School rugby 'too dangerous'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-32383607

A government drive to boost participation in rugby in English schools is ill-conceived and risks children getting seriously hurt, public health doctors have warned.

Prof Allyson Pollock and colleagues at Queen Mary University of London say the contact sport is too dangerous.

I despair for the world we live in.

This is a rehash of something I read last year - I seem to remember Greenwood getting involved in the debate.

Rugby carries risk and is a choice. Many things in life do. Way too much money wasted in our nanny state on "research".

When I was a child I climbed down a 40ft high shear cliff face in the rain using vines when I was out playing with my pals. I'm fairly sure that was far more dangerous a thing to do than playing rugby!

Life is dangerous, and kids will get themselves into all kinds of dangerous situation when out and about with their mates - at least rugby puts some control on it, not to mention the many, many benefits you get from playing the sport as a child.

Although saying that, based on the kids I know the only danger they have is repetitive strain injury from playing their Playstations and X-Boxes!

I'm such an old man...

RDW_Scotland wrote:I'm such an old man...

Is this a deliberate attempt to elicit a response from Jimbo?

This makes me so angry. I'm glad I don't live in the UK!

1) 'Injured severely enough to be off the pitch for a week!' A dislocated finger could do that....that's hardly 'severe'.

2) But more importantly, Pollock's entire paradigm is wrong. She fears physical injury as if it's the worst thing that can happen to a person. False! Emotional injury, emasculation, stunting of character, these are all far worse. And rugby addresses all these issues directly.

Boys need to be able to compete physically, they need to be able to face real risks and overcome them - for the sake of their emotional well-being. If you don't provide a constructive, structured environment where they can do this they will either be emotionally damaged, or will find a destructive environment in which to do it.

How can boys develop genuine virtues, such as bravery, endurance, resilience, mental and physical toughness, team-work etc if they don't face genuine situations where those virtues are called for...and rugby develops these virtues more than many other sports or activities.

...Rant over...

...but jys I'm angry...

Health & Safety gone berserk. When will this end? Not just in rugby, but in life as a whole. 

For too long now, health & safety has been constantly evolving to protect those people in society who lack common sense, and who long ago, would have been wiped out by the notion of survival of the fittest. 

Health and Safety is getting in the way of our species' evolution. Stop it. Stop it now. 

Pain is a major component of our life lessons. It teaches us boundaries and how to approach things correctly, not least in developing traits such as bravery and resilience as Fishpaste says above.

Risk. Nobody likes it if their precious child is the one hurt and so they go after the obvious stuff like organised sports where they have some control, but the fact is that kids will look for risk regardless and its much better they do so in a more controlled environment like sports.

Mr Fishpaste wrote:This makes me so angry. I'm glad I don't live in the UK!

1) 'Injured severely enough to be off the pitch for a week!' A dislocated finger could do that....that's hardly 'severe'.

2) But more importantly, Pollock's entire paradigm is wrong. She fears physical injury as if it's the worst thing that can happen to a person. False! Emotional injury, emasculation, stunting of character, these are all far worse. And rugby addresses all these issues directly.

Boys need to be able to compete physically, they need to be able to face real risks and overcome them - for the sake of their emotional well-being. If you don't provide a constructive, structured environment where they can do this they will either be emotionally damaged, or will find a destructive environment in which to do it.

How can boys develop genuine virtues, such as bravery, endurance, resilience, mental and physical toughness, team-work etc if they don't face genuine situations where those virtues are called for...and rugby develops these virtues more than many other sports or activities.

...Rant over...

...but jys I'm angry...

Excuse me but in the 21st Century that also applies to girls as well - our womens team has gone from a base of 0 to 25 in a season !

Agree with the other stuff though

Pollock has been banging this drum for a while.  Hopefully powers that be will see sense beyond what she's spouting.  Having read some of the BMJ stuff quoted it seems slightly biased to say the least..Interesting to see that the original bid had ministerial backing.

There's no effort to look at the beneficial aspects of rugby (whether playing or just involved) - rather just a case of "ooo, what a dangerous violent sport.  It needs to be changed."

Irish Londoner wrote:

Excuse me but in the 21st Century that also applies to girls as well - our womens team has gone from a base of 0 to 25 in a season !

Agree with the other stuff though

For sure. I'm not making a point about women's rugby, the more people who play rugby the better really.

But my point is that boys (generally speaking) have a particular need to prove themselves (to themselves as much as to anyone else) through physical competition, and facing and overcoming risks. While I'm not saying this need is absent in girls, it is definitely far more important for the healthy development of boys. And I see this overlooked by mothers especially (again, generally speaking) who don't seem to realise that the importance of this for the healthy emotional development of their sons outweighs the risk of serious physical harm.

Perhaps it's the last pint talking, but there's something funny here. Although i contributed to the thread and agree with the sentiment:

1. So, busy body, leftie, public health civil servant criticises school rugby because too dangerous for kids.

2. Rugby obsessed folk on...wait for it...a rugby forum! Disagree, have a rant, get angry, make a few comments about the social benefits of sport and generally think she's talking b******s.

Result - all is right with the world.
They've just called last orders.

offload wrote:Perhaps it's the last pint talking, but there's something funny here.  Although i contributed to the thread and agree with the sentiment:

1. So, busy body, leftie, public health civil servant criticises school rugby because too dangerous for kids.

2. Rugby obsessed folk on...wait for it...a rugby forum!  Disagree, have a rant, get angry, make a few comments about the social benefits of sport and generally think she's talking b******s.

Result - all is right with the world.  
They've just called last orders.

Ha! Yes we are preaching to the converted I suppose. But given a chance I would certainly say what I have to say to Pollock!

And my concern, though voiced on a rugby forum is actually not primarily a concern about rugby given in my capacity as a rugby fan; but more a concern about boys given in my capacity as a High School teacher...because I see more and more boys being forbidden from playing rugby by their mothers who use Pollock's kind of logic to justify their decision.

A few of you getting very excited and have been quick to blame the 'nanny state' you perceive to be at work here.

Actually, the author of the report simply points out the rather obvious - that rugby is inherently dangerous - and goes on to advocate a more structured approach to safety strategies (it was alluded to that suitable strategies are already in place in NZ) and that the Government's plan should be more carefully thought out.

Nothing to see here, apart from over-reaction perhaps.

I always think that one of the problems medics must have when they look at things like Rugby is that their main connection to the game is seeing the people who got broke playing it, as opposed to the vast majority who only got dented. Their perception of the dangers could be naturally skewed.

I played schools rugby in Northern Ireland in the late 1980's early 1990's. I can tell you that the boys playing in the Ulster schools cup are a lot bigger now than they were back then.
When I was a lad, the big guys were just naturally big (usually of farming stock), now even at schools level they seem to be under pressure to bulk up. Even schools rugby is becoming professional.

Collisions, as in pro rugby, are probably harder now as the kids are bigger.

Just an observation.

It would be a shame to stop/reduce rugby at schools level.

Jimpy wrote:A few of you getting very excited and have been quick to blame the 'nanny state' you perceive to be at work here.

Actually, the author of the report simply points out the rather obvious - that rugby is inherently dangerous - and goes on to advocate a more structured approach to safety strategies (it was alluded to that suitable strategies are already in place in NZ) and that the Government's plan should be more carefully thought out.

Nothing to see here, apart from over-reaction perhaps.

Jimpy, I think a lot of people are just extrapolating this article (which yes, is pretty anodyne), to the wider topic. The nanny state is getting ridiculous.

To be expected from a culture obsessed with the round ball.

Pony riding is dangerous. One kick or one fall and that could be it - lights out. Is allowing kids to ride their ponies (often on their own with no adults around) ill-conceived and a risk to children getting seriously hurt?

Maybe the answer to that is a resounding 'Yes' from the public health mafia.

Riding mountain bikes is dangerous. Hanging upside down out of an apple tree is dangerous (having spent the day eating most of the apples - old memory ). Sending kids on adventure tours to places where Polar Bears roam is dangerous.
Gymnastics is dangerous
Judo is dangerous

It is far too controlling a world we live in where a pale anaemic conformity is becoming mandatory. If families want their children to play the sport they've loved, if the children want to play it, if the families have the natural urges to keep their children as safe as possible through life, if the sport is well chaperoned and administered by caring parents/adults - then it has a legitimate right to BE - and Health Hounds should mind their own personal business.

Responsible adults MUST be allowed decide the destinies of their own children in good faith and with an appreciation by the authorities that those parents want what's best for their children and will not en masse wish to see their children hurt, abused or endangered.

bluestonevedder wrote:

Jimpy wrote:A few of you getting very excited and have been quick to blame the 'nanny state' you perceive to be at work here.

Actually, the author of the report simply points out the rather obvious - that rugby is inherently dangerous - and goes on to advocate a more structured approach to safety strategies (it was alluded to that suitable strategies are already in place in NZ) and that the Government's plan should be more carefully thought out.

Nothing to see here, apart from over-reaction perhaps.

Jimpy, I think a lot of people are just extrapolating this article (which yes, is pretty anodyne), to the wider topic. The nanny state is getting ridiculous.

Maybe, but it seems to me that a few people very quickly, and without thinking, jump on the 'nanny state' bandwagon whenever they perceive a threat to their liberty. This story hasn't much to do with a group of people trying to erode freedom of choice, its more to do with common bloody sense than anything else.....

Mind you, Fly has a point, it doesn't look like they were invited for an opinion, but have given one anyway. Arguably, that's their job.

I could express views all day long about the "nanny state" and it certainly wouldn't be without thinking or because I want to ride a band wagon. I like government with a very small g, I detest big government where the state wants to have a controlling hand is every aspect of my life.

It's one of the reasons I hate devolution and the idea that a bunch of wannabies think I want them to make decisions about me because they are 40 miles away instead of 130 miles. In doing so they spend a huge amount of money on the trapings of government and assume we are all grateful because we are now governed locally. Not one single £ saved in westminster as a result of their self obsession. The nanny state is real and gettimng worse. Way too may people in theis coutry earn a living from being a public servant - which gives real and valid public servants a bad image.

Anyway - rant over. Sorry I'm off topic, but I couldn't help myself.

Pony riding is indeed dangerous.

I don't think you will find many schools that have pony riding as their main winter sport for boys though.

Is that not the issue? Not that rugby is an inherently dangerous sport but that it is an inherently dangerous sport which is taught so widely in schools?

MrsP wrote:Pony riding is indeed dangerous.

I don't think you will find many schools that have pony riding as their main winter sport for boys though.

Is that not the issue? Not that rugby is an inherently dangerous sport but that it is an inherently dangerous sport which is taught so widely in schools?

Should we really be riding on animals anyway?

Recreationally, it demeans the animal.

For sport (mainly for betting) the animal often gets injured or dies.

MrsP wrote:Pony riding is indeed dangerous.

I don't think you will find many schools that have pony riding as their main winter sport for boys though.

Is that not the issue? Not that rugby is an inherently dangerous sport but that it is an inherently dangerous sport which is taught so widely in schools?

But what is the problem with exposing children at school to risks in a constructive, supervised manner. If the point of school is to prepare one for life then surely that should be part of it.

Mr Fishpaste wrote:

MrsP wrote:Pony riding is indeed dangerous.

I don't think you will find many schools that have pony riding as their main winter sport for boys though.

Is that not the issue? Not that rugby is an inherently dangerous sport but that it is an inherently dangerous sport which is taught so widely in schools?

But what is the problem with exposing children at school to risks in a constructive, supervised manner. If the point of school is to prepare one for life then surely that should be part of it.

I would argue that most of the people supervising are unqualified and unsuited to the task.

Cyril wrote:

MrsP wrote:Pony riding is indeed dangerous.

I don't think you will find many schools that have pony riding as their main winter sport for boys though.

Is that not the issue? Not that rugby is an inherently dangerous sport but that it is an inherently dangerous sport which is taught so widely in schools?

Should we really be riding on animals anyway?

Recreationally, it demeans the animal.

For sport (mainly for betting) the animal often gets injured or dies.

Separate subject but its a huge trade off. If horses were not being ridden or worked in some other way we wouldn't keep them and there would be a lot less of them. In terms of numbers animals such as cows and pigs are hugely successful, because we eat them...

MrsP wrote:Pony riding is indeed dangerous.

I don't think you will find many schools that have pony riding as their main winter sport for boys though.

Is that not the issue? Not that rugby is an inherently dangerous sport but that it is an inherently dangerous sport which is taught so widely in schools?

????

So Schools should react to life differently to how parents react to it in their homes?

Two completely different views of the world???

IF the real issue is bloody Insurance levels in schools then let the people in authority simply admit that without coughing around the edges about what is dangerous and what isn't.  It's what is prohibitively expensive to cover and what isn't. That's the real issue.

I think many of us are old enough to remember when we were at school we ran around freely, in and out of buildings in dry weather, in wet weather.  We acted up on tarmac surfaces etc etc.  Isn't the situation now that all that freedom to run around is frowned on in schools?  And I hear from one relative that the kids are now held inside when it rains!  Lest the poor dears, trip and slip I suppose.

Lest their parents sue if they trip or slip is more like it.  Lest the insurance companies hear about the kids being let out is more like it.

I'll go even further Mrs P.  I now fully think that the idea of 'School' is itself a tired and ancient form of education in this modern, mobile technological world.  Some educational brains really need to sit down and find ways of educating children without having them sit down in boring production line seats for so long

Cyril wrote:

MrsP wrote:Pony riding is indeed dangerous.

I don't think you will find many schools that have pony riding as their main winter sport for boys though.

Is that not the issue? Not that rugby is an inherently dangerous sport but that it is an inherently dangerous sport which is taught so widely in schools?

Should we really be riding on animals anyway?

Recreationally, it demeans the animal.

For sport (mainly for betting) the animal often gets injured or dies.

Well a few Empires were formed on them, Cyril. So they came in handy for civilisation from time to time through the ages

lostinwales wrote:


Separate subject but its a huge trade off. If horses were not being ridden or worked in some other way we wouldn't keep them and there would be a lot less of them. In terms of numbers animals such as cows and pigs are hugely successful, because we eat them...

Very good point.  Vegans say we shouldn't eat meat.  Any maybe we shouldn't - I know there have been periods when I felt like going off it just for health's sake.

But they say we shouldn't eat meat and, yet, if we didn't eat meat, there would be far fewer animals in the fields.  Cattle wouldn't be there because they'd make no money.  And a lot of the present 'Green' would perhaps become a lot of brown and grey cement and glass and steel.

SecretFly wrote:

lostinwales wrote:


Separate subject but its a huge trade off. If horses were not being ridden or worked in some other way we wouldn't keep them and there would be a lot less of them. In terms of numbers animals such as cows and pigs are hugely successful, because we eat them...

Very good point.  Vegans say we shouldn't eat meat.  Any maybe we shouldn't - I know there have been periods when I felt like going off it just for health's sake.

But they say we shouldn't eat meat and, yet, if we didn't eat meat, there would be far fewer animals in the fields.  Cattle wouldn't be there because they'd make no money.  And a lot of the present 'Green' would perhaps become a lot of brown and grey cement and glass and steel.

Damn vegans and their simplistic arguments. Lots of land near where I live (and lots of areas around the UK) which are totally unsuitable to growing crops but very good for raising nice tasty lambs. Animals like pigs don't always need a lot of crop growing space either, but do a great job at recycling byproducts of crop growing. And I am so so glad they finally managed to prove that butter is better for you than margarine...

LondonTiger wrote:

Mr Fishpaste wrote:

MrsP wrote:Pony riding is indeed dangerous.

I don't think you will find many schools that have pony riding as their main winter sport for boys though.

Is that not the issue? Not that rugby is an inherently dangerous sport but that it is an inherently dangerous sport which is taught so widely in schools?

But what is the problem with exposing children at school to risks in a constructive, supervised manner. If the point of school is to prepare one for life then surely that should be part of it.

I would argue that most of the people supervising are unqualified and unsuited to the task.

How so?

Have you ever seen the people coaching and refereeing at school or clubs kids sections? I have seen far too many Geography teachers, some monks, who once watched a match on the TV and they are running an age group side. At clubs, the guys doing it are enthusiastic but usually completely untrained. I have watched far too many age group refs who neither know the laws, nor know the adjustments to the laws for kids rugby. Far too many parent/coaches throwing their children back onto the pitch when they have taken a bang to the head.

I do not believe that, with the current modifications, that rugby is too dangerous for children. I do believe however that we need to improve the abilities of the adults involved.

LondonTiger wrote:Have you ever seen the people coaching and refereeing at school or clubs kids sections? I have seen far too many Geography teachers, some monks, who once watched a match on the TV and they are running an age group side. At clubs, the guys doing it are enthusiastic but usually completely untrained. I have watched far too many age group refs who neither know the laws, nor know the adjustments to the laws for kids rugby. Far too many parent/coaches throwing their children back onto the pitch when they have taken a bang to the head.

I do not believe that, with the current modifications, that rugby is too dangerous for children. I do believe however that we need to improve the abilities of the adults involved.

Sounds like what you are saying is that local clubs should get involved in helping to run school rugby.

SecretFly wrote:

Cyril wrote:

MrsP wrote:Pony riding is indeed dangerous.

I don't think you will find many schools that have pony riding as their main winter sport for boys though.

Is that not the issue? Not that rugby is an inherently dangerous sport but that it is an inherently dangerous sport which is taught so widely in schools?

Should we really be riding on animals anyway?

Recreationally, it demeans the animal.

For sport (mainly for betting) the animal often gets injured or dies.

Well a few Empires were formed on them, Cyril.  So they came in handy for civilisation from time to time through the ages

Yes, but this is Cyril, I don't think the kind of 'riding' that he was talking about is the same sort of riding you're talking about.

Oh bedroom stuff? Like in the Godfather? Well......................... if that's someone's quirk or fetish, I suppose.............. em.......................................... let's just drop the subject.

LondonTiger wrote: Far too many parent/coaches throwing their children back onto the pitch when they have taken a bang to the head.

Far too many professional coaches have tried the same thing.....  I'm not so sure getting club coaches involved is the way forward either.  These guys are thinking too - future - and I'm not so certain they'd go any easier with kids they might see early potential in.   It should be about the enjoyment of the game at that stage - the toss around excitement of it.

SecretFly wrote:

LondonTiger wrote: Far too many parent/coaches throwing their children back onto the pitch when they have taken a bang to the head.

Far too many professional coaches have tried the same thing.....  I'm not so sure getting club coaches involved is the way forward either.  These guys are thinking too - future - and I'm not so certain they'd go any easier with kids they might see early potential in.   It should be about the enjoyment of the game at that stage - the toss around excitement of it.

Agreed, but try telling that to many of the guys who coach, and especially parents.

Rugby is a dangerous sport - just imo not too dangerous. It does however need the people who run kids rugby to understand the dangers, how to monitor them and how to mitigate against them.

Most of us will send our kids to a rugby club hoping they have fun and accepting there is some risk but expecting that the adult in charge does not increase that risk by enthusiastic incompetence.

LondonTiger wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

LondonTiger wrote: Far too many parent/coaches throwing their children back onto the pitch when they have taken a bang to the head.

Far too many professional coaches have tried the same thing.....  I'm not so sure getting club coaches involved is the way forward either.  These guys are thinking too - future - and I'm not so certain they'd go any easier with kids they might see early potential in.   It should be about the enjoyment of the game at that stage - the toss around excitement of it.

Agreed, but try telling that to many of the guys who coach, and especially parents.

Rugby is a dangerous sport - just imo not too dangerous. It does however need the people who run kids rugby to understand the dangers, how to monitor them and how to mitigate against them.

Most of us will send our kids to a rugby club hoping they have fun and accepting there is some risk but expecting that the adult in charge does not increase that risk by enthusiastic incompetence.

Agreed with all that, most especially the bolded bit, Tiger. But that in itself is a long way away from the Health people bluntly saying the game should have no part in schools because it endangers kids. The blanket tut tut to rugby is the annoying thing.

One of the differences between schools rugby and club rugby is the element of desire to play. Most kids join clubs because they want to play. In some schools every boy has to play rugby whether they want to or not.
A kid getting hurt doing a sport they decided to play is perhaps a different matter than a kid getting hurt playing compulsory sport?

Again though, Mrs P, that's not what is being said.  I'd have strong views there too about children being forced into certain sporting activities regardless of how self-conscious they might be etc etc.

But none of that is the issue that Pollock and her people raised.  She simply says rugby is schools should be a no-no.  Blanket disapproval.

SecretFly wrote:Again though, Mrs P, that's not what is being said.  I'd have strong views there too about children being forced into certain sporting activities regardless of how self-conscious they might be etc etc.

But none of that is the issue that Pollock and her people raised.  She simply says rugby is schools should be a no-no.  Blanket disapproval.

She doesn't say that. She says there aren't enough safety checks or adequate injury monitoring or prevention strategies (or enough understanding of these processes). That's all something most of us would have some agreement with in terms of the professional game. The article even says there is no wish for a ban, but increased participation will mean an increase in injuries (in numbers, even if the average stays the same) and it's a good time to take stock.

I might not agree with what she's saying but the headline 'rugby too dangerous' is making people overact a bit.

Cyril wrote:
She doesn't say that. She says there aren't enough safety checks or adequate injury monitoring or prevention strategies (or enough understanding of these processes). That's all something most of us would have some agreement with in terms of the professional game. The article even says there is no wish for a ban, but increased participation will mean an increase in injuries (in numbers, even if the average stays the same) and it's a good time to take stock.

I might not agree with what she's saying but the headline 'rugby too dangerous' is making people overact a bit.

Well we're not likely to have an understanding of these processes in the immediate future considering the professional game is still struggling with the understanding bit and the proper protocols to use.  So in a sense it's still a no-no certificate until understanding increases.  But that's time.  Learn through the process would be best policy rather than waiting for a perfect world of perfect protocols and well funded scientific research programmes doing the discovery bizz

Sometimes, in these situations, I think of the astrophysicists and astronomers - whenever they feel funding is dipping they bloody well find a new 'Earth like planet that's only 24,000,000 light years from earth and might Actually have liquid water!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  

Oh be jeepers!!!!!!!!!!  A new Earth like planet that we'll never be able to reach but might actually have real liquid water on it!!!!??? Oh let's hike up the funding for them lads to find out if there is also any wine growing regions!

SecretFly wrote:

Cyril wrote:
She doesn't say that. She says there aren't enough safety checks or adequate injury monitoring or prevention strategies (or enough understanding of these processes). That's all something most of us would have some agreement with in terms of the professional game. The article even says there is no wish for a ban, but increased participation will mean an increase in injuries (in numbers, even if the average stays the same) and it's a good time to take stock.

I might not agree with what she's saying but the headline 'rugby too dangerous' is making people overact a bit.

Well we're not likely to have an understanding of these processes in the immediate future considering the professional game is still struggling with the understanding bit and the proper protocols to use.  So in a sense it's still a no-no certificate until understanding increases.  But that's time.  Learn through the process would be best policy rather than waiting for a perfect world of perfect protocols and well funded scientific research programmes doing the discovery bizz

Sometimes, in these situations, I think of the astrophysicists and astronomers - whenever they feel funding is dipping they bloody well find a new 'Earth like planet that's only 24,000,000 light years from earth and might Actually have liquid water!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  

Oh be jeepers!!!!!!!!!!  A new Earth like planet that we'll never be able to reach but might actually have real liquid water on it!!!!??? Oh let's hike up the funding for them lads to find out if there is also any wine growing regions!

I agree that we'll never find a perfect situation (and there are always risks) but with the mess professional rugby is in with concussion protocols etc we're always going to get knee-jerk reactions. Like it or not rugby (and other majorly contact sports like NFL) have a bad reputation at the moment. The fact that we're worried about professionals developing long-term problems (but not really knowing what these problems might be or the potential seriousness) means people will be worried about how this will affect kids. The collisions might be lesser but the back-up and knowledge is often not there. The professional game is supposed to set down a marker and be a model of good practice. It really isn't at the moment in terms of player safety.

That's not to say we throw the baby out with the bath water though.

Rugby can be dangerous, however so can football, cricket or even crossing a road.
One thing that does concern me relates to the scrum.
Personally I would like to see under 16's to have uncontested scrums. I do thinkthey can be very dangerous.
Many years ago in our local under 15 school league a boy broke his back in a game.

Rugby is a contact sport and its inevitable that occasionally there will be injuries, but those instances are very rare.

there was a schoolboy game up north of Auckland earlier and as a result of two completely separate incidents, two players (12 year olds) had to be uplifted by helicopter and flown to Whangarei hospital (about 80 k away), the game was called off just before half time.

But such incidents are very rare.

Heres a link:


http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11464738

aucklandlaurie wrote:Rugby is a contact sport and its inevitable that occasionally there will be injuries, but those instances are very rare.

there was a schoolboy game up north of Auckland earlier and as a result of two completely separate incidents, two players (12 year olds) had to be uplifted by helicopter and flown to Whangarei hospital (about 80 k away), the game was called off just before half time.

But such incidents are very rare.

Heres a link:


http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11464738

If I was going to pick a grade where injuries could happen in junior rugby it would be 12 year olds. It's the last year of junior rugby in NZ and it open grade for all weights. Big 11 year olds (and very big younger kids also play). The biggest kid my sons team faced so far was 120kg at the start of the season. I can tell you he was mostly muscle. The PI boys are just big, early (the average weight of a 12 year old in the UK is about 40kg).

blackcanelion wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:Rugby is a contact sport and its inevitable that occasionally there will be injuries, but those instances are very rare.

there was a schoolboy game up north of Auckland earlier and as a result of two completely separate incidents, two players (12 year olds) had to be uplifted by helicopter and flown to Whangarei hospital (about 80 k away), the game was called off just before half time.

But such incidents are very rare.

Heres a link:


http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11464738

If I was going to pick a grade where injuries could happen in junior rugby it would be 12 year olds. It's the last year of junior rugby in NZ and it open grade for all weights. Big 11 year olds (and very big younger kids also play). The biggest kid my sons team faced so far was 120kg at the start of the season. I can tell you he was mostly muscle. The PI boys are just big, early (the average weight of a 12 year old in the UK is about 40kg).

This is a huge issue in the UK at every age grade...

I've documented weight differences of over 70/80KG's at junior rugby matches! I once saw a 112KG 15 yr old play 10 for his team, could hoof the ball 60 yards, and made 7 passes is the entire game, scoring 2 tries, one from his own half!!

It's ludicrous, and the second try was scored while handing off a 38kg winger into touch on the way past. It was that crazy, one time he was brought down in centre field by 4/5 tacklers who ended up underneath him the ref blew his whistle in fear that 2 of the tacklers were screaming!!

Sorting teams based on weight/height would be the best solution but as so much rugby is based on schools and therefore on academic year rather than clubs it may be difficult.
At Christmas I worked out that about three quarters of the under 16's squad I work with were either taller than me, heavier than me or both !

I think she's right, rugby is bloody dangerous. And that's why aged 11-18 at school i loved to play it. Our awesome rugby coach, a northerner who played for england, used to say fellas, go out there and knock seven bells out of these gys and then shake their hands at the end. You could fight legally and hit as hard as you could and the best team won. It's kind of a metaphor for life and this idiot of a scientist who i doubt has ever graced a pitch (and not because she's a women)
should consider the following child sports before suggesting rugby is any different:

Boxing - er hello
Athletics- broken ankles, speared by javelin, deafened by starting gun
Cricket- broken knuckles, jaw ribs
Swimming- sampled your local pool recently?
Basketball: ball to face broken nose, ankles.
Football: broken ankles and knees
Gymnastics: ruined for life by hyperextending joints

and these are just the mainstream ones i can think off. Maybe we should all just play golf.

Gwlad wrote:IMaybe we should all just play golf.

Seve Ballesteros, permanent back damage
Tiger Woods, all sorts of problems, back back, broken leg.
David Howell, muscle injury

Maybe tiddlywinks ?

Lets be honest, Dr Alyson Pollock is right, school rugby is too dangerous!!!

It's a contact sport, played by kids who are different sizes, with different skill levels, coached by insufficiently educated dads, with not enough medical training, in conditions that are dangerous, throughout the cold months, and run by organisations who couldnt organise a urine up at a brewery...

But name me one other sport that ticks all the boxes? Why do we create cars that go 140mph when the speed limit on the fastest section of roads is half that? Why do we jump from perfectly good planes with nothing but cloth on our back? Why do we get amazed when a knife thrower misses a spinning girl by millimetres? Why do we watch depraved clips of danger on youtube? Why would we climb the highest mountain? or swim to the lowest depths?

LIFE IS DANGEROUS!!!!

It's meant to be dangerous, we're meant for destruction, mankind is violant by nature, we are competitive by nature, we are caring by nature and we are curious by nature, we don't live in a safe world, never have, and hopefully never will!

I love rugby, and so do millions of people worldwide, despite the danger, the collisions, the bruises and the cuts, despite the headache from the missus or mister, despite the sunday morning hangovers, and struggle to lift the legs out of the bed, and despite people like you Dr Pollock.

Rugby is in my blood, it'll be in my childrens blood, and their childrens blood, I might die now, or years from now in my bed, but would ye not give every day from this to that for a chance to return here and say...

Oh wait I think I got off track!

Is this a case of stats being mis quoted,in NZ stats state children are 4 times more likely to be injured in the home
than playing Rugby.
In NZ Mini,and Schoolboy Rugby are to some extent ruled by size/weight rather than just age,and non contact is the
norm till about 11/12.
Mini rugby mixed sexes starts officially at 7 but many 5 or 6 year olds are involved in practice,they are often
coached by Provincial or even AllBlack relatives.
I`m afraid of heights but when I was 10/11 climbed up and down the local cliffs with friends without thinking
about it.