Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorPollock, Allyson M.en
dc.contributor.authorWhite, Adam Johnen
dc.contributor.authorKirkwood, Grahamen
dc.date.accessioned2017-10-30T14:14:45Z
dc.date.available2017-10-30T14:14:45Z
dc.date.issued2017-08-01
dc.identifier.citationPollock AM, White AJ, Kirkwood G (2017) 'Evidence in support of the call to ban the tackle and harmful contact in school rugby: a response to World Rugby', British Journal of Sports Medicine, 51 (51).en
dc.identifier.issn0306-3674
dc.identifier.pmid28701366
dc.identifier.doi10.1136/bjsports-2016-096996
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10547/622337
dc.description.abstractIn 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.
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherBMJen
dc.relation.urlhttp://bjsm.bmj.com/content/51/15/1113en
dc.rightsGreen - can archive pre-print and post-print or publisher's version/PDF
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/*
dc.subjectC600 Sports Scienceen
dc.subjectrugbyen
dc.subjecttacklingen
dc.subjectcontact sporten
dc.titleEvidence in support of the call to ban the tackle and harmful contact in school rugby: a response to World Rugbyen
dc.typeArticleen
dc.contributor.departmentNewcastle Universityen
dc.contributor.departmentUniversity of Winchesteren
dc.identifier.journalBritish Journal of Sports Medicineen
dc.date.updated2017-10-30T12:12:14Z
html.description.abstractIn 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.


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
__akira_RKE_WinchesterResearch ...
Size:
273.3Kb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Green - can archive pre-print and post-print or publisher's version/PDF
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Green - can archive pre-print and post-print or publisher's version/PDF