Doctors call for ban of tackling in Schools Rugby

its_phil

Does anyone know any schools where full contact rugby is compulsory? Can't say I heard of any myself.

FortySeven

I think making children walk to school would have a much more positive effect on the health and wellbeing of our youngfolk. Obesity is a formidable issue, childhood injuries from rugby are marginal. Barking up the wrong tree here IMHO.

Since when did we become so averse to our children being injured? It was pretty normal when I was a kid to be covered in scrapes and bruises and the odd black eye or broken bone.

The Rape of Lucretia

So thats it then. Done and dusted.
The beginning of the end. There is no rugby without the tackle. There is no rugby without rugby in schools.

Still, it was good while it lasted wasnt it ? We enjoyed playing it, following it, talking about it.

Hard to argue with them really. It is too dangerous for responsible parents to let their kids play.

How long to you think rugby has left, 20 years or so?

Se yous all in the All Things Retro forum some day.

LeinsterDub

WR response http://www.worldrugby.org/news/142105

awec

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

So thats it then. Done and dusted.
The beginning of the end. There is no rugby without the tackle. There is no rugby without rugby in schools.

Still, it was good while it lasted wasnt it ? We enjoyed playing it, following it, talking about it.

Hard to argue with them really. It is too dangerous for responsible parents to let their kids play.

How long to you think rugby has left, 20 years or so?

Se yous all in the All Things Retro forum some day.

Do you enjoy bowls?

IRLConor

its_phil wrote: »

Does anyone know any schools where full contact rugby is compulsory? Can't say I heard of any myself.

It was compulsory in my school when I was there, but given that I stopped playing roughly 20 years ago I suspect things have changed. I had to play from 3rd-6th class in primary school and in 1st year.

I for one think this is forward thinking. They should trial this in English and maybe Welsh schools for the next 20 years and compare it to the last 20 years to see if things improve.

Actually with the playing population in New Zealand it probably makes sense to give it the aul whirl there too.

FortySeven

Deleted User wrote: »

I for one think this is forward thinking. They should trial this in English and maybe Welsh schools for the next 20 years and compare it to the last 20 years to see if things improve.

Actually with the playing population in New Zealand it probably makes sense to give it the aul whirl there too.

What needs to improve and what are we moving forward to exactly?

FortySeven

FortySeven wrote: »

What needs to improve and what are we moving forward to exactly?

The Rape of Lucretia

FortySeven wrote: »

What needs to improve and what are we moving forward to exactly?

The success of Irish rugby I'll wager !

FortySeven

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

The success of Irish rugby I'll wager !

I'm Scottish. Don't even talk to me about success. :rolleyes:

stephen_n

FortySeven wrote: »

What needs to improve and what are we moving forward to exactly?

I think he forgot to use the irony emoticon


It was compulsory to an extent when I was in school I think. Can't really remember as I was never forced to play. It was just about the only thing in school I ever did willingly. I don't think that should be the case though. If a kid doesn't want to play he shouldn't be forced.

However the thought of having a bunch of 18/19 year olds running around having never tackled seems insane to me. That could seriously lead to injuries.

The Rape of Lucretia

stephen_n wrote: »

However the thought of having a bunch of 18/19 year olds running around having never tackled seems insane to me. That could seriously lead to injuries.

They just wont in any numbers. Only a fraction of players even playing the non-tackle rugby would be interested in getting into the violent version. If such a non-tackle version even got going. Any serious sporting talent will already have left for other sports long before they reach 18/19.

End of the sport I tells ya, end of the sport.

(Pity poor Blackrock College, which will be known only for churning out barristers and chartered accountants, and no more as the the breeding ground of Irish rugby legends.)

Melodeon

its_phil wrote: »

Does anyone know any schools where full contact rugby is compulsory? Can't say I heard of any myself.

Rugby was compulsory up to fourth year in my time (early 70's ).
Full contact from day 1, no matter whether you were big or small, beefy or scrawny, sporty or otherwise, had been playing for years or had never before in your life even seen a rugby ball.
I'm sure things have changed dramatically since then.

sydthebeat

Melodeon wrote: »

Rugby was compulsory up to fourth year in my time (early 70's ).
Full contact from day 1, no matter whether you were big or small, beefy or scrawny, sporty or otherwise, had been playing for years or had never before in your life even seen a rugby ball.
I'm sure things have changed dramatically since then.

correct spelling, good grammar, properly punctuated .... those belts on the head don't seem to have done you any harm

Melodeon

sydthebeat wrote: »

correct spelling, good grammar, properly punctuated .... those belts on the head don't seem to have done you any harm

I was 'playing' non-contact/tag rugby long before they were recognised variants of the sport!

sjwpjw

I suppose the letter has had the desired effect in that it has got people talking and World Rugby rushing to put out a statementetc.

No contact in schools is too much to ask but the other extreme which we have currently is not great either, ie, kids wanting the 'big hit' on the upper body, not binding in the tackle etc.

Surely what needs to happen here is that the laws around the tackle need to change. And why not. The 'tip tackle' and the 'chop tackle' have been made illegal and are penalised now. Why not also ban the 'choke tackle'? I saw a boy getting choked round his neck the other day and it went on a while and the ref did nothing, not one thing about it even though it was perfectly obvious and the boy was clearly in pain but could not move.

Or, even better why not lower the height of a high tackle to below the ribcage or below the waist? It will improve the safety of players and I should think lead to more offloading and accordingly more attractive rugby?

Jump_In_Jack

sjwpjw wrote: »

I suppose the letter has had the desired effect in that it has got people talking and World Rugby rushing to put out a statementetc.

No contact in schools is too much to ask but the other extreme which we have currently is not great either, ie, kids wanting the 'big hit' on the upper body, not binding in the tackle etc.

Surely what needs to happen here is that the laws around the tackle need to change. And why not. The 'tip tackle' and the 'chop tackle' have been made illegal and are penalised now. Why not also ban the 'choke tackle'? I saw a boy getting choked round his neck the other day and it went on a while and the ref did nothing, not one thing about it even though it was perfectly obvious and the boy was clearly in pain but could not move.

Or, even better why not lower the height of a high tackle to below the ribcage or below the waist? It will improve the safety of players and I should think lead to more offloading and accordingly more attractive rugby?

The choke tackle is a metaphor for trying to choke the release of the ball, not about choking a person.
A choke tackle is when a player is prevented from going to ground with the ball to form a ruck, at which time the tackler must release the player and the player can feed the ball back.
If a choke tackle is successful the ref will blow the whistle after it becomes obvious that the player can't get to ground or pass the ball back and then the tackler's team wins the put in to the resulting scrum.

If you saw someone actually being choked around the neck then that would warrant at least a yellow card.

The Rape of Lucretia

The choke tackle is a flaw in the rules that should be closed from a rugby point of view quite apart from the safety risks it might bring.
It is a valid ploy today, and fair reading of the rules. But not one that is really within the spirit of the game, or one that adds to it. A player with the ball should be tackled to the ground. Holding him up to gain a turnover due to a rule designed to discourage teams from killing the ball in a maul and gaining a scrum from it, is an unfortunate side effect of a good intention.

frostyjacks

This sounded like an April fool's story, but sadly no, people really are advocating this silly idea.

Some of the 'experts' who signed the letter are sociologists, gay rights campaigners and other assorted loony lefties. They'll do more harm than good if they have their way.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3474062/What-rugby-balls-Experts-demanding-ban-tackles-18s-rugby-reveal-motley-scrum-lefties-gender-obsessives-gay-campaigners-worryingly-insidious-agenda.html


Mod: Do not post this rubbish again. Debate the topic, not the politics or sexuality of people involved.

LorMal

I am amazed at the narrow mindedness displayed in many of the posts here. This letter was written by professionals whose only 'agenda' is the medical safety of children.
Attacking them as 'the looney left' is the type of stunt pulled by Trump and his ilk.
The letter has a strong point to make. My own son wrecked his knee from receiving ridiculously aggressive tackle aged 14. I remember the coach of the opposing team repeatedly assuring me that the tackle was legal - the idiot couldn't see past his narrow little rugby perspective (his first reaction was to praise the tackler for a 'great hit').
This letter is important. We need to examine how this game is causing so many catestrophic injuries. That might ruin your fun but that doesn't stop it being the right thing to do.

sydthebeat

LorMal wrote: »

I am amazed at the narrow mindedness displayed in many of the posts here. This letter was written by professionals whose only 'agenda' is the medical safety of children.
Attacking them as 'the looney left' is the type of stunt pulled by Trump and his ilk.
The letter has a strong point to make. My own son wrecked his knee from receiving ridiculously aggressive tackle aged 14. I remember the coach of the opposing team repeatedly assuring me that the tackle was legal - the idiot couldn't see past his narrow little rugby perspective (his first reaction was to praise the tackler for a 'great hit').
This letter is important. We need to examine how this game is causing so many catestrophic injuries. That might ruin your fun but that doesn't stop it being the right thing to do.

Many posts?
It's only the previous poster to you that attacked them as the 'Looney left' so please have some perspective.

I can only speak from experience but I have not seen any evidence myself that rugby suffers from more "catastrophic injuries" than other common sports such as soccer and football. I know guys who by 30 have had to have their ankles fused because of footballing injuries, I've seen a guys knee completely split open from a sliding tackle in soccer, I've seen more bloody heads from clashes in soccer than I have from rugby. These are team contact sports which have injury risk. The contact is the fun aspect, and the spirit of the game is to be played in such a manner to reduce the risk of injuries. Its everyone's responsibility to ensure this...players, parents, coaches and referees. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

LorMal

My reference to 'many posts' is in relation to their total dismissal of the letter. You are perhaps missing some perspective. The fact that the contact is 'fun' should really not be part of the debate. Many argue that fox hunting is 'fun'.
Doesn't make it right.

LorMal

LorMal wrote: »

My reference to 'many posts' is in relation to their total dismissal of the letter. You are perhaps missing some perspective. The fact that the contact is 'fun' should really not be part of the debate. Many argue that fox hunting is 'fun'.
Doesn't make it right.

So if I'm reading this correctly the solution is some weird mash up of fox hunting and rugby?

2smiggy

neil prendeville giving out about rugby now, and how it sickens him with the injuries !! but wánking on planes is ok ....

OldRio

LorMal wrote: »

My reference to 'many posts' is in relation to their total dismissal of the letter. You are perhaps missing some perspective. The fact that the contact is 'fun' should really not be part of the debate. Many argue that fox hunting is 'fun'.
Doesn't make it right.

Loony left wing agenda strikes again. Surely you could have mentioned saving the planet in that post. Gender equality and hugging trees missing as well.


I hunt foxes regularly with the local hunt. Great fun on horseback. One should try it. Great fun.


Many health care professionals would be happy to see an end of all contact sports. I see an agenda here.

shrapnel222

OldRio wrote: »

Loony left wing agenda strikes again. Surely you could have mentioned saving the planet in that post. Gender equality and hugging trees missing as well.


I hunt foxes regularly with the local hunt. Great fun on horseback. One should try it. Great fun.


Many health care professionals would be happy to see an end of all contact sports. I see an agenda here.

unless you're the fox

irishbucsfan

LorMal wrote: »

I am amazed at the narrow mindedness displayed in many of the posts here. This letter was written by professionals whose only 'agenda' is the medical safety of children.
Attacking them as 'the looney left' is the type of stunt pulled by Trump and his ilk.
The letter has a strong point to make. My own son wrecked his knee from receiving ridiculously aggressive tackle aged 14. I remember the coach of the opposing team repeatedly assuring me that the tackle was legal - the idiot couldn't see past his narrow little rugby perspective (his first reaction was to praise the tackler for a 'great hit').
This letter is important. We need to examine how this game is causing so many catestrophic injuries. That might ruin your fun but that doesn't stop it being the right thing to do.

Keep on mind that there are PLENTY of professionals, far more than those who signed the letter, who oppose the suggestion. There are also plenty of extremely qualified healthcare professionals who regularly play the sport and whose children regularly play the sport.

Also I would suggest looking up the background of Dr. Pollard, the reason she is personally invested in this issue, and the controversy and criticism surrounding her research.

sydthebeat

LorMal wrote: »

My reference to 'many posts' is in relation to their total dismissal of the letter. You are perhaps missing some perspective. The fact that the contact is 'fun' should really not be part of the debate. Many argue that fox hunting is 'fun'.
Doesn't make it right.

"total dismissal" ??

there are not "many posts" in this whole thread which totally dismisses the points made in the letter? in fact the only one has been moderated.

The letter is being debated, and properly so. The fact that its being highly questioned should not at all be surprising in a "rugby" forum.

What i do not like about the letter, and something that doctor was picked up on by brendan fanning last night on the last word, is the fact they argue their point is based on the "compulsion" by schools to make novice children play full contact rugby against their wishes. That does not happen in ireland, pure and simple.

irishbucsfan

sydthebeat wrote: »

"total dismissal" ??

there are not "many posts" in this whole thread which totally dismisses the points made in the letter? in fact the only one has been moderated.

The letter is being debated, and properly so. The fact that its being highly questioned should not at all be surprising in a "rugby" forum.

What i do not like about the letter, and something that doctor was picked up on by brendan fanning last night on the last word, is the fact they argue their point is based on the "compulsion" by schools to make novice children play full contact rugby against their wishes. That does not happen in ireland, pure and simple.

The guy on Matt Cooper's show last night seemed to have a fundamental difficulty in distinguishing between the ROI and the United Kingdom and even kept referencing the RFU. Don't think he really knew what he was talking about.

Button_y

I have been watching this carefully as my son plays rugby (non school). It’s not something I let him join lightly and I continue to have my doubts about. I had secretly hoped he would hate it but I figured I would rather him learn how to protect himself now, than when he is older and the players are a lot larger. What I have witnessed with the club and coaches so far is very different than the media portrays. There is a level of discipline and respect for the coaches and other kids that you don’t see in other sports. I have watched them teaching the kids how to tackle and how to take a tackle and what not to do. His age group is a large group and I have noticed that the coaches keep the smaller kids in the group together and the bigger kids in the group together. I know as they go up through the years this will likely change but for now it seems a good approach. I do worry a lot about what will happen when he moves up through the ages and the level at which they play becomes more intense along with the bulk of the players. I am all for making the game safer and protecting player welfare but I don’t know how non tackle up to a point would help. I guess it will benefit the players that never go beyond school level rugby but will not prepare the players who do.
There are risks in all sports some more so than others but does that mean we not play them, I don’t believe so. I have known from when my son was very small that he was likely to want to be involved in high adrenaline, dangerous sports and activities. Does it worry me? Hell yes but I can’t wrap him up in cotton wool. The best I can do is to help him understand his limits and how to protect himself. I am glad that these debates are going on and all the research around injuries in rugby and other sports along with the impact these injuries have. We should continue to question the safety of the sport and adjust rules and guidelines to protect players but we can't ban everything because of the risks!

The Lost Sheep

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

The choke tackle is a flaw in the rules that should be closed from a rugby point of view quite apart from the safety risks it might bring.
It is a valid ploy today, and fair reading of the rules. But not one that is really within the spirit of the game, or one that adds to it. A player with the ball should be tackled to the ground. Holding him up to gain a turnover due to a rule designed to discourage teams from killing the ball in a maul and gaining a scrum from it, is an unfortunate side effect of a good intention.

The choke tackle is simply the creation of a maul from open play. How do you propose stopping it. How is it not within the spirit of the game?

LorMal wrote: »

I am amazed at the narrow mindedness displayed in many of the posts here. This letter was written by professionals whose only 'agenda' is the medical safety of children.
Attacking them as 'the looney left' is the type of stunt pulled by Trump and his ilk.
The letter has a strong point to make. My own son wrecked his knee from receiving ridiculously aggressive tackle aged 14. I remember the coach of the opposing team repeatedly assuring me that the tackle was legal - the idiot couldn't see past his narrow little rugby perspective (his first reaction was to praise the tackler for a 'great hit').
This letter is important. We need to examine how this game is causing so many catestrophic injuries. That might ruin your fun but that doesn't stop it being the right thing to do.

There is a point but bear in mind there is significantly more of these medical professionals who oppose the suggestion. World Rugby and its member unions are consistently looking at ways to improve the game, making it safer.

awec

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

The choke tackle is simply the creation of a maul from open play. How do you propose stopping it. How is it not within the spirit of the game?

There is a point but bear in mind there is significantly more of these medical professionals who oppose the suggestion. World Rugby and its member unions are consistently looking at ways to improve the game, making it safer.

Don't allow defending teams to form mauls in open play?

I don't know if that'd really work though.

JPNelsforearm

what are we at? 40% of kids obese and ever declining levels of physical activities....Yeah, great plan, remove another incentive for kids to go out and exercise in the fresh air. It wont be the dictators who ruin the world, it'll be the Helen Lovejoys.

The Lost Sheep

awec wrote: »

Don't allow defending teams to form mauls in open play?

I don't know if that'd really work though.

How do you propose for that to work?

sydthebeat

awec wrote: »

Don't allow defending teams to form mauls in open play?

I don't know if that'd really work though.

teams are already counteracting it by not throwing a second attacker into the choke tackle, and coaching the ball carrier to get a knee to ground as quickly as possible.

The game is organic and coaches will always target methods to exploit advantages

former total

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

what are we at? 40% of kids obese and ever declining levels of physical activities....Yeah, great plan, remove another incentive for kids to go out and exercise in the fresh air. It wont be the dictators who ruin the world, it'll be the Helen Lovejoys.

This idea was always going to go down like a lead balloon on a forum of rugby fans, but just focussing on this post:

If the issue is that we need to get kids more active, doing more exercise - how would removing the tackle from rugby prevent this? Do you not have to run in tag rugby? Maybe you can clarify.

And if you take the contact element out of it, do you not open the game up to more kids who might be able for tag rugby but wouldn't fancy the full-contact version? The skinny kid who doesn't fancy getting bulldozed by the 13 year-old with the full beard?

irelandrover

former total wrote: »

This idea was always going to go down like a lead balloon on a forum of rugby fans, but just focussing on this post:

If the issue is that we need to get kids more active, doing more exercise - how would removing the tackle from rugby prevent this? Do you not have to run in tag rugby? Maybe you can clarify.

And if you take the contact element out of it, do you not open the game up to more kids who might be able for tag rugby but wouldn't fancy the full-contact version? The skinny kid who doesn't fancy getting bulldozed by the 13 year-old with the full beard?

Because right now there is an option to play tag rugby for the kids that dont want full contact, but also there is full contact for the kids that want it.

Removing one of the options and you will lose some kids.

JPNelsforearm

former total wrote: »

This idea was always going to go down like a lead balloon on a forum of rugby fans, but just focussing on this post:

If the issue is that we need to get kids more active, doing more exercise - how would removing the tackle from rugby prevent this? Do you not have to run in tag rugby? Maybe you can clarify.

And if you take the contact element out of it, do you not open the game up to more kids who might be able for tag rugby but wouldn't fancy the full-contact version? The skinny kid who doesn't fancy getting bulldozed by the 13 year-old with the full beard?

Organise under 18's rugby by weight, problem solved. Tag rugby is a joke, go to the gym or play a real sport.

Even touch rugby is better than tag rugby, I love about 20mins of touch to start a training session, but that is not a sport in of itself, its a warm up for passing movement and footwork.

sydthebeat

former total wrote: »

This idea was always going to go down like a lead balloon on a forum of rugby fans, but just focussing on this post:

If the issue is that we need to get kids more active, doing more exercise - how would removing the tackle from rugby prevent this? Do you not have to run in tag rugby? Maybe you can clarify.

And if you take the contact element out of it, do you not open the game up to more kids who might be able for tag rugby but wouldn't fancy the full-contact version? The skinny kid who doesn't fancy getting bulldozed by the 13 year-old with the full beard?

i suppose the counter argument to that is, again, no one is being forced to play contact rugby.

The skinny kid can still go play tag rugby as it currently stands, its a different sport as far as im concerned... if the bearded 13 yo who wants to play contact rugby is excluded due to it being non contact, isnt that the guy who is then excluded?

former total

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Organise under 18's rugby by weight, problem solved. Tag rugby is a joke, go to the gym or play a real sport.

Even touch rugby is better than tag rugby, I love about 20mins of touch to start a training session, but that is not a sport in of itself, its a warm up for passing movement and footwork.

We're talking about encouraging obese kids to take more exercise, and that's your solution? "Hit the weights, fatty"?

Glad we didn't get the knee-jerk dismissive response to this proposal that I feared we might.

The Lost Sheep

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Organise under 18's rugby by weight, problem solved. Tag rugby is a joke, go to the gym or play a real sport.

Even touch rugby is better than tag rugby, I love about 20mins of touch to start a training session, but that is not a sport in of itself, its a warm up for passing movement and footwork.

It isn't problem solved and again doesn't help when you get players at 18 when they would be playing open weight grade
Tag Rugby is far from a "joke". Touch is probably better than tag but tag with its aim of focusing on the hips to tackle is a good one and its a great workshop for improving tackle tech

former total

sydthebeat wrote: »

i suppose the counter argument to that is, again, no one is being forced to play contact rugby.

The skinny kid can still go play tag rugby as it currently stands, its a different sport as far as im concerned... if the bearded 13 yo who wants to play contact rugby is excluded due to it being non contact, isnt that the guy who is then excluded?

How is the big guy excluded from tag rugby?

I'm just talking about the objective of getting more kids out running round and getting exercise. Tag rugby is absolutely more inclusive, that is surely not up for debate.

JPNelsforearm

former total wrote: »

We're talking about encouraging obese kids to take more exercise, and that's your solution? "Hit the weights, fatty"?

Glad we didn't get the knee-jerk dismissive response to this proposal that I feared we might.

You are talking about replacing rugby with a completely inferior mock version of it, "for safety". I am saying you are better off playing a proper sport eg GAA, football, tennis etc and /or going to the gym, then you are playing tag rugby, nothing knee jerk about it. I would 100% advise someone anyone to hit the gym over playing tag rugby.
I say that as someone who has played rugby since under 13's, through school and uni, now club(on occasion) as a 26 year old. I played GAA and football as a kid from about 5ish until I was 14, if someone said when I joined rugby at 12(my parents choice to wait until I was 12) that I'd have to play tag until I am 18, I wouldnt have joined.

sydthebeat

former total wrote: »

How is the big guy excluded from tag rugby?

I'm just talking about the objective of getting more kids out running round and getting exercise. Tag rugby is absolutely more inclusive, that is surely not up for debate.

you seem to miss the logic that tag rugby exists and is available for those who want to play it... so its fully inclusive for those who want it.

if a kid wants to play full contact rugby, but the sport as we know it doesnt exist anymore, then obviously that kid is excluded and could end up a couch potato.

JPNelsforearm

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

It isn't problem solved and again doesn't help when you get players at 18 when they would be playing open weight grade
Tag Rugby is far from a "joke". Touch is probably better than tag but tag with its aim of focusing on the hips to tackle is a good one and its a great workshop for improving tackle tech

Completely false, you dont go in for a hit with your arms outstretched, the technique for ripping the tag, angles, bodyshape etc you take are totally different then going in to hit someone.

Also, you dont tackle someon at the hips, that is a surfire way to get boshed or knocked out if the person swings their hip into your head, the hip is probably the hardest spot on the torso lol

Trojan

In my experience, tag rugby results in a far greater number of injuries than full-contact. If you do any kind of work that depends on full use of your hands and fingers, my advice is steer well clear of the much touted safer option.

former total

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

You are talking about replacing rugby with a completely inferior mock version of it, "for safety". I am saying you are better off playing a proper sport eg GAA, football, tennis etc and /or going to the gym, then you are playing tag rugby, nothing knee jerk about it. I would 100% advise someone anyone to hit the gym over playing tag rugby.
I say that as someone who has played rugby since under 13's, through school and uni, now club(on occasion) as a 26 year old. I played GAA and football as a kid from about 5ish until I was 14, if someone said when I joined rugby at 12(my parents choice to wait until I was 12) that I'd have to play tag until I am 18, I wouldnt have joined.

See, you've just completely disproved your own point. You played lots of sports when you were a kid, kudos on that. However, kids who play three or four sports are not the ones who need to be more involved or who are at risk of obesity, it's the kids who don't take part in these sports that need to be considered.

Throwing kids like that into full-contact rugby maybe isn't the best idea.

Again with telling them to go to the gym? These are school kids for fu<ks sake. Sure pack some HGH into their lunchboxes and off with them.

JPNelsforearm

former total wrote: »

See, you've just completely disproved your own point. You played lots of sports when you were a kid, kudos on that. However, kids who play three or four sports are not the ones who need to be more involved or who are at risk of obesity, it's the kids who don't take part in these sports that need to be considered.

Throwing kids like that into full-contact rugby maybe isn't the best idea.

Again with telling them to go to the gym? These are school kids for fu<ks sake. Sure pack some HGH into their lunchboxes and off with them.

Tag rugby isnt rugby, you might as well suggest any number of sports, I dont know why its even a discussion that kids who dont exercise, should play tag rugby as opposed to rugby. Its bizarre. No kid is "thrown into full contact rugby", no adult is thrown into full contact rugby, it would be a complete waste of time and weaken the team as a whole in addition to turning of said person from the sport.

I dont get your point, why replace rugby with tag rugby? why not replace it with tennis? Where does tag come into this at all? Because they have the same ball?

There is nothing wrong with going to the gym as a kid. My younger brother does gymnastics and the coach(Eastern Euro) has two weights sessions/Calisthenics with them a week on top of their training. He's 11 and a half.

your attitude and aversion to weightlifting is part of the problem. Helen Lovejoyism.

The Rape of Lucretia

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

The choke tackle is simply the creation of a maul from open play. How do you propose stopping it. How is it not within the spirit of the game?

The players without the ball are not really mauling - they're exploiting the maul law to force a turnover. Their goal is to hold the ball holder off the ground and prevent him releasing the ball. Thats not really mauling as the laws intend. It is only of interest to players going for a choke tackle because they are given the scrum when they succeed - not that they ever intended to maul the player down the pitch to make progress. This is why it is not in the spirit of contesting for the ball and making progress towards the try line. In fact it is encouraging a stoppage in the game and a scrum (scrum being problematic enough as it is, we should not be inviting a play where players are encouraged to actively win one).