Contact Rugby in Schools

[j'nuh]

I'm torn on this. On the one hand, the long-term effects of concussion are starting to be understood, and we should be doing all we can to mitigate the risk of developing these risks. On the other hand, discouraging children from playing sports isn't exactly healthy either. Rugby is a rare sport that overweight people can play successfully. Any kid that struggles with the cardiovascular requirements of football, swimming, athletics (and will often use any excuse to not partake in the lesson)... stick them on a rugby field and they'll make a go of it. It's good for fitness and self-esteem.

But for me, I think it comes down to the environment. Normal P.E. lessons? I can see the case for banning or at least reducing tackling, or practising tackling on tackling bags only. At least in my experience, P.E. aims for breadth of sports rather than depth. The handful of rugby sessions roughly covered the basics. When actual game practice came around, it was clear that most kids had only the most basic grasp of how to play rugby. Best tackling technique isn't drilled into kids because there wasn't enough time. Also, kids grow at exceptionally different rates. Playing full contact at age 13 may mean 13 stone kids running at 7 stone kids who have little to no grasp on how to tackle appropriately. Also, in my experience, a lot of the smaller kids were scared of playing contact rugby.

Maybe minimal contact in P.E. but full contact when the kids elect to play as part of the school team, or for a club, is the way to go.

 

[Thingimubob]

I played rugby for both my school and a local club for most of my younger years, and we only had one proper K.O. and one mild concussion in total from what I can remember.

The worst injury I ever saw on a sports pitch actually came from football not rugby. We were playing football in P.E. when I was about 14, someone slid in on one of the guys and his leg just snapped...

I mean we had one leg break and a few dislocated shoulders in rugby, but never bone sticking out of flesh bad like that football one...

Shows it can happen in any sport anyway!

 

[Peat]

To continue the theme from WT's post...

When this becomes a genuinely popular crusade among doctors, I might listen. When they can provide genuinely irrefutable statistical evidence that among all of childhood's many dangers, rugby as it is stands Olympus-like above them all for its dangers, I might support them.

While it's one woman with a vendetta, I'm not even bothering to examine the articles.

That said, if pushing touch/tag rugby got rugby into more schools, I'd be interested in that.

Because it's a contact sport. You can learn the other skills you mention in part through non-contact drills, but every aspect of the game is affected directly or indirectly by physical contact. There's no way you can learn any skill satisfactorily without contact, except for goalkicking.

You can't learn how to pass and catch without contact? :huh:

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

I see where you are coming from, but i am not sure i can agree with this part:

Rugby is a rare sport that overweight people can play successfully. Any kid that struggles with the cardiovascular requirements of football, swimming, athletics (and will often use any excuse to not partake in the lesson)... stick them on a rugby field and they'll make a go of it. It's good for fitness and self-esteem.

Not in my experience.
I can understand that argument applied to, say, American football, because it is very anaerobic in nature, but in rugby, i don't see it. You can get away without being "explosive", but if you can't run you can't play.

 

[Thingimubob]

You can't learn how to pass and catch without contact? :huh:

Contact helps you learn how to get the pass away under pressure I guess? Suppose you can perfect it was passing drills, but if you can't do it when an opposition player is charging at you, then it counts for nothing.

 

[j'nuh]

Sorry, I meant it in the context of a P.E. lesson, where it is the average kid playing, and not the school athletes.

 

[Every Time Ref]

To continue the theme from WT's post...

When this becomes a genuinely popular crusade among doctors, I might listen. When they can provide genuinely irrefutable statistical evidence that among all of childhood's many dangers, rugby as it is stands Olympus-like above them all for its dangers, I might support them.

While it's one woman with a vendetta, I'm not even bothering to examine the articles.

That said, if pushing touch/tag rugby got rugby into more schools, I'd be interested in that.



You can't learn how to pass and catch without contact? :huh:

Yes at the most basic level, but you need to put it in the context of a match (ie, with tacklers trying to tackle you) to learn int properly, including timing and wotnot.

EDIT: What Thingumibob said

 

[j'nuh]

Eh, even running about, throwing and catching, developing your soft skills, improves a player at rugby.

tbh, I think ball handling skills are a lot harder to teach than tackling, and is particularly the area in which England, all the way up to professional level, is found lacking. More touch and sevens, less full game. Reduces injury risk, increases ability of players.

If clubs were to have a three-part season, 1/3 of the season for full contact, 1/3 for touch, 1/3 for sevens (or some variation on these percentages), with the aim of getting kids to play all three parts, I can't see how that would be a bad thing.

 

[Every Time Ref]

Eh, even running about, throwing and catching, developing your soft skills, improves a player at rugby.

tbh, I think ball handling skills are a lot harder to teach than tackling, and is particularly the area in which England, all the way up to professional level, is found lacking. More touch and sevens, less full game. Reduces injury risk, increases ability of players.

Hundred percent not disagreeing with the value of non-contact to learn certain basic skills. My point is it can only be a precursor to working on them in a full contact situation. The balance is another discussion, this is about someone claiming all contact rugby should be banned in schools.

 

[Ddanno]

The tories are in power and John Whittingdon(privately educated in Dorset and Winchester) is secretary of state for sport. I doubt this will gain much traction even if the petition forces a debate via similarly Bpollock-minded parents.

The petiton has 73 signatures at time of writing.

 

[Which Tyler]

Weren't half the signatures from Winchester?

 

[Ddanno]

Weren't half the signatures from Winchester?

I forgot to ask

 

[Which Tyler]

Of the original letter posted in the Guardian

 

[Ddanno]

Of the original letter posted in the Guardian

Ah. Crossed wires - there's a change.org petition to force parliamentary debate. 100k people sign it and a debate is guaranteed. Since most of the headlines were yesterday and less than 100 people have signed this looks like a dead duck.

 

[McTallshort]

The daily mail are claimed most of the experts are people who just don't like rugby, lots of the signatures don't know anything about sports injuries but they don't like an aggressive, middle class, male dominated sport being forced on their pasty little middle class kids at their private schools.

 

[RedruthRFC]

The daily mail are claimed most of the experts are people who just don't like rugby, lots of the signatures don't know anything about sports injuries but they don't like an aggressive, middle class, male dominated sport being forced on their pasty little middle class kids at their private schools.

That's pretty much how I read it.

Like most people here, I come with a natural pro-rugby bias, but I like to think that I can remain objective, especially in something like this which is essentially an academic matter, which appears to be something that the authors struggle with.

I think that World Rugby's response does a good job at pointing out the lack of academic rigour in the report and hints clearly enough that this is an anti-rugby witch hunt, not something motivated by a genuine interest in children's safety.

There are some serious points to be made about player safety at all levels of the game, but by taking such an extreme stance and reeking of bias, the protagonists here are asking to get totally ignored rather than presenting a more reasonable report and trying to effect a smaller amount of change.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

And I bet the people behind this would also sue for negligence if little Jonny fell over in the playground and cracked a tooth.

That said I think it's right that there's a graduated introduction to full contact and within that putting the emphasis on tackling rather than hits. At least up until, say, age 16 after which kids are generally playing through choice not compulsion and some of the size differences through faster maturing will be starting to even out.

It is a contact sport though and injuries, sometimes serious, will happen. But they're rare and with everything that rugby offers including physical fitness, teamwork and camaraderie (and in due course lots of beer and the best looking girls) I'd still rather see kids playing it than taking part in adrelin sports or eating and boring themselves to death on their sofa with only their mobile phones for company.

 

[dai_seven]

A couple of points on this subject.

Firstly, I was at my local supermarket and a junior team were packing bags at the checkout to raise money to go to a tournament in England somewhere. The young boy said he was just going to start tackling (not tag) and was really excited and enthusiastic about the idea.
Secondly, 20 years ago, the late, great Jonah Lomu was described as a "freak" by Will Carling because of his size and speed. That sort of build has become the norm especially in the professional game.

In conclusion, it would be a huge mistake to ban tackling in schools with one or more teams competing against other schools. The techniques of getting your head in the right place MUST be taught better otherwise a player will cause themselves injury as has been said above.

As mentioned above, if part of the particular schools policy is to introduce all sports to all its pupils, then "tag" or non contact rugby would be the better options.

 

[Peat]

Yes at the most basic level, but you need to put it in the context of a match (ie, with tacklers trying to tackle you) to learn int properly, including timing and wotnot.

EDIT: What Thingumibob said

I'm still somewhat dubious of this. How much extra/less time do you get to pass a ball before being tackled as compared to being touched?

I mean, technically you're correct, but I feel like 98pc of everything to do with passing and catching you can learn in tag/touch rugby.

And yes, this is a big tangent based somewhat on appalling pedantry.

 

[stus768]

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/123476

Is this the petition? I couldn't find anything else. Guardian says change.org but I couldn't see any.