PDA

View Full Version : Leggings



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5

Scarlet Al
24-03-10, 00:03
I know there's a couple of threads on this... Had email correspondence with a high up at the WRU Referees department recently who said he'd emailed the IRB who said they're illegal, there has been a lot of debate amongst ref's in these parts about them... Found on NS7 site today: http://www.ns7.co.uk/news.htm

OFFICIAL NOTICE TO ALL PLAYERS



The use of leggings/tights/skins has been outlawed by the IRB as from 1st March 2010 and ratified by the R.F.U.



Therefore the use of the above is NOT allowed at the National Sevens.



This applies equally to the BOYS and GIRLS tournaments




Can't find anything on the IRB site or RFU site to support this, although a high up at the WRU has told me they are not allowed.

Simon Thomas
24-03-10, 10:03
Use of leggings is a particular "bete noir" of mine.

I have had extensive conversations and email communications with DB of RFU on the topic (he is RFU Law Rep in liaison with IRB).

The guidance is clear - they are not allowed for playing.

NSS is organised by London Society (of which DB is a Commitee man, salaried RFU London & SE Referee Development Manager, etc) and London Society have made a very clear ruling through the NSS web site.

At our Society meeting I made it very clear to Hampshire's Refs that they should not be allowed in our County.

I will try to get some RFU or IRB documentation to support this.

Casey Bee
24-03-10, 11:03
Use of leggings is a particular "bete noir" of mine.

I have had extensive conversations and email communications with DB of RFU on the topic (he is RFU Law Rep in liaison with IRB).

The guidance is clear - they are not allowed for playing.

NSS is organised by London Society (of which DB is a Commitee man, salaried RFU London & SE Referee Development Manager, etc) and London Society have made a very clear ruling through the NSS web site.

At our Society meeting I made it very clear to Hampshire's Refs that they should not be allowed in our County.

I will try to get some RFU or IRB documentation to support this.

Does anyone find there is a correlation between a player's wearing of leggings, fluorescent boots, non standard team shorts and his desire to give running commentary on the game, decisions etc?

Bunniksider
24-03-10, 12:03
I have encouraged my U8's to wear thermal leggings & undershirts this year whilst we have been coaching & playing Tag Rugby. The last thing I wanted was a handful of cold and miserable kids on a Sunday morning.

What do people think about their use next year when we move on to contact?

I'm inclined to think that I will still allow/recommend it for a couple of years as I don't want them frozen out of the game.

Wert Twacky
24-03-10, 12:03
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.

didds
24-03-10, 12:03
has anyone a reference/source for this (pref online) and its extensions within the junior and child age groups (see above two comments which i entirely concur with)?

cheers

didds

Simon Thomas
24-03-10, 12:03
especially if he is also wearing white socks and has number 11 or 14 on his back :D

Casey Bee
24-03-10, 13:03
especially if he is also wearing white socks and has number 11 or 14 on his back :D

Ha ha, sounds about right!
Saw a prime example on Sat - 14 whinged at ref 'he tripped me', ref was already running off. Turned to me at TJ, 'didn't you see him trip me?'.
My reply was 'no I didnt see that'.
My thought was 'What I saw was you pussy out of taking your oppo on and slow up whereupon he dumped you, quite legitimately; you are now whining as a guy half your size bested you. Spend more time on your sidestep and acceration drills rather than shining your yellow boots and looking in the mirror.'

Simon Thomas
24-03-10, 13:03
May I repeat what I wrote above :

The guidance is clear - they are not allowed for playing. Not sure how plainer that can be ?

Also to be very clear I have been told by RFU that there is no intention to ask kids of continuum age groups to remove leggings even in matches. And a sensible coach on cold days would encourage their use or track suit trousers.

Likewise we all need to show some common sense - when I reffed a match in full tracksuit and wet weather gear with bobble hat in Estonia a few years ago all the players had tracksuit trousers or ladies tights on - it was -15 !

Didds - as I said above I have asked for RFU / IRB documentation

oldman
24-03-10, 13:03
I must admit to letting players, at junior and senior games. play in tights.
I have far more important things to worry about that the guy in tights.
Perhaps the 'blazers' should worry about more important things - the decline in adult playing numbers,the fall out of players after they leave school, the scrum and constant collapses, referee abuse. I'm sure other's can add more. No the guy in tights can play he's not going to harm anyone and at least he plays each week.

Casey Bee
24-03-10, 14:03
I must admit to letting players, at junior and senior games. play in tights.
I have far more important things to worry about that the guy in tights.
Perhaps the 'blazers' should worry about more important things - the decline in adult playing numbers,the fall out of players after they leave school, the scrum and constant collapses, referee abuse. I'm sure other's can add more. No the guy in tights can play he's not going to harm anyone and at least he plays each week.

They are not permitted. By allowing them to be worn you are allowing people to 'chisel' at laws which accelerates declining standards in all areas including as you mention referee abuse.
Are you suggesting that the player who plays every week wearing tights, will no longer play if they are told not to wear them? I expect their team mates, the vast majority of whom survive without tights, will talk them round.
There aren't many players who don't know they are not permitted, and who would comply if asked.

Simon Thomas
24-03-10, 14:03
I must admit to letting players, at junior and senior games. play in tights.
I have far more important things to worry about that the guy in tights.
Perhaps the 'blazers' should worry about more important things - the decline in adult playing numbers,the fall out of players after they leave school, the scrum and constant collapses, referee abuse. I'm sure other's can add more. No the guy in tights can play he's not going to harm anyone and at least he plays each week.

Your choice Oldman until told otherwise by London, but it wouldn't be as a referee in our Society and I suspect DB will not be in agreement with you in London either. Rugby has an ethos and culture and looking like a prima ballerina is not one of them. Of course all match officials have lots to think about, but correct attire for players (and themselves) is a basic and easy issue to deal with.

Some of the RFU 'blazers' (as you call them) are involved in a lot of hard work and allocated significant RFU budgets to work on the areas you comment on, plus lots lots more :

decline in adult playing numbers ? not according to the Sport England surveys and numbers registered on RugbyFirst. Play-On scheme has had a positive effect too.

School leavers / Univ kids leaving the Game is nothing new - it was the same 30 years ago ! RFU Policy Pillar of 16-24 initiatives, RUSLOs, etc has had a positive retention effect in last 5 seasons. Success of inititives like Cronk-Cunis Festival are evidence of this. Two whole new Old Boys clubs have emerged after Cronk Cunis re-unions.

Scrum collapses etc are an Elite Game issue - I see very few in the Community Game, where the blazers ensure through Society training and assessment that our referees do it right.

Referee abuse - on this issue the ultimate blazer (Francis Baron) has personally been involved in setting policy and action. Societies and CBs are working hard to clamp down on it - perhaps the clubs, players and coaches should look at their own behaviour and self-discpline first !

And by the way, I am not a full time 'blazer' as I still referee every week, assess every week too, and am a pain in the backside to quite a few of the full time blazers at the RFU.

crossref
24-03-10, 14:03
Perhaps the 'blazers' should worry about more important things - the decline in adult playing numbers,the fall out of players after they leave school, the scrum and constant collapses, referee abuse. I'm sure other's can add more.

I couldn't agree more.

I'd add : enforcing a single se of laws in youth rugby, so that it's played the same at clubs and schools. It's ludicrous expecting a 12 year old to play to one set of laws on Saturday and another on Sunday.

Simon Thomas
24-03-10, 17:03
RFU and IRB refer me to 2006 Law Ruling documentation :

IRB Law Ruling 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.
Page 5 of 7
RULING 4: 2006
Law Ruling by Designated Members of Rugby Committee
14 June 2006

PaulDG
24-03-10, 18:03
Also to be very clear I have been told by RFU that there is no intention to ask kids of continuum age groups to remove leggings even in matches. And a sensible coach on cold days would encourage their use or track suit trousers.

Likewise we all need to show some common sense - when I reffed a match in full tracksuit and wet weather gear with bobble hat in Estonia a few years ago all the players had tracksuit trousers or ladies tights on - it was -15 !

Didds - as I said above I have asked for RFU / IRB documentation

And they need to understand the need for confirming what you've written above loud and clear in the Continuum and junior variations.

Because when, not if, this causes disputes pitchside with Old Wangerians U9s, the people trying to do the sensible thing of keeping children safe and comfortable in poor conditions need to have the backing of the RFU in writing. Not some vague notion that "sensible people would understand this".

Because "sensible people" coach U7s to cavalry charge, U8s to contest 3 man scrums, U9 scrum halves to follow the ball onto the opposition side of the scrum and U9 backs to walk forward while the "referee" coaches (out of necessity) the scrum.

Dixie
24-03-10, 18:03
Even at continuum age groups, tracksuit bottoms with zips should not be worn - even if the zip is initially tucked into a sock. Any tackler may slide down so that the zip makes contact with the eye, and you would far prefer to be taken to task for giving a chap chilly legs than for blinding his opponent. The same risk applies to zipped pockets, where the initial hit of the tackle will bring the eye and the zip into far too close proximity for anyone's comfort.

Taff
24-03-10, 18:03
Sorry gents, but I'm struggling to imagine what "Leggins" or "Tights" even look like. :o

Anyone got a photo or possibly a link to some on a retailers site?

Rit Hinners
24-03-10, 18:03
Sorry gents, but I'm struggling to imagine what "Leggins" or "Tights" even look like. :o

Anyone got a photo or possibly a link to some on a retailers site?

It's easy to visualise. Just picture your clubs front row in ballet kit and you'll have it. Oh, replace the tutu with rugby shorts.

Simon Thomas
24-03-10, 18:03
PaulDG - I am informing my members in the Society and with my CB Executive Director & Youth Committee to our Clubs that in line with IRB/RFU guidance and Law Ruling 4 2006

a) leggings are not legal match wear for Adult and older Youth matches

b) subject to weather conditions, or even personal preferences with discretion, at Continuum level they can be worn. Coaches and referees should use common sense.

Perhaps East Midlands should do the same - I know you have good guys like John Wearing and Paul Rogers on board.

OB..
24-03-10, 18:03
I have far more important things to worry about that the guy in tights.
Perhaps the 'blazers' should worry about more important things - the decline in adult playing numbers,the fall out of players after they leave school, the scrum and constant collapses, referee abuse.

Dealing with clothing takes place just before the match starts. That does not conflict with anything else in your list, so is no excuse for not dealing with it.

PaulDG
24-03-10, 19:03
Perhaps East Midlands should do the same - I know you have good guys like John Wearing and Paul Rogers on board.

I'll mention it to John but the reality is that John's, Paul's and Andrew Roger's directives don't ever make it past club secretaries.

Mini rugby is effectively "ungoverned" in almost all clubs. It's all parents "doing their best".

And when their best is "what we did when I was at school", you can imagine what goes on.

Only what is properly put in writing, on the RFU website has a chance of being seen by the target group.

Wert Twacky
24-03-10, 20:03
Refereed a women's Uni game today and had to tell four players they couldn't wear leggings/tights.

The reasons, according to the captains, was;

1. "They don't like getting muddy".
2. "They're self-concious about their size". (two of them were units mind).

Not my problem - some element of apathy regarding being self-concious, but they're outlawed and that's that at senior level.

PaulDG
24-03-10, 21:03
Not my problem - some element of apathy regarding being self-concious, but they're outlawed and that's that at senior level.

Why? What's the big deal?

Women's rugby is almost non-existent and needs all the players it can get. If they want to wear leggings, what does it matter?

(Sure if it's the women's 6 nations, then stick to the letter of the law - but, then again, as England has won again and it's almost impossible to find mention of that on the RFU website let alone anywhere else in the media, what does it matter if even they wear leggings? I mean it's not as if it was on TV or anything!)

Not Kurt Weaver
24-03-10, 21:03
Sorry gents, but I'm struggling to imagine what "Leggins" or "Tights" even look like. :o

Anyone got a photo or possibly a link to some on a retailers site?

Check out the thread Rugby in Antartica. There are some legging pictures.

PeterH
24-03-10, 22:03
happy with tops
http://www.scrumoftheearth.com/rugby_news/content/binary/Skins1.jpg

Not with tights
http://www.scrumoftheearth.com/rugby_news/content/binary/Skinsbottoms.jpg

Phil E
24-03-10, 23:03
My skins top must be defective because I don't look anything like that picture in mine :confused:

PeterH
24-03-10, 23:03
Don't you look like batman Phil?

Phil E
24-03-10, 23:03
Don't you look like batman Phil?

More like Mr Muscle :(

Skid986
25-03-10, 08:03
It's easy to visualise. Just picture your clubs front row in ballet kit and you'll have it. Oh, replace the tutu with rugby shorts.

I can't imagine any self-respecting FR player or former FR player ever wearing tights on the pitch in conditions that were good enough for a match to go ahead. That would look just silly. Wouldn't it?

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9164&page=12&highlight=moore

oldman
25-03-10, 10:03
Simon, sorry for the delay in replying but for a change work had to come first.
Can I reply to some of your points?
Firstly we are all aware of the drop in adult players. Locally to me clubs who put out 4 or 5 sides now struggle to put out 3. My own club regularly put out 5 side with an additional 'student side in September, at christmas and Easter. Now 3 most weeks, to often only 2, the student side has vanished. Yes the mini and juniors is vibrant (without it we would fold financially) but to many youngsters do not play once they reach University.
Varioius members have said the laws must be obeyed. However I refer to the ELRA course I took 2ish years ago and the concept of Materiality explained to me simply 'as does it matter'. I fail to see how the wearing of leggings make a difference to the playing of the game or to the safety of the players. If all the laws are to be obeyed then why, at all levels, are referees not taken to task about the put in at the scrum. I only referee alternate weeks (work again) but am able to watch on none refereeing afternoons if work allows so I see games from level 4 down. The number of straight put ins at the scrum in all the games I have seen this season can be counted on one hand.
As for scrum collapses they occur at all levels, sometimes due to bad technique and lack of knowledge but often because the players want to cheat amd the referee has been told to 'manage the situation'. In discussion with a National Panel referee earlier this season he made it clear a high penalty count went against him.
We have laws which are, by definition, open to interpretation. In my games leggings are OK they are not dangerous and well down my list of priorities to make the game safe and enjoyable for all.

Simon Thomas
25-03-10, 10:03
Oldman

On leggings, the RFU and IRB have made their guidance / ruling clear. I have made our Society's consistent approach clear to our members. I know (as I have discussed it with him) what DB's view is too, so I would expect compliance from London Society members. Consistency is very important in all aspects of match officiating.

You have a personal view that you wish to follow that goes against that advice / guidance and consisytency, and you justify it by refering to other Laws and materiality, and personal observations.

Your approach is not how I try to deal with matters that have been reached by policy setting bodies and a group that I am a member of.

Wert Twacky
25-03-10, 11:03
As for the four women wearing leggings, sorry, but the feedback I get from women's teams/players is that all they want is to be refereed/treated equally, so while it's not a case of me parading around like a little Hitler and demanding they remove any tights, it's simply a quiet word to the captain that they can't wear them.

There was no issues and this was some Uni final anyway - just like I refuse to stop for every single injury (we had three within first three minute - nothing more than bumps and bruises), they soon get used it.

Dixie
25-03-10, 12:03
As for the four women wearing leggings, sorry, but the feedback I get from women's teams/players is that all they want is to be refereed/treated equally, Any Muslim women in that group? Or don't we care if they are denied access top the game by the essential rugby need to cover the knee?

Does anyone know why the rugby authorities consider a covered knee to be such an important matter that it justifies eliminating an entire religion from the women's game?

Wert Twacky
25-03-10, 13:03
Dixie,

No, there weren't any Muslims in the group.

If there were and they wanted to keep them on, it would be a case of asking the opposing team if they had any major issues with the player keeping the leggings on.

As for the IRB elimating an entire religion from the women's game - I've contacts in Isreal, Egypt and Asia, all of whom are enjoying an upsurge in the game - never once I have I heard of clothing being an issue.

Not Kurt Weaver
25-03-10, 13:03
Any Muslim women in that group? Or don't we care if they are denied access top the game by the essential rugby need to cover the knee?

Does anyone know why the rugby authorities consider a covered knee to be such an important matter that it justifies eliminating an entire religion from the women's game?

We have had this come up in Ohio. Leggings have been permitted for that reason, I do not know the official response verbatim. There is also a facial cover and head-dress of some kind. I rarely get assigned women's games and haven't seen this.

SimonSmith
25-03-10, 13:03
Some of those leggings could be slippy, and therefore make tackling difficult.

didds
25-03-10, 14:03
perhaps the clubs, players and coaches should look at their own behaviour and self-discpline first !

perhaps SOME clubs, players and coaches should look at their own behaviour and self-discpline etc...

didds2

Wert Twacky
25-03-10, 15:03
Simonsmith: sorry, but I'm still pi**ing myself at that one!:wow:

TheBFG
25-03-10, 15:03
Simonsmith: sorry, but I'm still pi**ing myself at that one!:wow:

1105

Wert, I thought Bath Uni played in Blue and yellow

Dixie
25-03-10, 16:03
I've contacts in Isreal, Egypt and Asia, all of whom are enjoying an upsurge in the game - never once I have I heard of clothing being an issue.As someone who lives and officiates in an area with a significant Muslim population, I can't imagine it NOT being an issue!

Wert Twacky
25-03-10, 16:03
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
25-03-10, 23:03
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
28-03-10, 00:03
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
29-03-10, 20:03
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..
29-03-10, 22:03
I presume they would be pragmatic and allow variations for sensible reasons.

Ian_Cook
29-03-10, 23:03
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
30-03-10, 09:03
.....Are they considered to give the wearer some kind of unfair or material advantage?......

Exactly :)

SimonSmith
30-03-10, 13:03
If the leggings are made of 'slippy' material, then I can see an advantage

Davet
30-03-10, 14:03
Unlike a good splash of Vas on the legs...?

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

Rit Hinners
30-03-10, 16:03
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
30-03-10, 19:03
So I guess they have been banned, but nobody actually knows why?

Phil E
30-03-10, 22:03
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
30-03-10, 23:03
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
31-03-10, 00:03
That's it Ian, they don't comply. Underwear ends above the knee and socks end below the knee.

Whoops! Apologies Ian, :eek: 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 paddingI 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? :D

Robert Burns
31-03-10, 01:03
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
31-03-10, 08:03
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 ?

:confused:

Phil E
31-03-10, 09:03
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
31-03-10, 10:03
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 .....) :rolleyes:

crossref
31-03-10, 10:03
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..
31-03-10, 10:03
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.

FlipFlop
31-03-10, 11:03
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
31-03-10, 11:03
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
31-03-10, 11:03
@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
31-03-10, 11:03
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
31-03-10, 11:03
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 :rolleyes:

Adam
31-03-10, 11:03
@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
31-03-10, 12:03
"... 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 :rolleyes:


* Or punctuation :rolleyes:

TheBFG
31-03-10, 12:03
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 :rolleyes:

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

Davet
31-03-10, 13:03
If they give you an advantage in post-training recovery does that equate them with steroids?:swet:

Phil E
31-03-10, 14:03
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
31-03-10, 14:03
or a rub down from a reporter with the Sporting Time

Fixed that for you :)

didds
31-03-10, 14:03
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
31-03-10, 17:03
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
31-03-10, 18:03
Fixed that for you :)


http://www.rugbyrefs.com/forums/imagehosting/444bb3823340447.jpg (http://www.rugbyrefs.com/forums/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=267)

A sporting Times reporter!

Phil E
31-03-10, 18:03
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
31-03-10, 20:03
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
31-03-10, 21:03
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
01-04-10, 01:04
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
01-04-10, 09:04
so what actually was announced/changed from 1 March 2010

Nothing AFAIK

Ian_Cook
01-04-10, 09:04
Nothing AFAIK


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

http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o35/smartcooky99/ns7notice.jpg

Simon Thomas
01-04-10, 09:04
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.

Phil E
01-04-10, 09:04
Leggings are illegal match wear, but dispensation and variation can be given by Home Union - for example in an Islamic area where women play.

I think that ends the thread. :clap:

crossref
01-04-10, 09:04
perhaps we could have a poll then to see what people would do in practice...

Scenario
- an U16 League game on a cold day in February in Ruralshire Division 5. Smallclub U16 v LargeClub U16 B. Both teams have only 2 subs

- 5 players are in leggings, three from one team, two from another

Do you say nothing, or attempt to make them to change?

When you make them change
- one claims religious reasons
- one claims he has excema and the leggings protect his skin
- two simply refuse
- one says I'll take mine off if everyone else does, but if he can wear them then so can I.

:chin: :biggrin:

Tryer
01-04-10, 10:04
I've been reading this thread with interest...... I'm a coach and ref of junior age groups, my initial thoughts were - they're kids and I wouldn't make a fuss regardless of a friendly or competitive game (County Cup for example). As a team one player has worn them once for us this season before Christmas, although last season it was more prevalent. No-one, us or the opposition has ever made a fuss.

As I said no-one in our team will wear them for this, I'm a bit of a stickler for shirts tucked into shorts and socks pulled up etc. However in terms of gamesmanship we are now through to a County Cup Final and I have noted that our opposition do wear them, actually up to 6 or 8 players. They have been wearing them even in warm weather. I'm now wrestling with myself that if we turn up and the oppo are wearing them, should I ask that they be removed, if the ref doesn't insist? It may upset them a little which if they have nothing else will also cause an inconvenience and we may get an edge. On the other hand it could also give them extra motivation for me being so pedantic.

I'm not a win at all costs type of coach but as a player I'd always being trying to get under the oppos skin whether to put them off their game or concentrate on me more than the ball, but this is a final and these little things are now entering my mind.

What would you do???

Ian_Cook
04-04-10, 04:04
Interestingly, Ruling 5 - 2006.....


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.

...makes no mention of how long socks must be, and whether or not they must end below the knee.

I wonder if thigh-length socks are legal? :D

Perhaps someone could ask the French to enquire!! :biggrin:

Phil E
04-04-10, 09:04
Scenario
- an U16 League game on a cold day in February in Ruralshire Division 5. Smallclub U16 v LargeClub U16 B. Both teams have only 2 subs

- 5 players are in leggings, three from one team, two from another

Do you say nothing, or attempt to make them to change?

When you make them change
- one claims religious reasons
- one claims he has excema and the leggings protect his skin
- two simply refuse
- one says I'll take mine off if everyone else does, but if he can wear them then so can I.

:chin: :biggrin:

Make them change of course.

"I appreciate what you are saying to me, but the laws of the game are quite specific on this issue. If you want special dispensation you will have to apply to a higher level than me and it won't happen before the game starts."

ctrainor
04-04-10, 11:04
Reffed my own club's A team Friday and one of the lads ran out for the warm up in leggings
"You can't play in them" says I to much disbelief around the club.
"But I've wore them for the last 4 weeks" says the player.
"That may be true but they are banned and your not playing wearing girlie tights" says I.
He took them off!!

Skid986
04-04-10, 14:04
It tells you what you CAN wear. shirt, shirts, socks and underwear.

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

No it doesn't. It merely asked for definintions, as below:


'The FFR has requested a ruling with regard to Law 4 Players’ Clothing.
Please provide a definition of jersey, shorts and underwear.'
It doesn't say anywhere in this what items are permitted to be worn. If we restricted play to those items for which the FFR requested definition there would be no boots, armour, gloves/mitts, etc

Frankly I'm somewhat surprised this thread has dragged on for so long without anybody being able to provide evidence of any body actually outlawing leggings. For me it's all rumour and conjecture until somebody can provide tangible evidence rather than second hand anecdotes. I, for one, will be ignoring what is a somewhat minor and pointless issue on the field of play until somebody can give clear evidence to the contrary.

SimonSmith
04-04-10, 16:04
No it doesn't. It merely asked for definintions, as below:


'The FFR has requested a ruling with regard to Law 4 Players’ Clothing.
Please provide a definition of jersey, shorts and underwear.'
It doesn't say anywhere in this what items are permitted to be worn. If we restricted play to those items for which the FFR requested definition there would be no boots, armour, gloves/mitts, etc

Frankly I'm somewhat surprised this thread has dragged on for so long without anybody being able to provide evidence of any body actually outlawing leggings. For me it's all rumour and conjecture until somebody can provide tangible evidence rather than second hand anecdotes. I, for one, will be ignoring what is a somewhat minor and pointless issue on the field of play until somebody can give clear evidence to the contrary.

with respect, I think you're wrong.
The law is specific about what players wear:

DEFINITIONS
Players’ clothing is anything players wear.
A player wears a jersey, shorts and underwear, socks and boots.
Detailed information relating to the permitted specifications for clothing and studs
maybe found in IRB Specifications (Regulation 12).

The French clarified the definition of underwear. By reasoning it through (that leggings are not compliant with the definition of underwear, and not listed anywhere), it appears that leggings are not law-compliant.

triage
04-04-10, 16:04
with respect, I think you're wrong.
The law is specific about what players wear:

.


however regulation 12 does allow for support garments to be worn for prevention of injury...if made from washable elasticated material......such support compression garments are made as skins and leggings and there is no definition under regulation 12 for how big or small these garments may be :wink:

Skid986
05-04-10, 01:04
The French clarified the definition of underwear. By reasoning it through (that leggings are not compliant with the definition of underwear, and not listed anywhere), it appears that leggings are not law-compliant.

So by the same reasoning thermal tops are also banned items of clothing?

Simon Thomas
05-04-10, 08:04
For me it's all rumour and conjecture until somebody can provide tangible evidence rather than second hand anecdotes. I, for one, will be ignoring what is a somewhat minor and pointless issue on the field of play until somebody can give clear evidence to the contrary.

We have an IRB Law Ruling on headed paper, I also have a recent clarification email from RFU's Ref Dept's employee Dave B (who is IRB LoG liaison for RFU) - those are both good enough for me as a Society Chairman, with the full support of my Committee, to issue instructions to our Society's members to not allow leggings to be worn.

I would hope you would follow your Society's instructions too if they did the same.

Ian_Cook
05-04-10, 08:04
OK


DEFINITIONS
Players’ clothing is anything players wear.

A player wears a jersey, shorts and underwear, socks and boots.

Detailed information relating to the permitted specifications for clothing and studs maybe found in IRB Specifications (Regulation 12).Ruling 5 -2006 specifies thet underwear must stop above the knee

What about socks? Do they have to stop below the knee? Not anywhere in any Law, Law ruling or Regulation is there a definition of socks and how much of the body they are allowed to cover...

so.....

Socks... thigh-high

http://www.wegotthestuff.com/media/catalog/product/cache/25/image/265x265/8a02aedcaf38ad3a98187ab0a1dede95/1/9/1945-BL.jpg

Skid986
05-04-10, 16:04
We have an IRB Law Ruling on headed paper, I also have a recent clarification email from RFU's Ref Dept's employee Dave B (who is IRB LoG liaison for RFU) - those are both good enough for me as a Society Chairman, with the full support of my Committee, to issue instructions to our Society's members to not allow leggings to be worn.

I would hope you would follow your Society's instructions too if they did the same.

Of course I would follow formal instructions when issued. But this is my point. I and many others have not SEEN any OFFICIAL direction that specifically outlaws leggings. All I'm asking for is some tangible evidence that this is something to be enforced.

Who is the 'we' you refer to as having received an IRB law ruling on headed paper? We the whole rugby world, or 'we' your society? If you have an official IRB law ruling then please direct me to it because I can't find it on their website and if such a directive was put into the public domain it would stop this thread dead in its tracks. I would then walk away a contented man knowing the official line, rather than having to rely on people's opinions of what they think others interpret the situation to be.

crossref
05-04-10, 16:04
We have an IRB Law Ruling on headed paper, I also have a recent clarification email from RFU's Ref Dept's employee Dave B (who is IRB LoG liaison for RFU) - those are both good enough for me as a Society Chairman, with the full support of my Committee, to issue instructions to our Society's members to not allow leggings to be worn.


Can't you scan the IRB ruling and post it up here ?

Phil E
05-04-10, 17:04
Warwickshire have been told that leggings are not allowed and we are to enforce that.

We have also been told things such as:

All clubs must have barriers of some description.

Yellow cards are 10 minutes for EVERY game except 7's.

Rules on intervention in youth rugby, etc.

Simon Thomas
05-04-10, 17:04
Of course I would follow formal instructions when issued. But this is my point. I and many others have not SEEN any OFFICIAL direction that specifically outlaws leggings. All I'm asking for is some tangible evidence that this is something to be enforced.

Who is the 'we' you refer to as having received an IRB law ruling on headed paper? We the whole rugby world, or 'we' your society? If you have an official IRB law ruling then please direct me to it because I can't find it on their website and if such a directive was put into the public domain it would stop this thread dead in its tracks. I would then walk away a contented man knowing the official line, rather than having to rely on people's opinions of what they think others interpret the situation to be.

We is the whole rugby world, and your Society would have received the Law Ruling 5 on 14th November 2006. Since then it has been available for the whole world to see at http://www.irb.com/mm/document/lawsregs/0/070301lawrulings2006_598.pdf , well and truly in the public domain and as official as you can get !

Also I am sorry you don't think you can take the opinion of a large Society's Chairman who is almost daily contact with the RFU, and the RFU's Refs Dept representative on the Law sub-commitee and who is the RFU's IRB Law liaison officer. I am not sure who else's interpretation might be more reliable or taken as "Official "?

Also where it is published by London Society in the NSS tournament rules, that carries a pretty high level "official stamp" in my estimation.

We are all volunteers and I try to share information where I can, as some Societies maybe don't have the size, time or communication network to get through their members about everything.

Which Society is NMRFRS ?

Phil E
05-04-10, 17:04
Which Society is NMRFRS ?

I believe it's North Mids and their website contains a link to the IRB law Rulings page HERE (http://www.northmidsrefs.com/laws.asp), where you can find the ruling on leggings under the title 2006 Laws Ruling.

triage
05-04-10, 17:04
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?

Skid986
05-04-10, 18:04
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?

Phil E
05-04-10, 18:04
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
05-04-10, 21:04
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
05-04-10, 21:04
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
05-04-10, 21:04
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
05-04-10, 22:04
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
05-04-10, 22:04
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
05-04-10, 22:04
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
05-04-10, 22:04
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
05-04-10, 23:04
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
05-04-10, 23:04
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
05-04-10, 23:04
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
05-04-10, 23:04
Thankyou!!!

Phil E
05-04-10, 23:04
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
06-04-10, 00:04
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
06-04-10, 00:04
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 :rolleyes:

Ian_Cook
06-04-10, 00:04
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
06-04-10, 00:04
and that smells very much like elitism to me.

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

Ian_Cook
06-04-10, 01:04
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
06-04-10, 09:04
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
06-04-10, 10:04
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.

Robert Burns
06-04-10, 10:04
What about this?

http://secure.soccersupplies.com/_images/products/RU-5000-large.jpg

Phil E
06-04-10, 11:04
What about this?

http://secure.soccersupplies.com/_images/products/RU-5000-large.jpg

Why is he wearing a CONDOM!!

triage
06-04-10, 11:04
Why is he wearing a CONDOM!!

Being a referee I am sure he is a male organ.......I am sure the crowd have called you one at some stage or another...all referee's are apparently one....or at least spectators seem to think so :)

lol

Robert Burns
06-04-10, 11:04
It's not a very good Condom, it's got a few holes in it!

Dickie, Is that you in one of the VRRA Refs tops? :Zip:

Ian_Cook
06-04-10, 12:04
Dickie, Is that you in one of the VRRA Refs tops? :Zip:



FFS don't encourage him!!!

Phil E
06-04-10, 13:04
Being a referee I am sure he is a male organ.......

He certainly looks like a complete dick :Looser:

triage
06-04-10, 14:04
He certainly looks like a complete dick :Looser:


I didn't know what I could or couldn't post with regards terminology hence the safe option...but i agree 100% :)

PaulDG
07-04-10, 09:04
Why is he wearing a CONDOM!!

I suppose because there weren't appropriate tops available that had the proper sponsors' logos on them.

Skid986
07-04-10, 12:04
The interpretation is not mine - it is IRB and RFU's, whose interpretations, guidance & rulings I have to follow...

Fine. But other than a personal e-mail to you, where have they published it? And if they haven't published it how is the rest of the rugby world meant to know about it officially? 'Simon Says' won't wash when I'm being confronted by players, coaches and parents.

OB..
07-04-10, 12:04
Fine. But other than a personal e-mail to you, where have they published it? And if they haven't published it how is the rest of the rugby world meant to know about it officially? 'Simon Says' won't wash when I'm being confronted by players, coaches and parents.

The information is supposed to be cascaded down. Have you checked within your own society?

Robert Burns
07-04-10, 14:04
Anyway, back to leggings.

One thing I notice is that all the major rugby brands make them (Gilbert, Kooga, Canterbury, etc..) however none make any claim to them being approved, but then why should they as it's only padding that requires IRB seal of approval.

If all the rugby brands are making them, then they must be getting worn somewhere, otherwise it's very bad business sense.

TheBFG
07-04-10, 14:04
If all the rugby brands are making them, then they must be getting worn somewhere, otherwise it's very bad business sense.

if you read the promo stuff from brands such as Skins, it's all about wearing them form training and warming up, i'm sure one of the Dr's on here can give the low down and helping muscles recover etc..............

Ray TR
07-04-10, 15:04
OB-I have only missed one of our Glos and District meetings this year but havent a clue on this one, and was asked by a touring side at POW stadium friday night. So, do I allow them or not?
cheers

TheBFG
07-04-10, 15:04
OB-I have only missed one of our Glos and District meetings this year but havent a clue on this one, and was asked by a touring side at POW stadium friday night. So, do I allow them or not?
cheers

No! the bloody sun's out now:wink:

Tryer
07-04-10, 16:04
OB-I have only missed one of our Glos and District meetings this year but havent a clue on this one, and was asked by a touring side at POW stadium friday night. So, do I allow them or not?
cheers

Ray TR, when I'm at the CC Finals at the PoW on the 25th I'll be talking to the appointed To3 about them for my teams game...... hope the decision has been made by then..... I've even printed the IRB ruling off just in case. Any team wearing them at this time of the season are wearing them to gain an advantage, real or perceived......

Ray TR
07-04-10, 19:04
hopefuly I will get either a plate or cup final so I will keep a weather eye out for a man clutching rulings ! I certainly would never have worn them-especially with my position being called hooker! I do agree they just dont look or seem right and until told otherwise I will not be allowing them. Sole judge of fact and fashion etc..

OB..
07-04-10, 20:04
OB-I have only missed one of our Glos and District meetings this year but havent a clue on this one, and was asked by a touring side at POW stadium friday night. So, do I allow them or not?
cheers

Ask the Chairman. I don't make rulings!

Ian_Cook
07-04-10, 20:04
If all the rugby brands are making them, then they must be getting worn somewhere, otherwise it's very bad business sense.


Training?
Rugby League?
Wendyball?

I STILL have not seen an official reason given for them being banned! :mad:

beatonERRS
07-04-10, 20:04
I'm not sure what infringement leggings/tights have on a game, it's not like a swimming wetsuit that is used in the olympics that is going to give them an extra 1/10 of a second over their opponent, I think we should stop worrying about the little harmless detail, I think the IRB should be worrying about making the Lineouts and Scrums safer, parts of the game where Injurys can happen.

OB..
07-04-10, 20:04
I STILL have not seen an official reason given for them being banned! :mad:

Try asking the IRB. Personally, I can't be bothered.

didds
07-04-10, 23:04
Anyway, back to leggings.

One thing I notice is that all the major rugby brands make them (Gilbert, Kooga, Canterbury, etc..) however none make any claim to them being approved, but then why should they as it's only padding that requires IRB seal of approval.

If all the rugby brands are making them, then they must be getting worn somewhere, otherwise it's very bad business sense.


because they get worn in other sports.

I bought compression tights to aid post training muscle soreness... and the ONLY shops in Bath I found them were in "Total Fitness" (the triathlon shop;none in the size I wanted) and the Rugby Kit shop in the main parade... "Running bath" the running store doesn't stock them at all! I confess I didn't try the excellent "John's Bikes" which may have stocked them.

Point being they are used by other sports as well.

didds

didds
07-04-10, 23:04
Any team wearing them at this time of the season are wearing them to gain an advantage, real or perceived......


unless they are wearing them for non sporting reasons, such as has already been suggested. e.g. religious grounds

didds

crossref
08-04-10, 09:04
We for me, reffing at junior levels I'm certainly not planning to pay any attention to leggings.

I do understand that the 2006 IRB ruling defines underwear in a way that excludes leggings, and therefore (if leggings are neither shorts nor underwear) leggings are - by implication and omission - not allowed.

However, IMO that's far too tenous to wave around the clubhouse at our next junior rugby coaches/refs meeting.

When/if we receive something definitive from the RFU (for all games) or from the county league organisers (for league games) then I certainly would apply it.

Tryer
08-04-10, 09:04
unless they are wearing them for non sporting reasons, such as has already been suggested. e.g. religious grounds

didds

Yes didds I accept the religious reasons that but in this case I don't think so...... but if I was told it was because of eczema, I would accept without questioning, however when over half a team wear them, again I don't think so......

Simon Thomas
08-04-10, 09:04
Fine. But other than a personal e-mail to you, where have they published it? And if they haven't published it how is the rest of the rugby world meant to know about it officially? 'Simon Says' won't wash when I'm being confronted by players, coaches and parents.

Skid - I asked RFU for guidance as a Society Chairman and got a reply back, with a copy of IRB 2006 Ruling - of course it was a personal email that is how the system works !

RFU seem to assume that it is published already, and is available for all to see (on IRB Law Rulings section of their web site).

In Hampshire "Simon says does wash", as I am an elected member of the Executive as well as being Society Chairman. I have made formal announcements at Society Meetings, Club Meetings and CB Governance (all minuted).

And as OB said "Ask the Chairman, I don't make rulings" - well someone did ask about leggings (a number of people did), they asked me as Society Chairman (not an individual referee), so I followed up and have applied the ruling for my CB following IRB & RFU guidance.

Skid - it is up to your Society and CB whether they do or not - it is not at the moment something the RFU have been pro-active about so far, but I suspect we will see something published pre-season covering a range of kit regulations and what can & can't be worn. How your Society gets and cascades RFU emails/memos/ etc is up to your Committee - my members seem to be pretty aware of most things going on, as evidenced on here.

PaulDG
08-04-10, 10:04
Skid - it is up to your Society and CB whether they do or not - it is not at the moment something the RFU have been pro-active about so far, but I suspect we will see something published pre-season covering a range of kit regulations and what can & can't be worn. How your Society gets and cascades RFU emails/memos/ etc is up to your Committee - my members seem to be pretty aware of most things going on, as evidenced on here.

Personally, I'd far rather the RFU was pro-active about issues involving child safety and attitudes to youth development - i.e. actively enforcing the Continuum and youth regulations esp playing up/playing down.

This nonsense about clothing will hopefully be ignored for long enough for the IRB to work out they've made the wrong call and then we can all move into the 20th century. Maybe even the 21st eventually, but I doubt I'll live to see it.

Ian_Cook
08-04-10, 11:04
I do understand that the 2006 IRB ruling defines underwear in a way that excludes leggings

Well actually, I think it does nothing of the sort


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. All this does is define what a player is wearing, not what they must or must not wear. i.e. if it;

1. covers the body from the waist, and
2. has short or no legs, and
3. ends above the knees, and
4. is worn against the skin or under clothing, and
5. is not attached to the jersey or shorts

then it is underwear. Otherwise, it is something else.

This ruling makes no mention whatsoever of a "ban", nor does it direct players what they can and cannot wear. It merely defines what they are wearing.

More specifically, it makes NO mention of Regulation 12. The Designated Members also do not even mention Law 4!!!

Davet
08-04-10, 11:04
A player wears "a jersey, shorts and underwear, socks and boots"

So leggings aren't any of those.

But 4.1.a allows supports made of elasticated or compressible materials which must be washable.

I'm not sure why that definition doesn't cover things like "skins". It seems to cover the neoprene shorts worn by people with hamstring problems (or cold legs) - and even though the purist frowns on even these I know of no directive to prevent them being worn (other than the mandated look of contempt and mutterings about poncy bloody southerners).

Ray TR
08-04-10, 18:04
When I saw the subject of "leggings" I thought great-just what I want to know about. not because I care much but because I like to be update with law changes and directives. After 15 pages I am simply more confused! And disappointed with your reply OB-I didnt want a ruling, just an opinion from a fellow society member!

PaulDG
08-04-10, 19:04
When I saw the subject of "leggings" I thought great-just what I want to know about. not because I care much but because I like to be update with law changes and directives. After 15 pages I am simply more confused! And disappointed with your reply OB-I didnt want a ruling, just an opinion from a fellow society member!

You can have mine for free.

At the level I referee at (bottom level league games, merit table and junior/mini/schools matches) I simply don't care if players want to wear leggings or not. (Actually at many mini and junior matches in the winter, I'd prefer they do wear them.)

If I thought a side was gaining an unfair advantage, I'd take a view, but I don't, so I don't care.

Higher up the ladder, well, if others think this is something that need enforcing, good luck to them.

Dixie
08-04-10, 19:04
When I saw the subject of "leggings" I thought great-just what I want to know about. not because I care much but because I like to be update with law changes and directives. After 15 pages I am simply more confused! And disappointed with your reply OB-I didnt want a ruling, just an opinion from a fellow society member!Ray, those of us in England mostly tend to the view that leggings are inappropriate for all adult games; probably tolerable for Continuum games; and if permitted at all at U.13 will be eliminated by Colts.

The discussion about what the laws and rulings say is a worthwhile discussion, because it is open to debate. Of course, we are second-guessing what the RFU committee men and their counterparts in other countries will be saying on the point behind closed doors. What matters is what the iRB and/or RFU then promulgates. So far, the ruling has been viewed as meaning that leggings are illegitimate as underwear with excessively long leg parts; it is possible that the blazers may one day come round to Ian's view that they are compression supports rather than underwear. When they do, they'll promulgate that and we'll all see leggings on players the following weekend.

It amazes me that players will even contemplate wearing tights when they think long sleeves in the depths of winter are for wimps; but there's nowt so strange as folk.

Phil E
08-04-10, 21:04
Warwickshire Refs have been told at monthly meetings that they are not allowed, full stop. :nono:

That works for me.

"Thems the rules."

Robert Burns
08-04-10, 23:04
As the modern Rugby era has taken to wearing streamlined shirts, if the teams went one step further and also wore streamlined shorts, apart from increasing the female spectator numbers, would this be seen to be unfair or illegal?

Lee Lifeson-Peart
09-04-10, 09:04
As the modern Rugby era has taken to wearing streamlined shirts, if the teams went one step further and also wore streamlined shorts, apart from increasing the female spectator numbers, would this be seen to be unfair or illegal?

No just a bit pervy - I was always un-nerved by Aussie Rules type kit especially in the 70s/80s/90s. It always looked like 36 homosexuals being refereed by a team of fishmongers!!!
1132


Leggings and shirts etc getting "skin tighterer" strikes me as evolving into Cathy Freeman type suits?
1130

Teams looking like sperms from Woody Allen Films?
1131

Dickie E
09-04-10, 11:04
No just a bit pervy - I was always un-nerved by Aussie Rules type kit especially in the 70s/80s/90s.

Capppppppppppppppper - you bloody beauty :drool:

Robert Burns
09-04-10, 23:04
CairnthePies

Ray TR
11-04-10, 00:04
thanks Dixie

Dixie
21-11-10, 16:11
OFFICIAL NOTICE TO ALL PLAYERS

The use of leggings/tights/skins has been outlawed by the IRB as from 1st March 2010 and ratified by the R.F.U. Had a London Society ref prevent one of our U.16 players wearing tights today. Quality - though it did result in a 15 year-old stripping off in a public space and playing with his todger dangling out the bottom of his shorts - not quite sure that's what the iRB had in mind! Nobody was prepared to tackle him, though :biggrin:

Adam
21-11-10, 17:11
I had a flanker wearing tights yesterday. I didn't spot them in the pre-match brief or in the first half. It just didn't occur to me until the second half that they were illegal and had to be removed.

Simon Thomas
21-11-10, 17:11
Havant Colts v Esher Colts friendly today - cracking match and got "A"s from both coaches except for keeping up with play in last 15 minutes which were Bs. My excuse was I did an U16match this morning too - long hot bath and early night tonight !

I had two players wearing leggings pre kick off as they came out, so after a brief discussion they removed them on their coach's instructions - Dixie he as Esher 2nd prop from 1974-81, and also my old roomie Andre Dent was their backs coach (they said I had lost a lot of hair - ha ha).

ballsie
21-11-10, 22:11
glad u enjoyed it organised by me wasnt there to see the game at work

TheBFG
22-11-10, 11:11
yep, it's that time of year again :nono:

Northampton on saturday, spotted a winger with leggings on in the warm up, but he was some distance away. Anyway having chat with assessor before match and the winger comes sprinting past us, as he walks back past us, i say to him, "i assume those leggings are coming off for the game?"

"Um, well i was going to ware them, i normally do"

"not today you won't :wink: "

assessor went away laffin make comments along the line of bloody poof, i've not even got my thermals on today:D

crossref
29-11-10, 18:11
can anyone point me to anything on the IRB or RFU website that suggests leggings are not allowed? I can't find anythnig.

we have thread after thread where refs relate how they told dissenting coaches 'show me in the Laws where it says that'

- you've got let him up! ... show me in the laws where it says that
- you can't take two quick taps ... show me in the laws where it says that

- you can't wear leggings...

well I say to all you : show me in the Laws where it says that.

TheBFG
29-11-10, 19:11
I'm sure we've been here before :chin:

Try post 97 on page 10 of this Fred!

Adam
29-11-10, 19:11
can anyone point me to anything on the IRB or RFU website that suggests leggings are not allowed? I can't find anythnig.

we have thread after thread where refs relate how they told dissenting coaches 'show me in the Laws where it says that'

- you've got let him up! ... show me in the laws where it says that
- you can't take two quick taps ... show me in the laws where it says that

- you can't wear leggings...

well I say to all you : show me in the Laws where it says that.

There's a very recent ruling which states this (2010). I don't have it to hand, but definitely know there was one.

Dixie
29-11-10, 20:11
I'm sure we've been here before :chin:

Try post 97 on page 10 of this Fred! A very helpful direction. I can go a step further and say that the post in question links to:
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.

Toby Warren
29-11-10, 21:11
I know that leggings aren't allowed, but anyone know why?

Deeps
29-11-10, 23:11
Leggings can be used as a defence mechanism against tackling because they help prevent a would be tackler from gripping.

andyscott
30-11-10, 00:11
I know that leggings aren't allowed, but anyone know why?

Because its not a game for fannies!!

Simon Thomas
30-11-10, 00:11
Because the IRB and RFU as the Game's lawmakers have said so, very clearly - I help implement those Laws & Regulations for them in Hampshire.

stuart3826
30-11-10, 00:11
IRB reg 12 - clothing

Dixie
30-11-10, 09:11
I know that leggings aren't allowed, but anyone know why?

I did wonder about that. The best reason I could think of was that it ensures bllod can be seen if present, as it trickles onto the skin.

crossref
30-11-10, 10:11
There's a very recent ruling which states this (2010). I don't have it to hand, but definitely know there was one.

I suspect this ruling is quite simply a myth.... we've been discussing leggings for a year, but no one can actually point it this ruling on the web, or provide a scan of a document.

Laws
Law4 is here in full
http://www.irblaws.com/downloads/EN/law_4_en.pdf

Regulation 12 is here
http://www.irb.com/mm/document/lawsregs/regulations/04/23/24/42324%5fpdf.pdf

Neither of them mention leggings.

Law 4 does say

DEFINITIONS
Players’ clothing is anything players wear.
A player wears a jersey, shorts and underwear, socks and boots.
Detailed information relating to the permitted specifications for clothing and studs maybe found in IRB Specifications (Regulation 12).


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


Seems to me leggings are eitehr underwear, or elasticated support.

So, I just say again - I realise that you all JUST KNOW that leggings are banned, because someone authoritative told you.... but where does it say that in the Laws/Regulations?

Toby Warren
30-11-10, 10:11
Because the IRB and RFU as the Game's lawmakers have said so, very clearly - I help implement those Laws & Regulations for them in Hampshire.

Spoken like a true parent - because I said so! :biggrin:

:D

I'm still not sure why they are banned (but of course enforce said ban)

crossref
30-11-10, 11:11
Originally Posted by Simon Thomas
Because the IRB and RFU as the Game's lawmakers have said so, very clearly - I help implement those Laws & Regulations for them in Hampshire

they may very well have said so - but not certainly not clearly or loudly. There is no mention that I (or anyone else so far) can find of leggings being banned in either the Laws, or Regulations, nor IRB nor RFU websites.

If I went back to my club tomorrow and told all the refs to stop the wearing of leggings, the only authority I would be able to give them is rugbyrefs.com

Phil E
30-11-10, 11:11
There is no mention that I (or anyone else so far) can find of leggings being banned in either the Laws, or Regulations, nor IRB nor RFU websites.

Clearly you haven't looked hard enough.

Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee
Ruling5-2006
UnionFFR
Law Reference4
Date14 November '06
Request
Please provide a definition of jersey, shorts and underwear.
Ruling of the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee
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.

TheBFG
30-11-10, 11:11
Clearly you haven't looked hard enough.

Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee
Ruling5-2006
UnionFFR
Law Reference4
Date14 November '06
Request
Please provide a definition of jersey, shorts and underwear.
Ruling of the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee
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.

AH yeah but where is the word leggings :wink: (you know it's coming)

crossref
30-11-10, 12:11
that dates from 2006
http://www.irblaws.com/EN/clarificationdetail/year/2006/30

So can we agree that there was no new ruling in 2010?

So. when it is said that

the IRB and RFU as the Game's lawmakers have said so, very clearly

that is it? that is a very clear ban on leggings?
I don't really see it: it doesn't mention leggings, it just says that underwear finishes above the knee - that's quite a stretch from there to say that they can't wear leggings (if they go below the knee presumably)

OB..
30-11-10, 12:11
I am reminded of the story about a Cambridge undergraduate who found in the college statutes that as a theology student he was entitled to a pint of porter and a loaf of bread per day while preparing for the Tripos. The college duly provided the same (he agreed to accept bitter instead of porter).

After taking his exams, he was fined for not having worn formal dress, including boots and spurs. The fine paid for the bread and beer.

You can overdo the legalistic approach.

TheBFG
30-11-10, 12:11
that dates from 2006
http://www.irblaws.com/EN/clarificationdetail/year/2006/30

So can we agree that there was no new ruling in 2010?

So. when it is said that


that is it? that is a very clear ban on leggings?
I don't really see it: it doesn't mention leggings, it just says that underwear finishes above the knee - that's quite a stretch from there to say that they can't wear leggings (if they go below the knee presumably)

this all sounds very......:chin:

OK, do you agree that leggings are worn under clothes or against the skin?

if the answer to that question is yes, you have your answer.:D

If the answer to that is no then you don't, bu the next post by PhilE should solve it!

Phil E
30-11-10, 12:11
that dates from 2006
http://www.irblaws.com/EN/clarificationdetail/year/2006/30

So can we agree that there was no new ruling in 2010?

So. when it is said that


that is it? that is a very clear ban on leggings?
I don't really see it: it doesn't mention leggings, it just says that underwear finishes above the knee - that's quite a stretch from there to say that they can't wear leggings (if they go below the knee presumably)

Well there was this as well. The original email was forwarded to all Societies by the RFU refereeing department in October of this year. It reinforces that the ruling of 2006 is still valid.

If you want to wear leggings that is fine. As long as they finish above the knee. That is assuming they are classed as underwear. Of course if they are not underwear then you can't wear them at all.

From: Kate Saddler
Sent: 15 October 2010 10:58
Subject: FW: NEWCASTLE/MONTPELLIER/WEARING OF FULL LENGTH TIGHTS

Morning All,

Please see email below from Donal Courtney at ERC re garments that can be worn under team kit.

Please can all match officials pay attention to this at matches this weekend, and going forward.

Thanks

Kate

From: Donal Courtney [mailto:Donal.Courtney@ercrugby.com]
Sent: 15 October 2010 10:37
To: Owen Doyle; Ed Morrison; Robert Yeman; McCombe, Roy; Giacomel Claudio; Didier MENE; Jim Fleming; Neil Paterson
Cc: Garrett Tubridy; Derek McGrath; Terry Burwell; Sarah Nelson; Tom Walsh; Diarmaid Murphy; Mark Jones; Angélina Lacroix; Alan FitzGerald; Yvan Cebenka; Roger OConnor; David Donovan; Michelle Flanagan; Claire Derousseaux; Paul Daniels; Eugene Delaney; Mark Jones
Subject: NEWCASTLE/MONTPELLIER/WEARING OF FULL LENGTH TIGHTS

In last nights game in Montpellier a Montpellier prop wore full length tights under his shorts.

Please be advised that this IS NOT allowed under IRB laws-Law 4-Clarification no 5 issued 14 November 2006-definition of under-gear (you can download from the IRB website).

I would be obliged if you would pass on to all union match officials. I have copied all ERC match directors for their information.


Donal Courtney
ERC Match Official Performance Manager

Adam
30-11-10, 12:11
I suspect this ruling is quite simply a myth.... we've been discussing leggings for a year, but no one can actually point it this ruling on the web, or provide a scan of a document.

I could've sworn there was some correspondence this year. I think it may have been an email by ERC or something as a French player (?) had worn illegal leggings.

EDIT Just seen Phil's post. I knew there was something this season!

crossref
30-11-10, 13:11
Well there was this as well. The original email was forwarded to all Societies by the RFU refereeing department in October of this year. It reinforces that the ruling of 2006 is still valid.

If you want to wear leggings that is fine. As long as they finish above the knee. That is assuming they are classed as underwear. Of course if they are not underwear then you can't wear them at all.

From: Kate Saddler
Sent: 15 October 2010 10:58
Subject: FW: NEWCASTLE/MONTPELLIER/WEARING OF FULL LENGTH TIGHTS

Morning All,

Please see email below from Donal Courtney at ERC re garments that can be worn under team kit.

Please can all match officials pay attention to this at matches this weekend, and going forward.

Thanks

Kate

From: Donal Courtney [mailto:Donal.Courtney@ercrugby.com]
Sent: 15 October 2010 10:37
To: Owen Doyle; Ed Morrison; Robert Yeman; McCombe, Roy; Giacomel Claudio; Didier MENE; Jim Fleming; Neil Paterson
Cc: Garrett Tubridy; Derek McGrath; Terry Burwell; Sarah Nelson; Tom Walsh; Diarmaid Murphy; Mark Jones; Angélina Lacroix; Alan FitzGerald; Yvan Cebenka; Roger OConnor; David Donovan; Michelle Flanagan; Claire Derousseaux; Paul Daniels; Eugene Delaney; Mark Jones
Subject: NEWCASTLE/MONTPELLIER/WEARING OF FULL LENGTH TIGHTS

In last nights game in Montpellier a Montpellier prop wore full length tights under his shorts.

Please be advised that this IS NOT allowed under IRB laws-Law 4-Clarification no 5 issued 14 November 2006-definition of under-gear (you can download from the IRB website).

I would be obliged if you would pass on to all union match officials. I have copied all ERC match directors for their information.


Donal Courtney
ERC Match Official Performance Manager

so that is it, that is the 'VERY CLEAR' communication from the IRB/RFU that we are all relying on? An email from the ERC Match Official Performance Manager. (note, not from the IRB, or from the IRB referee dept) in which he expresses his understanding of rather woolly 2006 clarification to the regulation 12, which itself provides clarification to the even vaguer Law4.

That's the chain of communicaion that, as CRefC, I should print out, and show to the other Sunday morning refs, to explian why leggings are not allowed in this coming Sunday's friendly against Old Schoolians, in the snow?


I rest my case.

Phil E
30-11-10, 13:11
It appears to me that you think it should be ok to wear leggings?

.......and to justify that, you are determined to ignore advice from senior referees, emails from the RFU (your regulatory body), and IRB directives (which clearly state you cant wear anything under your shorts apart from underwear, which must end above the knee).

Regulation 12 is clear on what clothing a player can wear and the directive (which is still in force, as seen from the email) clarifies that.

I really don't see what your problem is, apart from bloody mindedness.

Whatever your opinion (and you are entitled to have one) the regulation appears clear.

TheBFG
30-11-10, 14:11
so that is it, that is the 'VERY CLEAR' communication from the IRB/RFU that we are all relying on? An email from the ERC Match Official Performance Manager. (note, not from the IRB, or from the IRB referee dept) in which he expresses his understanding of rather woolly 2006 clarification to the regulation 12, which itself provides clarification to the even vaguer Law4.

That's the chain of communicaion that, as CRefC, I should print out, and show to the other Sunday morning refs, to explian why leggings are not allowed in this coming Sunday's friendly against Old Schoolians, in the snow?


I rest my case.

Hang on a minute........

i don't think many on here would state that for an age grade game in the weather we are currently getting that players can't wear leggings or even trackie bottoms, however once you get above that it's a no no, so for your club Sunday refs don't worry!

But for a game that is not minis/juniors don't worry about it. At my club if i see any players above minis wearing them i just let them know as they get older they won't be able to wear them, get used to it :wink:

Oh by the way, i won't let my 12's wear them for matches, training is fine, i have certain standards :wink:

crossref
30-11-10, 14:11
I may be bloody minded :) . I don't have an opinion on tights, and I want to enforce the Laws and Regulations

but my point is: for all those club-refs not in a society, and not copied in with emails from the ERC or society memos, our place of information on laws and regulations is the IRB website, and (in England) the RFU website and RFU communications to clubs.

and on the information available on those sources, I don't think it is all clear.

For instance - Law 4 specifically allows supports..


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

so I think players could wear something meeting this description


designed to give you the support you need for those winter runs... Features FORMOTION™ muscle support and miCoach compatibility. ... FORMOTION™ actively supports your muscles for improved comfort and efficiency

which is these.
http://www.therunningoutlet.co.uk/adidas-mens-supernova-br-running-tights-black-p-7575.html


Look, I want to enforce the Laws, and when someone approaches me in the ar after a game, with a pint, and asks in a friendly fashion why I made a particualr decision, then on any point of Law I want to be able to refer them to something clear, in the Laws and regulations.... not what the Hampshire Society said (I am not in Hampshire) and certainly not a copy of an email from the ERC performance director, as quoted anonymously on rugbyref.com..

:)

crossref
30-11-10, 14:11
BFG - I haven't checked but i think that in minis arn't tracksuits etc specifcally allowed, I am sure there is somethnig in the continuum saying OK, just with the sensible restriction that they must not have zips/poppers or other sharp bits.

But for Juniors - they play under adult laws, with u19 regulations. As refs we can't make up our own laws: if leggings are banned at adult rugby they are also banned for U16...

And yeah - as coaches we don't let our kids wear them.

crossref
30-11-10, 14:11
laat post on this (I promise!)


Regulation 12 is clear on what clothing a player can wear and the directive (which is still in force, as seen from the email) clarifies that.


actually Regualtion 12 doesn't mention underwear. The 2006 Clarification doesn't clarify Regualtion 12, it clarifies the definitions in Law 4 (easy mistake to make :-) )

Dixie
30-11-10, 14:11
BFG - why would you allow an U.19 elite club Academy player to wear leggings in a county final, but not a 68 year-old with varicose veins turning out for Old Totteringham Vets?

As far as I know, Regulation 12 applies across all rugby except where specifically varied by the relevant governing body. A London Society ref prevented one of my U.16's wearing tights two weeks ago, to general applause and amusement.

There are clearly those who think that a prohibition on tights is a regulation too far, and smacks of over-regulation in areas in which the game has no business regulating (i.e. subjective considerations of manliness as opposed to safety matters). Those people are, in my view, correct - but are acting unwisely in stretching the meaning of "supports" way beyond what was likely to have been intended, in such a way as to create a deliberate inconsistency. That is unfortunate, but I don't think it's likely to be important.

To those who argue that these garmnets are supports, I'd point out that the only thing they support which socks and normal rugby lycras don't is the knee. If you can find a physio prepared to put their professional reputation on the line by arguing that tights are an effective way of supporting a weakened knee, then I'm perfectly prepared to come round to your way of thinking - subject to a glance at the peer-review literature, of course!

ex-lucy
30-11-10, 14:11
i have to sort of agree with crossref here .. but for an enlightened clique of refs on here or who rcv emails from senior refs etc ... the vast majority of rugby players, coaches and refs .. dont know about this ..
fairly typical of rugby though ...
still quite amateur in parts.

TheBFG
30-11-10, 15:11
BFG - why would you allow an U.19 elite club Academy player to wear leggings in a county final, but not a 68 year-old with varicose veins turning out for Old Totteringham Vets?


Should i be appointed to a Sunday morning game i will of course apply all laws to the best of my knowledge and ability, but when it come to children on a cold sunday morning with regrads to the issue of leggings i apply common sense:wink:

crossref
30-11-10, 15:11
Should i be appointed to a Sunday morning game i will of course apply all laws to the best of my knowledge and ability, but when it come to children on a cold sunday morning with regrads to the issue of leggings i apply common sense:wink:

yes, and u13-u15 is therefore a bit of a grey area...

andyscott
30-11-10, 15:11
Come on lads FFS, 20 pages, you cant chuffin wear them :norc:

TheBFG
30-11-10, 15:11
yes, and u13-u15 is therefore a bit of a grey area...

my own POV

13's OK

14's if it's really cold (but then likely to be frozen anyway)

15's + time to grow a pair lads!:wink:

PaulDG
30-11-10, 18:11
Come on lads FFS, 20 pages, you cant chuffin wear them :norc:

Prove it.

That's the point.

A cold Sunday morning and you want us to show we're jobsworth's on the basis of an email posted on an amateur website.

No mention of this in the RFU handbook. No mention on the RFU website.

No email from the RFU sent to club secretaries, no email sent to all society referees.

Nothing to show on a cold Sunday morning except the Law book which doesn't mention leggings from which we are trying to demonstrate an inference that leggings aren't allowed.

The same Lawbook which, you recall, doesn't define a hand-off - shouldn't we have drawn the inference from that that that wasn't allowed?

Phil E
30-11-10, 20:11
A cold Sunday morning and you want us to show we're jobsworth's on the basis of an email posted on an amateur website.

No email from the RFU sent to club secretaries, no email sent to all society referees.

You have an IRB directive and you have an email sent by the RFU to all societies.

I have the original email sent to our sec and then forwarded to all members, which I can forward to you (with all headers) if required. I have already cut and pasted it on this thread, but clearly that isn't enough :rolleyes:

Finally; I aint wearing leggings, so neither is any player on the pitch I am refereeing.

stuart3826
30-11-10, 20:11
Prove it.

That's the point.

A cold Sunday morning and you want us to show we're jobsworth's on the basis of an email posted on an amateur website.

No mention of this in the RFU handbook. No mention on the RFU website.

No email from the RFU sent to club secretaries, no email sent to all society referees.

Nothing to show on a cold Sunday morning except the Law book which doesn't mention leggings from which we are trying to demonstrate an inference that leggings aren't allowed.

The same Lawbook which, you recall, doesn't define a hand-off - shouldn't we have drawn the inference from that that that wasn't allowed?

How quickly have we forgotten the fred we had only a short time ago http://www.rugbyrefs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11058&highlight=skinsin which it was made clear that the IRB rulings do not allow the wearing of leggings. This circular came from Donal Courtney, the ERC Match Official Performance Manager.

So why are we going around the houses again?:chin:

crossref
30-11-10, 20:11
There is NO IRB directive on leggings! .
All there IS , is a 2006 aw clarification defining underwear.

crossref
30-11-10, 20:11
There is NO IRB directive on leggings! .
All there IS , is a 2006 aw clarification defining underwear.

crossref
30-11-10, 20:11
And with all respect to donal courtney , he is not the IRB , why does his opinion have any particulr importance ?

Phil E
30-11-10, 20:11
There is NO IRB directive on leggings! .
All there IS , is a 2006 aw clarification defining underwear.

What's worn under your shorts IS underwear.

The law says that's all you CAN wear shorts and underwear.

You WEAR them UNDER your shorts, so they are UNDER WEAR!

How fu***ng thick do you have to be not to understand this :mad:

crossref
30-11-10, 20:11
Well presumably as thick as everyone else from 2006 to 2010 when Donald courtney found he needed to explained it to them

OB..
30-11-10, 20:11
Well presumably as thick as everyone else from 2006 to 2010 when Donald courtney found he needed to explained it to them

I doubt if they were trying to be legalistic about the precise wording. Much more likely that they simply did not know or did not want to know.

crossref
30-11-10, 21:11
I doubt if they were trying to be legalistic about the precise wording. Much more likely that they simply did not know or did not want to know.

I am sorry, but bollocks to that!

It's only if you ARE legalistic that you would know that leggings are banned
- NOT mentioned in the laws
- NOT mentioned in Regulation 12 Players Clothing
- a 2006 Clarification, not subsequently incorporated in any Law change, defines 'underwear' in a way that excludes leggings.
- so we conclude that if leggings aren't legally underwear (which is legalistic, clearly in real life, worn under shorts, and without which your todger hangs out they are exactly underwear), then they are banned.

that's legalistic!

roll on four years and players are wearing leggings in Heineken Cup games, unremarked by the official and Donal Courtney (not Ed Morrrison, not Paddy O brien, nt the IRB) send an email in plain english

this email IS copied to Societies, but the RFU don't copy it to Club Ref Coordinators.

I'm not in a society, I am a CRefC and I depend upon
- the IRB website
- the RFU website
- communications from the RFU Ref Section

not one of those has said anything out about leggings being banned.
nor, indeed about them being allowed from U7 to U??What?

andyscott
30-11-10, 22:11
What's worn under your shorts IS underwear.

The law says that's all you CAN wear shorts and underwear.

You WEAR them UNDER your shorts, so they are UNDER WEAR!

How fu***ng thick do you have to be not to understand this :mad:

Simples :D :D :D

Simon Thomas
30-11-10, 23:11
this email IS copied to Societies, but the RFU don't copy it to Club Ref Coordinators.

I'm not in a society, I am a CRefC and I depend upon
- the IRB website
- the RFU website
- communications from the RFU Ref Section (Department)

and primarily your Regional Referee Development and CB's Clubb Referee Development Manager - who is probably a Society Referee.
Sounds like you have not got a completed communication cascade - we knoe al about it in our CB



......

PaulDG
30-11-10, 23:11
Sounds like you have not got a completed communication cascade - we knoe al about it in our CB

That's all right then.

Since all the clubs know about it, and they will have communicated it to all their coaches and players, then the issue will never come up.

upnunder
01-12-10, 13:12
Can I wear my leggings to referee in?

TheBFG
01-12-10, 14:12
certainly not! (in hampshire!)

Unless you are an ex England international, BBC correspondent and reffin for London (well for 2 mins anyway :wink: )

Simon Thomas
01-12-10, 15:12
Can I wear my leggings to referee in?

Memo to self :

NLD exchange assessors on standby, with sniper support, for possible use of referee leggings.

andyscott
01-12-10, 16:12
Can I wear my leggings to referee in?

I was thinking of it, some people laugh at my bobble hat, but it keeps my mind switched on.

I wear thermal socks and undershorts in this weather.

Toby Warren
01-12-10, 17:12
Crossref makes a good wider point.

When I was starting out I found it really hard to find basic information. There is no one source and font of all knowledge.

Silly things like for my first league game how many subs?
Cup comp. what happens in extra time?

My society does a great job esp. with new info, but some of the 'standing orders' are really hard to find.

Of course all these things are there but is there any mileage in setting up a 'resources' section on rr.com that covers all these bits in one easy place?

OB..
01-12-10, 18:12
Crossref makes a good wider point.

When I was starting out I found it really hard to find basic information. There is no one source and font of all knowledge.

Silly things like for my first league game how many subs?
Cup comp. what happens in extra time?

My society does a great job esp. with new info, but some of the 'standing orders' are really hard to find.

Of course all these things are there but is there any mileage in setting up a 'resources' section on rr.com that covers all these bits in one easy place?

It might be better (and easier) just to provide links to the official sites. And quite a lot of it may be country specific.

PaulDG
01-12-10, 18:12
Can I wear my leggings to referee in?

Who's judge of fact and Law on your pitch?

upnunder
01-12-10, 20:12
Who's judge of fact and Law on your pitch?

My feelings exactly.

I was AR for an U16 representative game last week and wore woolly hat and gloves, along with many other layers of clothing.
Luckily, the other AR and I both had the same Society Rain Jacket, so managed to get 4 layers under that.

The referee was freezing.

crossref
03-12-10, 13:12
for general interest - I am a CrefC so I do have an official channel to the RFU, who I contacted out of interest.

The guidance I got was
- OK from U7 to U12 (mini and midi)
- should not be worn at U13 upwards
- but if its cold, and neither coach objects, and ref is OK, could use discretion and allow

Which is all very sensible ... but not exactly supported by the Laws. Or the clarifications to the Laws..

As a ref I am comfortable with what my position is
As a coach and a parent I am uncomfortable as it means that in any given game, even if the ref is completely au fait with IRB Laws and RFU advice, you still cannot be sure what the ref is going to think.

Phil E
03-12-10, 14:12
you still cannot be sure what the ref is going to think.

You could always try asking him :chin:

Simon Thomas
03-12-10, 21:12
for general interest - I am a CrefC so I do have an official channel to the RFU, who I contacted out of interest.

The guidance I got was
- OK from U7 to U12 (mini and midi)
- should not be worn at U13 upwards
- but if its cold, and neither coach objects, and ref is OK, could use discretion and allow

Which is all very sensible ... but not exactly supported by the Laws. Or the clarifications to the Laws..

As a ref I am comfortable with what my position is
As a coach and a parent I am uncomfortable as it means that in any given game, even if the ref is completely au fait with IRB Laws and RFU advice, you still cannot be sure what the ref is going to think.

nice to see RFU are consistent and we are getting the same message across.

of course if cold and neither ref objects and it is best interests of players then at a local U13, U14 match etc it makes sense.

Deeps
04-12-10, 23:12
it is best interests of players then at a local U13, U14 match etc it makes sense.

More likely it makes sense to sports manufacturers desperate to take advantage of any new fad in order to flog us any item they can come up with. They managed to sell us silly plastic widgers to stick our balls on, why stop there, let's go full body Lycra and helmets? The pursuit of the filthy lucre manifests as constant pressure on Law and the traditional rugby skills held so dear thus threatening to degrade for ever the quality of these basic skills and the very game itself.

Are we a bunch of wimps; U13, U14s need to enjoy the thrill of freezing rain on unprotected legs, of making a proper knee locking tackle without squirting away from the ball carrier like a well ripened banana skin and to use a good old boot to make a mound to have a crack at goal. Whatever next, clean kit, hot showers and changing rooms!

didds
05-12-10, 04:12
It might be better (and easier) just to provide links to the official sites. And quite a lot of it may be country specific.

agreed.

anything posted HERE will be out of date very soon..

didds

didds
05-12-10, 04:12
You could always try asking him :chin:

except of course that doesn;t help a coach/player to plan - or for parents to make a call.

THE most important adult in a 14 year old's life is his his parent/guardian... that's not to say a ref on the FOP is ot in contriol, but such ... lack of defintuion ... doesbnlt help if john's mum said he must not play without his leggings.

14 year old johnny is now being expected to make a decision between two "responsible" adults (posibly three if he has a coach that is not sympathetic) and is left in an invidious position of being the person to make THE decision.

Not that the ref (via society/union instruction) or the parent/guardian is WRONG. It's just that because there is no definitive ruling available, and clearly enough refs (club or otherwise) that are jobsworth enough.


didds

didds
05-12-10, 04:12
Whatever next, clean kit, hot showers and changing rooms!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eDaSvRO9xA

:-)

didds

Deeps
06-12-10, 01:12
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eDaSvRO9xA

:-)

didds

...many a true word...

haze222
06-12-10, 13:12
I watched a womens match yesterday - it was really FREEZING. No-one wore leggings or asked to. No-one was crying at the end of the match that they were too cold. They all looked perfectly okay.

One player was raked and she sat putting vaseline on the blooded lines scraped across her legs. I was thinking how horrid that would have been if she'd have also had a heat/burn rash incurred from a pair of leggings rubbing on top as well... and actually, if the leggings got stuck to the wound it would be worse to treat. That's enough for me not to wear them.

And if these women can 'man up' and not beg to wear them, and not complain about the cold, men, c'mon - don't look like you can't do the same!!

I was always told if I was cold I wasn't running fast enough.

Agree at minis it's different mind...

Davet
06-12-10, 14:12
...many a true word...


You think that was in jest....?

When I think back....them fellahs didn't know they wuz born.

OB..
06-12-10, 15:12
You think that was in jest....?

When I think back....them fellahs didn't know they wuz born.

Didn't they have to climb down the mines (in bare feet in the dark) before they wuz born?!

beckett50
07-12-10, 21:12
Didn't they have to climb down the mines (in bare feet in the dark) before they wuz born?!
and get up 3 hours before they went to bed and lick motorway clean wi' tongue:D

Dixie
07-12-10, 22:12
and get up 3 hours before they went to bed and lick motorway clean wi' tongue:D Becket50 - you may have arrived at this one a little late! See post 222.

taff426
19-12-10, 14:12
Wasps v Dragons. Aled Brew wearing leggings......... Christophe Berdos has allowed them so far!!!!!!!!

Simon Thomas
19-12-10, 14:12
disgraceful :norc:

taff426
19-12-10, 14:12
I can guarantee you my name is mud now with a few people who I have stopped wearing them this season. Especially by one club (who shall of course remain nameless) as I have had a few run ins with them this season, including over the legality of leggings!!!!!!:D

Simon Thomas
19-12-10, 15:12
Brew out for second half and had been told to take the leggings off - hurrah ! :clap:

actually re-inforces your stand and rulings Taff.

taff426
19-12-10, 15:12
Didn't notice that. Oh well happy days then!!!!:clap:

Account Deleted
03-01-11, 22:01
Today Cardiff Seconds V Bedwas. Phil Fear allowed Bedwas winger leggings. But even worse BLUE boots! Didn't even match.

What chance have we beggers on the parks got?

Simon Thomas
03-01-11, 22:01
Today Cardiff Seconds V Bedwas. Phil Fear allowed Bedwas winger leggings. But even worse BLUE boots! Didn't even match.

What chance have we beggers on the parks got?

Report it to WRU with the references at start of this thread, and with the photo / video evidence.

Account Deleted
04-01-11, 21:01
I'll do that and update you on feedback.

nealed
05-01-11, 00:01
i have now read this entire thread
with a law one can normally understand the reason behind the law

it appears that
1. the law is not clear and that is shown by different interpretations by people what is underwear what is a support, no actual ban on leggings per se
2. most will allow leggings at younger age groups

the only reason i can see to ban leggings is
a.safety
b.unfair advantage

if safety were an issue we would certainly not allow younger age groups to wear
unfair advantage ??- I cant see that

so the only possible reason for a ban is because we dont like them

not logical in my mind, kit changes we have to move with the times

for those insisting on a ban:
give a reason other than because they are banned cos there is a rationale argument which says they are not supported by some people on this site

otherwise, get heated about something worthwhile

its been really cold this winter
people play sport to enjoy it
it they enjoy it more by keeping wrn standing out on the wing, then seems fair enough to me

Toby Warren
05-01-11, 00:01
If leggings provide as much as an advantage as some feel why aren't socks and shorts made of the material?

Dixie
05-01-11, 10:01
Whatever the rationale behind the iRB ruling, it seems clear to me that the intent was to clarify that leggings are prohibited. Several contributors to this thread make the point that Ruling 5/2006 does not say this; it merely defines underwear, leaving the possibility that leggings are legitimate supports.

To understand Ruling 5/2006, you need to look at its context. IMO, the rather odd and inconsequential question (define shorts, underwear and jersey) arose specifically because of the publication of the previous ruling - Ruling 4/2006. That ruling (14 June 2006) explicitly stated that elasticated long sleeves are NOT supports.
1. The Designated Members have ruled that “the wearing of elastic ‘long sleeves’ is not a support as described in Law 4.1(a)” . Anyone reading that may well wonder if it also applies to elasticated garments covering the other limbs, and lo and behold, we get Ruling 5/2006 just five months later. In that context, the request for a definition of underwear seems to stem directly from Ruling 4, and the confirmation (quite possibly at the first available opportunity after the publication of Ruling 4)that underwear ends above the knee appears to be a very clear indication that tights are not to be worn in rugby.

Now, we may disagree - but we are subject to the sports governing body, and if we do disagree the correct course of action is to persuade the iRB to change its ruling. Until that happens, I am content to enforce what seems to me to be the iRB's clear intent as regards leggings - irrespective of my personal opinions.

Simon Thomas
05-01-11, 13:01
and the advice, guidance, instructions of match officiating management at HRC, Magners and RFU levels that I am aware of (and maybe others), cascaded down clearly to my own Society on numerous occasions.

Davet
05-01-11, 13:01
So Socks (two pairs) up to just bekow the knee and shorts down to just above the knee.

Neoprene underwear not extending longer than shorts.

Neoprene Knee supports.

Who needs legging to stay warm.


:) :) :)

Simon Thomas
05-01-11, 14:01
So Socks (two pairs) up to just bekow the knee and shorts down to just above the knee.

Neoprene underwear not extending longer than shorts.

Neoprene Knee supports.

Who needs legging to stay warm.


:) :) :)

perfect Dave and totally acceptable ! :biggrin:

Jenko
05-01-11, 15:01
What happens if you have long shorts and short legs!

Simon Thomas
05-01-11, 15:01
Jenks - don't get personal !

Davet
05-01-11, 15:01
Your knees are still in the middle of your legs, regardless of how long they are.

Use them as a guide and you won't go far wrong.

crossref
05-01-11, 15:01
Of course as refs we should enforce it.

but two problems remain

1 - the ordinary player, coach or parent who doesn't have access to the information cascades, is surely entitled to rely on IRB and IRBLaws website to look at the Laws and Regulations on leggings. From those sources alone the position on leggings is not clear: is obscure [it relies upon finding a 2006 clarification to 2010 Law] and arcane [it requires understanding the significance of the definition of underwear, not at first sight relevant]

2 - if you are lucky enough to receive the information cascades .. it still isn't clear. Look at what i got from the RFU when I asked


- OK from U7 to U12 (mini and midi)
- should not be worn at U13 upwards
- but if its cold, and neither coach objects, and ref is OK, could use discretion and allow

which is very sensible, but could be paraphrased as 'don't worry about what the laws say - make your own decision'

Personally when I am reffing, if I am ever challenged on the Laws I ALWAYS want to be able to say: go and look it up on the IRB website and you'll find I am right. On leggings I simply don't think I have that clear back up.

And I am not at all surprised that leggings are still occasionally spotted even at high levels - the IRBs position is not communicated clearly.

Davet
05-01-11, 15:01
Understood, but you could become part of the solution by informing people of what the law actually is.

At least if you elect to use "discretion" you all know that this is the case, and that it is "discretion" and that next weeks ref may feel differently, or it may not be so cold and wet....

crossref
05-01-11, 15:01
of course I inform people - for instance I have dutifully cascaded the RFU guidance I got through to all the coaches and refs in my club.

But the fact remains that come the time when a ref, on a cold day in February, confronts a 14 yr old with leggings and tells him and his parents he can't play, the ref wants to be able to refer them to the Laws. Not a discussion website, nor to an email he got last season from his clubRefcoordinator.

If the IRB think leggings are important they should be clear about it.

Jenko
05-01-11, 15:01
Why can he not play?

He only has to take them off!

Phil E
05-01-11, 16:01
But the fact remains that come the time when a ref, on a cold day in February, confronts a 14 yr old with leggings and tells him and his parents he can't play, the ref wants to be able to refer them to the Laws. Not a discussion website, nor to an email he got last season from his clubRefcoordinator.

Well you could refer them to the IRB Laws website, Clarifications in Law section :rolleyes: