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?

Gum shield??? Never saw one of those.....

Broken noses were a regular occurrence, black eyes ditto, and a broken wrist or two....

It sounds like more work is required to establish what the risks are, and how best practice can mitigate them.

Regardless - if any workplace had the sort of injury rate that is common in school PE departments, there would be an outcry.

Sourdrawers, multiple teenagers have broken their necks playing rugby, you are drifting into denial now, thats a fact that is not up for debate.

Also there is an IRB report (so if there is a bias to that report it's fair to assume it's in favour of rugby) that is easily googled which places the incidence of catastrophic injuries (I.e. Life changing) in rugby at 0.9 per 100,000 players playing per year. The comparable figure for football from the same report is 0.02. So you are getting on for 50 times more likely to have a catastrophic injury through rugby.

www.scottishrugby.org/sites/default/files/editor/docs/rugbyready_manual_3.pdf

Sourdrawers. This is a recent publication by Scottish rugby.

It refers to the sharp increase in serious neck injuries in youth rugby since 2005.

It includes the recommendation that all players from the age of 12 do regular neck conditioning exercise to reduce the risk of severe neck injury from rugby.

So, I can't see how this report is biased against rugby. It categorically states this is a serious risk to youngsters.

Going back to OP. No, parents who allow their children to play rugby are not irresponsible, when those children are playing at a proper rugby club with all the appropriate staff and risk assessments and the key point that these children and parents are willingly attending the club and taking the risk themselves.

However, suggesting it should be taught at schools and compulsory is clearly ridiculous.

Thanks for posting this MNpostingbot. This is the research I was looking for earlier.

Actually shocked at the level of implicit sexism on this thread questioning the research of Prof Pollock just because she happens to be a mother with a son!

I'm not scared when I watch ds play rugby, but I am scared when I watch him play lacrosse. He doesn't play at school, he plays for a team, he started playing at an after school club at his state primary school. very far removed from malory towers.

It is very physical, lots of shoulder barging etc. and even though they wear helmets, pads and gloves there are injuries every game. Luckily fairly minor ones. Ds loves it though. Although if/when he has to choose he would choose rugby.

I'm actually impressed at the way rugby authorities seem to be trying to manage this, at least being proactive.

Yes, prof pollock seems to have had a rough deal from the rugby parents. My only issue with her work is that her focus seems to be on the less severe injuries that her son suffered (cracked cheekbone etc) which whilst obviously a nasty injury could easily happen in any sport, contact or otherwise. I've seen some nasty cheek injuries in basketball and football. For me the focus should be exclusively on the neck and concussion injuries arising from scrums and tackles.

Actually I don't think examining the way sport is taught in schools is a bad thing. BUT I don't think it should be limited to rugby.

All sports carry risk of injury - minor and severe - and managing that across the board should be a priority

Statistics up to 2010 for Scotland - "unacceptable level"" which says safety measures impworved. But if you read the Scottish rugby ready link ^^from MNpostingBot that still says 15yr olds if skilled enough can play against 18yr olds.

Improved !

OK, at risk of derailing a thread that is about the physical damage... but I think there is psychological damage too in some cases.

I suspect that a lot of boys hate it, and we're stuck in a gender system where we don't allow boys to say that they don't actually enjoy such violent contact. My DH is very athletic, brilliant runner etc. but HATED Rugby at school and said that it was used by powerfully built/wealthy boys to deliberately hurt others. His younger, smaller brother said that it was like facing an hour and a half of bullying each week. Both are very level-headed, blokey blokes, and both went to the same selective school in the south. Northern chaps I know who went to non-selective schools seem to have better accounts, so I wonder if there is something about the very different geographies of rugby in different areas of the UK (as well as different school cultures) in play as well.

I'm sure that is the case that all sports governing bodies try to influence how their sport is being coached and managed. It's in their interests to ensure their sport continues to grow and mitigate the risk of injuries and bad publicity among parents that result from those injuries.

But surely you can appreciate that netball and football do not need anything like the level of management that rugby and, say, equestrian sports require. There is a colossal difference between a broken ankle and a broken neck.

If I coached netball or football badly at a school as an unqualified (in coaching terms) volunteer the worst consequence is probably poor technique and probably will result in the children not fulfilling their potential at that sport.
The worst conseqence from poor coaching in rugby is paralysed children or worse.

Hmmm. My gut reaction was, rugby's fine... wrap them up in cotton wool.. blah blah... but this thread has made me think (don't currently have any boys). I would have HATED to have been forced to play rugby at school. I was scared enough of hockey and lacrosse, and not because I'm risk averse (have had my share of injuries riding) but because I just hated the girl on girl aggression and I was generally much smaller than the others. I'm very lucky I wasn't a boy.

iseenodust : under 15s if they want to play in U17/18 rugby don't just have to be skilled enough, they also have to complete a physical assessment and be approved by a doctor, before getting a formal letter sanctioning it.

It's a process we might reluctantly have to go through with ds because of an issue with Age Grade rugby. So this year, he and most of his S3 team mates are playing U15 rugby, even they are technically U14 (birthday after 1 September). Next year they'll be playing U16 - but to continue on as a team on to U17, they'd have to get formal dispensation as technically they'll be U15s.

To complicate matters still further, "representational" rugby (ie District/Scotland) has just been changed to calendar year (in line with the rest of the world) for its cut offs but they're not planning on changing the league/cup age cut offs.

So a kid born between September and December could be (legitimately) playing U17/18 for his country but not allowed to do so in his "club" games. Now that I think could be dangerous, as they won't have had the experience of playing at that physical level.

In yorkshire pretty bird your son would need formal dispensation to play up even one year, so clearly some variation in the rules which is probably not sensible. We also have no leagues below u17s, all games are either friendlies or the yorkshire cup, I know that is not the case in other areas. I personally agree fully with it as it stops clubs only ever playing their best players so means that all the kids should get plenty of pitch time to allow them to develop their skills.

I agree about the friendlies being the best approach. Ds' team often had to forfeit the game as they couldn't even get 13 players (minimum required for a league/cup game), but they'd play anyway, borrowing from the other team.

Dh has also been instrumental in setting up a group of clubs who play "better weather" rugby and for whole game time rather than winning is what is important. This was initially aimed at the S1, S2s, but now that the "official" season has ended, comes into its own for the next few months.

prettybird from the Rugby Ready document; "You can not pass or fail a physical maturity assessment and it is not possible to affect
the player’s level of physical maturity through physical training techniques." It talks about height/weight as guidance but the experts are saying neck strength comes later and that is what is important. It seems to me the Scottish document is saying the right things but leaving plenty of wriggle room.

If I understand the process correctly, the comments there are because you can't "train" for it (eg by going into the gym - in fact ds and his cohort have been told in no uncertain terms that they are not allowed to train with weights until they're I think 16).

It's been described to me as a "hand" test which is impossible to train for.

On the other hand (and more worryingly) dh, who has done his Rugby Ready Course had never heard of the neck tests. That might be because he was training Minis (up to 12) and has only recently taken over the U15 team (and is booked on to do the required UKCC2 training)