Sports glasses now banned beyond tag?

[Dan_A]

Hi all - first post so sorry if this isn't the right forum for my question!

My youngest son has just started u9 level. One of his friends, who has played tag since he was 5 (and contact rugby league all Summer), has just been informed that he cannot play u9 contact rugby union because the sports glasses he wears are no longer permitted. He can't see well enough without them and his optician is saying contact lenses are not an option.

This is apparently something the RFU have communicated over the Summer, and is a change of ruling from previous seasons.

Has anyone heard of this? And how rigourously will it be enforced as the lad will be gutted if he hears other clubs are not following suit?

p.s. been lurking on the site for a few weeks, loads of great stuff for someone who's just done their ELRA and is getting into refereeing, thanks

 

[Phil E]

That is correct, no glass of any kind past tag rugby.
It's not just about his safety, it's about all the players safety.
It should be rigorously enforced at every club I would hope.

And welcome to the forum Dan.

 

[crossref]

Hi Dan

Actually it is the same as last season, when there was the change: goggles were prohibited above U8.

The RFU actually disagreed with this and committed to ask the IRB for dispensation to allow them up to U12 (as previously the case) but evidently failed as this season's regualtion 15 now says

[LAWS]15.13.3 Players of all age grades are permitted to wear spectacles, glasses or
specifically designed sports goggles in all forms of non-contact rugby. Players
are not permitted to wear spectacles, glasses or specifically designed sports
goggles in any form of contact rugby.[/LAWS]

so it's changed in the sense it is defined by type of rugby, not by age. This will enable primary school children to continue to play tag at their school, but obviously not club rugby, where it's contact.


here's the link http://www.rfu.com/thegame/regulations

it's a shame for your son, he'll have to sit out rugby for a few years until he can get contacts.

 

[Dan_A]

Thanks for the responses - actually it's my son's friend. They're looking into contact lenses.

Most of my refereeing/coaching is at u12 level with my older boy. I'm going to feel duty bound to enforce this if I come across it at festivals this year, really hoping it doesn't arise.

 

[Phil E]

Kids have to be 14 to wear contact lenses usually.

 

[crossref]

hint for refereeing age group: print a complete copy of regulation 15 (all the parts) and keep it in your kitbag.
In a tricky situation like that it would defuse things to have it to hand. But also for any game, if you go from age group to age group it's well worth spending 5 mins running though the rules for the specific age group before you take to the field.

 

[Dan_A]

Thanks, that makes a lot of sense

 

[didds]

RFU regulation 15.13.3

Players of all age grades are permitted to wear spectacles, glasses or
specifically designed sports goggles in all forms of non-contact rugby. Players
are not permitted to wear spectacles, glasses or specifically designed sports
goggles in any form of contact rugby.

didds

 

[didds]

Most of my refereeing/coaching is at u12 level with my older boy. I'm going to feel duty bound to enforce this if I come across it at festivals this year, really hoping it doesn't arise.

But be aware of course that if you don;t enforce it and some bizarre mishap occurs to another player direc tly due to any such goggles/glasses etc then you and nobpdy else on the pitch will be covered by insuranbcde.

In fact technically by allowing goggles etc in a contact game nobody involved will be insured at all for anything. Whether Marsh would go that far remains to be seen.

didds

 

[crossref]

But be aware of course that if you don;t enforce it and some bizarre mishap occurs to another player direc tly due to any such goggles/glasses etc then you and nobpdy else on the pitch will be covered by insuranbcde.

In fact technically by allowing goggles etc in a contact game nobody involved will be insured at all for anything. Whether Marsh would go that far remains to be seen.

didds

didds I think you are over-egging this a little: It's totally standard for an insurance policy to cover an organisation, and third parties, for damage/injury caused by employees/volunteers, even if negligent. Indeed for many policies that's the whole point of having it.

So the club would still be insured and the RFU, and it wouldn't effect the injury cover provided to the children, under the blanket Marsh coverage

but it would be bad news persoanlly for the official who willfully ignores a regualtion - as it exposes you to be personally pursued for damages (either by parent or by the insurer who has paid out) and in those circumstances support for you personaly might be limited.

 

[didds]

Well, I am merely repeating what I've been told for years.

If someone can come up with a definitive statement backed up by Marsh I'd be bloody DELIGHTED !!!

didds

 

[crossref]

it's a pretty standard thing: an organisation covers itself for public liability. When an injury happens the insurance company pays out (that's what the policy is for) but if an employee was negligent the insurance company can go after the employee to recover the money.

in general anyone being negligent is going to open himself up to all sorts of personal claims and prosecutions - so don't be negligent.

for Marsh summary of cover is here
http://www.rfu.com/managingrugby/insurance/clubadministrators/rfuarrangedcover

 

[Dixie]

Most of my refereeing/coaching is at u12 level with my older boy. I'm going to feel duty bound to enforce this if I come across it at festivals this year, really hoping it doesn't arise.

The issue has always arisen in the past a year on - a few years back, the change occurred at U.13. To me, this was worse - a promising player at U.12 midi rugby learns at his first U.13 game that he can no longer play the game he's grown to love. While I feel for the U.9's, they are unlikely to have developed such a love of the game that they feel distraught at having to find other sporting outlets.

And FYI, I never felt comfortable refereeing any age grade where sports goggles were permitted - some were downright dangerous to all concerned (wearer, team mates and opponents), while others were likely to harm no-one but the wearer. I never felt the children were making an informed decision about the risks they took.

 

[crossref]

personally I think the new regulation, that ties it into the type of rugby being played rather than the age, is a big improvement on the old one, and quite sensible. I am with Dixie I viewed goggles with great apprehension and I am glad I never refereed a game with a goggle wearer, so never called upon to make a judgement.

it's a shame for kids but at the end of the day they can take up rugby once they get contacts, which is normally 13/14 (it helps if you talk to the optician about wearing them JUST for rugby, so only a couple of hours a week) . Plenty of time to play rugby from 14 upwards ,it's not too late.

 

[PaulDG]

it's a shame for kids but at the end of the day they can take up rugby once they get contacts, which is normally 13/14 (it helps if you talk to the optician about wearing them JUST for rugby, so only a couple of hours a week) .

There's no age limit on having contact lenses, 2 year old kids have them.

Back when contacts were expensive and easily lost, there was a reason not to use them as kids would lose them on the first day at school as they would take them out to show their friends and they'd get dropped, but with modern disposable lenses, the problem is "will the kid stay still long enough to have them put in?"

If the answer to that is "yes", there's no problem.

 

[Phil E]

There's no age limit on having contact lenses, 2 year old kids have them.

Back when contacts were expensive and easily lost, there was a reason not to use them as kids would lose them on the first day at school as they would take them out to show their friends and they'd get dropped, but with modern disposable lenses, the problem is "will the kid stay still long enough to have them put in?"

If the answer to that is "yes", there's no problem.

My son was told he couldn't have them until he was 14.
That's what his optician told us.
He has to have regular checkups to keep using them.

Are you an optician? If you are we have a conflict of professional advice?

 

[crossref]

Here you go. Pretty much as you say

http://www.webmd.boots.com/eye-health/guide/children-and-contact-lenses

My son got same advice as Phil.. I wish now I had bothered to Google it!

 

[PaulDG]

http://www.thecontactlenspractice.co.uk/page/kids_and_contacts/

 

[Account Deleted]

My son was told he couldn't have them until he was 14.
That's what his optician told us.
He has to have regular checkups to keep using them.

Are you an optician? If you are we have a conflict of professional advice?

"Interesting" advice. Well all are advised to have "regular checkups" what is different about contacts? I have a regular yearly check up, My wife (wears contacts) has bi-annual check ups.

The article Crossref quotes disagrees with your optician and the views of many opticians across the country.

 

[crossref]

The article Crossref quotes disagrees with your optician and the views of many opticians across the country.

and the advice of our opticians, and what I thought was the case.

but when PaulDG put up post #15 I quickly googled 'contact lenses for children' and was astonished that all the articles I looked at agreed with PaulDG - no specific age. google results