-
Welcome to Stafford Forum. Please or sign-up and start posting!
Rugby Club progress...
- Thread starter Gareth
- Start date
alphagamma
Well-Known Forumite
It doesn't really matter what my nickname is, so do what you wish. Like a lot of people who've used many different computers in different places, I lose log-in details and end up with multiple accounts that I can't access. I probably have half a dozen or more for some sites, stafford forum included.
MAL and Woolman may be 'entirely different people', but wouldn't it be a funny coincidence if they were both directors of one company?
kyoto49
Well-Known Forumite
I already posted the link ina previous post, they are/were both directors of the Rugby Club. That's info in the public sphere, although MAL may have resigned :/
proactive
Enjoying a drop of red.
Oh come on, that article's three weeks old. Hardly relevant is it
Mikinton
Well-Known Forumite
Just reading it now.
http://www.doh.wa.gov/Portals/1/Documents/Pubs/210-091.pdf
P4/5
"..... does not suggest that artificial turf presents a significant public health risk ....."
(I'm not sure about their sample sizes, though.)
http://www.doh.wa.gov/Portals/1/Documents/Pubs/210-091.pdf
P4/5
"..... does not suggest that artificial turf presents a significant public health risk ....."
(I'm not sure about their sample sizes, though.)
Last edited:
Withnail
Well-Known Forumite
It is my understanding that Stafford's housing supply is only demonstrably 'sufficient' because it is, at least in part, predicated on the current rugby club land being used for housing. The plans for such can be found on the Borough website, which if memory serves rather expected them to be, if not finished, then at least in a more advanced stage of readiness than they currently are...
The 'conflict of interest' ramifications of this fact, in regards to SBC's handling of the matter, have not been unnoticed, and are chronicled earlier in this thread and/or elsewhere.
In the interests of fairness - or rather the interests of not thinking that absolutely everything is calamitous absolutely everywhere - let's not forget that being able to 'demonstrate... a sufficient housing supply' has resulted in at least one refusal of permission that was important to our own luckylady.
Compared to other sports yes. The research on this is really quite recent (last decade or so I would say) and in the last few years every rugby club in the country has had concussion training, a mandatory 3 weeks off from playing and a sign off from a doctor before returning to play. On top of at a club level (below the championship) ANY head injury must be taken off the pitch and isn't allowed to return to play.
So compared to american football which had the multi-million dollar lawsuit (the only high profile case I can think of) then yes.
Mikinton
Well-Known Forumite
The trouble with rugby is not in setting up the rules, but getting those involved to adhere to them. When was the last time anyone saw a straight put-in at the scrum?
Anyway, George North .... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-un...-demands-answers-george-north-concussion-row/
Anyway, George North .... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-un...-demands-answers-george-north-concussion-row/
Last edited:
proactive
Enjoying a drop of red.
Other rugby clubs are available where most members are not tosspots.they're all tosspots
As far as I know there's only one member of SRFC who has been on here and been a tosspot. The others just have a different point of view to the majority who have posted on this thread. They are wrong of course, but have every right to be wrong.
Please do cite your evidence.
A quick google gives me these two sources.
First, a Guardian article (https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/dec/30/is-skiing-the-worlds-most-dangerous-sport) citing a US study in which 24,000 emergency room admissions for head injury were seen for soccer (to use the term in the data to avoid confusion). There were 5000 between rugby and lacrosse.
Second, a British study (a little out of date but I couldn't find more recent data in a quick search, http://www.childreninwales.org.uk/w...and-adolescents-in-the-UK-what-do-we-know.pdf ) examined data from 1998-2002, in which football contributed over 50% of all injured players aged 0-19.
A quick google gives me these two sources.
First, a Guardian article (https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/dec/30/is-skiing-the-worlds-most-dangerous-sport) citing a US study in which 24,000 emergency room admissions for head injury were seen for soccer (to use the term in the data to avoid confusion). There were 5000 between rugby and lacrosse.
Second, a British study (a little out of date but I couldn't find more recent data in a quick search, http://www.childreninwales.org.uk/w...and-adolescents-in-the-UK-what-do-we-know.pdf ) examined data from 1998-2002, in which football contributed over 50% of all injured players aged 0-19.
tek-monkey
wanna see my snake?
Football in these studies has approx. 10x as many admissions for head injury (assuming rugby and lacrosse is evenly distributed) and approx. 7x as many injuries in the second study.
http://www.thefa.com/news/2015/Jan/29/football-participation-on-rise shows there are 8.2m playing football every week and wikipedia uses information from the International rugby board (lets not start the conversation on siting wiki as a source) that says they're 1.9m people registered with the RFU. This is only 4x as many, give or take.
So using the the small sample size we have and using the british study rather than the american one, we can state there are 4x more people playing football regularly compared to rugby but 7x as many injuries. Now small sample sizes, data from different times etc. but to go and say rugby is too dangerous is simply wrong.
http://www.thefa.com/news/2015/Jan/29/football-participation-on-rise shows there are 8.2m playing football every week and wikipedia uses information from the International rugby board (lets not start the conversation on siting wiki as a source) that says they're 1.9m people registered with the RFU. This is only 4x as many, give or take.
So using the the small sample size we have and using the british study rather than the american one, we can state there are 4x more people playing football regularly compared to rugby but 7x as many injuries. Now small sample sizes, data from different times etc. but to go and say rugby is too dangerous is simply wrong.
tek-monkey
wanna see my snake?
I've never said rugby is dangerous, despite it being responsible for the only bone I ever broke, but I do work with data and know that too many assumptions have been made with the above figures.
kyoto49
Well-Known Forumite
Injuries in football tend to be mainly to the leg/ankle and foot. I'd be more interested to know how many spine and head injuries the comparitive sports have. One is almost always able to recover from a leg injury. The chances of recovering from a broken neck or spine damage..........not so great, as evidenced on here!!!!!!
Edit, five DEATHS in rugby from head injuries.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/dec/13/five-deaths-from-head-injuries-amateur-rugby-union
And for those advertising rugby as a great kids sport, maybe read the following scary stats regarding injury:
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/sep/28/is-rugby-now-too-dangerous-for-children-to-play
https://health.spectator.co.uk/what-schools-dont-want-you-to-know-about-rugby/
Last edited: