BOOK REVIEW: Tackling Rugby

What Every Parent Should Know About Rugby Injuries
by Allyson Pollock

This is a book by a professor of public health about the risk to children of playing rugby in schools.  Its basic premise is that the likelihood of injury to children has been insufficiently measured by those responsible for the delivery of the game, particularly national unions and schools themselves.  Professor Pollock suggests that parents should be informed of the risk of injury in order to inform their judgement as to whether they will allow their children to play the game.

The author's interest in the topic comes from her son's experience in an independent Edinburgh day school.  In the wake of his injury, and the unavailability of figures detailing the frequency of such injuries, she conducts her own survey of six Scottish schools over most of a season.  It is from this that she concludes that the likelihood of injury requiring more than a week's absence from the game is 17%.

Much of the book is concerned with the difficulty of defining, and therefore measuring, what constitutes a rugby injury.  As a result, some of the statistical methods become a little impenetrable to the layman, this this does not detract from the basic message.

There is an undeniable polemic tone.  Professor Pollock alleges conspiracy between businesses, education and national governing bodies to avoid providing clear figures as to the game's dangers.  She also suggests a legal basis under which compulsory rugby in schools may be illegal.  It's strong stuff, verging on the paranoid obsessive.  This is unfortunate, as much of her case is strong and sensible.

This book has had the (presumably desired) effect of stimulating concern about the safety of the game amongst parents, schools and national unions.  If this results in a more scientific approach to measuring and reducing injury, as appears to be the case, then it will have served a positive purpose.

Whilst the author has convincing science to measure the dangers of the game, there is no attempt to consider the benefits of participation, nor to acknowledge why the game is so popular with so many children and parents (including her own younger son, who didn't take kindly to his mother banning his participation).  There is clearly a place for further analysis which balances costs and benefits of the game, and comes to a more measured judgement.