Doctors call for ban of tackling in Schools Rugby

former total · 03-03-2016 12:54pm

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

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.

We're talking about encouraging obese kids to take more exercise, and that's your solution? "Hit the weights, fatty"?

Glad we didn't get the knee-jerk dismissive response to this proposal that I feared we might.

The Lost Sheep · 03-03-2016 12:57pm

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

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.

It isn't problem solved and again doesn't help when you get players at 18 when they would be playing open weight grade
Tag Rugby is far from a "joke". Touch is probably better than tag but tag with its aim of focusing on the hips to tackle is a good one and its a great workshop for improving tackle tech

former total · 03-03-2016 12:57pm

sydthebeat wrote: »

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?

How is the big guy excluded from tag rugby?

I'm just talking about the objective of getting more kids out running round and getting exercise. Tag rugby is absolutely more inclusive, that is surely not up for debate.

JPNelsforearm · 03-03-2016 1:00pm

former total wrote: »

We're talking about encouraging obese kids to take more exercise, and that's your solution? "Hit the weights, fatty"?

Glad we didn't get the knee-jerk dismissive response to this proposal that I feared we might.

You are talking about replacing rugby with a completely inferior mock version of it, "for safety". I am saying you are better off playing a proper sport eg GAA, football, tennis etc and /or going to the gym, then you are playing tag rugby, nothing knee jerk about it. I would 100% advise someone anyone to hit the gym over playing tag rugby.
I say that as someone who has played rugby since under 13's, through school and uni, now club(on occasion) as a 26 year old. I played GAA and football as a kid from about 5ish until I was 14, if someone said when I joined rugby at 12(my parents choice to wait until I was 12) that I'd have to play tag until I am 18, I wouldnt have joined.

sydthebeat · 03-03-2016 1:02pm

former total wrote: »

How is the big guy excluded from tag rugby?

I'm just talking about the objective of getting more kids out running round and getting exercise. Tag rugby is absolutely more inclusive, that is surely not up for debate.

you seem to miss the logic that tag rugby exists and is available for those who want to play it... so its fully inclusive for those who want it.

if a kid wants to play full contact rugby, but the sport as we know it doesnt exist anymore, then obviously that kid is excluded and could end up a couch potato.

JPNelsforearm · 03-03-2016 1:04pm

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

It isn't problem solved and again doesn't help when you get players at 18 when they would be playing open weight grade
Tag Rugby is far from a "joke". Touch is probably better than tag but tag with its aim of focusing on the hips to tackle is a good one and its a great workshop for improving tackle tech

Completely false, you dont go in for a hit with your arms outstretched, the technique for ripping the tag, angles, bodyshape etc you take are totally different then going in to hit someone.

Also, you dont tackle someon at the hips, that is a surfire way to get boshed or knocked out if the person swings their hip into your head, the hip is probably the hardest spot on the torso lol

Trojan · 03-03-2016 1:34pm

In my experience, tag rugby results in a far greater number of injuries than full-contact. If you do any kind of work that depends on full use of your hands and fingers, my advice is steer well clear of the much touted safer option.

former total · 03-03-2016 1:54pm

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

You are talking about replacing rugby with a completely inferior mock version of it, "for safety". I am saying you are better off playing a proper sport eg GAA, football, tennis etc and /or going to the gym, then you are playing tag rugby, nothing knee jerk about it. I would 100% advise someone anyone to hit the gym over playing tag rugby.
I say that as someone who has played rugby since under 13's, through school and uni, now club(on occasion) as a 26 year old. I played GAA and football as a kid from about 5ish until I was 14, if someone said when I joined rugby at 12(my parents choice to wait until I was 12) that I'd have to play tag until I am 18, I wouldnt have joined.

See, you've just completely disproved your own point. You played lots of sports when you were a kid, kudos on that. However, kids who play three or four sports are not the ones who need to be more involved or who are at risk of obesity, it's the kids who don't take part in these sports that need to be considered.

Throwing kids like that into full-contact rugby maybe isn't the best idea.

Again with telling them to go to the gym? These are school kids for fu<ks sake. Sure pack some HGH into their lunchboxes and off with them.

JPNelsforearm · 03-03-2016 2:09pm

former total wrote: »

See, you've just completely disproved your own point. You played lots of sports when you were a kid, kudos on that. However, kids who play three or four sports are not the ones who need to be more involved or who are at risk of obesity, it's the kids who don't take part in these sports that need to be considered.

Throwing kids like that into full-contact rugby maybe isn't the best idea.

Again with telling them to go to the gym? These are school kids for fu<ks sake. Sure pack some HGH into their lunchboxes and off with them.

Tag rugby isnt rugby, you might as well suggest any number of sports, I dont know why its even a discussion that kids who dont exercise, should play tag rugby as opposed to rugby. Its bizarre. No kid is "thrown into full contact rugby", no adult is thrown into full contact rugby, it would be a complete waste of time and weaken the team as a whole in addition to turning of said person from the sport.

I dont get your point, why replace rugby with tag rugby? why not replace it with tennis? Where does tag come into this at all? Because they have the same ball?

There is nothing wrong with going to the gym as a kid. My younger brother does gymnastics and the coach(Eastern Euro) has two weights sessions/Calisthenics with them a week on top of their training. He's 11 and a half.

your attitude and aversion to weightlifting is part of the problem. Helen Lovejoyism.

The Rape of Lucretia · 03-03-2016 2:48pm

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?

The players without the ball are not really mauling - they're exploiting the maul law to force a turnover. Their goal is to hold the ball holder off the ground and prevent him releasing the ball. Thats not really mauling as the laws intend. It is only of interest to players going for a choke tackle because they are given the scrum when they succeed - not that they ever intended to maul the player down the pitch to make progress. This is why it is not in the spirit of contesting for the ball and making progress towards the try line. In fact it is encouraging a stoppage in the game and a scrum (scrum being problematic enough as it is, we should not be inviting a play where players are encouraged to actively win one).

LorMal · 03-03-2016 4:19pm

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.

It's politickle currectness goin mad Joe, so it is.

Yeah_Right · 03-03-2016 5:05pm

sydthebeat wrote: »

thats not exactly correct

they grade by age..... but if kids are above certain weight bands, they will move up to the next age grade

http://playerwelfare.worldrugby.org/?subsection=64

and this is there for ethnic reasons amongst others

In Auckland and a lot of the North Island, it's slightly different. It's split by age AND weight. This is from U6 year olds and goes right up through high school. Obviously you need numbers to be able to do that.

I know that the kids' safety and wellbeing is the number one concern. Proper technique is taught again and again. Anything slightly dangerous is penalised and the game stops so that the offender gets an explanation of what was wrong. Chest high tackles are considered high. I'm talking about the grades below high school here.

Mouth guards are compulsory at all levels.

LorMal · 03-03-2016 7:26pm

Yeah_Right wrote: »

In Auckland and a lot of the North Island, it's slightly different. It's split by age AND weight. This is from U6 year olds and goes right up through high school. Obviously you need numbers to be able to do that.

I know that the kids' safety and wellbeing is the number one concern. Proper technique is taught again and again. Anything slightly dangerous is penalised and the game stops so that the offender gets an explanation of what was wrong. Chest high tackles are considered high. I'm talking about the grades below high school here.

Mouth guards are compulsory at all levels.

This approach seems very sensible. The game is changing and getting more attritional - players are getting bigger. I dont believe player safety is the number one concern in World Rugby.
There is a certain machismo in the game which ignores dangerous play - anything goes as long as it's within the rules. Mike Brown boots Conor Murray in the face multiple times but there is no citing.
Discouraging big 'hits' and encouraging innovative passing rugby at underage level will improve the game and increase the skills levels while keeping kids safer.

thebaz · 03-03-2016 7:29pm

The nanny staters won't be happy until our kids only play chess and playstation rugby and soccer for there recreation , that way no one gets hurt - then go moaning to the press that our children don't get eneogh exercise - life is full of ups and down and dangers - reduce serious risk absolutely but let our children live , there is eneogh other serious dangers out ther , such as hard drugs and binge drinking , without banning rugby as we know it

The Rape of Lucretia · 03-03-2016 7:58pm

Ach I dunno. There's plenty of other sports they can play that provide the health and team building experience that rugby offers. But without the serious injury downside. Just because there are worse things they could be doing does not justify it. There are better things they could be doing - so why not do those ?
Life's a risky business, but you dont have to go down a route that is now clearly recognised as particularly dangerous when you dont have to.
(and hey, I played rugby and chess for my school).

sydthebeat · 03-03-2016 8:11pm

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Ach I dunno. There's plenty of other sports they can play that provide the health and team building experience that rugby offers. But without the serious injury downside. Just because there are worse things they could be doing does not justify it. There are better things they could be doing - so why not do those ?
Life's a risky business, but you dont have to go down a route that is now clearly recognised as particularly dangerous when you dont have to.
(and hey, I played rugby and chess for my school).

I have yet to see a definitive study that shows rugby at amateur club level is anymore riskier for catastrophic injuries as other popular team sports in ireland.

Realt Dearg Sec · 03-03-2016 8:12pm

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Ach I dunno. There's plenty of other sports they can play that provide the health and team building experience that rugby offers. But without the serious injury downside. Just because there are worse things they could be doing does not justify it. There are better things they could be doing - so why not do those ?
Life's a risky business, but you dont have to go down a route that is now clearly recognised as particularly dangerous when you dont have to.
(and hey, I played rugby and chess for my school).

I think we would lose a lot as a society if everyone playing rugby and hurling were told to take up ultimate frisbee tomorrow. I think the loss is far more profound than those happy to pull the plug on these sports really appreciates, and I suspect that those who would advocate abandoning these sports have no appreciation for the lived importance of the games themselves and their relationship to our lives. (I say this as primarily a hurling person who played a bit of rugby as a child, but I understand the anxiety of rugby people and I'm sensible enough to know that if they get their way with ye, they'll be coming for our hurls next)

Blackclaret · 03-03-2016 8:24pm

A number of years ago had the good fortune to attend a series of talks by a touring antipodean efucationalist, topic ,teenage boys and education. In an attempt to understand the low performance of boys in academia relative to a simmilary aged cohort of teenage girls.
A central plank of his thesis was that adolecent boys and young men require loads of physical activity and in particular physical contact sports , one of the most personally destructive episodes a boy can experience is physical intimidation from his peers either intended or incidental, these feelings if regular can completely overtake the subject and contribute to disfunction elsewhere. Through rugby they become more familiar/comfortable with same.
Boys benefit hugely from the mix of combative team sport and respect/discipline in rugby and find it an emotional vent at a time in their lives when poor choices and desicions can effect their latter lives.
Will try trackdown and post a few links to source

LorMal · 03-03-2016 9:01pm

Blackclaret wrote: »

A number of years ago had the good fortune to attend a series of talks by a touring antipodean efucationalist, topic ,teenage boys and education. In an attempt to understand the low performance of boys in academia relative to a simmilary aged cohort of teenage girls.
A central plank of his thesis was that adolecent boys and young men require loads of physical activity and in particular physical contact sports , one of the most personally destructive episodes a boy can experience is physical intimidation from his peers either intended or incidental, these feelings if regular can completely overtake the subject and contribute to disfunction elsewhere. Through rugby they become more familiar/comfortable with same.
Boys benefit hugely from the mix of combative team sport and respect/discipline in rugby and find it an emotional vent at a time in their lives when poor choices and desicions can effect their latter lives.
Will try trackdown and post a few links to source

Sounds interesting and makes sense - it is a brilliant game for kids. I don't think anyone is arguing to ban Rugby in schools - rather that the high impact stuff ('winning the collisions) may not be essential to the other excellent benefits of playing the game. It can still be combative, disciplined, physical, respectful etc...

Hagz · 03-03-2016 10:23pm

People are aware that these 'doctors' aren't actually doctors right? I mean, out of the 72 signatures, you could count the actual medical professionals on one hand.

The majority of these 'doctors' are just people with a P.H.D in sociology etc. They're not actually doctors or medical experts.

03-03-2016 10:43pm

Hagz wrote: »

People are aware that these 'doctors' aren't actually doctors right? I mean, out of the 72 signatures, you could count the actual medical professionals on one hand.

The majority of these 'doctors' are just people with a P.H.D in sociology etc. They're not actually doctors or medical experts.

Easy to know they have PHD's because they keep telling you.

sjwpjw · 03-03-2016 11:38pm

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

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.

Thanks JiJ

I know what a 'choke tackle' is ok but I can see that my message maybe looked like I didn't. I have seen people being choked a fair bit with this sort of tackle. I think I remember someone passing out within the last two seasons because of one in an Ulster Game. I don't like the idea of it in rugby terms either. Killing the ball to get a scrum which takes loads more time...

I would be interested to know if anyone can state any good reason why the tackle line should not be lowered from the neck down to say below the ribcage. I cannot understand why it is worth the risk of serious head contact just to be able to see the 'biog smash' on someone's chest with or without the wrap. The players are bigger and heavier and clearly on average hit harder and it maybe the neck tackle line is out of date.

Cheers

Blackclaret · 03-03-2016 11:51pm

sjwpjw wrote: »

Thanks JiJ

I know what a 'choke tackle' is ok but I can see that my message maybe looked like I didn't. I have seen people being choked a fair bit with this sort of tackle. I think I remember someone passing out within the last two seasons because of one in an Ulster Game. I don't like the idea of it in rugby terms either. Killing the ball to get a scrum which takes loads more time...

I would be interested to know if anyone can state any good reason why the tackle line should not be lowered from the neck down to say below the ribcage. I cannot understand why it is worth the risk of serious head contact just to be able to see the 'biog smash' on someone's chest with or without the wrap. The players are bigger and heavier and clearly on average hit harder and it maybe the neck tackle line is out of date.

Cheers

In South African youths rugby tackle line is solar plexis, also they play shoeless till U13 or so. It has proved to be very successful .

sjwpjw · 03-03-2016 11:59pm

Blackclaret wrote: »

In South African youths rugby tackle line is solar plexis, also they play shoeless till U13 or so. It has proved to be very successful .

That sounds like a great idea to me.

Not sure what the shoeless part is about though!

JPNelsforearm · 04-03-2016 12:01am

sjwpjw wrote: »

Thanks JiJ

I know what a 'choke tackle' is ok but I can see that my message maybe looked like I didn't. I have seen people being choked a fair bit with this sort of tackle. I think I remember someone passing out within the last two seasons because of one in an Ulster Game. I don't like the idea of it in rugby terms either. Killing the ball to get a scrum which takes loads more time...

I would be interested to know if anyone can state any good reason why the tackle line should not be lowered from the neck down to say below the ribcage. I cannot understand why it is worth the risk of serious head contact just to be able to see the 'biog smash' on someone's chest with or without the wrap. The players are bigger and heavier and clearly on average hit harder and it maybe the neck tackle line is out of date.

Cheers

You are still at the same levels of risk, hit someones hip with the side of your head and its lights out.
Also, its a contact sport, concussions, blows to the head are inevitable. Here are three different situations that even by lowering the "contact area", you could not prevent. One due to the nature of the game, another with a defensive player not anticipating the attacker lowering his center of gravity, another an attacking player running straight over the defensive player

this has nothing to do with tackling, rucking etc, its just bad luck.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHp2OkKUams

Eg look at this, Collins is low to start and Charvis bows down into the hit and gets knocked out, you cannot remove this from the game without removing tackling.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVVprhNV550

Then you arent even talking about what players with the ball can do

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRb0XFrCQZE

You cannot stop this without fundamentally changing the game.

The Lost Sheep · 04-03-2016 12:28am

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

You are talking about replacing rugby with a completely inferior mock version of it, "for safety". I am saying you are better off playing a proper sport eg GAA, football, tennis etc and /or going to the gym, then you are playing tag rugby, nothing knee jerk about it. I would 100% advise someone anyone to hit the gym over playing tag rugby.
I say that as someone who has played rugby since under 13's, through school and uni, now club(on occasion) as a 26 year old. I played GAA and football as a kid from about 5ish until I was 14, if someone said when I joined rugby at 12(my parents choice to wait until I was 12) that I'd have to play tag until I am 18, I wouldnt have joined.

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

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Completely false, you dont go in for a hit with your arms outstretched, the technique for ripping the tag, angles, bodyshape etc you take are totally different then going in to hit someone.

Also, you dont tackle someon at the hips, that is a surfire way to get boshed or knocked out if the person swings their hip into your head, the hip is probably the hardest spot on the torso lol

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.

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Tag rugby isnt rugby, you might as well suggest any number of sports, I dont know why its even a discussion that kids who dont exercise, should play tag rugby as opposed to rugby. Its bizarre. No kid is "thrown into full contact rugby", no adult is thrown into full contact rugby, it would be a complete waste of time and weaken the team as a whole in addition to turning of said person from the sport.

I dont get your point, why replace rugby with tag rugby? why not replace it with tennis? Where does tag come into this at all? Because they have the same ball?

There is nothing wrong with going to the gym as a kid. My younger brother does gymnastics and the coach(Eastern Euro) has two weights sessions/Calisthenics with them a week on top of their training. He's 11 and a half.

your attitude and aversion to weightlifting is part of the problem. Helen Lovejoyism.

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...

The Rape of Lucretia · 04-03-2016 12:34am

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

How do you propose stopping it.

I wasnt. But I am sure there is a way. The target is to make it an unattractive ploy for the team without the ball.

I feel refs are often too quick to call it too - if the group does not move then it isnt a maul, yet refs seem to call maul when the ball holder is held up by the opposition even if they arent going anywhere.

Maybe ruling that a maul can be formed only if the ball carrier and a team mate are moving towards the opposition goal line, i.e. the maul is an offensive weapon only for the team in possession. If they are going backward its not a maul so they can collapse and form a ruck. So winning a scrum input for winning a maul is only possible if the opposition with the ball try to maul you - if you dont have the ball, you cannot create a maul.

sjwpjw · 04-03-2016 12:38am

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

You are still at the same levels of risk, hit someones hip with the side of your head and its lights out.
Also, its a contact sport, concussions, blows to the head are inevitable. Here are three different situations that even by lowering the "contact area", you could not prevent. One due to the nature of the game, another with a defensive player not anticipating the attacker lowering his center of gravity, another an attacking player running straight over the defensive player

this has nothing to do with tackling, rucking etc, its just bad luck.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHp2OkKUams

Eg look at this, Collins is low to start and Charvis bows down into the hit and gets knocked out, you cannot remove this from the game without removing tackling.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVVprhNV550

Then you arent even talking about what players with the ball can do

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRb0XFrCQZE

You cannot stop this without fundamentally changing the game.

Thanks for the reply.

I agree that the risk of head injury cannot be prevented completely by lowering the tackle line. However would you not agree that it would reduce the risks considerably. There are many horrible videos of people getting smashed high...

Are we not duty bound to try and reduce risks wherever possible whilst retaining the fundamentals of the sport? People can still tackle and who knows, we might even see a few more offloads perish the thought...

sjwpjw · 04-03-2016 12:43am

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.

The Rape of Lucretia · 04-03-2016 12:45am

sjwpjw wrote: »

Thanks for the reply.

I agree that the risk of head injury cannot be prevented completely by lowering the tackle line. However would you not agree that it would reduce the risks considerably. There are many horrible videos of people getting smashed high...

Are we not duty bound to try and reduce risks wherever possible whilst retaining the fundamentals of the sport? People can still tackle and who knows, we might even see a few more offloads perish the thought...

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.

Doctors call for ban of tackling in Schools Rugby

Comments