Change to Regulation pertaining to wearing Goggles.

[didds]

I've only ever see these goggles ONCE in 10 years of coaching in the junior game.

The ctnm as was permitted goggles use but only one manufacturer was ever approved. I can probably find out who by asking around if you are all interested enough.

If things have changed wrt manufacturors then fine - but the usually clear RFU information channels have not seen fit to point this out to this Club Coaching Coordinator as yet and TBH if this thread hadn;t existed then I wouldn't have known about the youth age groups now being permitted them.

My comparison with IRB approved headgear etc was merely that - an example.

I agree its a bit difficult to tell if a piece of gear is allowed/permitted or not if there is no "standard" to be passed - again cf: IRB logos etc.

And I'd also agree with Dixie's point about rejecting anything that doesn;t appear safe naturally, whatever the logo/brand/chitty.

didds

 

[didds]

The goggles are not permitted in adult games because they are NOT iRB-approved.

Which is why I used the deliberate phrase RFU approved.

The points about the optician making the call is an interesting one... how many opticians are au fait enough with rugby union and how it is coached and played in England to be able to make that call?

Come to that, would opticians be prepared to make such a claim anyway (insurances? liability? blah blah blah?)

In reality i would imagine there are a very few manufacturors of such goggles for opticians to work on ??? Any opticians in the house?


didds

 

[didds]

In retrospect I see my words "RFU approved" are an incorrect nuance... rather, they are a RFU approved concept requiring a 3rd party's interpretation of use in a game and in circumstances they may not be at all au fait with.

maybe the way forward would be some sort of "RFU approval" scheme for goggle-frames (in effect AIUI what DID used to be in place) which opticians then just slap some lenses in? made from pre-approved lens materials eg perspec or whatever rather than glass.

I reiterate it seems to leave the initial decsion as to whether they are safe to somebody totally outside of the game - with the ultimate decsion as correctly pointed out by Dixie being somebody that potentially then upsets a child who has been "promised" he can now play and parents who have shelled out... and makes that person (ref or maybe coach) the "guilty" party rather than the poor bugger who has to look after everybody.

I'm not entirely sure how this can work w/out some sort of pre-approved goggles scheme (see above!)

didds

 

[spikeno10]

I've queried this with our RDO and been told it is a typo and applies to up to U12 only (as it ever did). The thinking being at such age the child should be apply to use contact lenses.

 

[Dixie]

Well, with respect all round, if the RFU wants its published regulations NOT to apply, then it needs to do something other than tell your RDO IMO. It has an email network - no doubt they'll be sending the relevant email around ASAP.

As a matter of interest, how does a typo suddenly appear in a regulation that has not changed for a while? Have they never heard of "cut & paste"?

 

[spikeno10]

Well, with respect all round, if the RFU wants its published regulations NOT to apply, then it needs to do something other than tell your RDO IMO. It has an email network - no doubt they'll be sending the relevant email around ASAP.

As a matter of interest, how does a typo suddenly appear in a regulation that has not changed for a while? Have they never heard of "cut & paste"?

Communication has never been a strong point. I have asked for confirmation in writing (preferably with an update to the website - again a 5 minute job) but nothing yet.

 

[MiniRef]

Just received this from the RFU:


This is a typographical error, and an errata is being compiles to be issued to stakeholders.
It should read ‘U7 to U8’, in line with a revised note we have received from the IRB.

 

[OB..]

Just received this from the RFU:


This is a typographical error, and an errata is being compiles to be issued to stakeholders.
It should read ‘U7 to U8’, in line with a revised note we have received from the IRB.

Correction contains typos? :biggrin:

 

[Simon Thomas]

OB - you published as I was typing the exact same comment.

Wonderful management "speak" (stakeholders et al); terrible grammar (errata and compiles).

 

[didds]

Just received this from the RFU:


This is a typographical error, and an errata is being compiles to be issued to stakeholders.
It should read ‘U7 to U8’, in line with a revised note we have received from the IRB.

Hmmm..

so NOT U7 to U12 as Spike was advised (and historically I have believed to be the case).

So - is U7 to U8 a typo?!

didds

 

[MiniRef]

I've just been checking with my coaches (I'm Safeguarding Officer at my club) and already confirmed we have an U9 player who, therefore, can no longer play (I can't imagine they'd wear contact lenses at that age?). It's a complete RFU c0ck up. I will be contacting the RFU to ask for compensation for the cost of theses goggles. I'm so pi55ed off with the inepitude of this organisation.

 

[Dixie]

I'm so pi55ed off with the inepitude of this organisation.

You and Sir Clive Woodward both!

 

[Davet]

What's this "revised note" from the iRB?

 

[crossref]

I'll bet this is a double cock-up. I'll bet it's still U12 and the published U18 by mistake and U8 also by mistake.

I just find it hard to beleive there's an IRB ruling enforcing a global ruling on children in goggles.

 

[spikeno10]

Checked again and again was told this is ok up to Under 12. Therefore assume this is another typo. (Dear Mr Right hand please may I introduce Mr Left hand.......)

However, word of caution, just because I'm being told this is ok for Under 12s I'm not suggesting for one minute it is right. Would suggest that you do a cya approach and write to RFU contact along the lines of "We believe a series of errors have occurred in the regulations relating to and until such time as they have been corrected it is our understanding that .........and this will remain the case until such time as we receive your further instructions".

 

[Dixie]

However, word of caution, just because I'm being told this is ok for Under 12s I'm not suggesting for one minute it is right. Would suggest that you do a cya approach and write to RFU contact along the lines of "We believe a series of errors have occurred in the regulations relating to and until such time as they have been corrected it is our understanding that .........and this will remain the case until such time as we receive your further instructions".

Note that the online version of Reg 15 now says U.7 to U.8. That being so, I think it would be dangerous to take an alternative view.

 

[MiniRef]

Dixie

where are you looking? I'm looking at
http://www.rfu.com/TheGame/~/media/Files/2010/TheGame/Regulations/RFU Regulation 15.ashx

and this still says U7 to U18

 

[MiniRef]

Can anybody outside England advise on what they're allowed, given....

This is a typographical error, and an errata is being compiles to be issued to stakeholders.
It should read ‘U7 to U8’, in line with a revised note we have received from the IRB.

or on the IRB revised note referenced in this above reply from the RFU?

 

[crossref]

IRB memo? I just don't beleive it.

Tell you what - if there really is a recent IRB memo defining a new global policy on goggles for players from U7 to u18, I'll eat my leggings.

 

[crossref]

what is actually says on the RFU website

- Under 'player health' goggles are OK up to U12 , but banned from U13 upwards http://www.rfu.com/TakingPart/PlayerHealth/FAQs.aspx
(note this stated to be an RFU policy, not IRB)

- under 'first aid', yep, same thing - only up to U12 http://www.rfu.com/ManagingRugby/FirstAid/FAQs.aspx#children play rugby with glasses on?

- under regulations - OK up to u18 http://www.rfu.com/TheGame/~/media/Files/2010/TheGame/Regulations/RFU Regulation 15.ashx