Tackling the underage rugby tackle

George Hook

LAST week, in an open letter to the Minister for Sport, the Chief Medical Officer and the Children’s Ombudsman in Ireland, a group comprising more than 70 doctors and health experts from the UK and US, called for a blanket ban on tackling in schools rugby matches and the introduction of a non-contact version of the game for under-18s.
The group warns of the high risk of serious injury to children playing the game and describes rugby as a high-impact, collision sport where children are being left exposed to “serious and catastrophic risk of injury”.  
“As a signatory to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the UK and Irish governments should ensure the safety of rugby, by removing the contact from the children’s game in schools.”
Essentially, these sport scholars, academics, doctors, and public health professionals are asking for schools rugby, in its current guise, to be banned for all under 18s and replaced by a non-contact version.
My own concerns regarding the increasingly physical nature of rugby union are well documented. I have been worried for some time now about the rate of concussions that have been inflicted on professional players in recent years and I do think that something needs to be done to address it. Where children are concerned, safety must be of paramount importance. But a blanket ban on all contact and tackling in underage rugby? Is that a realistic solution to the problem?
As much as I like to reminisce about the good old days, where rugby players hunted for space and actively tried to avoid contact with the nearest defender, I would question what might become of the game if it lost one of its fundamental principles. Let’s be honest; rugby without the tackle is not rugby.

Bulking up
Rugby has always been a physical game; not for the faint hearted or the physically squeamish. But the recent increase in concussion incidents has coincided with the developing size and stature of the players who, over the last decade in particular, have placed more emphasis on power and bulk than ever before.
It stands to reason that as players get bigger and stronger, injuries in the game will also increase. Underage rugby is not immune from this. Where there is contact between two players, there is always a risk of an injury occurring. But the same is true for soccer and football and almost every other contact sport.
What would happen, for instance, if kids participating in non-contact rugby had to all-of-a-sudden step up into the senior ranks when they turn 18? Is it reasonable to think that they would be able to cope with the physical demands of the game, without having had any previous experience of the tackle, the scrum, or the ruck?
The consequences of such a sudden and dramatic introduction to the rough-and-tumble world of the adult game doesn’t bear thinking about. Rugby demands a certain level of conditioning from its players in order that they are able to participate safely. Conditioning does not happen overnight; the human body needs months and years to build up a resistance to the inevitable bumps and bruises that come with the game.
As with most problems, the solution to injury prevention must come through proper education. Rugby attracts thousands of kids onto pitches across the country every week and each team needs to be coached and trained properly. But how many of the adults that are teaching kids about the fundamentals of the game have relevant qualifications? How many have ever played the game?

Coaching standards
If, as seems to be the case in many rugby clubs at the moment, we have parents with no real understanding of rugby teaching young children how to tackle, ruck and scrummage, it is inevitable that the kids will develop bad habits. And bad habits on a rugby pitch will lead to injury.
I would propose that any parent or adult interested in coaching children should be required to pass a certified coaching course before they are allowed to volunteer at their local club. And even at that, there are other measures that World Rugby can put in place to reduce the injury risk to children playing the game.
What about the prospect of reducing the tackle below hip height? Tackling was always meant to be implemented around the legs anyway, so a blanket ban on any tackle over the hips would go a long way towards reducing injury. Certainly, I believe that it would greatly reduce the number of concussions on the pitch.
A big problem in the UK is that kids are being compelled to play rugby at school. So, regardless of whether they want to or not, children are being forced to participate in a physically demanding sport as part of their curriculum. Is it any wonder parents and physicians are concerned about their health and safety?
Rather than focusing their efforts into banning the tackle altogether, however, I wonder would this 70-strong group be better served channeling their efforts into changing the rules around compulsory sports?  Because it is not acceptable that children are being forced into playing rugby. Frankly, I am amazed that this practice is allowed to continue.
Children should always be encouraged to play sport and partake in some form of exercise, but why not allow them to choose their own pursuit? Rugby is not for everyone.
Ireland does not have a compulsory participation system, but it would be foolish to discard the considered opinion of 70 medical experts and dismiss their claims as hysterical or over-cautious. I do not believe that World Rugby will ever get rid of the tackle, but perhaps some reform is needed in the underage game. If rugby is to survive, players must be protected. Something for the powers-that-be to think about.