Rugby at school level

[nickyboy]

Can they be appraised of the long-term risks when the long-term risks aren't well understood?

No they can't.

Thousands of amateurs risk it every week on the rugby pitch, both codes, and most are fully aware of the risks.

That's the nub. The risks aren't well understood, as you say above. They may be serious, they may not. What we do know is that in NFL, another collision sport, the body of evidence seems to be growing that there are long-term health issues associated with the sport

 

[GrumpyGregry]

What's the solution then?

How about?

Junior rugby in these islands needs to learn from the Kiwis and match players by weight not age.

Scrums should be uncontested in all internal school games with contested scrums kept for representative matches with experienced qualified Society referees.

Children who don't want to play contact sports should not be compelled to do so.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

No they can't.



That's the nub. The risks aren't well understood, as you say above. They may be serious, they may not. What we do know is that in NFL, another collision sport, the body of evidence seems to be growing that there are long-term health issues associated with the sport

Which kills and maims more, rugby (both codes) or motorcycling? I don't actually know the answer btw. I've done both. I've given up both.

 

[slowmotion]

I found heading a wet leather football a very uncomfortable business and I can well believe that it might not do your brain much good if done regularly. I only played ruby until the age of fourteen or fifteen and I don't remember having knocks on the head. Bruised shoulders, arms, torso and legs but not head. I wasn't in the scrum though.

 

[nickyboy]

Which kills and maims more, rugby (both codes) or motorcycling? I don't actually know the answer btw. I've done both. I've given up both.

I don't know. But just because A is more dangerous than B doesn't mean we shouldn't do something to mitigate risk in B does it?

I've posted elsewhere in this thread that there are some wonderful benefits to an individual in participating in team activities. That's why I allow son#2 to play rugby at school. However, I wouldn't want him to pursue it as a career and be subjected to years and years of percussive head injuries as I think the evidence is growing that it results in long-term health issues

 

[srw]

Everyone? Maybe I attract loons but I know plenty who deny the anthropogenic element.

If the long term risks of playing rugby can't be clearly quantified and articulated then folk will dismiss them as a boogeyman created by the namby-pamby brigade. If they can, but are shown to be marginal "one-in-a-million" risks, folk will disregard them on a "greater good" basis.

I think you're underestimating the likely parallels.

I know it's a different sport, but as @nickyboy has mentioned there's an increasing body of evidence of a problem in the NFL. If you haven't already, listen to the Freakonomics podcast on the subject (released a couple of weeks ago), or read the transcript:
http://freakonomics.com/podcast/brain-damage/

The short version? Hitting your head repeatedly, even if the individual hits are small, is bad for you.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

I know you want to defend rugby in schools at all costs.

Utter nonsense.

 

[david k]

They are trying to ban contact rugby at school , what's your view.
For me it's a hard one , if you had a child that had been injured , you would say ban . I am actually on the fence here .

I've played lots of rugby from an early age to a decent level, rugby league that is, tried union

I support the banning of tackling as in competitive games to develop higher level of skills. Until kids are mature enough to start contact
I would use contact in training, to develop tackling skills, putting kids against similar sizes, but ensure competitive games are non contact until around 11/12

This would encourage more to play and ensure we don't end up favouring the big kid, something I've seen many times, and I was one of those big kids, and so is my lad