• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Contact Rugby in Schools

The Guardian obviously has a problem with rugby. The silly cow on question time last night described it as a silly game posh people play, of course she sounded pretty posh herself
 
TRF_Peat 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.
Click to expand...

Well the spacing between defenders is different, the tackler is most likely coming at you from a different angle, you don't have the option of steamrollering someone or offloading and the psychology is different.

98 feels a little bit like a number plucked out the air but I see what you're saying. My argument is those differences are fundamental, not minor details.
 
dai_seven said:
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.
Click to expand...

file.php

Couldn't agree more.
If the school holds 2-3 sessions of rugby a year, with a disinterested / uninformed teacher; then stick to tag.
If actually arranging matches, then do it properly.
 
Cruz_del_Sur said:
An article from the economist that talks about this

http://www.economist.com/news/leade...and?fsrc=scn/tw/te/pe/ed/schoolsandhardknocks

The telegraph's take...

https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xlp1/v/t1.0-9/12802777_1044098508962536_6255431797054542392_n.jpg?oh=fad385a6f6284e59d9f3223b0fcd580d&oe=57680759&__gda__=1465424972_2ce11b58bf77280e0c6cb084a2d3fa6f[/

4 concussions per 1000 athletes per match. Is that if 1000 people played games then on average 4 people would be concussed?
Click to expand...
 
stus768 said:
4 concussions per 1000 athletes per match. Is that if 1000 people played games then on average 4 people would be concussed?
Click to expand...

I think you've got it. The way I thought of it is that if you played 1,000 rugby matches, you would expect to be concussed 4 times (and to be very tired!). That figure seems very low, I know one National League player for whom four concussions would represent a pretty lucky season!

I would want a lot more information about how the statistics were compiled before reading anything in to them. If they are sourced from the elite game, I fail to see the relevance to school boy rugby.
 
Every Time Ref said:
Well the spacing between defenders is different, the tackler is most likely coming at you from a different angle, you don't have the option of steamrollering someone or offloading and the psychology is different.

98 feels a little bit like a number plucked out the air but I see what you're saying. My argument is those differences are fundamental, not minor details.
Click to expand...

Oh, it's totally a number plucked out of the air. But I feel pretty happy that if you trained a bunch of guys in nothing but touch rugby for 2-3 years, their passing/catching skills would pretty much be where you want them, particularly after a game or two of full contact; probably better than guys doing full contact, as they've probably been doing more passing and more catching. Sure, their tackling definitely won't be there, their decision making won't, their offloading... probably a bunch of other stuff too. But I definitely disagree that the differences between passing and catching in a touch and contact environment are fundamental.
 
TRF_Peat said:
Oh, it's totally a number plucked out of the air. But I feel pretty happy that if you trained a bunch of guys in nothing but touch rugby for 2-3 years, their passing/catching skills would pretty much be where you want them, particularly after a game or two of full contact; probably better than guys doing full contact, as they've probably been doing more passing and more catching. Sure, their tackling definitely won't be there, their decision making won't, their offloading... probably a bunch of other stuff too. But I definitely disagree that the differences between passing and catching in a touch and contact environment are fundamental.
Click to expand...

It's the decision making I'm talking about really. No skillset in any sport can be considered at a good level unless the decision making around it is at a good level.
 
Do head guards do anything. I remember reading somewhere they don't prevent concussion and neither do helmets because the brain is still moving inside the skull.

Could they make larger head guards with more cushion to slow the deceleration? Make younger kids where them?

Also last I checked the petition for no contact had 8 sigs and the counter petition had 10000. At 100000 it has to be debated. Surely having the counter one debated means the same as having the no contact one debated?
 
stus768 said:
Do head guards do anything. I remember reading somewhere they don't prevent concussion and neither do helmets because the brain is still moving inside the skull.

Could they make larger head guards with more cushion to slow the deceleration? Make younger kids where them?
Click to expand...

Conventional wisdom says they do nothing to prevent concussion. They prevent abrasions, but if you think of the nature of concussion, they offer nothing that will prevent it. If American Football still has its well documented problems despite helmets, it seems to me that this holds water. It has been suggested that they make problems worse as players think they're protected and are more inclined to put their head somewhere it shouldn't be.
 
The only way to stop concussion is to increase the time it takes to decelerate... so either - don't run/move fast in the first place or don't slow down quickly.

Neither of which can realistically be eliminated from any form of contact sport without fundamentally undermining it.

There isn't much else you can do from a laws POV* to prevent concussion either... the shoulder charge should rightly be banned and high tackles too, the likelihood of at least minor concussive blows is close to certain for the former.
But I don't really subscribe to the line of thought that says enforcing a "no tackling around the shoulders" amendment to the high tackle laws is going to help... the lower you get people to tackle the more you just shift the danger from the tackled player to the tackler IMO.

*(as in the laws of the game - not medical protocols)

The best thing we could do in terms of player safety is sort out the breakdown - it needs to be cleaned up massively, IMO.

The slower the breakdown is - the slower the game is... the slower the game is the more forwards have to pick and go/the more they have to hit rucks - the more time players have to line up massive shots.
Speed up the game and you'll slow down the collisions on the whole.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, scrum caps do nothing at all for concussion (and should say as much on the box, and ideally be banned from age-grade rugby).
Concussion is caused by traumatic contact between the brain and the inside of the skull where it's floating. It's a rapid change in momentum that does it, as the skull stops and brain keeps going. A scrum cap protects the outside of the skull, the analogy I use with parents is to tape a scrum cap to the back of a cricket bat, and hit yourself with the front. If you want a helmet that will actually make a difference then you'd need one with about double the padding of a cycling helmet, with a hard shell, and padding made of essentially jelly. It won't stop concussion, bit should reduce incidence.

Out of interest, I think the high tackle line should be lowered, mostly to allow a margin for error, but also making ng it less likely for a tackle to start off legal and safe, but to bounce or ride up to being unsafe.
 
Just read this post from one of the TG articles on the subject...

STOP calling them health experts!I posted this on Thursday but as the Telegraph Sports comments pages appear to have vanished i will repeat it here.
Many parents will have been very concerned at this open letter, supposedly supported by 70 "Doctors", calling for a ban on tackling in junior rugby, which featured prominently in Wednesday's news cycle.
Depressingly, most newspapers have been running follow-up stories but, as yet, few have looked at the report in detail and more particularly at the people behind it, most of whom are academics, involved in gender and identity politics rather than "Health Experts". If this report goes unchallenged then it can easily become the consensus view - parents may even feel they are being irresponsible by letting their child play Rugby. . So, before concerned parents decide their children need to be protected from the dangers of contact Rugby it might be instructive to take a look at the report's authors and co-signatories.
American Sociologist Dr Eric Anderson, the man behind this letter, currently holds the post of Professor of Sport, Masculinities & Sexualities at the University of Winchester. There is an ongoing campaign to oust this man from his position at
Winchester University, this follows a successful campaign that saw him 'chased
out' of Bath University. He holds some deeply unsavoury views and is a self-confessed sexual predator with a predilection for teenage boys. In lectures he claims that the damage caused by child molestation is 'merely a social construct.'
Follow this link to learn a little more about Dr Anderson –http://www.alansangle.com/?p=1... - and be prepared to be horrified that this man is not only holding a tax-payer funded University position he is also teaching the very people he openly admits to preying upon.
Anderson's co-author is Dr Alysson Pollock, who has been on a mission to ban contact Rugby since her son suffered a fractured cheekbone at the age of 14 during a game. She has asserted in the press that 1 in 5 children playing Rugby will, in the course of a single season, suffer a concussion or a broken bone. She offers no data to back up this frankly hysterical claim, yet continues to peddle the line to the news media.
Whilst there is no doubt that children will occasionally get injured playing Rugby, every parent has to weigh up the Risks vs Rewards associated with any activity. Playing Rugby carries a certain level of risk, as does playing Cricket, as does riding a horse, as does skiing, walking down the stairs or being driven to school. Responsible parents make these sorts of judgements all the time – what troubles me about this letter is that we are offered no contextual analysis of the argument it makes, we are merely told that children face a very real chance of catastrophic or life changing injury.
As a society we are conditioned to trust the word of medical doctors and we value their opinions, so when confronted with news reports that 70 doctors have backed a move to ban Contact Rugby we, as parents, will naturally sit up and take notice. Would we feel quite so inclined to take their opinions as seriously if we knew that they were not Medical doctors or experts in the area of sports science or medicine? It might be illuminating to take a quick look at a few of the co-signatories of this letter and see their field of expertise:
* Dr Ken Muir – Author of "Homophobia, Misogyny, and Machismo in a Deviant Athletic Subculture: A Participant-Observation Study of Collegiate Rugby."
* Dr Patricia Griffin – Author of "Strong Women Deep Closets," A critical analysis of discrimination and prejudice against lesbians in sport.
* Dr Shaun Filiault – Published "Finding the Rainbow: Reflections upon Recruiting Openly Gay Men for Qualitative Research"
* Dr Michael Kimmel - Gender studies. Dr Kimmel is a spokesperson of the National Organization for Men Against Sexism.
* Dr David Birks – Specialises in Fashion Marketing
* Dr Joy Carter – A Environmental Geochemist
* Dr Michael Messner - Sociology and Gender Studies – Recently worked on a study exploring strategies to "stop men's violence within shifting historical contexts of gender formation"
* Dr John Nauright – Author of "Making Men: Rugby and Masculine Identity" Which explores how an understanding of rugby can provide insight into what it has meant to "be a man" in societies influenced by the ideals of Victorian upper and middle classes.
* Dr Anne Bolin – Cultural Perspectives of Human Sexuality
* A number of other co-signatories hold PhDs in a variety of unrelated fields, the common denominator being that their Doctoral theses were supervised by Eric Anderson.
Undoubtedly they are all experts in their fields but perhaps we should view their backing of this campaign in a new light. ..... Oh, and while we are at it – you can get the full context of his position in Dr Anderson's must read publications – "Cuddling and Spooning: Heteromasculinity and Homosocial Tactility Among Student-Athletes", and "Openly Lesbian Team Sport Athletes in an Era of Decreasing Homohysteria." Worthy subjects, I'm sure you'll agree, and ripe for academic analysis.
Before I'm accused of playing the man and not the ball, there is a serious point to this – the RFU, through the clubs, has implemented a structured progression through age group Rugby of training, coaching and refereeing to minimise the chances of serious injury. Whilst there is always the possibility of getting hurt that is the same for all physical activity, but we don't ban swimming when we hear a tragic story of a child drowning, nor take away our childrens' bicycles because we hear about a traffic accident.
All the scientific and medical evidence points to the fact that the benefits children gain from physical activity, particularly team sports, far outweigh the potential dangers. Of course young Rugby players need to be coached appropriately to learn how to tackle and take contact to mitigate these risks but when you take into consideration the thousands of children who play Rugby every weekend up and down the country, see what valuable lessons and skills they derive from the game – sportsmanship, teamwork, trust, self-reliance, discipline and confidence, not to mention physical exercise – then the benefits surely outnumber the statistically minimal risks, ...though naturally that is for every parent to decide for themselves.
I think the media has been more than a tad irresponsible pushing this sensationalist report without laying out the counter arguments from experts in perhaps more appropriate fields of study.
The RFU, and the medical profession in general, need to refute this deeply unscientific report and we can only hope that the media would give as much prominence to that rebuttal as they have to these "Doctors". It would be a great

shame if any well-intentioned parents decide to stop their children from playing Rugby based on what they mistakenly believe is the best medical advice.
Click to expand...
 
Tallshort said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is the first time I like something reported in the Daily Mail!

I think this is a very worrying story. Rugby needs to grow globally, and if this gains traction, fewer kids will be playing the game in the UK. In time this will result in a drop in standards which would be an appalling shame. We need to encourage and build the game as much as possible - we need more Argentinas to emerge. Potentially damaging the game in the UK will NOT help!
 
Dear Tallshort,
The Government has responded to the petition you signed â€" “Don't ban tackling in school rugby.â€.
Government responded:
The government has no plans to ban tackling in school rugby. We expect schools to be aware of the risks associated with sporting activities, and to provide a safe environment for their pupils.
​
The government has no current plans to ban tackling in school rugby.
Team sports, such as rugby, play an important role in children’s development. They can help children develop positive traits such as fair play, leadership and resilience; an important part of our commitment in preparing children for life in modern Britain. They also provide an opportunity for physical activity and help children develop healthy habits for life.
There is no definitive list of the activities or sports that schools should offer their pupils.
Schools have the flexibility to organise and deliver a diverse and challenging PE curriculum which best suits the needs of their pupils. We expect schools to be aware of the risks associated with all the sporting activities they provide, to provide a safe environment for their pupils, and to ensure that their teachers and other staff have the appropriate training.

There is expert advice available for schools to help them make sure all sporting activities are safe. The Association for Physical Education (AfPE) and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents provide advice to schools on how to manage activities safely and reduce the risk of injuries and accidents.
Department for Education
​
 
There's definitely a real point to be made about coaching in schools, in terms of quality, compulsion and approach. That's being lost amongst the hysteria of the article, and some of the overly defensive responses in the press.
 
Was at an IRFU workshop and they are seriously considering a trial run of making it a law that you can only tackle below the stomach for underage. The study is said to be looking at quality reducing head injuries underage but 2 forcing players to learn correct techniques and positioning of head
 

Similar threads

J
Coaching first contact
Replies
2
Views
342
bushytop
bushytop
Which Tyler
Previous Eras - When did you fall in love with rugby?
Replies
8
Views
438
die_mole
die_mole
J
How to become an rugby agent in the US?
Replies
2
Views
481
OldSchoolRugga
OldSchoolRugga
B
World Rugby
Replies
0
Views
38
Black Hawk
B
M
Club matches in different African Nations
Replies
0
Views
96
Mateo Rodriguez
M

Latest posts

Top