 2,147 ✭✭✭JPNelsforearm


    what are we at? 40% of kids obese and ever declining levels of physical activities....Yeah, great plan, remove another incentive for kids to go out and exercise in the fresh air. It wont be the dictators who ruin the world, it'll be the Helen Lovejoys.


  • Options
    #86
    The Lost Sheep
    Registered Users Posts: 14,967 ✭✭✭✭The Lost Sheep


    awec wrote: »
    Don't allow defending teams to form mauls in open play?

    I don't know if that'd really work though.
    How do you propose for that to work?


  • Options
    #87
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,254 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    awec wrote: »
    Don't allow defending teams to form mauls in open play?

    I don't know if that'd really work though.

    teams are already counteracting it by not throwing a second attacker into the choke tackle, and coaching the ball carrier to get a knee to ground as quickly as possible.

    The game is organic and coaches will always target methods to exploit advantages


  • Options
    #88
    former total
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,536 ✭✭✭former total


    JPNelsforearm wrote: »
    what are we at? 40% of kids obese and ever declining levels of physical activities....Yeah, great plan, remove another incentive for kids to go out and exercise in the fresh air. It wont be the dictators who ruin the world, it'll be the Helen Lovejoys.

    This idea was always going to go down like a lead balloon on a forum of rugby fans, but just focussing on this post:

    If the issue is that we need to get kids more active, doing more exercise - how would removing the tackle from rugby prevent this? Do you not have to run in tag rugby? Maybe you can clarify.

    And if you take the contact element out of it, do you not open the game up to more kids who might be able for tag rugby but wouldn't fancy the full-contact version? The skinny kid who doesn't fancy getting bulldozed by the 13 year-old with the full beard?


  • Options
    #89
    irelandrover
    Registered Users Posts: 3,712 ✭✭✭irelandrover


    former total wrote: »
    This idea was always going to go down like a lead balloon on a forum of rugby fans, but just focussing on this post:

    If the issue is that we need to get kids more active, doing more exercise - how would removing the tackle from rugby prevent this? Do you not have to run in tag rugby? Maybe you can clarify.

    And if you take the contact element out of it, do you not open the game up to more kids who might be able for tag rugby but wouldn't fancy the full-contact version? The skinny kid who doesn't fancy getting bulldozed by the 13 year-old with the full beard?

    Because right now there is an option to play tag rugby for the kids that dont want full contact, but also there is full contact for the kids that want it.

    Removing one of the options and you will lose some kids.


  • Options
    #90
    JPNelsforearm
    Registered Users Posts: 2,147 ✭✭✭JPNelsforearm


    former total wrote: »
    This idea was always going to go down like a lead balloon on a forum of rugby fans, but just focussing on this post:

    If the issue is that we need to get kids more active, doing more exercise - how would removing the tackle from rugby prevent this? Do you not have to run in tag rugby? Maybe you can clarify.

    And if you take the contact element out of it, do you not open the game up to more kids who might be able for tag rugby but wouldn't fancy the full-contact version? The skinny kid who doesn't fancy getting bulldozed by the 13 year-old with the full beard?

    Organise under 18's rugby by weight, problem solved. Tag rugby is a joke, go to the gym or play a real sport.

    Even touch rugby is better than tag rugby, I love about 20mins of touch to start a training session, but that is not a sport in of itself, its a warm up for passing movement and footwork.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,254 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    former total wrote: »
    This idea was always going to go down like a lead balloon on a forum of rugby fans, but just focussing on this post:

    If the issue is that we need to get kids more active, doing more exercise - how would removing the tackle from rugby prevent this? Do you not have to run in tag rugby? Maybe you can clarify.

    And if you take the contact element out of it, do you not open the game up to more kids who might be able for tag rugby but wouldn't fancy the full-contact version? The skinny kid who doesn't fancy getting bulldozed by the 13 year-old with the full beard?

    i suppose the counter argument to that is, again, no one is being forced to play contact rugby.

    The skinny kid can still go play tag rugby as it currently stands, its a different sport as far as im concerned... if the bearded 13 yo who wants to play contact rugby is excluded due to it being non contact, isnt that the guy who is then excluded?


Advertisement