Imposing Compulsory Rugby Union on Schoolchildren: An Analysis of English State-Funded Secondary Schools.

Objective: To establish the extent to which Rugby Union was a compulsory physical education activity in state-funded secondary schools in England and to understand the views of Subject Leaders for Physical Education with respect to injury risk. Method: A cross-sectional research study using data obtained under the Freedom of Information Act (2000) from 288 state-funded secondary schools. Results: Rugby Union was delivered in 81% (n = 234 of 288) of state-funded secondary school physical education curricula, including 83% (n = 229 of 275) of state-funded secondary school boys' and 54% (n = 151 of 282) of girls' physical education curricular. Rugby Union was compulsory in 91% (n = 208 of 229) of state-funded secondary schools that delivered it as part of the boys' physical education curriculum and 54% (n = 82 of 151) of state-funded secondary schools that delivered contact Rugby Union as part of the girls' physical education curriculum. Subject Leaders for Physical Education also perceived Rugby Union to have the highest risk of harm of the activities they delivered in their school physical education curriculum. Conclusion: Notwithstanding discussions of appropriate measures (i.e., mandatory concussion training, Rugby Union specific qualifications and CPD) to reduce injury risk, it is recommended that Rugby Union should not be a compulsory activity given that it has a perceived high risk of injury and is an unnecessary risk for children in physical education.

Evidence in support of the call to ban the tackle and harmful contact in school rugby: a response to World Rugby.

In a paper published in BJSM (June 2016), World Rugby employees Ross Tucker and Martin Raftery and a third coauthor Evert Verhagen took issue with the recent call to ban tackling in school rugby in the UK and Ireland. That call (to ban tackling) was supported by a systematic review published in BJSM Tucker et al claim that: (1) the mechanisms and risk factors for injury along with the incidence and severity of injury in youth rugby union have not been thoroughly identified or understood; (2) rugby players are at no greater risk of injury than other sports people, (3) this is particularly the case for children under 15 years and (4) removing the opportunity to learn the tackle from school pupils might increase rates of injuries. They conclude that a ban 'may be unnecessary and may also lead to unintended consequences such as an increase in the risk of injury later in participation.' Here we aim to rebut the case by Tucker et al We share new research that extends the findings of our original systematic review and meta-analysis. A cautionary approach requires the removal of the tackle from school rugby as the quickest and most effective method of reducing high injury rates in youth rugby, a public health priority.