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.
BackgroundBeing cautious in order to protect vulnerable people, such as children, from harm is an acknowledged policy approach.1 On 1 March 2016, UK and Ireland Ministers for Sport, Education and Health were sent a letter asking them to remove the tackle and other forms of harmful contact from school rugby.2 In June 2016, two World Rugby employees Ross Tucker and Martin Raftery and a third coauthor Evert Verhagen wrote in BJSM that such action 'may be unnecessary and may also lead to unintended consequences such as an increase in the risk of injury later in participation'.3 Tucker et al make three key statements:1. 'With respect to injury surveillance in Rugby Union, particularly among youth players, it must be recognised that neither the incidence nor severity of injury have been thoroughly identified and understood, and thus nor have the specific mechanisms and risk factors for injury'.2. 'The risk of participation in Rugby Union, while warranting focus and continued efforts for primary injury prevention, does not stand out beyond that of other popular sports' and 'up to the period of adolescence (age 15 years), the risk of injury in Rugby Union is low and to other major sports'.3. Removing the tackle from school rugby may increase injuries later in life when tackling is introduced to the game by denying 'the need and opportunity to many young players to begin learning a skill set which evidence suggests is both effective (for performance) and protective later in their rugby playing careers'. They add such a ban 'may be unnecessary and may also lead to unintended consequences such as an increase in the risk of injury later in participation'."This is an accepted manuscript of an article published by BMJ Publishing Group in British Journal of Sports Medicine, available online at http://dx.doi.or...