[Closed] Ban tackling in schools?

Dude the stopped playing rugby completely at my school, after some lad broke his collar bone.. This was back in the mid 80's!

They didn't when one guy broke his neck at mine...

Captain ditto

hockey used to scare me a lot more as a player, especially mixed hockey.

The girls were brutal to play against.

The girls were brutal to play against.

You've met Mrs Sandwich on the field of play then? You have my sympathies, any scars?

Getting hit with an almost supersonic hockey ball was far more painful than being dumped on the deck and then trodden on by a 15 stone prop.

Would it really change anything? When I was at school the only ones who got tackled were the keen ones who were built for it; the rest of us were cowering in the distant wings or making sure that we ran fast enough that it looked like we were trying but not so fast as to actually get the ball...

It's not about how much it hurts but life changing injuries that do happen in school rugby. Touch rugby is still a decent game and far more inclusive, in fact it is frequently played mixed. School sports seem to almost be designed to put a section of the population off sport for life. I bet a lot people on here got into cycling after not really getting on with traditional school sports.

I heard this on the radio this morning - sounds like a knee jerk reaction which will be more dangerous in the long term. Imagine a field full of 18 year olds, who have never been allowed (and therefore never taught correctly) suddenly being able to tackle. The whole lot would be off to A&E within minutes...

Tricky one this, if kids are taught to tackle properly then you minimise the risk. There is always going to be a risk in any sport kids do, BMX, skateboarding, horse riding, motox etc tec

Ah mixed hockey, the sheer violence meted out by the girls was a sight to behold, I loved watching it from my position all padded up in goal 😆

The ex used to play Bandy in Sweden, they had a game of girls against boys and the ref told the girls that they could do what they like he wouldnt call any fouls. Apparently resentment of that game still runs high with some of the men of Varmland 😆

My uncle got into rugby coaching with his lad about 10 years ago. He would have learnt to tackle in the 60s/70s in the 90s he taught me. We were chatting a few years back as to how different it was now with lots of emphasis put on techniques and not hurting people rather than just flooring them. Perhaps a ban in schools is right but leave it to the rugby clubs for this that want to learn properly.

My kids both started at the local Rugby club in November and since then all I've read is horror stories such as this.

The youngest (6) plays tag, and the eldest (9) plays contact in the under 10's. The change in them has been great, as they've really come out of their shells since starting, and the game doesn't look much worse than football did when I was st school in the 80's and 90's

However, I keep getting serious doubts about letting them continue after reading articles like this.

Prof Allyson Pollock

Well there's a surprise. Not.

Bee in her bonnet, every year she pumps out something to the willing media.

All she will end up doing is undoing the good work of those getting rugby into more state schools. Public schools will continue to ignore her.

Imagine a field full of 18 year olds, who have never been allowed (and therefore never taught correctly) suddenly being able to tackle.

Yes, that sounds plausible 🙄 it's like all training and teaching about the full contact game wouldn't be taught to them...

The statistics on injuries per person hour played of Rugby in schools is frightening.

We ask for permissions, extra risk assessments, hold parent meetings and expect uber trained staff under annual inspections for a week's outdoor learning residential - yet Rugby weekly seriously injures children at a rate that would close an outdoor centre, lead to national enquiries and a raising of the bar for staff competencies and hardly anyone makes an issue of it.

I am massively pro risk and challenge with our young people, and support playing rugby in our schools. But we do need to question the injury rate.

My kids both started at the local Rugby club in November and since then all I've read is horror stories such as this.

The youngest (6) plays tag, and the eldest (9) plays contact in the under 10's. The change in them has been great, as they've really come out of their shells since starting, and the game doesn't look much worse than football did when I was st school in the 80's and 90's

However, I keep getting serious doubts about letting them continue after reading articles like this.

My eldest is playing tag and they have just started to learn how to tackle in training.

I'd argue with more and more school sport getting the chop (especially those with contact) it's even more important that they (boys especially) do something like Rugby, Judo etc outside of school.

What stoner said. IIRC there's an agenda there - her son picked up a series of injuries, including broken bones and/or ligament damage, but not in any way life changing

Pretty boring how the same letter seems to get trotted out around every 6N, RWC etc.

her son picked up a series of injuries, including broken bones and/or ligament damage, but not in any way life changing

After which she lead studies on how many of those same kids were being injured, and as MOAO suggests the injury rate at just the few schools that were studied was pretty severe.

I coach junior rugby, and so far this season (the U9s first season of contact at tackle), a squad of 25, playing an hour every sunday, so in over 500 man-hours of rugby have amassed the sum total of injuries: one sprained thumb.

[i]The statistics on injuries per person hour played of Rugby in schools is frightening.[/i]

Sauce?

A bit of a rag bag list of signatories, many of them seem to come from countries where rugby is a very minor sport.

One thing we could do is adopt the NZ practice of organising teams by weight rather than age. Less injuries caused by size mismatches, and some likely benefits of more enjoyment for longer by more players and more quality players coming out of school.

Don't know what the disadvantages are, other than organisational.

God sons have both started playing contact rugby this last year, from a background of hatingvteam sports. They both love it, they are properly coached and watched. Their dad and another mate of mine are now doing their coaching awards. Best thing that's happened for any of them.

My lads school play mixed touch rugby at year 7, in year 8 it's been more handling skills, tackling is left for those that want to take it seriously on the school team that train after school. Provided the teachers are trained, I have no problem with tackling in schools.

I played school rugby in the 80s, as others have said, hockey was much scarier and had more injuries.

@ihn - ROSPA, I will get screen grab and source when at work in a moment.

When I was at school, our main PE teacher just let us get on with it (rugby), with little in the way of coaching. However, they then had a teacher exchange program and an Aussie guy came over: he had us playing touch rugby, which was good for hand skills, as well as contact rugby, but only after he taught us how to tackle properly in controlled conditions.

There is room for both imo.

I believe touch rugby is widely played in the southern hemisphere, so it clearly has a role to play, although not at the exclusion of everything else.

It's all about quality coaching. I woukd seriously question the coaching at schools where there are high injury counts. In ten years of coaching the most severe injury one of my players received was a bloody (not broken) nose due to foul play from an opponent. The irb rugby ready "test" IMHO is not a sufficient minimal coaching qualification.

Id prefer to see the NZ system. As it is we try and manage squads as best as we can within the age-grade limitations set my RFU to cluster development/size levels.

This* is on my desk in front of me now, and this saturday I have an Age Grade Rugby briefing at the local RFU.

* image not uploading, blasted resolving host issues. will post later

We played 5ish aside full contact league type rules across pitch to improve handling and tackling. Reduces risk from scrums and ruck/maul. With only team training playing the full game.

I do wonder more about concussion than serious breaks for kids though, which is just as much a problem in league

The size thing is a good idea, do people think there could be lightweight and heavyweight rugby in the future?

Should be compulsory in schools. The differences in size of kids going through puberty can be massive. I know the biggest kids in my year at school were probably going on twice my weight and 20% taller. And i wasn't the smallest in my year either. Having some 6 foot/15 stone semi-bearded 14 or 15 year old tackling an 8 stone kid is asking for trouble.

There's a serious issue to be addressed regarding concussion at all levels of rugby [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-35636594 ]Ulster University [/url]
I think there's no need to ban tackling but there's a need to get more information and to build better safeguards around school age rugby.

Having some 6 foot/15 stone semi-bearded 14 or 15 year

Weight limit rugby only applies up the the U13 level in NZ.

Take the Scottish approach and extend the ban all the way up to the national team 😉

No... absolutely mental

That woman on the radio this morning sounded completely hysterical

It's a choice thing
There's no way I would engage with rugby or hockey at school cos they were games for sado-masochistic freaks and wierdos

What outlet will those lumpen nutters have for their hormone fuelled aggression if we ban idiot sports?

(and it would probably be pretty bad for our international teams further down the line)

I was 6ft 3 by the time I was 13 and 14st by 15. But rugby was not compulsory at my school other than a few weeks taster of rugby, football and hockey before choosing.

Pathetic, just teach it properly. I don't remember a single injury happening during my years at school playing rugby. However, football had had quite a few with kids with sprained and broken ankles, damaged knees and broken wrists.

I've a nephew (10) whose just started both Football and Rugby at his school. They've a cut off so the under 10's don't do anything other than run around a field or Tennis. So the lads into Footy more than Rugby because, his words, "Rugby just seems to be more about hurting each other than a game" Whilst to some degree I sympathise it seems a bit of a shame that he'll be loosing out. On the other hand he's not very good at football so that'll end soon I guess.

What we need is more Terry Tate...whoooo he comes the pain train!!!!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RzToNo7A-94

It's a long time since i played but it does seem to me that the senior game now is less about tackling, and more about 'contact'. Huge players hitting each other repeatedly with forces that simply weren't seen 'back in the day'. We have video reels of massive hits, get any player onto a TV sports program and they almost always produce a tackle bag and measure how hard they can hit it, etc. And what happens in the big game transfers down, inevitably, to bodies that aren't as well trained and aren't as well conditioned.

The statistics do tend to speak for themselves.

Is it so wrong to therefore suggest that at school level, quite often in the hands of inexpert coaches, and trying to produce a lesson that caters for everyone from the guy who's going to go on and play for his country down to the speccy kid shivering on the wing, that avoiding collisions is a good thing.

The call is not to ban tackling for kids outright, let it be coached properly at club level and developed there and let kids at school enjoy the other technical aspects of the game as a gateway to whether they want to go on to play contact? With school - club partnerships so that there is a clear onward path, and maybe with an opt-out for 'elite' schools that can provide the necessary coaching so that the 'rugby' schools can continue the traditional elements of school competitions.

Here we go
[img] [/img]

The statistics do tend to speak for themselves.

According to the RFU, it is getting safer and they have posted [url= http://www.englandrugby.com/mm/Document/Governance/GameSupport/01/31/44/99/Rugby_Safe_bookletFINAL_English.pdf ]this[/url] on Twitter.

nickjb - Member

It's not about how much it hurts but life changing injuries that do happen in school rugby. Touch rugby is still a decent game and far more inclusive, in fact it is frequently played mixed. School sports seem to almost be designed to put a section of the population off sport for life. I bet a lot people on here got into cycling after not really getting on with traditional school sports.

That sums it up for me. School sports lessons put me off any form of sport for the next 15 years.

I'd say keep sports lessons to touch rugby. Keep full tackling for those on the school team or after school clubs.

We didn't play in our comp.
Not that common in central Manchester, but move a couple of miles out and every kid played, League and Union.

Played a bit in Cubs and Scouts, yearly local competitions, but raely played properly until college, by which time you've picked up potentially dangerous habits.

If I'd been taught the basics safely as a kid, I'd have definitely enjoyed it more and been a better player as an adult.

If you're going to teach it, teach it properly.

From [url= http://www.rospa.com/rospaweb/docs/advice-services/school-college-safety/managing-safety-schools-colleges.pdf ]here[/url]

[url= https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1558/25316395432_fc9f4af624_b.jp g" target="_blank">https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1558/25316395432_fc9f4af624_b.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/Ez89mq ]Capture[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/matt_outandabout/ ]Matt Robinson[/url], on Flickr

*edit* - so that is 290,000 injuries for rugby, 20,000 for motorbiking, 7,000 for cycling, 4,000 for climbing and 500 by catching the bus.

I get the benefits of rugby - but that does not excuse the sport from examining what more can be done to reduce where possible the impact.

'As safe as necessary, not as safe as possible' to quote HSE and RoSPA.

It also fascinates me that parents today are so concerned over risks their children may (or may not!) face - and yet when it comes to particular sports, they 'get' risk vs benefit and the usual concerns are quashed.

How many parents allow their kids to play rugby, yet not walk to school for fear of abduction or car accident?

It is an interesting piece of psychology and social norming in my view.

that woman on the radio this morning sounded completely hysterical

did you listen to the radio broadcast konabunny?

Getting safer still does not equal safe, or even safe enough.

I'm all for full-contact rugby, but in the right environment and with the right supervision, and my instinct is that many schools can't provide that.

WRT the benefits of sport vs the dangers. Clearly sport is a good thing to instil discipline, teamwork, fitness, reduce obesity rates and so on. But to those that say that rugby gives those benefits at the expense of a few injuries - I suspect you can get a lot of the benefits from touch versions of the game.

Kids will always fall over and break bones, sprain ankles, etc. playing any type of sport. The risk / benefit ratio however is still massively in favour of the benefits of physical exercise. That's not the point here, rugby is a specific, violent, collision orientated game and [u]in the wrong hands [/u]substantially more dangerous for severe injuries than the majority of other sports.

What definition of 'injury' did they use for that chart, Matt? My lad comes home covered in bruises and strained stuff after rugby.

Rock climbing comes out of that quite well, but I imagine that while injuries are less likely, when they do happen, they are far more likely to be life-changing.

My view on school rugby is that it is a good thing, provided they actually coach technique rather than just contact, and try to make sure the bigger, stronger lads aren't just thrown in to mash up the tiddlers.

The shortage of PE teachers competent to coach rugby seems to be the main problem.

Who did that piece of research it's terrible, how can you compare meaningfully sitting on a bus or fishing against rugby?

In fact when did a car or bus journey become a leisure activity?

In fact when did a car or bus journey become a leisure activity?

In about 20 years it probably will be, for me. 😀

No activity is entirely risk-free, so it can be useful to compare across a whole range rather than just focus on sport.

far more inclusive

I suspect you can get a lot of the benefits from touch versions of the game

One of rugby's great strengths is that it is a game for all shapes and sizes, touch is great for good and fast ball players who tend to thrive at most sports - but not for your typical prop.

I would dispute how low horse riding is in that table. Many years ago one kid died and another was badly hurt doing schoolboy motox on one weekend, ROSPA got involved and when they did a comparison horseriding came out way worse for serious injuries.

I listened to the broadcast. "Hysterical woman" were the last words that came to mind.

I didn't feel her case was particularly well argued, but neither I think was Perry's position either.

There is always room for improvement of all games, and finding a way to improve the reality of rugby (ie that it's pretty injurious compared with many other mainstream sports) is no bad thing.

Whether or not at a personal level any of us think it was it wasn't harmful (we had plenty of concussions and broken bones and joints every year at school) is irrelevant.

would dispute how low horse riding is in that table. Many years ago one kid died and another was badly hurt doing schoolboy motox on one weekend, ROSPA got involved and when they did a comparison horseriding came out way worse for serious injuries.

The graph is about the number of injuries not the extent.

No activity is entirely risk-free, so it can be useful to compare across a whole range rather than just focus on sport.

No it isn't as common sense will tell you that sitting on your arse is less likely to result in injury than playing contact sport. But that data also fails to account for all the benefits of playing sport on general and mental health. It also fails to look at severity.

At least if you plotted them on a Risk matrix you might get a better idea, so as mentioned above the probability of a rock climbing, or motorcycling injury maybe lower than rugby but the consequences are in most instances going to be much higher.

I listened to the broadcast. "Hysterical woman" were the last words that came to mind.

yep, I've heard her on other programmes discuss this, and she's about as far from hysterical as you can get.

I don't understand why it's an issue to examine how rugby is taught and practised in schools to certain groups of kids.

Take the Scottish approach and extend the ban all the way up to the national team

[img] [/img]

neither I think was Perry's position either

He sounded like a rugby player.. A bit concussed and dehydrated

What definition of 'injury' did they use for that chart, Matt? My lad comes home covered in bruises and strained stuff after rugby.

Yes the graph is pretty random, (insert sarcastic comment about footballers 😉 )

I would dispute how low horse riding is in that table. Many years ago one kid died and another was badly hurt doing schoolboy motox on one weekend, ROSPA got involved and when they did a comparison horseriding came out way worse for serious injuries.

Yes, the level of the injury (and whether reported) is good to be far more serious with MX & horses, pretty sure cross country eventing is getting on for one of the most dangerous sports you can take part in.

Excuse me while I rub some mud up my legs to make it look like I've been an active participant in this thread and the gym master won't shout at me after games.

Yes, the level of the injury (and whether reported) is good to be far more serious with MX & horses, pretty sure cross country eventing is getting on for one of the most dangerous sports you can take part in.

Probably true, but largely irrelevant in the context of this discussion. Kids are not being shoved on top of horses and sent off over cross country fences with inadequate coaching as part of the school PE curriculum. They are being sent out on to the rugby pitch.

Excuse me while I rub some mud up my legs to make it look like I've been an active participant in this thread and the gym master won't shout at me after games.

Four laps of the field! NOW!

So, using the stats from the picture Matt posted and a bit of fag packet maths, I make it that there's about one injury per every 300 rugby matches played.

One has to assume that many of those injuries will be skewed towards club rugby, where the weights (and very possibly aggression) of the participants will be greater, making the impacts bigger.

And what counts as an injury in those stats? I assume it's everything from a twisted ankle (of which there will be many, and with little to no long term impact) to a broken back (of which there'll be thankfully few)

As ever, unless someone can produce actual stats regarding serious injuries suffered at a young age through playing rugby, the debate will go nowhere.

My view on school rugby is that it is a good thing, provided they actually coach technique rather than just contact, and try to make sure the bigger, stronger [b]lads [/b]aren't just thrown in to mash up the tiddlers.

As ever, unless someone can produce actual stats regarding serious injuries suffered at a young age through playing rugby, the debate will go nowhere.

You mean like stats that are limited to say schools and colleges...

Probably true, but largely irrelevant in the context of this discussion. Kids are not being shoved on top of horses and sent off over cross country fences with inadequate coaching as part of the school PE curriculum. They are being sent out on to the rugby pitch.

Depends on the school 😉

The comment was in reference to the 'wooly' nature of the info on the graph.

...more dangerous in the long term. Imagine a field full of 18 year olds, who have never been allowed (and therefore never taught correctly) suddenly being able to tackle. The whole lot would be off to A&E within minutes..

One of rugby's great strengths is that it is a game for all shapes and sizes, touch is great for good and fast ball players who tend to thrive at most sports - but not for your typical prop.

At best it's just unpleasant and will put people off sport.

There's no way I would engage with rugby or hockey at school cos they were games for sado-masochistic freaks and wierdos

Yes, the level of the injury (and whether reported) is good to be far more serious with MX & horses

If schools were suggesting taking their kids skateboarding or mountain biking in games lessons and there was a similar injury rate everyone would flip out and it would never be allowed.

Rugby is dangerous, especially given how violent it was at our school. It's like alcohol, if it hadn't become a traditional part of our culture it would probably never be allowed now.

The graph is about the number of injuries not the extent.

Good point, well made.

Getting hit with an almost supersonic hockey ball was far more painful than being dumped on the deck and then trodden on by a 15 stone prop.

I always felt sorry for the little backs I did that to but at least I know the hockey ball was more painful now. I did get banned from hockey as apparently I was a bit of a high risk to the shorter players with the hockey stick 😈

I was often limping for days after a rugby game, in fact I didn't felt I had played my hardest if I wasn't injured in some way. Sadly I ended up with a back problem due to a gymnastics injury when I was younger which plagued me and a couple of nasty scrum collapses meant I had to go play with the non-team kids that would rather be inside reading or playing football 🙁

Teach kids to tackle properly. Train the staff properly and make sure the referees come down hard on dangerous tackles.

I can just see the whole of the southern hemisphere laughing at this and rubbing their hands waiting for the state of the England team in 8-10 years.

So, using the stats from the picture Matt posted and a bit of fag packet maths, I make it that there's about one injury per every 300 rugby matches played.

I worked it out as closer to 1:10, given there's 30 person hours of rugby in an hour of rugby.

And other stats might suggest that number is low, eg the Ulster Uni stats

Absence
A total of 825 schoolboys from 28 schools teams took part in the study during the 2014/15 school year.
The players were older boys playing for schools' first teams.
More than one in three of them suffered at least one injury during the season.
The researchers recorded 426 injuries in total, of which 204 resulted in an absence from the sport for longer than 28 days.
While sprains were the most common injury, about one in five injuries were due to concussion.

(although it's not recorded how many hours / games the 2014/15 school year consists, but if the graph data rate of one injury per 10 games is right, 426 injuries equates to 4260 games which for 28 schools doesn't stack)

And irrespective of the definitions that lead to how the data is gathered, as noted above it neither measures the severity of injury nor does it disguise that it is more than twice as dangerous as the next sport. So once again - an evaluation of why that is and whether it should be made safer seems appropriate; knee-jerking 'It never did me any harm' isn't.

The worst bit was if you forgot your jodhpurs and had to wear the pair from lost property.

I was kind of being a bit serious, there was a horsey club and along with a classic sailing yacht 😳

Seems like a good idea to me. Or just abolish Rugby. Not just in schools. All Rugby.

[b]I *ING HATE RUGBY!!![/b] Let me just repeat that.... [b]I *ING HATE RUGBY!!![/b] With every fibre of my being. Why?.....Well... at school, we had a huge, insane, Welsh borderline psychotic PE teacher who in attitude was reminiscent of this...

[img] [/img]

and believed that we should play Rugby league, to the exclusion of all other sports, in absolutely any weather. The grimmer, the better. All character building apparently.

It was less a sport, and more a sort of primeval survival test. Or maybe a precursor to cage fighting? All it needed was the cage. Some of the people I went to school with hadn't developed far from monkeys, and had the same natural predisposition to ultra-violence as the zombies in 28 Days Later. All built like tanks as well.

I lived in constant fear of the weekly PE savagery. As did all of us whose exposure to industrial chemicals hadn't left us weirdly malformed, and physically massive. When the inevitable happened and a brutal tackle/assault saw me in A&E, I stared lovingly at the X-ray of my shredded ligaments and shattered cartilage, and nearly leapt for joy as the surgeon uttered words I had dreamt of hearing for so long....

Thats your rugby career over then

I hugged him and wept tears of unfettered joy

I've never played it since, and if it was on the telly, and you tied me to a chair to force me to watch a single solitary second of it - I'd rather headbutt the screen to destruction, even if it involved lacerating my face to ribbons, and bursting through a main artery in the process

Who says competitive sport isn't good for your mental health? 🙂

Having suffered neck and back injuries in school rugby in the 1970s and from which I still suffer, I'd be happy to see many elements of the game revised at school level, particularly any compulsion to participate. My Dad played at a high level, and I wanted to, but poor coaching decisions putting the tall skinny kid in the second row were to blame for what I suffered.

There's just no excuse for subjecting kids at that stage of their physical development to risks they're unlikely to appreciate in full. Keep impact out until they're considered old enough to make informed choices would be my view.

How completely unsurprising that the professor discussing extensive scientific research gets dismissed as a "hysterical woman".

It will be interesting to see how extensive it appears that she might have played fast and loose with research in the past.

[url= http://blogs.bmj.com/bjsm/2010/09/07/crying-wolf-when-media-reports-distort-research-evidence/ ]BMJ Blog response to her earlier calls for change.[/url]

Bravo Binners! 😆 😆 😆

1970s and from which I still suffer, I'd be happy to see many elements of the game revised at school level

and in 30 years you think it hasnt?

What definition of 'injury' did they use for that chart, Matt?

I am just seeking it out. IIRC, it was injuries that were recordable - so not bruises and scrapes. It was broken bones, hospital trips and more. I will find out why I think that.

It does seem daft to compare a contact sport with sitting on a bus or walking. BUT this is the core of my point - why do we get all upset about Tarquin walking to school as it is 'unsafe', yet drive him there and send him onto the rugby field?