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 think you're clutching at straws there calling me a conspiracy theorist MN.

The point is a valid one. Researchers generally have an idea what their research is looking for. Prejudice can creep in when a researcher unconsciously words questions in such a way that the answers support his or her contention. So unless we look at many different surveys or research gathering projects, we can't make up our minds on the stat' output of one.

You will find numbers in support of just about any idea. The problem arises when you find statistics that support every way of viewing an idea. You can find statistics that say you should cut down on the consumption of dairy products and that dairy products are good for you. So ft drinks will give you cancer and that they have no effect on anything but your thirst. Every one of these sets of statistics is absolutely true.

Well my DH played rugby (Union) pretty seriously at his very definitely not posh state comp, in Southern England, so if there really is a "posh" bias then it's pretty recent.

I would argue that the type of potential injury must be a factor as well.

In some sports, potential injuries include broken bones and possible concussion. In rugby, potential injuries include spinal issues, broken backs and broken necks. It's a very physical game and having bigger people fall on you or if you fall badly in a tackle can severely injure you.

These injuries are rare - but can be life changing. There are other sports like some gymnastics that can also have such injuries.

The "injury" statistics might be similar - but the injuries in some games might be more severe.

You can't base your argument on your experience of one school, surely.

Was that directed at me, saltedpeanuts? If so, then I'm not. They weren't one crappy comprehensive playing in a league of posh private schools, FGS. They were playing mostly against other equally crappy comprehensives. It could well be that less state schools now play rugby than used to, but lots of other posters have also disputed the characterisation of rugby as "posh"

Sorry sourdrawers but you miss the point. Statistics can be used to mislead, but if something is by definition a "statistic" it can at least be traced to evidence.

My post you were responding to said that anecdotal evidence of one incident cannot be used as evidence and that you need a base of statistics to support it.

One parent not ever experiencing injuries to their rugby playing child is not evidence nor is it a statistic.

Hi sunnyB, agree with you entirely in this thread btw! Especially that its a strange game and I'd be proud if my DC draw the same conclusions that yours did!

anecdote is no evidence but DS loved rugby at school and club level . Once he got " good" though - from year 9 he had a significant injury every season sufficient to take him out of school for several days and out of play for weeks / the rest of the season.

None were well dealt with by the supervising adults.He came home on the bus with a neck injury after being told to stay on the pitch as " it was only few mins" and on arrival in A+E they wanted to cut his clothes off after spinal boarding him..... I has to fetch him as he was sat on the wall after the coach dropped him at school and he couldn't walk to the bus ( torn calf) and the club " medic" said " his shoulder had popped out and back when you could see his broken collarbone under the skin!

Fortunately , due to time out and loss of fitness he hasn't played at uni.

I'd be happier if injuries were properly assessed. You can't ask at 14yr old full of battle " adrenaline" if he's happy to keep playing.

While statistics are extremely valuable, they are also notorious for being a means that people use to make false and misleading arguments, so I'm afraid it's you who misses the point Orlando. A stat' is just that, a stat', that being : a single stat'. Not the whole story by a long way. Still if it bears you out then you're all for it I take it?

Yes, stats can be used to mislead people. I listen to More or Less and that is very good at analysing stats.

But there aren't many stats out there. I think (as I have said on this thread) that there should be.

Oh - and you are demonstrating poor reading skills. Look at the person who said A stat' is just that, a stat', that being : a single stat'. Not the whole story by a long way. Still if it bears you out then you're all for it I take it

It wasn't me. It was MNPostingBot

I would expect to see a list of injuries a school has sustained in school sports. And the type of injury. Concussion, broken bone, spinal injury. I don't think that's a big ask.

Anyway - what's your view on physical contact sports in schools? I have no problem with people wanting to play it. It's a great game for many children. But not a great game for others who don't want to risk injuries like a broken neck.

I believe kids should have to play it as well as other games like Basketball, football etc.. After all it's only for a few weeks and not the entire school year. Those that want to take it further and join the school team can. A good coach won't put a strapping 6 footer who plays for their county against a littler inexperienced kid. How will kids know they like it or not unless they give it a go?

FGS what are the chances of someone 'breaking their neck' at school level? No stats' please!!!

FGS what are the chances of someone 'breaking their neck' at school level? No stats' please

What are the chances - but no stats

It's probably very unlikely but it's a possible risk and a worse case risk. Should a child be compulsory exposed to such a risk?

www.cph.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/sports-injuries-a-review-of-evidence-for-prevention.pdf
91 injuries per 1000 player hours in Rugby matches

ie nearly a 1% chance
ie odds on of every player getting injured once every season

My DB's school is a 'rugby school' (he plays football instead though) and I know for anybody older than under-13s they have an ambulance there on standby. I don't know often it is used, but they obviously feel it's needed.

I have seen two horrific fractures watching football, but in general I think leg injuries are less likely to be life threatening than the head/neck injuries more common in rugby.

And I agree about asking teenagers whether they want to play on is a bad idea - I said I was fine to carry on playing lacrosse once when I was pretty sure I'd broken a finger (I'd actually broken three).

TalkinPeace - those stats are for the population as a whole, not for children. I haven't seen any which give the equivalent number for younger age groups.

Stealth
New Zealand is the only country that has collected the data - and the variation rates are huge. This table is probably the closest you'll get
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3418962/table/i1062-6050-46-5-555-t02/

Interesting thread. I have a DS (14) who played rugby for two years when he was younger and then decided he didn't like it. Reason? He hadn't grown whereas others had and were much tougher and taller than him. He just didn't enjoy it so he chose not to be in the school team and to do another sport the moment he could. I was never happy about him doing rugby because I have friends with DCs injured playing rugby but we gave DS the choice because we want him to learn about evaluating risk and working out what he is good at and what he is not.

The point is should the sport be compulsory or not? I don't think it should, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be available to those who want to play it.

One friend has a DS (now aged 21) who broke his neck when aged 16. Horrific, but very lucky to survive without paralysis. He has been told to expect problems as he gets older with neck complications. Another boy we know (15) broke a finger this school year and when it mended and his dad insisted he go back into the sport, he went and broke another finger.

Allyson Pollock has written many press articles about school rugby and has written a book:

www.amazon.co.uk/Tackling-Rugby-Allyson-M-Pollock/dp/1781686025/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1430850645&sr=8-3&keywords=allyson+pollock

Great post from wellwellwell

My kids play at our local rugby club, where the coaches are very knowledgeable and really hot on safety, respect and teamwork. The whole thing is very professionally run (by volunteers)

It seems to me that instead of calls to ban rugby at school, we should be looking at better training (perhaps in partnership with the RFU?) and a review of what level of contact is appropriate in school rugby?

I'm not sure if all posters know that under RFU guidelines contact is introduced gradually over several years? It's not like one minute you're playing tag and the next you find yourself in a scrum. Ds2 has just started contact this year and they have spent a lot of time covering safe tackles - I hear the coaches constantly reinforcing this. A key question though does seem to be whether there is really enough time in school PE lessons to really embed these skills and concepts to keep children safe.

I think that rugby has a lot to offer children - interestingly the rugby club is much more nurturing towards the less talented and ds was selected to take part in a festival just for "developing" players (for which read crap but he had an amazing day and was so proud of himself). I'm also really impressed with the general attitude and discipline. It would be a shame if we couldn't find a way to make it safe enough so that more children could get the chance to benefit from those positives.

After all it's only for a few weeks - I think its a seriously bad idea to play rugby only for a few weeks. You won't be anywhere skilled enough to be safe and are unlikely to develop any great love for the game by being totally outmaneuvered by those kids who play outside school.

I think they could do compulsory touch rugby for a term and those who like it can go on the learn to play rugby properly.

You don;t get people interested in horse riding but sticking them on a nag and pointing them towards some jumps and keeping your fingers crossed.

The son of a friend of mine broke his neck aged 15 playing rugby - he has been paralysed ever since. It scares the bejesus out of me!

Ocelot41, I know what you mean. When I was at university I met someone who had broken his neck playing rugby. He was partially paralysed as a result and very restricted in what he could physically manage. He was trying his best to get on with life but you could feel the –understandable - frustration in him. I got to know him quite well and really came to appreciate how difficult day to day living was for him. And all just because of a game….

Of course, his was a tragic and rare case. Most play and ‘get away with it’.

Yet, I cannot help but be somewhat alarmed by the studies of Allyson Pollock and coworkers (mentioned in the OP). I think it’s worth quoting explicitly from her article in the Spectator that was linked to earlier in the thread:

Our own small study in Scottish schools, the first UK study in 11 years, showed how dangerous rugby can be. We found that the average child player had a one-in-six risk of being injured in a season, many injuries were serious and more than two-thirds required more than three weeks away from play.

Some might say she's got an agenda - but I, for one, think the whole area merits further investigation.

Rugby is a compulsory sport in my DS's school - and I wish it were otherwise! He would be far happier going for a run round the school, or better, a run round the nearby park where he could be close to nature rather than close to stampeding hordes of hulking boys twice his size!

"I said I was fine to carry on playing lacrosse once when I was pretty sure I'd broken a finger (I'd actually broken three)."

Lacrosse - now there's an interestingly dangerous game. Fast, hard ball, weaponry (sticks) at eye level, a scarily small number of rules...

Lacrosse - I can't help thinking of Mallory Towers

Sorry.

(My secondary school had definite Mallory Towers overtones)

Mine too

Very little protection either - we just used to wear a gum shield (now there's eye protection too). Men wear more, but I think there's a lot more contact in men's lacrosse than women's. Technically women's is limited contact so should be reasonably safe, but hand injuries and nasty bruises (a hard rubber ball thrown with basically a lever goes fast!) were quite common when I played.