I'm with you on this Wally I'm guessing the doctors who are asking for a ban are the ones that deal with the aftermath of the injuries that could be avoided with proper supervision An example a teacher yesterday was at the school gates watching out for the late comers or just watching the kids crossing the road I don't know what With his hands in his pockets yawning!!! not looking slightly interested
Yes, I would. But the real question we should be asking is what sport is appropriate for schoolchildren.
We should be asking why these injuries are occurring and what can be done about preventing them and looking after our children's welfare They can't make their own decisions they are not allowed too so as adults we need to protect them
I don't see any circular arguments, just people with different opinions. Let the people who care that Britain is crap at most sports (are we really ?) do something about it, but don't assume that it is a matter of national pride, it is just sport.
you may larf lozange but i heard it from his own gob not half an hour ago. :Mooning::smileys:. why is tom farmer getting involved in Scottish education? one of the biggest cr..ks in the motor trade there has ever been.
@Ducbird yes, I recall the huge man-child that is your Harry and guess that poorly supervised sport has not helped him. I see the arguments mostly narrowing down to the rational points about sport, in general, being essential for children to learn and grow physically, psychologically and emotionally, but this needs to be managed and controlled properly. I had a chat with my 12 year old last night about this as he had been doing rugby league in school yesterday, and he laughed at the outcry and said "nobody is forcing kids to play rugby. if they don't want to play, or tackle they just swerve it." so to my knowledge there are no cases of children being forced to take part in anything they are not willing and able to take part in, especially rugby (union or league). under the guidance of the various rugby boards coaching and managing is happening at a weekly level, but like with most educational programmes, it takes time to filter through and to become the accepted norm, and then it all changes based on new evidence/techniques, etc. I have had to do many coaching courses, but also child safeguarding courses, paediatric first aid courses, concussion management courses, etc I still support the NZ weight grade rugby model for children, but with caveats about the emotional/psychological maturity to be accounted for, e.g. it would need to be managed properly for the mixing of say a very big 12 year old (75kg plus) with average/smaller 16 year olds (70-90kg approx) these children are at likely at very different stages of maturity. @Wally you make a good point about the number of doctors up in arms versus the total number of doctors, and hence the statistical validity of the scaremongering being trumpeted. well managed, properly supervised contact sport (including rugby union and rugby league) is essential for children to grow up as well rounded members of society.
This whole idea sets a dangerous precedent... Every day thousands of people, young and old, take part in an activity that they enjoy greatly; an activity which involves a very slight risk of injury or, possibly worse. A very, very tiny minority of those people taking part are actually injured. "The powers that be" decide the risk is too great, and ban the activity - spoiling the fun of the thousands of people who partake in the activity all their lives and never get hurt... Delete the word "rugby" and insert the word "motorcycling" - the same argument could be made against either. Personally, I don't want to live in a world where the things that I enjoy doing, despite the risk, are removed by people who have no understanding beyond calculating the tiny risks involved...
No one in their right mind would argue against this. However, delete the name "JR45" and insert the words "eleven-year-old" and you will see that there is a slightly different set of priorities in play here. The argument starts off as "H&S gone mad, rugby banned!" vs "Children must be protected from unnecessary/uncontrolled risks". Drill down, as we have done in this interesting thread, and we see that the answer is somewhere in the middle, i.e. taking the risks involved seriously by monitoring the sport and implementing changes/best practice in a helpful way, commensurate with the ages and needs of the sport's participants.
M motorcycling is not a compulsory exercise at school, protective equipment is mandated to mitigate the effects of head injury and is normally undertaken by participants over the age at which they are presumed to be able to give informed consent. This is not about stopping people enjoying an activity more about making that activity safer. I would equate it more to the discussions about compulsory use of crash helmets on bikes or seatbelts in cars.
"You kids!........Be careful with those tiddlywinks and marbles............you will have someone's eye out!" "No...you can't have a skipping rope.....you might strangle yourself"
'There are only three sports: bullfighting, motor racing, and mountaineering; all the rest are merely games.' Ernest Hemingway.
The thread is about school children and rugby and keeping the relatively safe from injury You cannot compare this to motorcycles
I think you can, and the conclusion is that they are very different, one is engaged in entirely freely and the other is compulsory in some schools.
I think you'd find that 100% of doctors would sign a petition demanding a ban on tackling during motorcycling at schools. Your argument makes no sense in the context of the thread. Risk of injury to children at school through tackling at rugby.
