Hmm Wish it was Friday... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/10501327.stm For the avoidance of any doubt - I suffered a neck injury in a collapsed scrum thirty two years ago which still gives me problems occasionally. I don't like the move to cottonwool schoolkids - but the reporting here seems better than most and it's not being laughed at as 'elf n safety gone bonkers'... Maybe lessons to be learnt in the way that 'facts' have been collected as evidence to support the proposed ban. On a similar argument - should we ban tennis or football (in fact sports of any description) ?? After all - how many sportsmen survive a professional career without being incapacitated through injury at some point? Should we ban schools? How many kids pass through their school years without injury at soime point? Anyone want to fund me to do the research? Thoughts and suggestions welcome (the dafter the better - lets pretend it IS Friday). Steve (Having another fine day in the office)

How does this level of injury compare to the adult game. is it on par or is it due to lack of training knowledge or ability of the kids playing that all these accident occur. Can part of it be put down to the immaturity of the students and also the lack of development of the kids bodies to be able to take the injuries both in bones having not developed or muscles development. normally these sport are seasonal for the kids so they might not have the developed muscles an adult might have who would play year round all due to adult age have suitable muscle mass. Phil

Dr's and health professionals should stick to healing the sick and stop interfering with societal norms. Pathetic nannying at its worst!! High tackles are already banned in rugby anyway!!

I ruptured my spleen at school playing a ball game in the playground. 1957. My son is in the school rugby team and it's so good for him that I will not stop him from continuing. I now has osteoarthritis in both knees, allegedly from playing too much sport. (My last volleyball match was a tournament we won - I was 50). However people get oa just sitting behind a desk all their working life.

Your research would probably find children were safer at school than at any other time (especially than when at home).

I would respect an "expert" who called for the best risk assessments to be drawn up by the best available people to do so (professional coaches and medics combined?) and then went on to insist that anyone wishing to play rugby was properly informed of the risks (or their carers/parents as appropriate) before starting to play. This approach happens in other circumstances, for example where an operation may be required, we don't get told "banned" even if there is a risk of death or serious harm. We get told the risks and make a decision based on that advice. This helps people to make their own judgments about the risks to them or their children. Some will take the risk, some will not. The real difference here is that, unlike work related injury, people do not have to or feel obliged to play the sport, they do so because they choose to do so. This wish to somehow protect us from ourselves is going to result in just the opposite if it continues. P48

I think the key phrase here - and with all other aspects of school / childrens' safety - is INFORMED CONSENT. How many schools or youth organisations ensure that parents (and children) get the opportunity to review the information on risks and control measures and then give informed consent? I have mixed experience of this here in Ireland. My son's Cub Scout Leader is excellent at reviewing control measures etc and enabling informed consent to be given, but his school refuses point blank to give us sufficient information on school trips or activites, so that we cannot give informed consent. We are supposed to trust them :-)

Rugby Union without scrums would ruin the game; i'm sure that the rugby playing world other than England would relish the prospect as this is and has been Englands great strength over the years. The game has got so fast that without scrums players would flag after probably no more than 15 minutes of play and so the scrum is at least a brief respite. Being a qualified rugby coach; coaching 12 year olds(currently) i know the importance of teaching kids from a young age the correct body positioning for players contesting a scrum; whether teachers have specific rugby related training or not i do not know. What i do know is that; as pointed out by Mark1969 that these days scrummaging starts off with a 3-man uncontested scrum at under 9's level and progresses to a 5-man scrum at under 11's level with a 1 meter maximum push; the introduction of the number 8 (man at the back of scrum) happens at under 12 level; although he not allowed to pick up from that position; and so progression is used throughout the age groups until the players reach youth level (16 years and above) before the full adult 15 a side game is played. Uncontested scrums at earlier ages actually works well for rugby as it creates a much more fluent running game and most kids at this level tend to hog the ball. So my belief is that as the game is supposed to have contested scrummaging; as long as scrummaging is taught from an early age (by fully qualified coaches) and done by way of progression building up to a full 8 man scrum; no problem in my book.

Absolutely livid!!!! Professor Pollock is showing her total lack of knowledge of something she is expecting to write a report on!! High tackles have been banned for years! She says concussion is underreported?? How the hell does she know - if it's not being reported what statistics is she using - made up in her own mind statistics? She says and plays on the phrase about most injuries being to the head and face - and then says along with ligaments etc. So in a nutshell most injuries are to all parts of the body!! I'm still playing rugby at a reasonable level at 47 and at Full Back - so big tackles at speed are needed - possibly at approximately 25 mph collision speed. Yes I have had black eyes, bruises, concussion once, dislocated shoulder, busted fingers (in my opinion the most injured part of the body in rugby) in over 35 odd years of playing. It's a tough game but people like the Professor have got to butt out of something they no little or nothing about. It's like me commenting on Nuclear safety! If you are teaching kids (and my club has a great mini's section) you teach them how to look after themselves, how to tackle, how to scrummage etc. That's what is needed - proper training and for ignorant medical professionals to pick on some other flavour of the month nonsense (what about skiing Prof??). And now I'm going to contact the BBC (I did work for them for many years lol).

I haven't found a report from Professor Pollock about this but did find something she wrote on the subject in 2008. http://www.health.ed.ac....ugby_Herald_10-04-08.pdf

On the basis the 2008 article I am inclined to agree (though perhaps 'disturbed' is a bit strong!). In fact it seems to be based on anecdote (though to be fair she berates the absence of hard information); odd for someone who had not at that time done any research. Having now looked at the abstract of the more recent paper it does seem a very limited study and the primary aim seems to have been checking 'the feasibility of collecting relevant injury data in schools rugby in Scotland'. Surprising (or perhaps not), therefore, so many conclusions have been drawn, . From the abstract it is clear that the majority of injuries were minor and I suspect many of the A&E admissions were 'to be on the safe side'.

The main aspect of the 2008 article is about "monitoring" and "surveiilance" of rugby related injuries. Thta is sensible so that informed choices can be made. I cannot access that Health Journal article that the BBC news item is based upon, but usually such news stories tend to highlight only some aspects and leave out stuff such as "more research is requuired on a larger cohort to takle this forward" I do not see why this is a conkers bonkers type of story as it is supposed to question some very serious injuries (to the head, concussion--significant head injuries to children is not something to be scoffed at) to children during the course of play, and the crux of the matter is about incomplete information/reporting rather than banning the sport.

Fact: Some children will suffer an injury as a result of physical exercise/sport at school. Possible actions: Get up and 'run it off' Rub it better Sit on the touchline until you feel well enough to join in again If more serious, get it checked out at A&E If it was due to a rash action then learn from this and avoid a repeat next time Alternatively: Prevent all kids in all schools everywhere from ever partaking in any sport with physical contact 'just in case' What a load of nonsense.

I know what you're saying Jay - but what I am saying is that people should butt out of established sports unless they are called in by the game's ruling body or a representative group within that sport after an issue has been highlighted! here's my risk assessment on mini rugby at my club - It can hurt when you tackle - the trainer will teach you to tackle better It can hurt when tackled - try and avoid being tackled It can hurt in the front row - learn techniques from trainer It still hurts in the front row - join the back row Rugby can hurt - stop whining or go play football Just to lighten it! - and last comment from me unless the professor comes on line lol

having been a profesional rugby player for several years ( ten years ago ) and playing in the front row i do think that an element of training should be passed on the the coaches of children to ensure that the children are sure of the correct way to approach a scrum and the correct technique. injuries are part of the game and will never be eliminated , you can not ban the scrum, the scrum is a key part of the game but you can coach correctly!