Doctors urge schools to ban tackling in rugby

First topic message reminder :

At a time when unions are desperately trying to increase player numbers and grow the game, a body blow has been dealt from 70 doctors and academics

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-35696238

This will no doubt lead to parents questioning whether their child should play rugby.

It is obviously a serious issue - one close to my experience - but is this letter just unhelpful scare mongering or do they have a valid point?

What's next - banning kids from climbing trees, going out on their bikes or crossing the road?

LordDowlais wrote:
What we need to be doing is, to teach tackling, not ban it, tackling should be the first thing a kid learns when he is starting to play rugby, techniques and composure's, this is what we should be perfecting at a young age, as soon as a kid has learned how to tackle properly, the sooner he can keep himself safe.

Bang on.

Are they going to ban marshall arts next, heading the ball in football, cycing, skateboarding?

Teaching correct technique early on in any sport is the best was to minimize risks but no physical activity comes without some risk - this scaremongering is utter nonsense, world has gone mad.

Out of interest, at what age can kids box against each other?

RDW_Scotland wrote:Out of interest, at what age can kids box against each other?

No minimum age to train but age 11 to spar or compete I think.

http://www.abae.co.uk/aba/index.cfm/boxers/competing/

Judo allows from age 8

http://www.britishjudo.org.uk/competition-pathway

rodders wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:Out of interest, at what age can kids box against each other?

No minimum age to train but age 11 to spar or compete I think.

http://www.abae.co.uk/aba/index.cfm/boxers/competing/

This isn't an attack on boxing whatsoever and is very much said from a perspective of ignorance, but if kids are allowed to deliberately punch each other in the head (with lots of rules and regulations regarding it I'm sure) and they're up in arms about accidents on a rugby pitch...I suppose it is just another example to demonstrate the absurdity of their vast generalization about rugby.

RDW_Scotland wrote:

rodders wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:Out of interest, at what age can kids box against each other?

No minimum age to train but age 11 to spar or compete I think.

http://www.abae.co.uk/aba/index.cfm/boxers/competing/

This isn't an attack on boxing whatsoever and is very much said from a perspective of ignorance, but if kids are allowed to deliberately punch each other in the head (with lots of rules and regulations regarding it I'm sure) and they're up in arms about accidents on a rugby pitch...I suppose it is just another example to demonstrate the absurdity of their vast generalization about rugby.

Exactly RDW and it's what makes me so mad. There are many other activities that children of all ages are involved in that are much more dangerous than rugby.

Pete330v2 wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:

rodders wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:Out of interest, at what age can kids box against each other?

No minimum age to train but age 11 to spar or compete I think.

http://www.abae.co.uk/aba/index.cfm/boxers/competing/

This isn't an attack on boxing whatsoever and is very much said from a perspective of ignorance, but if kids are allowed to deliberately punch each other in the head (with lots of rules and regulations regarding it I'm sure) and they're up in arms about accidents on a rugby pitch...I suppose it is just another example to demonstrate the absurdity of their vast generalization about rugby.

Exactly RDW and it's what makes me so mad. There are many other activities that children of all ages are involved in that are much more dangerous than rugby.

I think the boxing example maybe highlights where its getting it right, not only do kids boxing have head protection but they fight at weight levels as well as age level so you don't have a guy with a distinct weight/power advantage beating the head of a smaller more vulnerable opponent

Peter Robinson, whose son Ben died of second impact syndrome has come out against the ban on Twitter and hes been campaigning the last few years to raise awareness about concussions in rugby and in general

'Banning Contact not the answer! Ban Coaches who don't abide by Concussion Protocols as Mismanagement is the real danger'

'We do need to look at Strength & Conditioning from 12 yrs up, recent survey shows the bigger the player the more risk of injury.'

Think hes got some good points, on the concussion and coaches issue there was controversy a few weeks ago at a Leinster schools cup game when the ref ordered a player off after taken a knee to the head and he and his coaches wanted him to continue.

marty2086 wrote:

Pete330v2 wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:

rodders wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:Out of interest, at what age can kids box against each other?

No minimum age to train but age 11 to spar or compete I think.

http://www.abae.co.uk/aba/index.cfm/boxers/competing/

This isn't an attack on boxing whatsoever and is very much said from a perspective of ignorance, but if kids are allowed to deliberately punch each other in the head (with lots of rules and regulations regarding it I'm sure) and they're up in arms about accidents on a rugby pitch...I suppose it is just another example to demonstrate the absurdity of their vast generalization about rugby.

Exactly RDW and it's what makes me so mad. There are many other activities that children of all ages are involved in that are much more dangerous than rugby.

I think the boxing example maybe highlights where its getting it right, not only do kids boxing have head protection but they fight at weight levels as well as age level so you don't have a guy with a distinct weight/power advantage beating the head of a smaller more vulnerable opponent

Peter Robinson, whose son Ben died of second impact syndrome has come out against the ban on Twitter and hes been campaigning the last few years to raise awareness about concussions in rugby and in general

'Banning Contact not the answer! Ban Coaches who don't abide by Concussion Protocols as Mismanagement is the real danger'

'We do need to look at Strength & Conditioning from 12 yrs up, recent survey shows the bigger the player the more risk of injury.'

Think hes got some good points, on the concussion and coaches issue there was controversy a few weeks ago at a Leinster schools cup game when the ref ordered a player off after taken a knee to the head and he and his coaches wanted him to continue.

Without getting too off topic, it is worth noting that males boxers in the Olympics will no longer be wearing head gear as it doesn't actually do anything to prevent concussion, and there are studies that suggest it might make things worse.

I had a debate with a woman on Twitter once about it because she said all kids playing rugby should wear headguards! Does nothing to stop concussions.

RDW_Scotland wrote:Out of interest, at what age can kids box against each other?

My lads (9 & 15) both kickbox and as long as you're wearing all the regulation protection, there's no age limit to sparring. Even the young ones aged 5+ spar wearing protection (altho they wear bomb proof style vests lol) Altho they both have sustained minor cuts & bruises when at competitions.

My youngest also plays rugby. The text book tackling technique he is taught is to get his head into the side of the other players backside and shoulder into the hips with the arms wrapped around. I'd say also over half the squad play in scrum caps, no matter where they play. Maybe this should be made mandatory for certain age groups?

Bans should be banned.

RDW_Scotland wrote:
Without getting too off topic, it is worth noting that males boxers in the Olympics will no longer be wearing head gear as it doesn't actually do anything to prevent concussion, and there are studies that suggest it might make things worse.

And yet every boxer spares with one? And it is only senior male boxers who it applies to

I do think it prevents some concussions such as getting hit in the wrong spot on the head or having your head snapped back by a punch, these cab cause concussions but if you're taking repeated shots to the head then there be minimal difference but it's not exactly science proving it, it was because the numbers of head injuries have increased. That doesn't factor in new technology making it easier to detect injuries and greater awareness of the injuries.

I've never worn a scrum cap but the headguard in boxing does have a number of problems in that it restricts your vision so you can always see punches coming, even if you get it sitting right with a good field of view it can adjust from your movement, a punch or in a clinch. This was one of the arguments put forward by the AIBA when removing it along with the fact it gives the fighter greater confidence when it comes to taking a punch and then don't focus enough on defence so take more punishment because of it plus the ref can't see clearly when a fighters in trouble.

RDW_Scotland wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Pete330v2 wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:

rodders wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:Out of interest, at what age can kids box against each other?

No minimum age to train but age 11 to spar or compete I think.

http://www.abae.co.uk/aba/index.cfm/boxers/competing/

This isn't an attack on boxing whatsoever and is very much said from a perspective of ignorance, but if kids are allowed to deliberately punch each other in the head (with lots of rules and regulations regarding it I'm sure) and they're up in arms about accidents on a rugby pitch...I suppose it is just another example to demonstrate the absurdity of their vast generalization about rugby.

Exactly RDW and it's what makes me so mad. There are many other activities that children of all ages are involved in that are much more dangerous than rugby.

I think the boxing example maybe highlights where its getting it right, not only do kids boxing have head protection but they fight at weight levels as well as age level so you don't have a guy with a distinct weight/power advantage beating the head of a smaller more vulnerable opponent

Peter Robinson, whose son Ben died of second impact syndrome has come out against the ban on Twitter and hes been campaigning the last few years to raise awareness about concussions in rugby and in general

'Banning Contact not the answer! Ban Coaches who don't abide by Concussion Protocols as Mismanagement is the real danger'

'We do need to look at Strength & Conditioning from 12 yrs up, recent survey shows the bigger the player the more risk of injury.'

Think hes got some good points, on the concussion and coaches issue there was controversy a few weeks ago at a Leinster schools cup game when the ref ordered a player off after taken a knee to the head and he and his coaches wanted him to continue.

Without getting too off topic, it is worth noting that males boxers in the Olympics will no longer be wearing head gear as it doesn't actually do anything to prevent concussion, and there are studies that suggest it might make things worse.

I had a debate with a woman on Twitter once about it because she said all kids playing rugby should wear headguards! Does nothing to stop concussions.

Your exactly right, there are studies that highlight the use of scrum caps worsens the risk of concussion...

One such study was done in south Wales, it found that the scrum cap increased confidence, and collision velocity while protecting the head insufficiently. Concussions were reportedly higher in the teams that wore scrum caps.

Fanster wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Pete330v2 wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:

rodders wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:Out of interest, at what age can kids box against each other?

No minimum age to train but age 11 to spar or compete I think.

http://www.abae.co.uk/aba/index.cfm/boxers/competing/

This isn't an attack on boxing whatsoever and is very much said from a perspective of ignorance, but if kids are allowed to deliberately punch each other in the head (with lots of rules and regulations regarding it I'm sure) and they're up in arms about accidents on a rugby pitch...I suppose it is just another example to demonstrate the absurdity of their vast generalization about rugby.

Exactly RDW and it's what makes me so mad. There are many other activities that children of all ages are involved in that are much more dangerous than rugby.

I think the boxing example maybe highlights where its getting it right, not only do kids boxing have head protection but they fight at weight levels as well as age level so you don't have a guy with a distinct weight/power advantage beating the head of a smaller more vulnerable opponent

Peter Robinson, whose son Ben died of second impact syndrome has come out against the ban on Twitter and hes been campaigning the last few years to raise awareness about concussions in rugby and in general

'Banning Contact not the answer! Ban Coaches who don't abide by Concussion Protocols as Mismanagement is the real danger'

'We do need to look at Strength & Conditioning from 12 yrs up, recent survey shows the bigger the player the more risk of injury.'

Think hes got some good points, on the concussion and coaches issue there was controversy a few weeks ago at a Leinster schools cup game when the ref ordered a player off after taken a knee to the head and he and his coaches wanted him to continue.

Without getting too off topic, it is worth noting that males boxers in the Olympics will no longer be wearing head gear as it doesn't actually do anything to prevent concussion, and there are studies that suggest it might make things worse.

I had a debate with a woman on Twitter once about it because she said all kids playing rugby should wear headguards! Does nothing to stop concussions.

Your exactly right, there are studies that highlight the use of scrum caps worsens the risk of concussion...

One such study was done in south Wales, it found that the scrum cap increased confidence, and collision velocity while protecting the head insufficiently. Concussions were reportedly higher in the teams that wore scrum caps.

Not sure the veracity of that scrum cap study. Anyone in Rugby knows the scrum cap has nothing to do with concussion. It protects the ears.

doctor_grey wrote:
Not sure the veracity of that scrum cap study.  Anyone in Rugby knows the scrum cap has nothing to do with concussion.  It protects the ears.  

I think most players who've been in an 8 man scrum understand that. But I see a lot of mums putting their kids in them at U11 or younger, where there's nowhere near the same risk to the ears! Unless they are all enlightened parents who are trying to get their kids familiarised with wearing a scrum cap from the outset, I fear a lot of them are expecting it to provide more protection than it actually does.

We've got U11s who turn up with headgear, padded vests and compression layers under their kit. The most destructive tackler and rucker in the squad has no padding at all, and picks up fewer injuries because he's got good technique.

Poorfour wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:
Not sure the veracity of that scrum cap study.  Anyone in Rugby knows the scrum cap has nothing to do with concussion.  It protects the ears.  

I think most players who've been in an 8 man scrum understand that. But I see a lot of mums putting their kids in them at U11 or younger, where there's nowhere near the same risk to the ears! Unless they are all enlightened parents who are trying to get their kids familiarised with wearing a scrum cap from the outset, I fear a lot of them are expecting it to provide more protection than it actually does.

We've got U11s who turn up with headgear, padded vests and compression layers under their kit. The most destructive tackler and rucker in the squad has no padding at all, and picks up fewer injuries because he's got good technique.

That is a great point. Many parents do need to be educated. As coaches at my club we preach technique, technique, technique.

Pete330v2 wrote:70 doctors and academics?
Really?

GPs? The lowest level of the medical ladder.
Academics? What exactly are academics anyway? Are any of these wise sages involved in Rugby or are they all ballroom dancing fans?

I think these people should stick to what little they know and leave the physical stuff to those who choose to do it including the kids. Where would we be in 10 years if anyone were to listen to these all knowing 'experts'? Even further behind the SH nations than we currently are.

Academics - the sort that work on cancer research, and all manner of things that benefit us, right?
GPs - you obviously know nothing about the varied reasons young doctors make the choice between the various options available to them, do you?
Sticking to what you know - let's all try to practice what we preach.

doctor_grey wrote:

Poorfour wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:
Not sure the veracity of that scrum cap study.  Anyone in Rugby knows the scrum cap has nothing to do with concussion.  It protects the ears.  

I think most players who've been in an 8 man scrum understand that. But I see a lot of mums putting their kids in them at U11 or younger, where there's nowhere near the same risk to the ears! Unless they are all enlightened parents who are trying to get their kids familiarised with wearing a scrum cap from the outset, I fear a lot of them are expecting it to provide more protection than it actually does.

We've got U11s who turn up with headgear, padded vests and compression layers under their kit. The most destructive tackler and rucker in the squad has no padding at all, and picks up fewer injuries because he's got good technique.

That is a great point.  Many parents do need to be educated.  As coaches at my club we preach technique, technique, technique.  

And I thought school sport was supposed to about having fun, not about educating parents and preaching technique.

TG wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:

Poorfour wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:
Not sure the veracity of that scrum cap study.  Anyone in Rugby knows the scrum cap has nothing to do with concussion.  It protects the ears.  

I think most players who've been in an 8 man scrum understand that. But I see a lot of mums putting their kids in them at U11 or younger, where there's nowhere near the same risk to the ears! Unless they are all enlightened parents who are trying to get their kids familiarised with wearing a scrum cap from the outset, I fear a lot of them are expecting it to provide more protection than it actually does.

We've got U11s who turn up with headgear, padded vests and compression layers under their kit. The most destructive tackler and rucker in the squad has no padding at all, and picks up fewer injuries because he's got good technique.

That is a great point.  Many parents do need to be educated.  As coaches at my club we preach technique, technique, technique.  

And I thought school sport was supposed to about having fun, not about educating parents and preaching technique.

Sport is about having fun. But as an orthopaedist and a coach of my club's U18s, I end up educating parents, players, coaches, officials and anyone who wants to listen. Technique is the key to be safe, successful, and derive max enjoyment from any sport. Educating parents is simply part of the job at this point. I would rather do it myself than let someone untrained do it.

This article just displays what a low news day it was for the media, there is little or nothing in this story.

A far more interesting topic would be comparing schools that play rugby and schools that do not and how their pupils suffer from teenage anxiety issues, depression and violent outbursts.

Rugby is a superb team sport, those of you who have played know how much you can learn about responsiblity, team work and discipline.

Those rubbishing this report should maybe take a step back and understand what they are doing, or rather not doing.

Schools have a duty of care to their pupils and now that this initiative has been raised they cannot ignore it. Insurance companies for example are going to look at this and imagine contesting professional medical advice when say a parent takes a claim against a school. Simply getting parents or children to sign waivers does not abbrogate responsibility from the school from their duty of care. They know now that if they have an injured pupil this campaign will encourage the ambulance chasers to take far more actions against them.

The sport needs to wake up before it becomes seen as too dangerous to offer as a school choice. It needs to become safer and support that with facts rather than just bury it's head in the sand hoping the 'anti-rugbyists' will disappear. This issue isn't going away and it will be easier for many schools to direct their efforts into 'safer' team sports rather than stick their neck out to risk resources they don't have.

If kids don't play rugby at school it will die and that is something that should be taken seriously rather than laughed off.

A start would be dealing with stamping and reckless use of the boot causing injury in a consistent manner.

The Great Aukster wrote:Those rubbishing this report should maybe take a step back and understand what they are doing, or rather not doing.

Schools have a duty of care to their pupils and now that this initiative has been raised they cannot ignore it. Insurance companies for example are going to look at this and imagine contesting professional medical advice when say a parent takes a claim against a school. Simply getting parents or children to sign waivers does not abbrogate responsibility from the school from their duty of care. They know now that if they have an injured pupil this campaign will encourage the ambulance chasers to take far more actions against them.

The sport needs to wake up before it becomes seen as too dangerous to offer as a school choice. It needs to become safer and support that with facts rather than just bury it's head in the sand hoping the 'anti-rugbyists' will disappear. This issue isn't going away and it will be easier for many schools to direct their efforts into 'safer' team sports rather than stick their neck out to risk resources they don't have.

If kids don't play rugby at school it will die and that is something that should be taken seriously rather than laughed off.

But wouldnt the kids just go and play for their local Rugby club?

aucklandlaurie wrote:But wouldnt the kids just go and play for their local Rugby club?

plenty of kids who 'have' to play rugby at school suddenly realise they like it and get into it in a big way. If they (ultimately their parents) had to go to the hassle of taking them to a local club in reality many of them would not try it or pursue it.

The Great Aukster wrote:Those rubbishing this report should maybe take a step back and understand what they are doing, or rather not doing.

Schools have a duty of care to their pupils and now that this initiative has been raised they cannot ignore it. Insurance companies for example are going to look at this and imagine contesting professional medical advice when say a parent takes a claim against a school. Simply getting parents or children to sign waivers does not abbrogate responsibility from the school from their duty of care. They know now that if they have an injured pupil this campaign will encourage the ambulance chasers to take far more actions against them.

The sport needs to wake up before it becomes seen as too dangerous to offer as a school choice. It needs to become safer and support that with facts rather than just bury it's head in the sand hoping the 'anti-rugbyists' will disappear. This issue isn't going away and it will be easier for many schools to direct their efforts into 'safer' team sports rather than stick their neck out to risk resources they don't have.

If kids don't play rugby at school it will die and that is something that should be taken seriously rather than laughed off.

That's all fair and well but what's the answer then? The only way to remove all liability is ban tackling - there has been many points on here as to why that would be a very bad idea. But of course other injuries will still happen even if it is touch rugby...

The Great Aukster wrote:Those rubbishing this report should maybe take a step back and understand what they are doing, or rather not doing.

Schools have a duty of care to their pupils and now that this initiative has been raised they cannot ignore it. Insurance companies for example are going to look at this and imagine contesting professional medical advice when say a parent takes a claim against a school. Simply getting parents or children to sign waivers does not abbrogate responsibility from the school from their duty of care. They know now that if they have an injured pupil this campaign will encourage the ambulance chasers to take far more actions against them.

The sport needs to wake up before it becomes seen as too dangerous to offer as a school choice. It needs to become safer and support that with facts rather than just bury it's head in the sand hoping the 'anti-rugbyists' will disappear. This issue isn't going away and it will be easier for many schools to direct their efforts into 'safer' team sports rather than stick their neck out to risk resources they don't have.

If kids don't play rugby at school it will die and that is something that should be taken seriously rather than laughed off.

Good post, Aukster, and I agree that we have to take this seriously.

The difficulty is, having read both the letter (which has a single page of content and no data) and Pollock's book (which is part a personal story, part an analysis of the - very limited - available data with varying degrees of robustness, and part an unashamed anti-rugby polemic which veers into conspiracy theory on occasion), that both the situation and the required response are more complex than they might appear at face value.

If the book were based on an unbiased analysis of a reliable body of data, and if its conclusions were proportionate, then I'd absolutely agree that we need to embrace this. It isn't, and they're not.

Pollock has one really good point: we don't have a reliable body of data to work from; we should; the unions need to do something about it and they currently aren't.

But from that, she takes the partial data that's available, much of which dates from before various law changes designed to promote safety, does some robust statistical analysis but with some dodgy definitions and assumptions and concludes that the only option is to ban rugby without even considering other options.

We have to respond to it, but we can't take it at face value. Rugby has to commit to building an unbiased fact base and responding in the light of what an unbiased analysis tells us.

Poorfur,
That is extremely well said: it cannot to be laughed off. Rather to be understood so we can build the right and consistent training protocols for youth Rugby to create the safest environment for kids to play a great contact sport. I0t sounds paradoxical, but I don't think it is. As a sport we have already banned contact from the neck up, tip tackles, spearing, leading with the head, and so on.

But we don't do it strategically. This is our problem. We do see this in other aspects of Rugby - not a strategic mind in the bunch. Bizarre.

We need a global Rugby summit (I propose northern New Jersey) to get everyone on the same page, modify Laws as appropriate, ensure consistent safety training protocols for the young, and so on. I think we all know the answers, but need this to go in effect globally. I believe we have so many passionate people involved with Rugby who care for the betterment of our sport that once given a sheet of music, it should not be too difficult to roll out globally.

"If kids don't play rugby at school it will die and that is something that should be taken seriously rather than laughed off."

Of course and the one sure thing to kill it off would be to ban tackling in schools and remove the physical aspect that the kids love, the reason for them choosing rugby in so many cases.

I've been part of kids coaching for a couple of years now and our safety protocols are very much in place. What the kids gain through mutual respect and all the other life values attributed to rugby union outweigh any small risks. We cannot laugh off any concerns for the safety of our children but rugby is most definitely not the problem and any injuries are extremely rare.

I am neither a doctor nor an academic and would never wish to suggest otherwise but I think I am pretty safe in saying that the vast majority of rugby accidents and collisions happen because the people involved are not tackling properly, with the result their head is in the wrong place, which is what causes the issue.

So my response to this call is not to throw the baby out with the bath water but to ensure both children and adults wanting to take up the game, are taught how to tackle properly

.....

So yes this is a serious concern and shouldn't be swept under the carpet but equally can't we for once bring a reasoned approach to the subject? Rather than just ban everything, can't we seek a sensible middle ground solution, which is look at the causes rather than just the outcomes?

Guess which 'thickhead' wrote that lot?

..And if you want a clue, he likes to wear a scrum cap when he plays as it helps to protect the goal posts....

lostinwales wrote:..And if you want a clue, he likes to wear a scrum cap when he plays as it helps to protect the goal posts....

Was he using the scrum cap instead of a condom?

doctor_grey wrote:

lostinwales wrote:..And if you want a clue, he likes to wear a scrum cap when he plays as it helps to protect the goal posts....

Was he using the scrum cap instead of a condom?

When he plays rugby. I have no idea what he gets up to in his private life

Pete330v2 wrote:"If kids don't play rugby at school it will die and that is something that should be taken seriously rather than laughed off."

Of course and the one sure thing to kill it off would be to ban tackling in schools and remove the physical aspect that the kids love, the reason for them choosing rugby in so many cases.

I've been part of kids coaching for a couple of years now and our safety protocols are very much in place. What the kids gain through mutual respect and all the other life values attributed to rugby union outweigh any small risks. We cannot laugh off any concerns for the safety of our children but rugby is most definitely not the problem and any injuries are extremely rare.

Thats right Pete, if the "Rugby" being played in schools doesnt include tackling then it isnt Rugby anyway.

I was talking to an NHL player this morning in my office and raised the subject of injury rates and concussion in professional, club, and youth sport.  He defined Ice Hockey as physical and brutal.  But just as clearly thought of Rugby as only physical but not brutal.  

He is angry concussion had not been properly respected, especially at youth and club levels.  But feels a person must have their head buried in the sand to not understand concussion and impact in the world today - regardless of sport.  Further, and this is important, he believes that youth sport organizations in general have very poor standards and is something which should be standardized across all contact sports.  And training and education levels raised for everyone involved with youth sport.  

I think it is interesting that a pro ice hockey player was thinking about all sport.  But, and this is very typical of Ice Hockey players, he is actively engaged with youth hockey and wants global standards for his sport and other similar physical sports.  His perspective that Ice Hockey, American Football, and Rugby are all in the same boat and could easily be under threat if we don't do something.  I also thought it amusing that he thought Rugby players as a bit soft compared to Ice Hockey players (perhaps because many Rugby players still have their own teeth?).   He said that the signatories to that letter must have never ever seen an youth Ice Hockey match.  

For myself, I do believe we can do a better job policing dangerous play.  And perhaps that is what we need to do.

With a contact sport like rugby, there's no chance we can move the risk to zero. Nevertheless, we have to do better than "It's a contact sport, what do you expect?" when people get injured.

We are a global sport, so these questions shouldn't blindside us. I don't understand the mentality which says "X sport is worse". We shouldn't be trying to stay slightly ahead of the worst offender, we should be setting high standards for what a contact sport should be.

We'll never stop players suffering bad injuries, but we'd be better served by a sport which seems responsive to concerns than dismissing them.

Agree Rugby fan.

The points I was making is that:
- We are not alone
- There are opportunities to commonalise our approaches to serious injury with other sporting bodies, which will make the overall approaches better, and hopefully raise standards globally.

Agree we certainly need to work to make Rugby better.  Everything reasonable needs to be considered.  However, as you said, we cannot make the sport fool proof.  We should do the best we can whilst keeping Rugby as Rugby.

A little insight into some of the signatories http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3474062/What-rugby-balls-Experts-demanding-ban-tackles-18s-rugby-reveal-motley-scrum-lefties-gender-obsessives-gay-campaigners-worryingly-insidious-agenda.html

broadlandboy wrote:A little insight into some of the signatories http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3474062/What-rugby-balls-Experts-demanding-ban-tackles-18s-rugby-reveal-motley-scrum-lefties-gender-obsessives-gay-campaigners-worryingly-insidious-agenda.html

What a complete load of prurient, sneering bull**** and spin that article is.

It's worse than we thought!

THE risks of rugby include getting a taste for moronic drinking games and trouser-dropping stunts, it has emerged.

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/sport/sport-headlines/rugby-can-turn-you-into-a-Mr Winklechops-20160303106786

Maybe a bit blunt but other findings
Re: "Experts" report calls for ban on contact rugby at school

BriC (IP Logged)

02 March, 2016 12:28

Interesting comment on the Sale board:

I have just looked at the list of signatories. Despite 35 years in medicine I have never heard of any of them. Many of them are PhDs not medically qualified. Many of them are from the USA and not from particularly prestigious institutions. Most of the U.K.ones are academics with a number from the University of Winchester, which like most of the institutions listed doesn't even have a medical school. To suggest that medical doctors are the major force in writing this letter is misleading and the journalist responsible needs a knuckle rap (if that's not dangerous). From Tigers unoffy
http://blogs.bmj.com/bjsm/2010/09/07/crying-wolf-when-media-reports-distort-research-evidence/

broadlandboy wrote:A little insight into some of the signatories http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3474062/What-rugby-balls-Experts-demanding-ban-tackles-18s-rugby-reveal-motley-scrum-lefties-gender-obsessives-gay-campaigners-worryingly-insidious-agenda.html

God Bless the Daily Mail!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The finest news organisation of all time.

Well the plot thickens, the report had 70 signatures and i read today that non of the signatures are from people who are medically qualified to even suggest what they claim.
One signature comes from a woman whos son smashed a cheek bone but a lot come from some of the most sinister sources ,people with degrees in the most bizarre gender bending titles "seriously research it" one of the men who signed it thinks all boys should try being gay and brags to sleeping with at least a thousand 16-18 yr old boys he even think the consensual age should be lowered to 15!!! get this straight these people do not care about well being these are Liberals who want nothing but a gender neutral society with zero sexual morals! and the fact they attack our sport makes me sick it is sinister.

I see doctor grey above has read the stomach turning article.

Gwlad wrote:A start would be dealing with stamping and reckless use of the boot causing injury in a consistent manner.

Repeat, as above

What I do not understand is why this document and its authors was considered credible by the media. Bizarre.

doctor_grey wrote:What I do not understand is why this document and its authors was considered credible by the media.  Bizarre.  

Because it makes headlines. It's an easy source of copy and reader interaction across a very wide age spectrum (teenagers to middle age) and both sees, for several days. I wouldn't be surprised to find papers that have been pushing the letter turning against it today because of the authorship, just to wring another day or two's coverage out of it.

You're probably right. Media headlines with something sensational. Maybe it worked? We are talking about it too, even if just to say it is ridiculous.

As an interesting aside, here in America, with all their lawyers and their 'sue everything' mentality, no one is calling for sports like Ice Hockey, American Football, or Wrestling, for instance, to be banned or to take the contact out of those sports. Nor even that UFW. And I have to too you, from a medical standpoint, I would ban UFW in a heartbeat. Makes Boxing look like a walk through the local library.

maestegmafia wrote:This article just displays what a low news day it was for the media, there is little or nothing in this story.

A far more interesting topic would be comparing schools that play rugby and schools that do not and how their pupils suffer from teenage anxiety issues, depression and violent outbursts.

Rugby is a superb team sport, those of you who have played know how much you can learn about responsibility, team work and discipline.

In my line of work, I meet lots of driven successful people. None of them have played Rugby. I think the propensity for Rugby folk to overstate the values Rugby "instills" as a panacea for societal ills is tiresome. People learn about the important things in life from all manner of things, and the vast majority of people in the world coping with life's array of bewildering issues never went any where near a Rugby pitch. Yes to be successful in Rugby you have to adopt those values and adhere to them, and it might benefit some people, but you can say that about a lot of sports.

tackling I don't see as the biggest issue in schoolboy rugby.

Scrums maybe... in France don't they delay competitive scrums until late teens?

Mismatches also... some kids are behemoths aged 13. 190cm, 100kgs. In NZ and AUS they have introduced age grade weight classes. I think thats far better and will develop far better players too. I.e. have schoolboy teams not simply rely on throwing it to big jim all the time.

FA

At U15 level, I played one match against a lad who was already signed for St Helens rugby league. Not only was he bigger than anyone on our side, but he was phenomenally strong. I think the difference between me and him would be similar to the difference between Mike Catt and Jonah Lomu...

Obviously our opponent's tactics were as you say - give it to the big guy and watch the trail of destruction in his wake.

Even in other matches where we've taken a pasting, I don't remember being particularly physically over-matched, more that the opposition was either quicker or more skilful.

Doc / Poor4

Anther consideration is how this letter made its way to the media - pretty sure that there will have been a PR / communications company involved in making sure that potentially sympathetic media outlets pick up the story. The media has an agenda, and at the moment concussion relating to high impact sports is on the list. In cases like this, it isn't the quality of the evidence that matters, but how it is presented and whether it fits to the current narrative.

In NZ we had to tackle guys like this (or try to...)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmFCrrm3uvE

I had the good fortune to start playing rugby at 8 years old, 3 years before most of my team mates when I went to senior school. The product a junior school with only nuns for teachers, we had a friar from the locally friary take us for sport, having seen that 8 year old English kids were not going to stop smacking each other around the head with the Hurley sticks if we went the hurling route (his favourite game), we played the only other game he knew rugby.

We played it for three years before we went to senior school. As a result when I started by first year in senior school I was three years ahead of most of the kids and well ahead in most of the skills. We had an ex-welsh international hooker as head of PE, the first thing he said to me when he saw me tackle, was "Who the F*** taught you to tackle like that". With the friar not being a specialist PE teacher, I had been taught to tackle head on, effectively putting my head in the way of the tackled player not around the side. This could not happen anymore, I hope!

I was lucky, I have never been seriously hurt, but after neigh on 40 years of playing rugby, it still makes me shudder to think what might have happened.

We had one kid at school, a year younger than me, he was 6'4" and 18 stone at 15. Although he did carry a fair bit od blubber, but underneath was an awful lot of muscle and he was quite quick. He would just wade through the opposition, I can't remember anyone getting seriously hurt, but with the biggest kids around him being around 14 stone, it was a complete mismatch. He later went on to be a GB international discus thrower and then followed Geoff Capes and became the "Worlds Strongest Man".

Likewise when I was 15, I was too young to play for the local colts team, you had to be 16. But I was big and ugly enough to play as a lock for the clubs second team against guys in their 30s. Again it cannot happen now, so the sport has moved on.

I seem remember an issue with footballers from that error; especially centre backs, having problems with concussion in later years, the ball being somewhat heavier when wet. As kids tend to play with a full size and weight ball from teens, could this cause problems? The physics would indicate that the shock of heading a ball for a 12 year old would potentially have more effect than an adult.

An Irish lad I worked with recently played Hurley for London and was always flying back to Ireland to play, he seemed to come back with cuts and bruises to his head on a very regular basis.

The point I am trying to make, is that just about all physically active sports have a risk attached, cycling, running (knees), diving (springboard) can be very nasty if you get it wrong. Rugby is no worse than any other contact sport or some non-contact sports.

To pick on one sport because it is openly and physical without considering the problems all sports can potentially pose to the human body shows either a lack of knowledge of sport in general or a deliberate bias.

The only time I have ever suffered concussion was playing football, when I dived to head a ball and connected with an oncoming knee. The worst rugby has ever done to me, is a broken nose and torn knee ligaments, and both times that has happened, it was training when I was running, not in any form of contact.