This is pathetic... Time the IRB took a stance and said..

.. that this is OK and nothing wrong with it, especially at age grade rugby where contact lenses could be uncomfortable or even more dangerous for young eyes..

And for those wondering what I'm on about, check this out..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-33987947

For those who cant, basically a young lad (7 years) has been told by the IRFU he cant wear goggles (prescription) when he is playing rugby for safety reasons. Basically, he has poor eyesight, and these prescription goggles allow him to play (played tag rugby up to now) as they are basically same as his glasses.

I think this (pardon the pun) is the most short sighted ruling I have ever seen... If the IRFU cant grow a pair, see sense and allow him to play, then surly the IRB should step in now and approve these for playing. To me, I don't see them any more dangerous than head guards worn.

C'mon IRFU and IRB, this is the year of rugby with the RWC, don't alienate young enthusiastic talent for such a simple silly reason.

It certainly doesn't make sense that the IRFU have refused to take part in the IRB trials into the use of these googles. Willie Anderson the former Ireland international was interviewed on this issue, and said that the level of contact you are talking about with regard to 7/8 year old kids is nowhere near sufficient for these goggles to present any sort of risk. Its a pretty poor show all round from the IRFU in my opinion.

Didn't O'Driscoll play most of his career with sight limitations?

How bad is the kid's eyesight?  Perhaps he should simply be encouraged to play without the goggles.

I actually have serious reservations about the quickness in giving young children correctional glasses for early sight issues.  I remember as a young boy having focusing issues in school classes.... some days worse than others, but I never told anyone and gradually the issues disappeared and (touch wood) I'm in my 40s and still don't need glasses for anything - reading or driving.
My brother too had a little pair of 'jamjar' glasses that I still have.  He threw them away when he got bored with them.  He went through his adult life too without any specs.  
When there is so much growing, when the skull is continually growing through childhood, there will obviously be periods when sight might be affected.  But I think the rush to specs-up children runs the risk of continuing to keep the eyes weak and not allowing them to adjust naturally to the constant evolution of the facial shape.

Fly a friend of mine swears that getting glasses when he was 10 made his eyesight much worse, so there's some completely unscientific anecdotal evidence for your theory.

On the OP if the kids eyesight is that bad that he can't play without them then let him wear them for heavens sake. He's only 7. It is pathetic from the IRFU. It's surely an example of somebody following the rules without applying any common sense. Like the time I was refused a triple whiskey in a nightclub because that wasn't allowed, so I asked for two doubles and the barman happily obliged. No rules broken there. 

SecretFly wrote:Didn't O'Driscoll play most of his career with sight limitations?

How bad is the kid's eyesight?  Perhaps he should simply be encouraged to play without the goggles.

I actually have serious reservations about the quickness in giving young children correctional glasses for early sight issues.  I remember as a young boy having focusing issues in school classes.... some days worse than others, but I never told anyone and gradually the issues disappeared and (touch wood) I'm in my 40s and still don't need glasses for anything - reading or driving.
My brother too had a little pair of 'jamjar' glasses that I still have.  He threw them away when he got bored with them.  He went through his adult life too without any specs.  
When there is so much growing, when the skull is continually growing through childhood, there will obviously be periods when sight might be affected.  But I think the rush to specs-up children runs the risk of continuing to keep the eyes weak and not allowing them to adjust naturally to the constant evolution of the facial shape.

Obviously his eyesight is poor to the point that he can't play without some form of help.  The most disappointing thing about this for me is that there is no accountable reason for the IRFU not to take part in trials which are sanctioned by the IRB.  The fact that some childrens vision may improve is countered by the fact that this is not always the case, in fact sometimes its the opposite.  I had 20:20 vision throughout school and am now -1.0 in both eyes.  Really thats all a red herring, the kids current circumstances bare no relevance to where he will be in 10 years times.  He wants to play rugby with all of his friends now....

Are we talking "googles" or "goggles" - I'm confused?

Pot Hale wrote:Are we talking "googles" or "goggles" - I'm confused?

Who made the school boy error and put GOOGLES ... not me

Guilty...:

Artful_Dodger wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Didn't O'Driscoll play most of his career with sight limitations?

How bad is the kid's eyesight?  Perhaps he should simply be encouraged to play without the goggles.

I actually have serious reservations about the quickness in giving young children correctional glasses for early sight issues.  I remember as a young boy having focusing issues in school classes.... some days worse than others, but I never told anyone and gradually the issues disappeared and (touch wood) I'm in my 40s and still don't need glasses for anything - reading or driving.
My brother too had a little pair of 'jamjar' glasses that I still have.  He threw them away when he got bored with them.  He went through his adult life too without any specs.  
When there is so much growing, when the skull is continually growing through childhood, there will obviously be periods when sight might be affected.  But I think the rush to specs-up children runs the risk of continuing to keep the eyes weak and not allowing them to adjust naturally to the constant evolution of the facial shape.

Obviously his eyesight is poor to the point that he can't play without some form of help.  The most disappointing thing about this for me is that there is no accountable reason for the IRFU not to take part in trials which are sanctioned by the IRB.  The fact that some childrens vision may improve is countered by the fact that this is not always the case, in fact sometimes its the opposite.  I had 20:20 vision throughout school and am now -1.0 in both eyes.  Really thats all a red herring, the kids current circumstances bare no relevance to where he will be in 10 years times.  He wants to play rugby with all of his friends now....

I was going to let that slide but heck...no, I think it needs a riposte.

My reaction is instinctively to say 'Jesus Christ Dodger ease the hell up'.  I was only expanding the discussion into another little area of keen interest for me that the initial topic reminded me of.  You make it sound like I'm part of a Great IRFU political conspiracy to drop this thread into the sinker by trolling it with scientific methods of evasion and distraction.
So you keep talking about the 7 year old kid and I'll keep doing my customary trawling on the high seas for the evasionary herrings

What's frustrating is the inconsistency. One of the lads in our soon-to-be U11s squads should really where goggles to play, and in theory the RFU is trialling them and they are allowed in some tournaments. But it's never been allowed in any of the tournaments we've been to.

On the other hand, we need to recognise that this is a transient thing that's happening because the idea of rugby-safe goggles is a new one. A few years of kids will be disadvantaged but eventually rugby will settle on a standard that will - one hopes - include allowing goggles.

Has anyone seen a pair of rugby specific googles? Are they made of supersoft silicone with 100% shatter proof lenses? Not like those shatter proof rulers you used to get at shchool which actually shattered if you hit them hard enough with a hammer.

Submachine wrote:Has anyone seen a pair of rugby specific googles? Are they made of supersoft silicone with 100% shatter proof lenses? Not like those shatter proof rulers you used to get at shchool which actually shattered if you hit them hard enough with a hammer.

I don't think it's silicone but it is a soft plastic with rounded edges, and the lenses look to be toughened.

Submachine wrote:Has anyone seen a pair of rugby specific googles? Are they made of supersoft silicone with 100% shatter proof lenses? Not like those shatter proof rulers you used to get at shchool which actually shattered if you hit them hard enough with a hammer.

If they are already being trialled I would imagine they are safe.

Submachine wrote:Has anyone seen a pair of rugby specific googles? Are they made of supersoft silicone with 100% shatter proof lenses? Not like those shatter proof rulers you used to get at shchool which actually shattered if you hit them hard enough with a hammer.

Could be wrong but imagine they would be like the goggles the Dutch soccer player Edgar David's wore towards the end of his career because of an eye problem. FIFA didn't object.

Doesn't Ian McKinley wear a pair of goggles while playing professional rugby in Italy?

brennomac wrote:

Submachine wrote:Has anyone seen a pair of rugby specific googles? Are they made of supersoft silicone with 100% shatter proof lenses? Not like those shatter proof rulers you used to get at shchool which actually shattered if you hit them hard enough with a hammer.

Could be wrong but imagine they would be like the goggles the Dutch soccer player  Edgar David's wore towards the end of his career because of an eye problem. FIFA didn't object.

Yeah, but you can't read too much into that. He may have submitted his request for permission to wear them in a plain brown envelope.

http://www.the42.ie/ian-mckinley-comeback-2063525-Apr2015/


It seems they are allowed at lower levels in Italy.