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

doi:10.1136/injuryprev-2017-042672

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 journal › Comment/debate › peer-review

31 Downloads (Pure)

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 language	English
Pages (from-to)	114-115
Number of pages	2
Journal	Injury Prevention
Volume	24
Issue number	2
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1136/injuryprev-2017-042672
Publication status	Published - 23 Jan 2018

Keywords

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

Access to Document

10.1136/injuryprev-2017-042672

PDFAccepted author manuscript, 175 KBLicence: CC BY-NC

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: {\textquoteleft}The Committee reject the call to ban tackling, as they do not feel rugby participation poses an unacceptable risk of harm{\textquoteright} [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 = jan,

day = "23",

doi = "10.1136/injuryprev-2017-042672",

language = "English",

volume = "24",

pages = "114--115",

journal = "Injury Prevention",

issn = "1353-8047",

publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",

number = "2",

}

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

JO - Injury Prevention

JF - Injury Prevention

SN - 1353-8047

IS - 2

ER -