Rugby at school level

[JoshM]

A colleague of mine has 2 sons, the eldest of which didn't start playing rugby until he was about 15. He injured his knee ending his hopes of a military career. The youngest started playing at aged 8 or 9. He learnt both how to tackle and how to be tackled and remains uninjured. she accepts what the her sons rugby coaches say and that is kids taught contact at an early age are less likely to be hurt.

Thus I think that if rugby is going to remain a contact sport, the full game should be taught to youngsters. That said, I'm not sure, as others have said, that general PE teachers and students have the skills to properly teach full contact rugby, nor the desire to learn. So maybe ruby if it is to be taught as part of the PE curriculum should be non contact in that context, saving 'full contact rugby' for those interested in learning with qualified sport specific coaches.

 

[Electric_Andy]

I think its more a case of bad teaching rather than contact alone.

Agree. We started full contact in our first PE lesson in the first year. No-one knew what a ruck or maul was. As is so often the case in sports, poor technique can lead to injury.

I think Rugby (it's players, referees and fans) sets a really good example for kids in terms of fair play, getting on with the game, etiquette and so on. More so than Football IMO. I'm sure just as many would get injured at a skate park if the equivalent number of people took part.

 

[KneesUp]

The Liberals.

They don't have anything productive or positive to do, so to justify their existence they latch on to irrelevant or specious topics to justify their jobs. Instead of being sacked/made redundant for having nothing to do, the senior managers let them get on with it, paying their salaries out of the public purse as they go.

I'm liberal and I don't really have a view on it so it isn't all liberals.

The rest of your reply sounds like you are either very bitter and misguided, having consumed an entire Daily Mail, or you are trying to troll but forgetting the element of humour. Not sure which one it is.

 

[KneesUp]

My previous reply nothwithstanding - teaching technique is one thing, but kids don't always choose to employ it. We did rugby briefly at school. I was normally with the hopeless kids. After a few weeks the teacher noticed I wasn't my brother and 'promoted' me to the good group. I distinctly remember intercepting a pass near our try line, slaloming past 3 or 4 of their team and sprinting up the pitch with loads of room to use and lots of momentum, toward their one remaining defender, who promtply ran straight at me and kicked me in the stomach, which admittedly worked as a way of stopping me. Especially given the studs.

It wasn't that he hadn't been taught how to tackle. He just chose not to. Like people playing sport do sometimes - it was worth him being sent off because it stopped me scoring and there was only a few minutes left, so his team 'won'

I would add that it's not even a proper sport. To paraphrase a comedian whose name escapes me, if Web-Ellis had picked up the football and started to run at my school he would have had the beejesus kicked out of him. So actaully having said I have no view on banning tackling, I do have a view on banning rugby, on the basis that it's terrible to watch, miserable to play and the whole 'sport' is a result of some rich-kid being indulged by his posh school.

EDIT - my point about moving groups was that in the lower ability group it was fun - part of the reason the kids who were less good at sport were less good was because they didn't really care that much - my brother being a prime example: he just didn't see the point of running about getting tired, muddy and hurt by the other kids when he could just wander about away from the ball and adopt the tactic of chucking it as far away as possible as quickly as possible should it ever come to him - smart cookie my brother. In the 'higher ability' group they all took it quite seriously, and thus it was much less fun, and injury much more likely.

 

[AndyRM]

From "injured" to killed and child suicide in one post? Wow...

@GrumpyGregry has it spot on.

 

[Bonefish Blues]

I think rugby's a different sport now to when I played it, and as someone who was a forward, it was hard enough then, especially as I was playing with kids who were older than me.

I wonder if some sensible way forward could be found that keeps the essence of the game, but also protects young people?

 

[nickyboy]

School sports, particularly team sports, instill certain values which are, on the whole, positive and beneficial. The importance of friendship, the importance of teamwork, benefits of physical exercise, respect for authority.

The issue lies with the way the game is initially introduced. Rugby, particularly, can be violent. I would be all for, say, the first year competitive games being played as "touch" rugby, with contact skills being coached separately ready for introduction of contact rugby the following year. Keep scrums uncontested until say 16 years old. The reason for this is that, until you get to that sort of age, there is too much potential size disparity. Some huge 14 year old up against a smaller kid in the scrum is a recipe for disaster

I would also be all for adopting the NZ system of teams selected on size at school, rather than age. Not only would it reduce injuries, it would encourage the smaller, skilful player to keep playing instead of getting steamrollered

 

[Hacienda71]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKv6o7YqHnE


By all means let kids play if they want to, with suitable safeguards like touch for the younger players, but if they don't want to play, don't force them.

 

[Pro Tour Punditry]

'Child' suicide? Isn't this a thread about boys?

No mention of the word boy or boys in the OP

 

[rugby bloke]

I believe this is the news item that has prompted the debate:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-41386706

Firstly, lets be clear, you cannot have rugby without tackling. It is fundamental to the game, so you either play rugby or you don't, you cannot cherry pick the areas of the game you want to include. If you don't want contact then play touch rugby, but that is a different game altogether. There is an argument to reduce the contest around technical areas such as line out and scrum to ensure that players develop the correct safe, technical skills.

The issues are with coaching, refereeing and using under trained players as cannon fodder to make up the numbers. If the school has sufficient number of qualified coaches, can provide a ref with more than a passing knowledge of the laws and 20 lads who want to play then great, you can put out a team. Too often through schools fall down in one of these areas but push on through a determination to maintain a rugby programme. If schools do not have enough suitable players they should look at playing 10s or 7s, or mixing squads from both schools so that two balanced teams can be put out.

 

[KneesUp]

I believe this is the news item that has prompted the debate:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-41386706

Firstly, lets be clear, you cannot have rugby without tackling. It is fundamental to the game, so you either play rugby or you don't,

I vote don't

(do you mean league or union?)

 

[nickyboy]

Forcing children or anyone to do anything is counterproductive and when I was at school all it did was make many girls hate any type of sport for life.
Its my view that there should be choice for children like you can either play a traditional sport e.g football, rugby etc, or go for an organized brisk walk round the area/fields or light aerobics something like that.

This is not dissimilar to what happens at m son's school. For example, in the rugby season, those involved in the squads for the games at the weekend practice rugby during their games lessons. Everyone else does something else. That might be football, athletics or some other team sport. It wouldn't descend to a "brisk walk" however

 

[KneesUp]

This is not dissimilar to what happens at m son's school. For example, in the rugby season, those involved in the squads for the games at the weekend practice rugby during their games lessons. Everyone else does something else. That might be football, athletics or some other team sport. It wouldn't descend to a "brisk walk" however

THE NHS say it is good exercise - with the implication that it's good if you're not fit enough for more strenusous exercise. We are always being 'told' that kids aren't very fit these days - a brisk walk is better than a bit of standing about on the pitch ostensibly playing, but actually just watching other people play football - which is what used to happen at my school a fair amount of the time.

 

[Donger]

Not really fair to blame liberals with nothing else to do. We are becoming an American style litigation mad society. Anyone who organizes anything these days has to worry about the "Where there's blame there's a claim" brigade. (Thinking of recent "crash for cash" headlines and Brits holiday sickness claims scandal leading to some hotels on the Costas talking about not allowing Brit tourists in .... etc, etc). Scummy chancers are ruining a lot of things for all of us, and there just isn't the level of public funding available to cover the cost of litigation. It's all very sad, but a fact of life these days.

 

[Heltor Chasca]

Before I played rugby at senior level I competed in rugby festivals where the larger kids were weighed and measured. Too tall or heavy and they couldn't compete. A system that probably was useful. We also were only allowed to play in bare feet under the age of ten.

I also remember us smaller fellows were a great deal harder than the big 'uns. We can all be disillusioned once in our lives right? Now both my daughters can easily give me a pasting. (Not me playing gentle silverback either)