Weird... We have to stop them from playing real sports, just because there's a chance they might get the odd bruise or two. But it's OK for them to sit indoors, getting fat and lazy because they don't get any exercise, and playing GTA or Call of Duty and totally screwing up their brains ? What we are breeding is a generation of fat lazy pschopaths with no social skills and no idea about the real world...
Good point. It's not like anyone was ever injured playing rugby! :Wideyed: The dilemma is real though. Do you "keep children safe from harm" so that they end up with no proper conception of physical hurt/harm and none of the confidence of knowing that "taking a hit" isn't the end of the world ... but then they are less likely to be permanently paralysed whilst attending school lessons? Do you sacrifice a few unlucky kids so that the majority can benefit from proper physical instruction? These are real questions we need to face up to. I do know one answer - parents should have the choice. You take choice away from them and there will be hell to pay - or rather, huge compensation payments to fund.
No. You are conflating two separate issues and it isn't just a bruise or two ... Real sports for schoolchildren, which is who we are talking about, should not expose them to unacceptable risk. Just what constitutes unacceptable risk is obviously debatable, but in my opinion full contact rugby for non sportsmen is just too risky unless participants do so voluntarily with full understanding of the risks. Children should be encouraged to play sport and develop fitness, skills and strength but in a controlled manner.
A few years ago I discovered that my Local Education Authority was planning to take out an insurance policy against kids being injured during sports activities in schools. So far so good. Enquiring further, it turned out that what the LEA intended to insure against was only being successfully sued for negligence. A kid who got a broken neck, or back, or brain damage who could not prove negligence would get nothing. They might have to live out their life in a wheelchair without compensation. So I suggested to the Chair of the Education Committee that the policy ought to be focussed on ensuring the disabled children get compensation, not just on ensuring the LEA is indemnified against their claims. Incidentally kids who have suffered injuries which cause lifelong disabilities might not find referring to these as "the odd bruise or two" very amusing.
I had the "pleasure" of being educated for 7 years at a Catholic Jesuit Boarding School in Yorkshire (for my sins)...believe me, being forced to play Rugby was a much safer option than staying in the changing rooms/showers....
I was 11 when I was forced (yep, no choices at my school) to play rugby............getting stamped on stomach in one of the first few matches between Septmeber and December was probably the cause of me developing bowel cancer for which I had a major operation and followed up with radium treatment...............six months in hospital appeared to sort it out........ I then was not permitted to play rugby for three years, but eventually went back to it with no hesitation and in fact I was one of the school teams' hookers (get you, dear) which seemed to be the safest place to be. All these namby-pamby; arty-farty; lefty do-gooders make me sick.
A good dose of bowel cancer never did anyone any harm. Teaches you to be, uh, not sure but it's good for you Not in my Dad's case, obviously. That didn't work out. But still.
just got my cast off yesterday from a rugby injury and am left with a very long rehab before I can ride the 998s again (a slightly more upright riding position may be ok much sooner). would I have preferred to have not played rugby - not a chance. the pros, in my opinion, far outweigh the cons. look up people like Matt Hampson, Henry Fraser, etc - youngsters who have been paralysed (the former whilst playing rugby, the latter who played rugby, but got paralysed from a holiday accident) - if you asked either would they give up contact rugby when they were at school I am guessing that both would have the same pragmatic (and highly positive) outlook. my two sons play the game, I coach and referee children's rugby, and when applied properly, the injuries are few and far between - lots of scaremongering for risks that when put in perspective are very small. using the same applied logic, then all potential injurious sports should be watered down, e.g. football should ban tackles due to the high incidences of knee and ankle injury, basketball for the high incidences of finger and wrist injury, etc make the coaching, instruction and education better, and reduce the risks in an intelligent way.
Any boy, girl, man or woman considering playing a contact or high injury risk sport just needs to ask themselves one question "Do I accept the risks willingly?" Life is quite simple. You have the brave and you have the cowardly. People with morale courage face the risks with an alert state of indifference. I understood the risk to my back and neck every time I played rugby, competed at BJJ, and rode my motorbike. However, you know what I fear more... Looking in the mirror and seeing a cowardly figure looking back at me saying "you're too afraid, stay home, much safer for you lad". Here's one to get the loins pumping... It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.
Rugby is going to be a bloody funny game if tackling is banned........ 'Let's just chase the bloke with the ball'
This isn't about adult rugby, adults can make their own decisions and live with the consequences, it is about whether forcing school children to play a high risk game where life changing injuries are not uncommon is reasonable or not. As for all of this macho bollocks I despair.
I can see how certain kids are not 'built' for rugby but if kids went through life without being forced to do anything good for them then they'd all be fat lazy slobs with one tip of a room (because you can't go forcing them to do that either). What I will say though is that kids need more mud, rain and a few good bruises. We used to carry on our PE outside, whatever the weather. Now these kids get pampered too much.
Oh well............. No more climbing ropes attached to the high ceilings; chucking medicine balls at each other; vaulting; climbing frames on the walls; no more cricket or rounders (those ball are bloody hard unlike some peoples); no more javelin throwing or wearing running spikes. Sell off all the sports fields and convert the gymnasiums into the hopsital wings so the poor little dears can have a rest from carrying all their flab around, or from using their phones too much. How the hell are kids going to know what playing adult sports is like unless they find out when they are younger?
the wee mans up nevis range with the school this week getting skiing lessons. just sitting next to phone waiting for the inevitable.
We are discussing risk aversion and machismo? On a biking forum? Whoosh .... the point went that way >>> The issue here is whether children should be forced to play a miniature version of a contact sport that claims teeth, blood and limbs on a regular basis. Children should do this because the State says they must? The school says so? The parents? Some forum members? What about free-running and mountain climbing? Shouldn't children be forced to perform these activities? If parents want their children to take part, and schools exercise a level of competence, that was entirely missing when I was at school, in keeping the children as safe as can be, I see nothing wrong. All children being forced into it though? That's not what I call a free society.
