I have to say I agree that full on tackling should not be allowed when youngsters are playing not just in school but also in clubs but at a reasonable age. At one time I would have disagreed as the matches I had watched where not that physical even with full on tackling. But in this day and age it is win at all costs, I used to take the grandson to junior rugby and was only a bit disappointed when he didn't want to go anymore, the coaches where taking the games far to serious and some of the collisions between young lads where bone jarring and I reckon only half would still be playing when they reached their late teens early twenties, some had already had their careers finished in their early teens with various injuries. Plenty time for them to get realy stuck in physically when their bodies are a bit more mature and able to stand up to the rigours of full on rugby
tackling in school
- Thread starter Charlton
- Start date
Stewart 1971
Well-known member
Have to agree Alan, look at how the Kiwis do it: junior players sorted by size and not age group and a lot of touch rugby. Hence their junior rugby is all about skill development and not the big lads knocking seven bells out of everyone else to the detriment of passing and proper decision making.
that is the approach i used when coaching a colts team, quite a bit of touch rugby and a lot of running around just passing, which where successful and most went on to play first team rugby, touch premotes speedier skilful passing and far faster rugby, especially one touch rugby
Stores
Well-known member
What they need to tackle in school is, the failure of teachers to actually teach!
I would suggest that before you criticise teachers who "can't teach" you ask the question of how many adults in your local school do not hold a teaching qualification. You could then ask how much they are being paid. The phrase "teaching on the cheap" springs to mind and I don't believe the fault lies at the door of the school.
Should there be a comma after "is"?
As to the question I believe all good PE staff and club coaches do their utmost to minimise unfair contact by equating size, ability and local rules. My 9 year old grandson plays at club level and even with virtually no contact there are still injuries, it goes with the territory. Trying to eliminate it up to the age of school leavers is pie in the sky and, I believe, will encourage greater pain in the long run - I'll explain should you ask.
Last edited:
Budgie
Well-known member
For once i agree with my wife I think size actually does matter.
On a more serious note took my very successful junior football team to Holland three times at various stages of THEIR development, and the Dutch have been doing this for years.
Unlike us with our u-6 U7, U8, U9, U10 etc etc their age groups are 8-10, 10-12, 12-14 etc. We found ourselves playing teams consisting of e.g. big 10 year olds and small 12 year olds all of the same physical stature.
They have understood the physical development of kids can be 2 years difference. I can't say how many times I have seen young laddies smashing all sorts of records up to u12 because off they are massive in their age group only to fall by the wayside when others catch up.
Sport should be fun for kids and its not when your getting smashed off the fat kid every week,they would sharp get sick then pack it in. Who knows how many greats we lost through this.
It should be about skill and development not mass, that comes later.
NB Don't get me started on Parents
Rant over!
On a more serious note took my very successful junior football team to Holland three times at various stages of THEIR development, and the Dutch have been doing this for years.
Unlike us with our u-6 U7, U8, U9, U10 etc etc their age groups are 8-10, 10-12, 12-14 etc. We found ourselves playing teams consisting of e.g. big 10 year olds and small 12 year olds all of the same physical stature.
They have understood the physical development of kids can be 2 years difference. I can't say how many times I have seen young laddies smashing all sorts of records up to u12 because off they are massive in their age group only to fall by the wayside when others catch up.
Sport should be fun for kids and its not when your getting smashed off the fat kid every week,they would sharp get sick then pack it in. Who knows how many greats we lost through this.
It should be about skill and development not mass, that comes later.
NB Don't get me started on Parents
Rant over!
Last edited:
kayos
Well-known member
It was just a flippant comment. I don't know about England, but in Scotland all teachers at publicly funded schools have to have a teaching qualification. In private schools you don't, but the Scottish Government has recently announced that by 2019 private schools will have to also comply.
As to the comma, who knows? They don't teach grammar or spelling in secondary schools anymore!
Last edited:
Stores
Well-known member
Sorry if I sounded sharp Mark. The idea that education has been ring fenced by this government is a bare faced lie and schools are being shored up with teaching assistants and classroom support. At the school I am now at we had the ludicrous situation where a teacher had to cover for a cover supervisor because she was absent and has an actual timetable to teach, totally unqualified. I would advise any parent in England with a child starting a new school to ask the question "how many of your staff have QTS (qualified teacher status). The answer might surprise you. As for teaching grammar I refer you to the National Curriculum.
Sorry for hijacking your thread AC.
Juliogeordio
Well-known member
I tend to lean towards banning tackling in school aged kids. Especially when they are made to play the sport as part of the curriculum (is that the right word? Lol). If the kids are forced into playing and don't really have a choice then they won't be committed to making a tackle and potentially will hurt themselves in a sport they have little interest in.
I'm certainly not for kids being made to engage in sports they have no interest in playing.
At club level, the size argument is a good one Instead of age groups that are used here. Kids engaging in a well supported and trained sport can assist in their personal development in a lot of ways... It certainly helped me massively and I'm very grateful for playing rugby and what it gave me.
It certainty is a high 'risk' sport in terms of injuries but for me the positives out way the negatives. I suppose its horses for courses... I had loads of injuries playing football which stopped me playing for months and months of my 'career', I only ever had one bad injury in 17yrs of rugby but it ended my career in a heartbeat!
I'm certainly not for kids being made to engage in sports they have no interest in playing.
At club level, the size argument is a good one Instead of age groups that are used here. Kids engaging in a well supported and trained sport can assist in their personal development in a lot of ways... It certainly helped me massively and I'm very grateful for playing rugby and what it gave me.
It certainty is a high 'risk' sport in terms of injuries but for me the positives out way the negatives. I suppose its horses for courses... I had loads of injuries playing football which stopped me playing for months and months of my 'career', I only ever had one bad injury in 17yrs of rugby but it ended my career in a heartbeat!
