There is NO Head Injury Assessment (HIA) in community rugby!! I recently watched the @benyoungs09 @BBCSport documentary “How Safe is Rugby” and noted some potentially misleading comments on junior rugby concussion protocols. A first aid leader stated: “Much like a HIA in the professional game, we follow the same guidance.” This simply isn’t accurate and can lead to confusion. There is NO HIA in community rugby-including juniors, amateurs, and national leagues.

Players cannot return to play under Recognise & Remove guidelines until they’ve completed the full Graduated Return to Activity and Sport (GRAS) programme. More details: englandrugby.com/run/player-…

The Decline of Therapeutic Walking in NHS Pediatric Physiotherapy: A Call for Advocacy Therapeutic walking - once a cornerstone of promoting physical activity and potential - is increasingly being sidelined. This isn’t merely a matter of reduced therapy sessions; it’s a systemic reluctance to prescribe essential equipment like walking frames, often justified by service pressures, limited budgets, commissioner cuts, and even the closure of key suppliers such as NRS Healthcare. These constraints are compounded by an unwillingness to provide families and schools with the necessary training to integrate walking into daily life. The result? Children are denied opportunities to build strength, maintain posture, and prevent secondary complications. Walking, for many, is an emotive goal deeply cherished by families. I fully understand the need to manage expectations and align on meaningful, documented goals. Yet, we must ask: Shouldn’t physiotherapists be champions of physical activity in all its forms? And shouldn’t senior leaders and experienced clinicians push back against these pressures rather than concede to them? In my experience, this concession manifests in subtle but profound ways. I’ve intervened in numerous cases where, without my persistence and those “difficult conversations” with fellow therapists, walking would have been entirely removed from a child’s program. I’ve been labeled “unprofessional” or accused of “living in a different world” for advocating continued access. This pushback forces me to self-reflect: Am I out of touch? Or are we collectively failing to uphold our professional duty to explore every avenue for a child’s development? One particularly concerning development is the emergence of scoring-based assessment forms in some services, designed to “objectively” determine eligibility for walking frames. These tools evaluate elements of standing and walking, assigning numerical scores that often lead to denial of equipment. Proudly shared in professional forums, they’re touted as evidence-based due to their structured format. However, having seen them in action, I find them deeply subjective and non-standardised. They undermine the therapist’s autonomy - the clinical reasoning we’re trained to exercise as independent professionals. For instance, if a child’s walking requires support or isn’t deemed “functional,” it’s frequently dismissed. But how can we measure progress without exposure to the activity? In one case, such a form was used to deny a walker, claiming the child didn’t meet criteria. Fortunately, due to the child’s home and school spanning different areas, another trust provided the equipment without hesitation. This stark discrepancy isn’t about clinical absolutes; it’s a postcode lottery driven by localized service pressures. If the issue were truly definitive, why would multiple professionals, including myself, disagree so vehemently? The human impact of these decisions is heartbreaking. Consider a child whose walking program was halted in favor of increased sitting. Children with neuro conditions often progress slowly, or the goal may simply be maintenance of skills, which is equally valid. Why abandon this so readily? Contrast that with a success story: A young person was advised by another therapist to stop walking therapy because he “doesn’t actively weight-bear.” By persisting with a tailored program and walker, however, he achieves standing transfers and small steps at home with his parents. This fosters not just mobility, but independence, confidence, and family empowerment.

4/
Play isn’t a break from learning — it is learning. Through play, children develop the physical foundations needed for writing, reading, attention, and self-regulation. You can’t separate learning from movement at this age.

8/
This isn’t about lowering standards or delaying learning. It’s about recognising that young children learn best when their bodies are allowed to move — not when movement is restricted too early.