You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Commentary
Tackling in physical education rugby: an unnecessary risk?
  1. Adam John White1,
  2. John Batten2,
  3. Stefan Robinson2,
  4. Eric Anderson2,
  5. Andrew Burns2,
  6. Jo Batey2,
  7. Helen Ryan-Stewart2,
  8. Russell Discombe2
  1. 1 Faculty of Education and Sport, School of Sport and Physical Activity, University of Bedfordshire, Bedford, UK
  2. 2 Department of Sport, Exercise and Health, University of Winchester, Winchester, Hampshire, UK
  1. Correspondence to Adam John White, Faculty of Education and Sport, School of Sport and Physical Activity, University of Bedfordshire, Bedford MK41 9EA, UK; adam.white1{at}beds.ac.uk

https://doi.org/10.1136/injuryprev-2017-042672

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    The call to ban tackling in physical education rugby

    Since 2016, we have been strong advocates for the removal of tackling from rugby (League and Union) played in school physical education in the UK.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

    Risk acceptance

    What makes a risk acceptable or not is somewhat contextually subjective.4 Molcho and Pickett, however, have attempted to define some boundaries of unacceptable risk for children. Specifically, they suggest that: ‘the following are deemed non-acceptable: (1) intentional injuries; (2) severe or disabling injuries; (3) injuries …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors The conception and design of this manuscript was by AJW, JBn SR, EA, HRS, JBy and AB. The literature search and synthesis was conducted by AW, JBn, SR, EA and AB. The initial draft was constructed by AJW, JBn, SR, EA, JBy, HRS and RD. Critical revisions of work were conducted by AJW, JBn, SR, AB and RD. All authors have approved the final version of this article.

    • Funding This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.