Leggings

[Ciaran Trainor]

he was a lancashire lad Old Aldwinians , southern softie
I dream of getting my mullet back!!

 

[Robert Burns]

You do realise if this thread gets to 1000 I'm deleting it, don't you.


(How can this be the most interesting thread on the site???)

 

[dave_clark]

ooh - sounds like a challenge!

923.

 

[Phil E]

Sounds like a cunning plan!

924

 

[Robert Burns]

lol.







(925)

 

[dave_clark]

simple solution - remove all posts by crossref asking "but why isn't it published anywhere" along with all those from people yawning or telling him to STFU, and you'll be down to a thread of about 50 posts. simples!

:biggrin:

926

 

[crossref]

it's funny though -

there were scores of posts telling me : 'it's plain as daylight what the Laws and Clarifications say - no leggings'
but when the RFU 'confirmed' that the Laws actually allow leggings, I didn't see many posts saying 'guess it wasn't that clear after all'

 

[Robert Burns]

Note that leggings are still 100% banned in non RFU countries (where religion isn't a factor) though

 

[Davet]

Good grief is this still running - Robbie why do we have to get to 1000.
929 and counting

 

[crossref]

(where religion isn't a factor)

Law reference for that?

Or a secret email even ? :biggrin:

 

[Phil E]

it's funny though -

there were scores of posts telling me : 'it's plain as daylight what the Laws and Clarifications say - no leggings'
but when the RFU 'confirmed' that the Laws actually allow leggings, I didn't see many posts saying 'guess it wasn't that clear after all'

They didn't say "the law allows leggings" your twisting things again Chopper, er crossref.

They said the law does not allow leggings, however following concerns from parents and coaches about child welfare the RFU (and AFAIK only the RFU) allow leggings for certain age grades of rugby.

 

[Davet]

And yoiur awareness of the fact shows it was not a secrtet email, chopref...

 

[crossref]

They didn't say "the law allows leggings" your twisting things again Chopper, er crossref.

They said the law does not allow leggings, however following concerns from parents and coaches about child welfare the RFU (and AFAIK only the RFU) allow leggings for certain age grades of rugby.

Ah, no, Phil, I am afraid you are mis-remembering

The RFU's official Newsletter Touchline DID confirm that leggings were permissible under the regualtions.

It stated that

[LAWS]:

'BASE LAYER REGULATIONS
Following enquiries from coaches and parents, the RFU can confirm that it is permissible under RFU Regulations for young players, up to Under 18s, to wear base layer stockings or tights in cold weather, in accordance with IRB Regulation 12.

This regulation states particular thicknesses. However, parents can assume that most common brands will comply, although players are permitted to wear them subject to the assessment of the match referee that the items are safe and pose no risk of injury to the wearer or other participants.''''

[/LAWS]

Regualtion 12 doesn't of course mention leggings.

Robbie added this commentary in the WIKI

This is contrary to the Law 4, and Law Clarification No. 5 of 2006 which defines underwear, but be aware, Whilst this new RFU ruling has published in Touchline, it has not yet made it to the RFU Regulations, so the authority of it isn't entirely clear.

There has been no change in the Laws or regulations since then

 

[Simon Thomas]

it's funny though -

there were scores of posts telling me : 'it's plain as daylight what the Laws and Clarifications say - no leggings'
but when the RFU 'confirmed' that the Laws actually allow leggings, I didn't see many posts saying 'guess it wasn't that clear after all'

The RFU "clarification" was issued in Touchline by an in-house journo who was focussed on Child Welfare, and published without prior reference to the Refs Dept or Laws Sub-Committee, and in total conflict with all previous official RFU and IRB guidance.

 

[dave_clark]

so is this clarification incorrect?

 

[crossref]

The RFU "clarification" was issued in Touchline by an in-house journo who was focussed on Child Welfare, and published without prior reference to the Refs Dept or Laws Sub-Committee, and in total conflict with all previous official RFU and IRB guidance.

and he got it wrong.
- but I bet he asked someone about it who also got it wrong
- and he obviously did make some effort to look up the relevant laws / regulations, finding Regulation 12, which wasn't too bad, really.
- and obviously some other people must have read the copy before it ws publsihed without noticing.

it just showed the point I was making all along - - that the law and clarification that together combine to ban leggings are obscure. that poor journalist couldn't find them, and he was looking.

 

[Simon Thomas]

The point it makes is that parts of the RFU would be better off consulting the folks that really know about such matters in advance.

It happens far too often.

 

[TheBFG]

Trust me, there were a number of us from this forum that were with the people that jurno should have asked and i can assure you they weren't asked and they were less than happy :chair:when it arrived on their desk :wow:

938 :wink:

 

[crossref]

i believe you, and of course he should have asked.

but the point is: it looks like he did actually make an effort to try and find the laws / regulations on leggings (and not a bad effort to get as far as IRB regulation 12) - but he couldn't do it.

 

[dave_clark]

so the people who knew the answer to be "no" were not consulted. does this mean that the journo was speaking on something that he had no authority to, and that actually leggings are still not allowed? or have the RFU backed down / changed their tune to avoid looking silly? after all - once the client has been promised something, that's what they get.