Change to Regulation pertaining to wearing Goggles.

[didds]

the cynic in me might suggest what is the increase in insurance premium costs being levelled at the RFU?

I don;t think that is being cycnical at all Spike. That was my very first thought, and would make sense.

The guys that look after the AGRs are - AIUI - mostly if not all volunteers and it is not again AIUI a standing committee.

Its clearly an area that needs a bit of tidying up pronto, but clearly the best way forward is to take the most limiting of the regs in order to not expose yourself/your club etc. So its onlu U7=U8 (ie TAG) until further notice.

Spike - you could ask your friend at the RFU now you have an email address

didds

 

[davidgh]

clearly the best way forward is to take the most limiting of the regs in order to not expose yourself/your club etc. So its onlu U7=U8 (ie TAG) until further notice

Really Didds - that is a bit over the top

The Continuum has been the same for years, and the RFU have apparently said they will clarify this at speed.

It would be RIDICULOUS to stop an u11 from playing rugby, without notice whilst the RFU get their ducks in a row and tidy the paperwork. Even more ridiculous than the current mess!! They are clearly in a mess with conflicting ambiguous, unpromulgated changes, once sorted, we can implement.

Let them sort out the real/actual/unconflicted position and then tell us what it is - in the meanwhile let's get on with "kids having fun playing rugby" - the risk to our personal positions is minimal, after all the RFU is the regulator.

In recent discussions with the RFU, insurers and RFU lawyers re u9-u12 kids wearing goggles during matches this month, none of them mentioned that it may possibly be outside the law for these kids to wear googles.

This discussion has become completely circular, await direction and carry on BAU.

 

[crossref]

They are clearly in a mess with conflicting ambiguous, unpromulgated changes, once sorted, we can implement.

Let them sort out the real/actual/unconflicted position and then tell us what it is

It seems to me that that was the position we were in a month ago when they put U18 on the website. following that many people contacted them and said 'doesn't seem right, please sort out what the real position is' following which last week they changed the regulations to U8.

So I think its inescapable - they have told us what the actual position is.. right now, this weekend: it's U8 - the age they deliberately put in the 2011 regulations last week after being asked to clarify.

In my club I did nothing when they put up u18 as that was clearly a mistake, and I knew people had asked the RFU. When the RFU then put up U8 I emailed the Head of Mini/Midi Rugby and the Child Safeguarding Officer, and all the club refs to let them know: starting this weekend it's U8. Not sure what other option we have.

Of course they may well change it again next week..

I do feel sympathy for you though, if you have a child wearing goggles. We don't have any (so far as i know), so it will come up only if we encounter any oppoents.

 

[didds]

david GH - I sympathise entirely with your view FTR. But crossref has it spot on - the ACTIVE measure taken by the RFU indicates U8.

True one could point at the conflicting AGRs shoud there ever be an issue... but why expose yourself to having to defend your actions in the first place?

I agree entirely that it effectively MAY mean you have got to tell somebody that has been using them for several years that his/her rugby career ends this weekend as a result. But that isn;t YOUR fault.

didds

 

[davidgh]

Sorry chaps - have I missed something

Where is the new directive?

Are all the ambiguities removed from other parts of the advice on the web - NO go to RFU.com and search for "goggles" - confusion reigns supreme - 3 different directions on one web site

 

[crossref]

Sorry chaps - have I missed something

Where is the new directive?

Are all the ambiguities removed from other parts of the advice on the web - NO go to RFU.com and search for "goggles" - confusion reigns supreme - 3 different directions on one web site

I think it's unarguable that the 2011 Regulation 15 - updated just a week ago in response to people asking about it clearly trumps the much older health and safety guidance....

I only highlighted the health and safety stuff to show what a mess the RFU make of things.

I do think it's quite likely that U8 was written following some confusion and that they may not know what they are doing but they make the regualtions so if they are asked specifically to say what the rule is, and in response they change the regualtion on the website then, well, like it or not .. they have made the rule. That's what it is. For now.

 

[Dixie]

Sorry chaps - have I missed something

Where is the new directive?

Are all the ambiguities removed from other parts of the advice on the web - NO go to RFU.com and search for "goggles" - confusion reigns supreme - 3 different directions on one web site

But David, you know why this is. There is the main Regulation, and there are ancilliary references on the website. If someone changes the regulation, but doesn't find all the ancilliary bits, then it's not reasonable to suggest that there is no change, or that the change is inconsistent, so we don't implement. The inconsistency, in such a small organisation, is virtually guaranteed.

 

[crossref]

But David, you know why this is. There is the main Regulation, and there are ancilliary references on the website. If someone changes the regulation, but doesn't find all the ancilliary bits, then it's not reasonable to suggest that there is no change, or that the change is inconsistent, so we don't implement. The inconsistency, in such a small organisation, is virtually guaranteed.

the RFU SO NEED to simplify their website!

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

the RFU SO NEED to simplify their website!

Are you 14?:biggrin:

 

[crossref]

Are you 14?:biggrin:

it's the goggles, they are misleading

 

[Davet]

Just received a response from SRU as follows:

The laws of the game are produced by the IRB and as such I would guide you to the IRB website specifically Law 4 (http://www.irblaws.com/EN/downloads/ ) and Regulation 12 (http://www.irb.com/mm/document/lawsregs/regulations/04/23/24/42324_pdf.pdf) these are the laws and regulations which applies in this case with the issue being that the rigidity in the current goggles available make them illegal and there are no goggles currently on the market that have been IRB approved. We have recently sought clarification on this from the IRB as we were aware of the RFU website advice. The clarification was as above ie that no goggles can be worn because they do not meet the parameters as specified in Law 4 regulation 12. There has now been a number of these requests this season and I will communicate with all clubs and schools to remind them of this fact.


In other words as Law 4 Defines Players' Clothing as:

Player's clothing is anything the players wear. A player wears a jersey, shorts and underwear, socks and boots.
Detailed information relating to permitted specifications for clothing and studs may be found in IRB Specifications (Regulation 12).

Goggles or glasses are not covered under Additional Items of Clothing, they are not specifically pemitted under Regulation 12, and Law 4.4.(g) states: A player must not wear any other item which does not conform with the IRB Specifications for such clothing (Regulation 12). They are therefore not permitted.

Seems clear cut to me. Parents of certain short-sighted kids will not be happy when they are banned from wearing goggles tat training next weekend.

Whilst I understand the logic, there are implications which may have been overlooked.

Like goggles, contact lenses are not, afik, covered by reg 12 either.

And therefore must similarly be banned.

This may not be what was intended...

 

[crossref]

it's a bit of a disingenuous note from the SRU (IMO)

the rigidity in the current goggles available make them illegal

Not true , it's the absence of goggles in list of allowed items in regulation 12 that makes them illegal (same as leggings and tutus)

there are no goggles currently on the market that have been IRB approved.

Yes, but there are no boots, or studs, on the market that are IRB approved either. (The IRB set standards and the manufacturers self-approve).. so...

 

[davidgh]

Have formally requested the RFU for detailed written clarification ASAP, and a formal announcement to all clubs, and written information for parents and kids. Will revert.

We surely cannot wreck kids rugby careers based on ambiguous dynamic editing of a website and no care or warning for the individual children concerned.

Simply not acceptable, suggest concerned refs and club officers refer this to Safeguarding before approaching individaul parents and kids, it strikes me as pretty dubious.

 

[MiniRef]

Reply from RFU yesterday:

We are convening a meeting to discuss the issues you have raised below. Please sit tight, we will report back as soon as we have plotted the way forward.

This was in response to my note which included:
Please can I ask that this matter is investigated urgently and that the RFU come up with a sensible way forward? At the very least, the U7-U12 groups should be allowed to continue in their use of goggles (subject to the usual safety). After all, if they were safe last season, then surely they must still be safe now?

Until we have a clear way forward, where the website reflects what you’ve said and the RFU has communicated this, what do I say to this U9 player? Sorry, mate, but the RFU has, mid-season, changed its rules? Go and play soccer instead? (No doubt this will lead to compensation claims against the RFU too).

Given the context of my question, and the RFU response, I'm taking the words "sit tight" to mean that I can continue to allow the U9 player to wear his goggles until I am advised otherwise.

 

[crossref]

Given the context of my question, and the RFU response, I'm taking the words "sit tight" to mean that I can continue to allow the U9 player to wear his goggles until I am advised otherwise.

it just seems to me that the regualtions ARE no more or less than what the RFU put on their website.
the RFU may be inept, and they may have internal differences of opinion, but if they purposefully write U8 on their website.... then from that moment the regulation IS U8. (a genuine typo would be a different case.. but we know that this isn't a typo)

Next week the regulation my change to U12 again. Or it may not. Right now, this week, it's U8.

 

[davidgh]

Miniref - I have written in detail and spoken to the Head of Refs Dept and asked him to clarify with urgency which he assures me he will do. They were totally unaware of the change and whilst not directly responsible didn't seem very concerned that the club officers were about to end up in court!!

Crossref - we follow typos on the RFU website at our peril - the RFU are responsible for the management of the game and have national responsibility for ensuring that regulation is properly managed - they may not just edit the Law online and expect us all to read it - they MUST ensure there is proper consultation, due notice of any changes, proper promulgation and orderly introduction.

Let's keep asking for clarification and proper process and see what comes out ................... we are dealing with the sporting lives and fragile egos of small kids

 

[crossref]

Miniref - I have written in detail and spoken to the Head of Refs Dept and asked him to clarify with urgency which he assures me he will do. They were totally unaware of the change and whilst not directly responsible didn't seem very concerned that the club officers were about to end up in court!!

Crossref - we follow typos on the RFU website at our peril - the RFU are responsible for the management of the game and have national responsibility for ensuring that regulation is properly managed - they may not just edit the Law online and expect us all to read it - they MUST ensure there is proper consultation, due notice of any changes, proper promulgation and orderly introduction.

Let's keep asking for clarification and proper process and see what comes out ................... we are dealing with the sporting lives and fragile egos of small kids

if it was a typo I'd agree with you (U18 was a typo, this isn't a typo. it may not have been a well-made decision but it's not a typo)

well, shrug.

I'd guess I'd only add..
- have you told the parents of this boy of the situation, so that they can make an informed judgment of their own ? I think you should. they may not even agree with you.
- have you checked insurance policy?

 

[davidgh]

crossref - I am well aware of all this and quite happy to manage it locally, my experience of the RFU, the RFU insurers and the legal system working around rugby is that I would be considered to be extremely TIGHT in my handling of this, not loose and beyond insurance!!

The test of REASON and REASONABLENESS is very key in English law

Hardly anyone at the RFU is aware of the change either!! and these are people who should be!!

The incessant references to insurance do become a bit tedious, I am MR COMPLIANCE!! But there has to be REASON

Not yet referring to parents for own internal reasons, this is NOT a safety issue, have you ever heard of a goggle related injury!! Also do not wish to widen the audience for chaos! If there is a safety issue - hopefully someone will mention it to the implementers in the field!!

I simply want and REQUIRE clarity and COMMUNICATION from our regulator - not optional - and must be ongoing .......

If we don't complain and demand, nothing will change

Has anyone seen a club secretary announcement from the RFU on this?

 

[crossref]

if you don't tell the parents you might be putting yourself in a shaky position, they probably would like to know.

and you will look a bit shifty if the family find out the hard way -- from a ref ten mins before the game starts - and you have to admit 'yeah I knew about that actually, but I didn't tell you'

 

[Phil E]

It makes perfect sense to me that you can wear goggles for mini (tag) rugby, but not for Midi (contact) rugby.

It appears to me that this is what the RFU have done. Albeit with their usual finesse.