No tackling in Schools.....really?

[Dan_A]

Have been following this debate in the media and on here and I'm surprised that I haven't seen any references to the New Zealand system of playing junior rugby in weight bands, not age bands.

My older son is at a school that regularly reaches the last 8 of the Daily Mail Schools cup. He's in the 3rd year and all his rugby coaches have been pretty knowledgeable and experienced. My son has played mini and junior club rugby all the way through and is a decent player.

But my son is also an August baby and hasn't hit puberty yet. He regularly plays against and tries to tackle players who are over a foot taller and probably weigh 50% more. He broke his wrist handing off one of these giants in his second year.

I do feel that his school is under some perceived pressure to maximize short term results over longer term player development. My smaller son is regularly overlooked for bigger but far less skillful players.

Do any of our resident Kiwis have any insights on whether weight banding is actually that effective?

 

[crossref]

I doubt there is much rugby union player in state schools up to the afe of eleven, and probably close to zero contact rugby union, in England?

Didds

Here in southwest london many state primary schools play tag rugby, and many state secondary schools play contact rugby. And lots of kids play at a club as well.

As you might expect there is a cross-over of coaches with the same dads who volunteer at clubs also volunteering at schools (and no doubt also volunteering at cubs, cricket, the youth club, the PTA as well, and organising the jubilee picnic in the street and the school summer fete. You know how it is!)

 

[didds]

But be careful where that path goes... I can see a risk in volleyball to ankles and shin-splint type injuries due to jumping and landing.

Should a version of volleyball exist where nobody is allowed to jump to remove that risk as overall its unlikely (see above) that all PE staff including occassionals will do a volleyball course? (Im taking a stab at this - I dunno what volleyball injuries in reality are, other than one of our squad is a quality volleyballer and his injuries seem to revolve around ankle and shin soreness)

Ditto basketball and jumping?

Running as three times bodyweight goes through the joints at every step - maybe schools should promote speed walking instead?

cricket is a non starter with a hard ball of course, and nobody fielding within 10 metres of the bat in front of the wicket. Bowlers with static actions to avoid the jumping/landing stuff. Or maybe underarm like soiftball.

Better not swim - you might drown.

No tackling in football either - the worst injuries of any of my school compatriots were during football - long limb trips at speed etc.

etc.

Lets be careful what we wish for.

didds

 

[Flish]

Have been following this debate in the media and on here and I'm surprised that I haven't seen any references to the New Zealand system of playing junior rugby in weight bands, not age bands.

....

Do any of our resident Kiwis have any insights on whether weight banding is actually that effective?

Not a Kiwi, but just had quite a lengthy discussion on this with the RFU coaching team that were delivering L1 coaching courses at my club, as part of that coaching material here in the UK (where we use age bands that tally with school years), they cover a fair bit on physiology of children and their rates of development, and basically you can't win. Some children develop physically quicker than others (hence the argument for weight bands), certainly up until puberty, but equally children develop mentally at different rates, so their ability to learn, understand, co-ordinate etc. So potentially I can have an 8 year old kid (time on the planet), that's as physically developed as an 11 year old (I have a couple), but has a mental age of a 5 year old.

So which is the safest place for him? U11 (physically capable but may not have the mental capacity to learn tackling skills properly and safely), U6 (Can't even play in matches in the UK but will probably hurt kids by accident), or with me as a U9, first year of contact?

Can't win - at least that's how it's taught.

PS: I think the RFU Level 1 (Coaching Kids) is a minimum pre-requisite for school rugby teachers, mostly coaching practice and protocol but covers safety, scrum, tackle etc

 

[4eyesbetter]

But be careful where that path goes... I can see a risk in volleyball to ankles and shin-splint type injuries due to jumping and landing.

Should a version of volleyball exist where nobody is allowed to jump to remove that risk as overall its unlikely (see above) that all PE staff including occassionals will do a volleyball course? (Im taking a stab at this - I dunno what volleyball injuries in reality are, other than one of our squad is a quality volleyballer and his injuries seem to revolve around ankle and shin soreness)

Ditto basketball and jumping?

Running as three times bodyweight goes through the joints at every step - maybe schools should promote speed walking instead?

cricket is a non starter with a hard ball of course, and nobody fielding within 10 metres of the bat in front of the wicket. Bowlers with static actions to avoid the jumping/landing stuff. Or maybe underarm like soiftball.

Better not swim - you might drown.

No tackling in football either - the worst injuries of any of my school compatriots were during football - long limb trips at speed etc.

etc.

Lets be careful what we wish for.

didds

I'm thinking there's a pretty high chance that you've done a formal risk assessment of something at some point in your life. I've spent most of mine avoiding getting a proper job and I've done risk assessments. There is a difference in risk between a carpeted floor with one tiny taped-down 2mm-thick cable running over part of it, and a polished parquet floor that's covered in old banana peels. That old "overly-literal-minded it-stands-to-reason-dunnit-gov prop forward" act might fly in plenty of places, but we here know you're smarter than that.

 

[didds]

PS: I think the RFU Level 1 (Coaching Kids) is a minimum pre-requisite for school rugby teachers, mostly coaching practice and protocol but covers safety, scrum, tackle etc

That would certainly be starting point - is that a legal requirement though? What "makes" the school rugby coach/teacher have that award?

didds

 

[Flish]

That would certainly be starting point - is that a legal requirement though? What "makes" the school rugby coach/teacher have that award?

didds

No. not a legal requirement to my knowledge, not within clubs either, just a best practice. Minimum for our coaches is DBS check + Rugby Ready course (although that covers scrum engagement and tackling too), all teachers having done that would be a start, about 3 hours of their lives I think

 

[didds]

I'm thinking there's a pretty high chance that you've done a formal risk assessment of something at some point in your life.

You'd hope so generally speaking wouldn;t you?

A story from the recent past (names changed to protect the innocent). When I was coaching U12s I met one of my parents in town and asked him how his son's introduction to secondary school rugby went. "Great" he said "Jimmy broke a leg and a collar bone. Not his - two other people's. The teacher put them all straight into a full contact practice game and he just played the way that he normally does".

Did that teacher have a risk assessment in place?

If a maths teacher is thrown a group of year 9s because the rugby teacher is ill, how does he risk assess tackling if he has never played or coached or been on a course so that he would know that the head goes behind the body being tackled etc?


I was assured elsewhere that teachers are far better at delivering sport because they have 4 years training in risk assessments .
That person cold only offer "well, you get idiots and mistakes occasionally. All that answer suggested to me is that 4 years of training etc etc etc doesn't necessarily make any difference!

Fundamentally we are faced with one of three scenarios:

1) continue as we are - the risks oif actual dangerous injury are actually very low (the stats mentioned in the report must be rubbish)
2) we accept that some injuries are inevitable, being delivered by staff with no (recent?) pertinent training, so to mitigate that risk we play touch rugby in schools instead - no contact.
3) all PE staff including potential occasionals should have pertinent training in rugby. (Possibly in all others too). No rugby to be delivered without suitable training in place.

Given that we really can have only one scenario nationally which should it be?

I have no axe to grind on any approach for clarity.



didds

 

[didds]

No. not a legal requirement to my knowledge, not within clubs either, just a best practice. Minimum for our coaches is DBS check + Rugby Ready course (although that covers scrum engagement and tackling too), all teachers having done that would be a start, about 3 hours of their lives I think

Indeed - but of course that is actually three hours of their non contracted ie personal time in effect. Bit like our bosses in our jobs asking us to go on a training course one evening or weekend but it wouldn't count in our contracted hours.

And who funds this? (not insurmountable granted).

Maybe these teacher training days could be used for it!!|

didds

 

[didds]

That old "overly-literal-minded it-stands-to-reason-dunnit-gov prop forward" act might fly in plenty of places, but we here know you're smarter than that.

*blushes*

didds

 

[ChrisR]

At my school in Yorkshire in the '50s rugby was mandatory. For probably 1/5 of the boys it was a pointless exercise as they had no interest in playing, certainly not tackling. There is no benefit to forcing kids to stand about on the pitch defiantly refusing to get in the way of the ball or an opponent.

Until I made the 1st XV I received no instruction whatsoever. Not surprising as only one of our teachers seemed to have had any history in the game and that as a winger. Needless to say I learned my front row skills through trial and error.

Now, having spent six years coaching U-13 thru HS I have a real appreciation of the importance of progressive technical development. There will always be risk in tackle rugby, 15s or 7s, but we can lower that risk thru training coaches and a progressive approach to introducing the game.

If tackle was delayed until post puberty and full XVs not played until U-17s I don't think we'd be retarding any player's development. I think that game skills would actually improve.

 

[didds]

That's in effect towards wheat the RFU is headiung towards Marauder, In England of course.

Not everyone agrees with taht idea either ie leaving technical specialisation until a cognitive stage.

I tend towards that view myself, having tried for years to help young players learn scrummaging. Each to their own expereince etc, but I found that trying to coach (say) U16s was difficult cos they had honed poor techniques for 8 years that they struggled to break. I then thought starting at the beginning at U9 (as was then) was the answer to make sure it was correct to start with. That was pretty much dashed on the rocks as I then got to appreciate that the average 8 and 9 year old actually doens;t know enough about their own body to internalise the requirements.

didds

 

[crossref]

Indeed - but of course that is actually three hours of their non contracted ie personal time in effect. Bit like our bosses in our jobs asking us to go on a training course one evening or weekend but it wouldn't count in our contracted hours.

And who funds this? (not insurmountable granted).

Maybe these teacher training days could be used for it!!|

didds

teachers regularly undertake all sorts of training - on inset days and other events, and on all sorts of topics, on school time, and quite rightly.
Just as I'd expect a Chemistry teacher, over a career to keep up to date woith chemisrty syllabus and current ideas on how to teach it, why wouldn't a PE teacher train and keep up to date with his sports (and with ideas on PE, fitness, nutrition etc).

Most emplyers are quite committed to supporting training

And for students doing PGCE in PE, why on earth wouldn't basic coaching courses be part of that? (indeed I am sure it is, at both my coaching level 1 and referee ELRA there were students from the local college)

 

[didds]

teachers regularly undertake all sorts of training - on inset days and other events, and on all sorts of topics, on school time, and quite rightly.

indeed. "on school time" being the operative words here of course.


The obvious question is "why aren;t the L2 award courses (15 a side game ) provided during these "on school time"?

I can't answer that of course. But its part of the answer that the courses that are generally provided are not "on school time".

And for students doing PGCE in PE, why on earth wouldn't basic coaching courses be part of that? (indeed I am sure it is, at both my coaching level 1 and referee ELRA there were students from the local college)

I thought I'd answered that but just in becase I hadn;t...

L2 courses are 3 x full days plus "homework", which includes deliveery of prepared sessions to an appropriate squad.
30 man days in a PGCE to prepare a PE teacher in a PGCE course for ten sports (its all under the 1stsportforall banner these days of course so I'm guessing all sports have a similar requirement). Plus access to an appropriate squad for at least one session and probably two. Lets call that 4 man days sport. 40 man days overall, plus funding .

I don't disagree its a good idea. But its it really going to happen? And who would make it mandatory?

Those are the questions that need real hard answers to. Tritely saying "it shod happen" doesn't address the coal face.



didds

 

[crossref]

I guess the logic would be that all teachers expect to receive, on average, X days of CPD training per annum, obviously this would be limited number of days, the budget for training is always limited.

then you'd sit down and work out what is the best way to spend those days - for a full time PE teacher one would think that training on coaching methods (especially safety related matters) would be quite high on the list. What would be more important? genrally speaking.

L2 is three days so expensive, I see that, but then on the other hand it only has to be done once (Or perhaps you'd ideally update it every 10 years or so)
Perhaps the RFU could think about a training course for PE teachers, that would focus on safety and be shorter.

 

[didds]

Perhaps the RFU could think about a training course for PE teachers, that would focus on safety and be shorter.

Like the three hour rugby ready CPD courses, which are a pre-requirement for L1 and L2?

TBH that is probably enough to cover the safety basics.

they happen at weekends and evenings. No idea of other sports have similar - the only other coaching award I hold is a L1 in Triathlon, and I was fast tracked because of my L2 RU award, so all I had to do was a practical assessment of coaching a set task (running bicycle mount FYI

didds

 

[didds]

should they also do an ELRA 1&2 to ensure they referee in a safe manner? eg all heads showing, binds on before calling "SET" etc ?


seems reasonable?

didds

 

[Phil E]

No such thing as ELRA anymore.

 

[crossref]

should they also do an ELRA 1&2 to ensure they referee in a safe manner? eg all heads showing, binds on before calling "SET" etc ?


seems reasonable?

didds

I am feeling like we are making this up as we go along, and I'd like to hear from a secondary school PE teacher, about how training is organised. Plus someone from a college that trains PE teachers about what is in their course!

If I was in the RFU training department I'd be thinking the RFU should offer a course deliberately tailored to PE teachers, with the time limited to what fits in with a school budget / timescale - and prioritised on what is useful in a school environment.

It prob would cover a bit of reffing as well as coaching, and definitely would focus on safety, so tackling, scrummaging would seem important. the course wouldn't cover - for instance- stuff about how to generally devise and organise good training sessions , which I think would be well covered in the PGCE training.

Front row training is interesting. Should teachers be expected to be able to deliver that, or would you appeal to your CB for specialist help, I know that the RFU do a lot of work in schools.

 

[didds]

No such thing as ELRA anymore.

whatever its called this week then!

Strictly speaking it isn't just L1 or L2 any longer but we all know what we mean.

A bit like "double movement" {ducks and runs)

didds