Tackling in Physical Education Rugby: An Unnecessary Risk?

Adam White, John Batten, Stefan Robinson, Eric Anderson, Andrew Burns, Joanne Batey, Helen Ryan-Stewart, Russell Discombe

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debateResearchpeer-review

Abstract

Since 2016, we have been strong advocates for the removal of tackling from rugby (League and Union) played in school physical education in the United Kingdom [1]. This is because (a) tackling is the leading cause of injury in rugby, (b) rugby has a level of risk that is higher than non-contact sports, (c) there is no requirement or need for tackling as part of the school physical education curriculum, and (d) many children are compelled to participate in contact rugby [2]. In response to this call, the Chief Medical Officers and the Physical Activity Expert Group commented: ‘The Committee reject the call to ban tackling, as they do not feel rugby participation poses an unacceptable risk of harm’ [3]. Yet, the notion of risk (un) acceptability is a construct that needs further discussion, which we will start here [4].
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)114-115
Number of pages2
JournalInjury Prevention
Volume24
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 23 Jan 2018

Keywords

  • Rugby
  • tackling
  • risk
  • physical education curriculum
  • school
  • attitudes
  • supervision
  • adolescent
  • child
  • risk perception

Cite this

@article{f2bc56c1b5724c7ebfc0ebcff1ba16d0,
title = "Tackling in Physical Education Rugby: An Unnecessary Risk?",
abstract = "Since 2016, we have been strong advocates for the removal of tackling from rugby (League and Union) played in school physical education in the United Kingdom [1]. This is because (a) tackling is the leading cause of injury in rugby, (b) rugby has a level of risk that is higher than non-contact sports, (c) there is no requirement or need for tackling as part of the school physical education curriculum, and (d) many children are compelled to participate in contact rugby [2]. In response to this call, the Chief Medical Officers and the Physical Activity Expert Group commented: ‘The Committee reject the call to ban tackling, as they do not feel rugby participation poses an unacceptable risk of harm’ [3]. Yet, the notion of risk (un) acceptability is a construct that needs further discussion, which we will start here [4].",
keywords = "Rugby, tackling, risk, physical education curriculum, school, attitudes, supervision, adolescent, child, risk perception",
author = "Adam White and John Batten and Stefan Robinson and Eric Anderson and Andrew Burns and Joanne Batey and Helen Ryan-Stewart and Russell Discombe",
year = "2018",
month = "1",
day = "23",
doi = "10.1136/injuryprev-2017-042672",
language = "English",
volume = "24",
pages = "114--115",
number = "2",

}

Tackling in Physical Education Rugby : An Unnecessary Risk? / White, Adam; Batten, John; Robinson, Stefan; Anderson, Eric; Burns, Andrew; Batey, Joanne; Ryan-Stewart, Helen; Discombe, Russell.

Vol. 24, No. 2, 23.01.2018, p. 114-115.

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debateResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Tackling in Physical Education Rugby

T2 - An Unnecessary Risk?

AU - White, Adam

AU - Batten, John

AU - Robinson, Stefan

AU - Anderson, Eric

AU - Burns, Andrew

AU - Batey, Joanne

AU - Ryan-Stewart, Helen

AU - Discombe, Russell

PY - 2018/1/23

Y1 - 2018/1/23

N2 - Since 2016, we have been strong advocates for the removal of tackling from rugby (League and Union) played in school physical education in the United Kingdom [1]. This is because (a) tackling is the leading cause of injury in rugby, (b) rugby has a level of risk that is higher than non-contact sports, (c) there is no requirement or need for tackling as part of the school physical education curriculum, and (d) many children are compelled to participate in contact rugby [2]. In response to this call, the Chief Medical Officers and the Physical Activity Expert Group commented: ‘The Committee reject the call to ban tackling, as they do not feel rugby participation poses an unacceptable risk of harm’ [3]. Yet, the notion of risk (un) acceptability is a construct that needs further discussion, which we will start here [4].

AB - Since 2016, we have been strong advocates for the removal of tackling from rugby (League and Union) played in school physical education in the United Kingdom [1]. This is because (a) tackling is the leading cause of injury in rugby, (b) rugby has a level of risk that is higher than non-contact sports, (c) there is no requirement or need for tackling as part of the school physical education curriculum, and (d) many children are compelled to participate in contact rugby [2]. In response to this call, the Chief Medical Officers and the Physical Activity Expert Group commented: ‘The Committee reject the call to ban tackling, as they do not feel rugby participation poses an unacceptable risk of harm’ [3]. Yet, the notion of risk (un) acceptability is a construct that needs further discussion, which we will start here [4].

KW - Rugby

KW - tackling

KW - risk

KW - physical education curriculum

KW - school

KW - attitudes

KW - supervision

KW - adolescent

KW - child

KW - risk perception

U2 - 10.1136/injuryprev-2017-042672

DO - 10.1136/injuryprev-2017-042672

M3 - Comment/debate

VL - 24

SP - 114

EP - 115

IS - 2

ER -