to think allowing our sons to play rugby is irresponsible parenting?

[AddToBasket]

There's another article in the Times today about Professor Allyson Pollock's attempt to get people to understand how dangerous school rugby is. She's been abused on Twitter, stonewalled by other parents, ignored by Rugby's professional bodies. (Link here but behind paywall)

Basically, a combination of parental peer pressure and the Establishment mean people won't listen to what she has to say. Rugby as it is played at school at present is not safe.

AIBU to think we aren't protecting our sons? Why are we allowing this compulsory sport to put at risk so much for our boys?

I haven't read the whole thread so apologies if I am just repeating what others have said.

DS 13 has played rugby for years. It's a hard and very dangerous game to learn. We are lucky that we have had no major injuries and neither have his team mates. The local club he goes to are fantastic, there are 4 coaches and they are all qualified and go on regular courses. They take injury very seriously and are quite strict with the children about resting and so forth.

The school on the other hand are crap. The pe teacher is not a qualified coach and I have found he's a bit 'whatever' in his approach. There are often a lot of injuries with school rugby. I will not allow ds to play for the school team. I wouldn't put him in a car without a seatbelt so I won't let him play a dangerous game where everyone is not trained.

The problem with rugby in schools is not everyone wanting to do it (which i completely understand). You then have some one like my ds who is 6ft 2 and 11 stone coming charging towards you, you not knowing what to do because you haven't been trained properly and that's when injuries happen.

There is no way rugby should be compulsary in schools, there is not enough time to warm up, play and cool down properly. You don't have enough time to learn the game properly it's just too dangerous.

Rugby is a big deal for a large number of the upper / upper middle classes. It is tied up with status and class. People in those classes are used to doing what they want to do, and it will take a great deal to change that. See fox hunting.

So no one is allowed to draw from their own experiences to make a point?

The problem with this demand for stat's to be the final word - is : who did the study that came up with the stat's, what exactly are these stat's measuring, who was asked, how were they asked, and compared with what? If one believes in the truth of stat's (as the superior intellects on this thread certainly seem to), then how does one explain that the same political party can be 20 points ahead and 5 points behind their opponents in the polls at the same time? After all, both polls are "statistics". If you wish to use statistics as the final word Orlando It's no good being snotty about people not wishing to do the same.

Do you suppose the UK Cancer Society and the American Tobacco Institute's stat's about smoking related illness/deaths would be similar?
We need to find out what all possible sides have to say and what other evidence they have in support of their statistics. Often that will include personal experience. Subjectivity is unavoidable...

If you don't accept stats, do you accept that a contact game which involves scrums, tackles etc, might have higher levels of injury than one that doesn't? Quite a lot of poster on this thread won't even accept that...

Completely agree with Chuffing - DS11 has played rugby at Club from age 6, starting with tag & he's now at contact (although not all aspects of contact have been introduced).
I worry more about DS playing rugby at school as he plays with a lot of kids who aren't trained & teachers who aren't qualified.

Just as a side note, state schools play RFU rules regarding contact & age but independent schools do not.

Of course It might. But does that mean we give kids the option of opting out of playing? No. Not as long as schools have well trained, sensible coaches.

DD has a couple of friends that play for a club. They've tried to get DD to go but she's not keen. They discovered Rugby at school.

Sorry OP - never occured to me that tennis was considered a school sport. I didn't go to a school posh enough to offer tennis as an option for whole class sports lessons.

Rugby is a big deal for a large number of the upper / upper middle classes. It is tied up with status and class. People in those classes are used to doing what they want to do, and it will take a great deal to change that. See fox hunting.

That is absolutely not true in large parts of the country.

"If you don't accept stats"

I don't think anyone was saying that they didn't, were they? They were saying (or certainly I was, and I inferred that others were) that the stats used to support the case against rugby are at best incomplete and at worst misleading as they relate (or don't, as the case may be) to the junior game. It would also seem that in order to be meaningful they would also need to include data about the training and qualification of the coaches and whether the game was being played in a club or a school context. Given complete and meaningful stats, I would accept those as a valid measure of the relative risk vs other activities. That might or might not affect my decision about allowing my DC to play.

FWIW, there are weight limits in some competitions in the UK. As well as age limits. Which makes them impossible. My DS has been in situations where he can't be picked for his age group team for a specific competition because he is too big, but he can't play for a team in which he would be the right size because RFU rules (and associated school liability insurance) won't let them play DC out of their age group. Schools would never be happy with grouping purely by weight/size anyway as that would make their timetables (which generally work by year group) a nightmare. Clubs, I suspect, would have less of an issue.

Kewcumber, the discussion is about school sport. to be fair OP your title was that parents were irresponsible for letting their children play rugby.

So is your point that parents should not allow children to play rugby or that schools should not have rugby as a compulsory sport?

If you don't accept stats, do you accept that a contact game which involves scrums, tackles etc, might have higher levels of injury than one that doesn't? Quite a lot of poster on this thread won't even accept that...

Of course. But also there's differentiations between union and league as I've already posted

Finedampeople

Pretty sure the head injuries on football is now a thing of the past. was true in the 60s, maybe into the 80s, when footballs soaked up water and were like heading a medicine ball.

Modern balls don't retain water, are much lighter and I'd be very surprised if they are having the impact on the brain that the old balls did.

do you accept that a contact game which involves scrums, tackles etc but its not just rugby that has tackles and higher levels of contact is it?

Hockey, ever get whacked on the ankle with a hockey stick, or even worse have the misfortune to be behind someone with a high swing? Lacrosse players tackle and shoulder barge with flying sticks and ball.

The issue really is the level of coaching and ability of those coaching the pupils. A quick check this morning and several of my work colleagues/school run friends with dc at a few different secondary schools and not one of them have it as a compulsory sport to play. Even the local school known for its rugby team and that they usually win all the local comps/matches (ds2's second choice if he hadn't have got into the grammar) its not compulsory, they can choose to do something else, again usually something boring such as running laps. The school that ds1 attended don't even offer rugby as an extra curricular club anymore as there wasn't the interest. this is in an area where there are 3 heavily subscribed to clubs with waiting lists in a small area.

As a parent of three rugby players (DD (11), DS1 (8), DS2 (5)and the wife of an ex professional rugby player I have spent rather a lot of time considering the dangers of rugby (mostly in the driving rain and sub zero temperatures on the side of rugby pitches). Here's what I think:

School rugby is more dangerous than club rugby due to arbitrary rules, inexperienced coaches and young players who are going straight in to a violent contact sport without any background in it.

I would fear for any child on the receiving end of DD's tackles, let alone a reluctant school mate who is in all probability unlikely to be a match in size or weight for her.

Club rugby is built up very gently from tag onwards - each season introduces one or two new skills and and they learn a great deal about how to do things safely. There is a huge emphasis on good sportsmanship, respect for officials and respect for other players. My DC are proud to play for their team and are passionate about the sport. They've tried lots of others and do lots of other hobbies but rugby seems to speak to them in a way football etc can't.

I'm not going to give any anecdotes about injury - it is a dangerous sport, no question. I do not think it should be compulsory in schools as the gradual build up is just not there. Tag rugby would be a perfectly acceptable alternative with any after school rugby having to obey RFU rules and be supervised by qualified, experienced coaches.

In answer to the thread title, no it is not irresponsible parenting to allow our sons (and daughters ffs) to play rugby. It IS irresponsible to force them to do it in dangerous circumstances.

Sorry sourdrawers but your post just reads like a conspiracy theorist.

Opinion polls are not stats, they are polls of opinions which may or may not be provided honestly or may be just said to get the surveyor away.

Things like 3 million under 18s play organised rugby and each year 100 suffer a life changing injury. 20 million under 18s play football each year and 1 suffers a life threatening injury.

I've made up those numbers so they are wrong, but those figures could be calculated on hard evidence whereas an election cannot until the actual votes were cast.

That's why people are asking for the stats.

Great post wellwellwell

rugby should be run by the rugby clubs, not the schools. There are risks and rugby clubs know how to manage them, schools don't as a rule.

MNpostingbot, interesting about the changes in the ball, etc.. I didn't know that.

But I think it's still considered a risk by many, especially for kids (see link):

www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30303721

I think large lumps of Wales (amongst others) would take issue with the categorisation of rugby as a "posh" game

Ok so there still may be issues. I wasn't aware. Although even the lightest ball being headed direct from a 60 yard clearance must have an impact on a developing brain.

That said, I'd have expected there to already be some evidence to prove or disprove that. Heading of footballs was unquestionably more damaging 20 years ago, not just the balls but the style of play. The amount players head a ball is already reducing and the long balls (which I guess cause the damage when you head a ball dropping out of the Sky from distance) are declining. So the sport is getting safer, that's not the case for rugby (and all contact sports) people are getting bigger and stronger all the time and so are the impacts

Great post wellwellwell. Those conditions (experienced coaches, gradual build up of skills, emphasis on good sportsmanship and team spirit, as well as the time invested in terms of hours of training per week) can and do exist in some schools though - but not all, or even most. I think the focus should be on a minimum set of conditions rather than the setting in which they are met.

Love wellwellwell's post.

@Salted Peanuts

'Rugby is a big deal for a large number of the upper / upper middle classes. It is tied up with status and class. People in those classes are used to doing what they want to do, and it will take a great deal to change that.'

While I cant claim to have visited all 3000 plus registered rugby clubs in England I have in a 25 plus year career played against and been hosted by well over one hundred of those clubs and can confidently say that each of those clubs largely reflected the demographic make up of the area they represented. So yes, when I played against sides based in wealthy surrey market towns the teams were often made up of privately educated professional city types, on the other hand playing sides in less affluent London suburbs brought you up against teams consisting of scaffolders, postmen, bricklayers etc from all ethnic backgrounds.

Unfortunately rugby to many ill informed folk is still seen as a public school only sport played by privileged white middle class men, if you bothered to get down to your local club you will see that this stereotype is utter bollocks but then the 'right on' chip on the shoulder types on here will never let go of a nice safe target that such a stereotype offers so I cant see any change soon.

There's a difference in being injured in a game you enjoy, chose to participate in and wanted to do, and being injured in something you are worried or scared about, or simply don't enjoy.

As someone said up thread, being hesitant may well lead to you being more likely to be injured (no stats, once) as many manoeuvres require full commitment and trust in your ability to do them (true of many sports).

It seems like most people are actually in agreement, that contact rugby is fine for those who want to take part and are properly coached and taught.

What is not ok is badly taught and supervised, compulsory rugby.

Take the driving/car accidents comparison. Yes it is dangerous, but we enforce safety measures - seat belts, driving tests, speed limits etc. It's not just a get on it free for all. If schools, as it seems some are, are making rugby compulsory for children without the same safety measures seen in club rugby then that is a huge issue.

I agree with those saying do Tag Rugby or similar as compulsory and save contact for those who want to take part.

I have noticed a trend of private schools playing rugby and state schools (in the areas I have lived) playing football. Have I just imagined that?

yes I think rugby is perceived as 'posher' in England anyway. I expect the private schools offer it to impress the parents.
In Wales all schools play it.