News: Injuries


By Paul Shaddick
July 5 2010

Scrums should banned from schools rugby, according to a recent report.. Respected medical expert Professor Allyson Pollock (although I'm not sure how much respect I have for someone who can't even spell Alison) looked at 190 rugby matches played at five schools and spotted 37 injuries, 20 of which required hospital treatment.

I’ll come back to those numbers in a minute, but first a couple of thoughts on statistics. Eight out of 10 cats prefers Whiskas, said an old TV advertising campaign. That had to be modified to something like ‘eight out of 10 owners who expressed a preference said their cat preferred Whiskas’. But who did they ask, and how did they select the participants? One would hope that it was a high street or telephone survey, with two questions: Do you have a cat, and what cat food does it prefer?

 

But even then, we could dig deeper. Ok, Tibbles prefers Whiskas, but compared to what? Broken glass? Old copies of the phone book soaked in engine oil? Or an alternative premium pet food brand?

 

So, 190 rugby matches played at five schools and 37 injuries, 20 of which required hospital treatment. That sounds like nearly one in five matches resulted in a player being injured. But what constitutes an injury? And what does ‘required hospital treatment’ mean? It’s an ambiguous phrase. Someone being airlifted to hospital with serious head and neck injuries could be said to require hospital treatment. But so could someone having a bump on the head and being given a couple of paracetemol in A&E after being taken there by an overly cautious parent or teacher.

 

I have no doubt that Prof Pollock’s report took great care in defining its terms, but as the media reports didn’t bother boring us with those details, we can’t really make a judgment. As for the professor’s call to ban scrums and high tackles (er, they already are banned, Prof) this, I suspect, is down to a scientific technique known as Justifying Hours of Research by Getting Your Name in the Paper. This technique was pioneered by the Dept Of Stating The Blindingly Obvious at Oxbridge University. Readers will probably remember their reports revealing that pretty girls get chatted up more than ugly ones and eating cakes makes you fat.

 

But even if those 37 ‘injuries’ were quite nasty, rather than a case of Bladdersthorpe Minor having a bit of a blub because it was cold and raining and Mr Snapes was being beastly, things aren’t actually as bad as they might seem. Elsewhere in the report we discover that the injury rate is a little under one per 100 player hours. That means one injury for every 80 complete matches a player takes part in. I would imagine that it

would take three or four years for a school child to rack up that many games. And remember, half of those injuries weren’t serious enough to warrant a trip to hospital, even in these days of overly protective parents and teachers terrorised by the no win no fee vultures.

 

If anything, it would appear to me that school rugby is a lot safer than many parents think. How may father’s plans to nurture the next Jonny Wilkinson have been frustrated by maternal nightmares of broken noses and cauliflower ears? I think Prof Pollock has done rugby-loving fathers the world over a favour. All you need do is put your own spin on the good professor’s report and present it to your spouse. Hell, rugby’s probably safer than soccer. And okay, young Brandon may end up looking like Danny Grewcock, but it could be worse. If you let him play Wendyball he may end up looking like Wayne Rooney.

 

 

News:Injuries
Posted by: ComeOnYouSaints.com (IP Logged)
Date: 05/07/2010 21:15

What do you think? You can have your say by posting below.
If you do not already have an account Click here to Register.

Re: News:Injuries
Posted by: St Francis (IP Logged)
Date: 06/07/2010 06:31

Good piece....

Well... people in the medical profession being selective with the 'facts' to prove a spurious point and get published in the BMJ? Whatever next?

Re: News:Injuries
Posted by: Wee Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 06/07/2010 09:03

Interesting read - its a nice exmaple of a wider point that vexes me. Data/results are often portrayed to the wider publicin a way that doesnt allow them to judge the quality or substance of the findings. To be fair to the medical profession and scientists in general the actual report usually contains the background information needed and the conclusions are suitably qualified. Once its distilled to a soundbite though its often whatver will grab the attention that is left.

Re: News:Injuries
Posted by: St Marlowe (IP Logged)
Date: 06/07/2010 10:18

this is one of my favourite columns on this subject

David L

What if there were no hypothetical questions?

- Live wrong and preposterously



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010:07:06:10:21:00 by St Marlowe.

Re: News:Injuries
Posted by: Wee Jim (IP Logged)
Date: 06/07/2010 10:24

Also one of mine St Marlowe - he writes well.
The Naked Scientists on Radio 5 also do a good job in this respect
Naked Scientist
I should declare an interest........

Re: News:Injuries
Posted by: OldPete (IP Logged)
Date: 06/07/2010 11:29

Nice one shaddo . Have you and others noticed that advertising survey results on screen now publish the size of the sample - e.g 197 women felt better after using X . Quite a small sample really and not of the size that would inspire confidence in the results.


I am fan of Radio 4s " More or less " which is quite amazing for someone who successfully managed the bottom available grade at GCE Maths .

This programme regularly takes to task by skilful analysis the statistical claims of politicians and scientific think tanks etc.

What i have leaned from that programme and elsewhere that the best way to avoid injury is to stay in bed or similar and do very little.

So then our children are growing up in a world where risk is virtual - ones avatar takes the risks for one in a virtual world on a gaming machine. Although I suppose curvature of the spine could result from too many hours hunched over the keyboard/ mouse etc.

Re: News:Injuries
Posted by: Howlin (IP Logged)
Date: 06/07/2010 12:55

and St Tub's stats on the original thread also help to put the "study" into context.

Saint til I die

Re: News:Injuries
Posted by: covkid53 (IP Logged)
Date: 09/07/2010 17:24

I have to agree, scrums should be restricted to local rugby clubs who have RFU approval. Schools coaches generally have no specialist front row or pack coaching expertise.

Scrums are potentially dangerous and from U12 onwards, kids are now bigger and heavier than ever, this could result in serious neck and/ or back injuries.

Scrums in school should be Non-competitive and purely a "symbolic" part of the game.

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
We record all IP addresses on the Sportnetwork message boards which may be required by the authorities in case of defamatory or abusive comment. We seek to monitor the Message Boards at regular intervals. We do not associate Sportnetwork with any of the comments and do not take responsibility for any statements or opinions expressed on the Message Boards. If you have any cause for concern over any material posted here please let us know as soon as possible by e-mailing abuse@sportnetwork.net