Let the kids play

Rugby is a rough game.

Just like in hockey or football, parents who let their kids play rugby weigh the inherent risks against the very real benefits.

Some parents cannot bear the thought of a possibility of a serious injury to their child, or perhaps they don’t see the sense of a sport as rough as rugby or hockey.

Many others, often those who played sports as children themselves, conclude that team sports (and pardon us for the cliche) can build character. Teamwork, leadership, new friends, a feeling of belonging, can all follow participation in team sports. For them, the risk is worth it.

Many other sports require speed, endurance and skill, and so does rugby. But rugby, and there’s no nice way to say this, can reward the big and slow. If you’re large and strong, there’s a spot for you on the rugby pitch.

This is more important than many people realize. Rugby is a worldwide game that is actually more inclusive than other games. It’s cheap, like soccer, so poor kids can play. All you need is a pair of cleats.

In Canada, the best athletes are playing other sports. So rugby can be an opportunity to find your niche and perhaps compete internationally.

So no wonder the game is growing, particularly among girls. Rugby 7s was even played for the first time at the 2016 Olympics, for both men and women.

All of which is why it’s so stunning and disappointing that the province’s school sports body, in a twoparagraph memo issued to the province’s high schools, cancelled rugby competition suddenly on Thursday.

Many coaches and parents were so shocked they didn’t know how to react at first. But it didn’t take them long. Before evening on Thursday, thousands had signed a petition urging the Nova Scotia Schools Athletic Federation to reverse their decision.

The federation’s memo was sparse on detail but said the decision followed a review of “incident report data” from the system’s insurance program. It then said: “Student safety remains the top priority of the federation.”

Good for them. It should also be a priority to explain a decision that affects thousands of people in a little more detail. No one from the federation seemed willing to answer the many questions people had.

Here are a few. What are the numbers of injuries and how do they compare with other sports? Can they be explained by the higher number of kids playing rugby? Are concussions the main concern? Is insurance too expensive now?

There are broader questions, too. Have we become a nation of helicopter parents unwilling to accept even the slightest risk of injury to our little darlings? Or can we debate the risks and benefits to a rough game dispassionately as a society?

We think it’s possible that should the federation be concerned about the safety of school athletes, the rest of us could weigh in and contribute to a public debate that took these questions seriously.

The federation doesn’t appear interested in public debate.

However, the issue is about to be forced on them, one way or another.

We say let the kids play.