Leggings

[Wert Twacky]

Nah, that's their away kit in that photo!!! :biggrin:

Mind you, the tackling technique looks similar to that!

Dixie, all I can say is that thank the chuff common sense prevails in some countries.

 

[Drift]

I think there's a big difference between league fixtures/national tournos, etc, and under-8s running about on a chilly Sunday morning.

For juniors training and even in matches I'd think anyone/referee who outlawed this needs a rocket.

As for older age groups/seniors, etc - different story. They're banned.

Depends what age group, I would be inclined to make players take them off at under 16's level as the games are getting quite fast and continuous but I would probably allow then at u/14s and lower

 

[B52 REF]

simon t-whilst agreeing with most of what you say i am not sure that girls wearing tights is an affront to the ethos and culture of rugby (and this seems the only reason people want to ban them). Culture evolves- a few years ago some might have thought yellow boots or garish headgear constituted such an affront. Rugby does itself a disservice by excluding participants on such petty grounds. If i turn up to a ladies uni game on a freezing day and both sides are happy to wear tights i am not going to make their day less enjoyable by enforcing an old IRB law ruling on the definition of shorts.(Though i might warn them that next week they may have you in the middle.)
ALSO the ruling itself would not prevent them wearing undershorts to the knee then a thermally insulated IRB compliant knee support and acheive the same effect anyway ergo ruling is voidable as redundant.Other IRB regs have tried to ban them (though can't find them online) but as regs they are not our responsibility and tourney OC's can opt out anyway. Iran have IRB dispensation and IRB comps i have been involved in (e.g hongkong sevens) have taken a similiar sympathetic and pragmatic approach to Muslim partcipants. Look at that lovely photo - would you want to deny those girls their enjoyment of our fine game by insisting their attire is not part of its ethos?

 

[Ian_Cook]

I have some questions regarding this issue of banning leggings.

1. Why? Apart from the "ethos" of rugby, why are leggings banned? If there is some safety issue, I fail to see what it can possibly be. Through all the stuff I have read on the internet on this subject (and there isn't much) no-one seems to be saying "why"!!

2. Since the iRB have successfully negotiated the entry of rugby into the Olympic Games, how are they going to get around the fact that, while rugby claims to be "the game for all people", they will effectively exclude a team a some national teams from taking part, such as the Iranian Womens team. This is not a wind up, its for real

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XL0dZ6Kojbg

http://english.aljazeera.net/sport/2007/10/200852610339643467.html


Under the new regulations, is what the players are wearing in the video going to be banned?

 

[OB..]

I presume they would be pragmatic and allow variations for sensible reasons.

 

[Ian_Cook]

I presume they would be pragmatic and allow variations for sensible reasons.

Perhaps so, but I still cannot get anyone to tell me why they are banned.

Are they dangerous to the wearer or do they constitute some safety issue for other players?

Are they considered to give the wearer some kind of unfair or material advantage?

I cannot see how either of these could be true.

 

[Bunniksider]

.....Are they considered to give the wearer some kind of unfair or material advantage?......

Exactly

 

[SimonSmith]

If the leggings are made of 'slippy' material, then I can see an advantage

 

[Davet]

Unlike a good splash of Vas on the legs...?

Gets on your oppos hands, and makes his ball handling a bit harder...?

 

[Rit Hinners]

Unlike a good splash of Vas on the legs...?

Gets on your oppos hands, and makes his ball handling a bit harder...?

Firm Grip
http://www.onlinesports.com/pages/I,CR-061022.html

I would put a glob of this under my stocking's turn down. Whenever my grip got a bit slippery I'd retrieve a little and everything was fine.

 

[Ian_Cook]

So I guess they have been banned, but nobody actually knows why?

 

[Phil E]

So I guess they have been banned, but nobody actually knows why?

Because they make you look like a great big Jessy :nono:

 

[Ian_Cook]

I'll explain why I'm asking

An acquaintance of mine has a big role in organising the Rosslyn Park Sevens (and his wife has an even bigger role, so many of you will probably know who I am talking about)

This is what he wrote on another rugby forum (on which I am an Admin)

More Bloody Law Changes!

What is it with the IRB? Two years out from a RWC and they are hellbent on fiddling with the Laws. The more incomprehensible (and one of the best kept secrets) is that Leggings/Skins/Tights were banned as of the 1st March. This was very popular with girl rugby players in the UK and as some old wag said what will the Irani women play in now? :biggrin:

The post appeared shortly after this announcement on the NS7 website

http://www.ns7.co.uk/news.htm

I promise you he is not very happy about it, and I would like to give him some kind of idea why this has happened, but I cannot think of a good reason.

It seem they are banned simply because of what they are, even if they comply with Law 4.4 and the specifications outlined in Regulation 12

However, it doesn't matter where I look or who I ask, no-one appears to be able to give me an official reason why leggings have been banned. When I contacted the NZRU, no-one there had any idea what I was talking about.

 

[Ian_Cook]

That's it Ian, they don't comply. Underwear ends above the knee and socks end below the knee.

Whoops! Apologies Ian, I appear to have cut you off at the knees too!

Difficult to speak with mouthful of foot.

So thought it was pretty rude of you to edit my post. I'm not impressed! You could have just replied.

Fortunately I was able to restore it.

Perhaps you can show me where it says underwear stops below the knee in Regulation 12

Regulation12 Schedule 1

4. Banned items of clothing
(g) A player must not wear any item of which any part is thicker than 0.5cm when uncompressed or is denser than 45 kilograms per cubic metre unless specified within this Regulation 12/Law 4. Where this overall thickness consists of padded material covered by fabric, 0.5 cm is the maximum measured thickness for the combination of the uncompressed padding and the fabric. The fabric can contribute up to a maximum measured thickness of 1 mm on each side of the padding

I have yet to see skins or tights that exceed these specifications.

EDIT

So if they wear long socks up to the knee, Lycra shorts down to the knee, and knee support bandages, they will be alright?

 

[Robert Burns]

I agree that these leggings should be regulated, like all other clothing, not banned.

Otherwise we do, as others have said, lose one of our biggest positive aspects, we are a game for EVERYONE.

 

[kaypeegee]

it.

Perhaps you can show me where it says underwear stops below the knee in Regulation 12

Ian

It's not in reg 12, but the IRB did define underwear in a ruling (Nov 2006)

The FFR has requested a ruling with regard to Law 4 Players’ Clothing.
Please provide a definition of jersey, shorts and underwear.

3. Underwear: an undergarment, that covers the body from the waist, having
short or no legs but does end above the knees, and worn next to the skin or
under clothing, and not attached to the jersey or shorts.

Perhaps they now have their "knickers in a twist" and don't want to over-rule a ruling. Law of unintended consequences ?

 

[Phil E]

As KPG has shown, the statement that

Leggings/Skins/Tights were banned as of the 1st March.

is incorrect. They have always been banned and the ruling of 2006 clarified it. If you wanted to be pedantic you could say they were banned from Nov 2006.

It's not in reg 12, but the IRB did define underwear in a ruling (Nov 2006)

Ours not to reason why old chap..............

 

[kaypeegee]

Ours not to reason why old chap..............

But we might wonder why the French asked the question in the first place. :chin:

Law of unintended consequences ?

And we may also wonder if the iRB actually thought through the implications of the ruling for the community game. (youth, ladies, different cultures, playing in antarctica in summer .....)

 

[crossref]

forgive me if I have missed it - but has anyone actually found the actual 1 March Ruling on a website somewhere ? Preferably the IRB website

I can't see it on the IRB or RFU sites, and we have had no communication from the RFU ref-coordination guys. So to me it still seems to be a rumour?

We have a coaches/refs meeting at our club next week, and I am sure a lot of people will have views as we saw leggings on the field this season - both our own kids and visitors - every single Sunday when it was cold.

I am loathe to start a discussion/debate about what we are going to about this unless we can point to the actual 1 March ruling, and what it actually says. If we are going to enforce it at all/any junior / mini levels I think it's quite a big deal, actually. I certainly don't want to be in the situation standing in front of coaches and parents on a cold winter's day insisting that some 11 yr old girl takes her tights off... not unless every other ref is doing the same.

 

[OB..]

forgive me if I have missed it - but has anyone actually found the actual 1 March Ruling on a website somewhere ? Preferably the IRB website

I can't see it on the IRB or RFU sites

http://www.irb.com/mm/document/lawsregs/0/070301lawrulings2006_598.pdf
Ruling 5.