The article doesn't give a lot of information, but neither does your anecdotes. >There weren't any rules when I was in primary school either and there definite

The article doesn't give a lot of information, but neither does your anecdotes. >There weren't any rules when I was in primary school either and there definitely were bullies and injuries on the playground. I'm not sure that the article is saying that the removal of rules has lead to zero bullies/injuries--just a reduction. >Weak argument for the no-rules position. Children get injuries all the time, whether you have rules or not :]. This is an even weaker argument for rules. If children are going to get injuries whether you have rules or not, than why are you wasting time rule-making when nobody wants to follow the rules and nobody wants to enforce the rules? Furthermore, I'd say that the thesis of "less rules means more activity, means less time spent harassing and troublemaking," is very plausible. It's like getting a husky and crating him up all day, then wondering why he's irritable and destructive.