|
Citation
|
White AJ, Batten J, Robinson S, Anderson E, Burns A, Batey J, Ryan-Stewart H, Discombe R. Inj. Prev. 2018; 24(2): 114-115. |
|
Affiliation
|
Department of Sport, Exercise and Health, University of Winchester, Winchester, Hampshire, UK. |
|
Abstract
|
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. 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. 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.’ Yet, the notion of risk (un)acceptability is a construct that needs further discussion, which we will start here.
Risk acceptance
What makes a risk acceptable or not is somewhat contextually subjective. 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 …
Language: en |