Leggings

[Phil E]

sorry if I am being dull here but the document linked to by you simon (and I am not doubting your knowledge and we have been told similarly by our society) but it doesn't outlaw the leggings as such...however (and more shockingly) it appears to outlaw long sleeved skins(which would outlaw leggings also IMO)....am I reading this incorrectly? and if I am not, should I be requesting players to remove these even though they see players on TV wearing them?

NO, IIRC it outlaws manufacturers logo's on long sleeves. This is at Pro level where sponsorship contracts are in place.

 

[Simon Thomas]

Simon,

Please don't take this personally. I'm not having a dig, questioning your experience or integrity. I'm merely asking for somebody to provide a definitive piece of evidence to support the alleged outlawing of leggings. The 2006 ruling you refer to is reproduced in full here:

RULING 5: 2006
Law Ruling by Designated Members of Rugby Committee

14 November 2006

The FFR has requested a ruling with regard to Law 4 Players’ Clothing. Please provide a definition of jersey, shorts and underwear. The Designated Members have ruled the following in answer to the question raised:

1. Jersey: a close fitting shirt worn on the upper half of the body which is not attached to shorts or underwear.

2. Shorts: trousers that start at the waist and end above the knees, have an elasticised waist band and/or draw string, and are not attached to the jersey or 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.​

With respect, this law ruling has nothing to do with leggings, which are not mentioned at all. It merely asks for definitions of 3 items of clothing, as I said in an earlier post. So the question remains: is there a specific ruling in respect of leggings? Furthermore, if an item is not specifically listed as being permitted, should we assume that ALL other items are outlawed, which would include thermal tops et al? If so, is there somewhere in the laws, regulations or rulings which specifically states that no items other than those listed are permitted to be worn?

As with all things rugby (and IRB) out it all into context, use some common sense and don't expect it to be legally binding, or parliamentary level language.

I (and RFU) disagree with you and we see the ruling says so in pretty plain English and in context all makes perfect sense to me !

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

When I asked the question to the RFU about leggings at the start of this season, and also back in late 2006, the IRB reply I got back via the RFU London & SE Referee Manager (who is the RFU's Law rep and a paid employee of the RFU) referred me to the 2006 IRB Law Ruling quoted, and he confirmed in his email that leggings should not be worn for match play. That has been communicated to the English Societies a number of times. We in Hants (and it appears many other Societies) have advised their members to not allow leggings on that basis. In North Midlands Society, or you as an individual, want to decide otherwise that is your choice, but I suspect Biggsy will want to know why at some stage.

Thermal tops can be considered jerseys (and wearing two layers has been common practice for some time now) and this Ruling in 2006 refers to manufacturer's logos, which were in conflict with numerous shirts sponsors sports rights contracts at professional levels.

 

[Ian_Cook]

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.

Sorry, but Knickers, Jockeys and Y-fronts are underwear. Leggings and skins are not underwear.

What referees here are asking for is a definitive document/statement from the iRB. What they don't need is some obscure ruling that is, as usual, open to interpretation.

FFS why can the iRB not just say what they actually mean!!!! If they want to ban leggings, then why can they not actually say that? i.e.

The clothing item known as "Leggings" are banned for use in rugby

 

[Robert Burns]

Apart from the ruling, which although ambiguous in it's wording, is clear from the RFU what they want, Why could players not wear skins (tops and leggings) providing they wore the proper shirt, shorts & socks with them?

Surely only advantage would be fair as all players would have the opin to wear them or not.

(Looking for logical reasoning now, not just because you can't).

It's all good having policy, but it the policy doesn't work, or have any significant reason for being there, why keep it?

 

[Deeps]

Guys, it's really, really simple, Law 4 defines what players are allowed to wear. If Law 4 doesn't mention it then players are not allowed to wear it, QED!

 

[Skid986]

Sorry, but Knickers, Jockeys and Y-fronts are underwear. Leggings and skins are not underwear.

What referees here are asking for is a definitive document/statement from the iRB. What they don't need is some obscure ruling that is, as usual, open to interpretation.

FFS why can the iRB not just say what they actually mean!!!! If they want to ban leggings, then why can they not actually say that? i.e.

Quite.

When I used to run competitively all year round I would often train in leggings. I wore shreddies underneath them and nothing over the top of them. I didn't consider myself to be out running in my underwear, which was actually UNDER my leggings.

I have no issue with you Simon, and frankly I'm beginning to get a little concerned at how touchy you appear to be. But MY interpretation of the laws and regulations is different to yours. Therein lies the problem, in that because there is no clear and explicit direction on leggings themselves, the published material is open to interpretation. That means that we can all be equally wrong or equally right. What I would prefer to see is something that specifically addresses the leggings issue and until I see that it's not an issue that I'm going to get my knickers (or should that be leggings?) in a twist about on the FoP. Let's face it, the vast majority of the laws and regulations referring to clothing are there for safety reasons or for some other fairly logical purpose. What on earth is the purpose of banning leggings? A crime against underwear definitions?

 

[Skid986]

Guys, it's really, really simple, Law 4 defines what players are allowed to wear. If Law 4 doesn't mention it then players are not allowed to wear it, QED!

Law 4.1.(a)
A player may wear supports made of elasticated or compressible materials which must be washable.​

Skins support the muscles, they are elastic and they are washable.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Guys, it's really, really simple, Law 4 defines what players are allowed to wear. If Law 4 doesn't mention it then players are not allowed to wear it, QED!

4.1 ADDITIONAL ITEMS OF CLOTHING
(a) A player may wear supports made of elasticated or compressible materials which must be washable.

This could easily fit the description of most brands of skins/leggings

 

[Robert Burns]

In answer to a specific question I asked him following the start of this thread, and questions from others including the organisers of NSS (as last year there were issues with players wearing leggings), Dave Broadwell (RFU Refs Dept, RFU Law Committee Liasion to IRB, and London & South East Referee Manager) asked IRB about legging legality and got an email reply on 1st March refferrring him back to exisiting Law, Regulation 12 and 2006 Ruling.

Leggings are illegal match wear, but dispensation and variation can be given by Home Union - for example in an Islamic area where women play.

Just came across this Simon. I apologise for being late.

I appreciate that the IRB has written to DB and outlined clearly that leggings are banned, except for where allowed by the home nation.

So either the home nation must ban everyone from wearing them, or allow everyone to wear them.

Now, if you ban everyone from wearing them you are discriminating against Islamic Women because of their religion and therefore are actually breaking the law (As far as i understand discrimination laws in the UK).

if you only allow Islamic women to wear them, you are discriminating against everyone else, which again, as far as I am aware, is actually illegal.

So the only real option left for the RFU is surely to allow everyone to wear them, unless the item has a safety reason to not wear it.

I realise that these scenarios must not yet have occurred, but surely in a country where Islam is as prevalent as Christianity in some areas, it's a valid point?

Safety, Equity then Law?

 

[dave_clark]

in a country where Islam is as prevalent as Christianity

if you're talking about the actively religious (rather than those who lie to get the kids into a school, married in a nice church, that sort of stuff), i suspect that the above may well be sufficient when describing the UK...

 

[Ian_Cook]

I have two real issues with this.

Firstly - Skins/Leggings are NOT underwear, they are specialist muscle support apparel, and as such they are permitted to be worn under Law 4.1 (a)

Law 4.1.(a)
A player may wear supports made of elasticated or compressible materials which must be washable.

Elasticated, compressible, washable. This is exactly what skins/leggings are.

Secondly - Ruling 5 -2006 defines things that do not fit the description of leggings.

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.

IMO this ruling is being misread as to its intent. It defines whether or not what a player is wearing is underwear. It emphatically does not say that something which does not fit these definitions cannot be worn.

► if the garment ends above the knees, it is underwear (and is covered by this ruling),

► if the garment ends below the knees it is NOT underwear (and therefore, is NOT covered by this ruling.

Clause 3 of this ruling does NOT ban leggings, it defines underwear, nothing else.

 

[Skid986]

Thankyou!!!

 

[Phil E]

Sorry, but Knickers, Jockeys and Y-fronts are underwear. Leggings and skins are not underwear.

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong.

Unless New Zealand uses a different dictionary to the UK?

un·der·wear   /ˈʌndərˌwɛər/ Show Spelled[uhn-der-wair] Show IPA
–noun
clothing worn next to the skin under outer clothes.

I wear a pair of skins type undershorts and skins type long sleeve top next to my skin and under my shorts and shirt (outer clothing). So that makes them underwear.

 

[Skid986]

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong.

Unless New Zealand uses a different dictionary to the UK?

un·der·wear   /ˈʌndərˌwɛər/ Show Spelled[uhn-der-wair] Show IPA
–noun
clothing worn next to the skin under outer clothes.

I wear a pair of skins type undershorts and skins type long sleeve top next to my skin and under my shorts and shirt (outer clothing). So that makes them underwear.

Ah, but you're using a dictionary definition not the IRB definition. Otherwise there would be no need for the FFR to ask for a definition from the IRB as they could just look it up in a dictionary.

 

[Phil E]

Ah, but you're using a dictionary definition

Yeah, stupid of me. Using a dictionary to find out what a word means!

What was I thinking

 

[Ian_Cook]

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong.

Unless New Zealand uses a different dictionary to the UK?

un·der·wear   /ˈʌndərˌwɛər/ Show Spelled[uhn-der-wair] Show IPA
–noun
clothing worn next to the skin under outer clothes.

I wear a pair of skins type undershorts and skins type long sleeve top next to my skin and under my shorts and shirt (outer clothing). So that makes them underwear.

Really

► cotton liners are worn next to the skin under my cold weather gloves so they are underwear?
► socks are worn next to the skin, under my shoes and long trousers, so they are underwear?

I repeat, Ruling 5 defines what is underwear "having short or no legs but does end above the knees", so if they end below the knees, they are not underwear, and must be something else, therefore, they are covered by Law 4.1 ADDITIONAL ITEMS OF CLOTHING

I think someone has made an arbitrary decision, without thought or consideration for the impact it would have on the game at a community level, and that smells very much like elitism to me.

 

[Phil E]

and that smells very much like elitism to me.

Your theory smells like something to me.................but thats not it.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Regardless of all this, I have yet to hear or see an official reason why they have been banned, and "because they are" isn't good enough for me.

One thing I can promise you is that if I am the coach of U12s and we have a 9am match on a bitterly cold and frosty Christchurch Saturday morning, and if my lads want to wear leggings but the appointed referee won't allow it, we'll default the game, pack up and leave. The wrath the referee would face for allowing leggings does not even begin to compare what I will cop from all the little Johnny's mums should they find out I have let them play in those conditions.

 

[Tryer]

I believe the FFR asked for further guidance on the ruling as a french player was told to remove them before a Heiniken cup game. I think it was Perpignan........ they interpreted it as underwear the referree did not..... so the FFR asked on behalf of one of their members......

 

[Simon Thomas]

I have no issue with you Simon, and frankly I'm beginning to get a little concerned at how touchy you appear to be. But MY interpretation of the laws and regulations is different to yours. Therein lies the problem, in that because there is no clear and explicit direction on leggings themselves, the published material is open to interpretation.

The interpretation is not mine - it is IRB and RFU's, whose interpretations, guidance & rulings I have to follow both under my Society's constitution and our affiliation through the RFRU to the RFU. I am an elected Society Chairman (volunteer like most of us) and as such I am expected to abide by what the paid professionals ask us to enact. The direction from RFU's DB (referencing the 2006 Ruling) was clear - no leggings.

As a side issue, I asked one of our National Panel and one of our Group Referees at Sunday' Sevens about the issue of long cycling shorts worn by referees - both said it was regarded as a no-no at their levels, although not written in any rules / regs anywhere, but is an accepted 'style' guidline and abided by all but one Panel Referee (who is off the Panel at the end of this season).

I state both of the above as facts, not a personal opinion (which may or may not be different), and am trying to reflect all levels of Society Refereeing for the majority (who by definition will be levels 9 and lower), and who are not exposed to the Divisional and Group League levels.