Leggings

[FlipFlop]

I also remember that for the RWC 2003 (?) Clive Woodward investigate the possibility of putting some of the backs in leggins/all in ones to make them harder to tackle - no jersey/shorts to grab - as part of his "make 100 things 1% better" policy.

Response from the IRB to an informal question was that players were requried to wear shorts, shirt and socks.

So perhaps the worry of the IRB is that the leggings etc are there to gain an tactical advantage, and they haven't thought about the lower levels/other cultures or other reasons that people might wear them.

Banning them was easier than putting legislation in place to stop people gaining an advantage I suppose.

 

[TheBFG]

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.

don't get confused over the minis at your club and the mens/ladies teams. I don't think anyone on here would expect a club to enforce this ruling across the whole club,

when we turn out on a Sunday morning and it's below or close to zero i would never expect the players to train/play in shorts, but on a Saturday afternoon when i'm reffin, men can play in shorts, I turn out in them, they can bloody do the same:wait:

 

[crossref]

@OB - thanks that's as from 2006 though, I was hoping to see what changed (or was clarified) on 1 March 2010.


@BFG

don't get confused over the minis at your club and the mens/ladies teams. I don't think anyone on here would expect a club to enforce this ruling across the whole club

yes, but that's exactly what I think we'll have to discuss next winter - where does it apply?
U7s - I think clearly not
Colts - I think presumably yes. If it's no leggings for adults, it's no leggings for Colts.

So where does the line happen? U13s and the start of Junior?

 

[Phil E]

So where does the line happen? U13s and the start of Junior?

For me the line starts when they use the full lawbook (with or without U19 variations).

So mini/midi NO
U13 upwards YES

 

[kaypeegee]

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.

Just to play devil's advocate for a moment.

One brand of "leggings" advertise themselves as ...

"... ground breaking body-moulded gradient compression perofrmance equipment with built-in BioAcceleration Technology which will enhance your performance in trianing, competition and recovery and give you an edge over your rivals." [sic*]

These apparently run for £60-£90.

Is it possible they are banned to prevent those that can afford them potentially gaining an advantage over those that can't? :chin:



* But they do not do much for spelling

 

[Adam]

@OB - thanks that's as from 2006 though, I was hoping to see what changed (or was clarified) on 1 March 2010.


@BFG


yes, but that's exactly what I think we'll have to discuss next winter - where does it apply?
U7s - I think clearly not
Colts - I think presumably yes. If it's no leggings for adults, it's no leggings for Colts.

So where does the line happen? U13s and the start of Junior?

In competitive matches U13 and above?

 

[Phil E]

"... ground breaking body-moulded gradient compression perofrmance equipment with built-in BioAcceleration Technology which will enhance your performance in trianing, competition and recovery and give you an edge over your rivals." [sic*]


* But they do not do much for spelling

* Or punctuation

 

[TheBFG]

Just to play devil's advocate for a moment.

One brand of "leggings" advertise themselves as ...

"... ground breaking body-moulded gradient compression perofrmance equipment with built-in BioAcceleration Technology which will enhance your performance in trianing, competition and recovery and give you an edge over your rivals." [sic*]

These apparently run for £60-£90.

Is it possible they are banned to prevent those that can afford them potentially gaining an advantage over those that can't? :chin:



* But they do not do much for spelling

Bit in Bold no issues there. Playing has to be the issue

 

[Davet]

If they give you an advantage in post-training recovery does that equate them with steroids?:swet:

 

[Phil E]

If they give you an advantage in post-training recovery does that equate them with steroids?:swet:

No, it equates them with Lucozade, an ice bath, or a rub down with the Sporting Times :biggrin:

 

[Davet]

or a rub down from a reporter with the Sporting Time

Fixed that for you

 

[didds]

If they give you an advantage in post-training recovery does that equate them with steroids?:swet:

but then what about

*simple carb and small protein intake within 30 minutes of exercise finishing, with caffeine to promote inctreased glycogen take up to muscles
* stretching immediate post exercise to aid injury prevention and flexibility
* no alcohol intake for 4 hours post exercise
* post exercise massages and ice baths

... all to give an advantage etc...

didds

 

[Skid986]

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

But this ruling still doesn't ban leggings. It merely defines those items that were asked about.

 

[SimonSmith]

Fixed that for you

A sporting Times reporter!

 

[Phil E]

But this ruling still doesn't ban leggings. It merely defines those items that were asked about.

It tells you what you CAN wear. shirt, shirts, socks and underwear.

It then defines underwear; and leggings don't fit the description.

 

[ExHookah]

Personally I think this is a ridiculous decision. I think if they are going to the effort of making rulings like this, they might want to take a look at props in skintight lycra shirts, and the difficulties this poses when attempting to bind in a scrum.

 

[crossref]

It tells you what you CAN wear. shirt, shirts, socks and underwear.

It then defines underwear; and leggings don't fit the description.

so what actually was announced/changed from 1 March 2010

 

[Ian_Cook]

Personally I think this is a ridiculous decision. I think if they are going to the effort of making rulings like this, they might want to take a look at props in skintight lycra shirts, and the difficulties this poses when attempting to bind in a scrum.

100% agree. This will exclude some people from the game. It may only be a few, but is a few that we can ill afford

 

[Phil E]

so what actually was announced/changed from 1 March 2010

Nothing AFAIK

 

[Ian_Cook]

Nothing AFAIK

So I wonder what documentation/communication they received that prompted them to post this on their websit...