Ian McKinley to play for Zebre

rrpc

After coming back to rugby a year ago, Ian is now back in the Pro 12 having retired four years ago.

I am so delighted for him. It's a short term deal but hopefully will lead to something more permanent. He signed for Viadana last year.

http://www.the42.ie/ian-mckinley-zebre-rugby-2360684-Sep2015/

Zzippy

Great news for him. A pity we won't see him play in Ireland yet, but hopefully WR will approve the goggles on a permanent basis soon.

curious incident

Delighted that someone has taken a chance on him.

rrpc

Zebre seem pleased about it anyway

Anything big happening at the end of February 2016?

http://www.leinsterrugby.ie/team/results/match_centre_leinster.php?section=overview&fixid=208066

Could be an interesting trip. Bologna Airport 55 min bus from Parma....

vienne86

Fabulous news for Ian. It would be brilliant to see him play again in Ireland sometime.

rrpc

Deleted User wrote: »

Anything big happening at the end of February 2016?

http://www.leinsterrugby.ie/team/results/match_centre_leinster.php?section=overview&fixid=208066

Could be an interesting trip. Bologna Airport 55 min bus from Parma....

Doesn't look like it. Viadana have an away match in the Campionato Eccellenza in Rome on the 20th and their next home match is on March 12th against Calvisano.

total former

THIS IS HAPPENING. Named on the bench for Sunday.

http://www.zebrerugby.eu/la-formazione-delle-zebre-per-lesordio-casalingo-di-domenica-contro-gli-scarlets/

randomname2005

Delighted for him.

ThisRegard

How does the ban by the IRFU on the goggles work ? Will a player who wears them be permitted to wear them when playing a against an Irish team in Ireland for example, in this case when Zebre come over, or is the ban just on players under the IRFU umbrella ?

Larbre34

ThisRegard wrote: »

How does the ban by the IRFU on the goggles work ? Will a player who wears them be permitted to wear them when playing a against an Irish team in Ireland for example, in this case when Zebre come over, or is the ban just on players under the IRFU umbrella ?

Probably the latter. The Pro12 and/or Champions Cup executive will make the decision as regards those competitions.

irishbucsfan

Larbre34 wrote: »

Probably the latter. The Pro12 and/or Champions Cup executive will make the decision as regards those competitions.

No, the IRFU have the final say on games played in Ireland.

It means McKinley can play all home games for Zebre as well as games away to teams in Scotland. He can't wear them against teams in Wales or Ireland unless things change.

He can actually play a lot of games though, it's not the end of the world. He won't be allowed play for them in November or March though because it just happens the fixtures fall that way.

Zzippy

ThisRegard wrote: »

How does the ban by the IRFU on the goggles work ? Will a player who wears them be permitted to wear them when playing a against an Irish team in Ireland for example, in this case when Zebre come over, or is the ban just on players under the IRFU umbrella ?

AFAIK the goggles are still considered trial equipment. Ireland and Wales are not participating in the trial, therefore they cannot be worn by anyone in those countries yet. The hope is that World Rugby concludes after the trial that they should be legal sports equipment for rugby and they become legal to wear in all countries.

rrpc

Zzippy wrote: »

AFAIK the goggles are still considered trial equipment. Ireland and Wales are not participating in the trial, therefore they cannot be worn by anyone in those countries yet. The hope is that World Rugby concludes after the trial that they should be legal sports equipment for rugby and they become legal to wear in all countries.

The IRFU could join the trial if they wanted to. USA joined it last year and England have it for under 13s and below but with a special dispensation system for players over that age that request it.

It's not a simple decision to be fair. They have to be safe for the player wearing them, their opponents and have to be one size fits all. The Raleri system seems to tick all the boxes.

Guys like Ian McKinley and Florian Cazenave are bringing them to the higher levels of the sport, so how they work out with them will be the real test.

total former

Yeah the IRFU concern/objection is for the safety of other players AFAIK, rather than the guy wearing them.

Still, let's see how Ian gets on this week before we worry about it.

Henry Ford III

Deleted User wrote: »

Anything big happening at the end of February 2016?

http://www.leinsterrugby.ie/team/results/match_centre_leinster.php?section=overview&fixid=208066

Could be an interesting trip. Bologna Airport 55 min bus from Parma....

Parma is highly recommended. I've been there a few times.

vienne86

total former wrote: »

Yeah the IRFU concern/objection is for the safety of other players AFAIK, rather than the guy wearing them.

Still, let's see how Ian gets on this week before we worry about it.

I think it must take incredible courage to wear these goggles and get out on a rugby pitch, having already lost the sight of one eye. I would be terrified to do anything that MIGHT damage the sighted eye.

The Lost Sheep

ThisRegard wrote: »

How does the ban by the IRFU on the goggles work? Will a player who wears them be permitted to wear them when playing a against an Irish team in Ireland for example, in this case when Zebre come over, or is the ban just on players under the IRFU umbrella ?

The IRFU have not allowed the use of them in games played in Ireland and competitions under their jurisdiction. He cant play in Ireland.

duckysauce

he played very well when he came on today

wp_rathead

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Parma is highly recommended. I've been there a few times.

Parma is worth going for their food alone
Their stadium is very nice aswell

rrpc

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

The IRFU have not allowed the use of them in games played in Ireland and competitions under their jurisdiction. He cant play in Ireland.

There's a change.org petition to ask the IRFU to trial the goggles. You can vote on it here: https://www.change.org/p/world-rugby-and-the-irfu-let-ian-mckinley-play-on-irish-soil

Almost at 5000 signatures, vote early and often

rrpc

rrpc wrote: »

There's a change.org petition to ask the IRFU to trial the goggles. You can vote on it here: https://www.change.org/p/world-rugby-and-the-irfu-let-ian-mckinley-play-on-irish-soil

Almost at 5000 signatures, vote early and often

10,433 signatures @ 09:53

Must be a few more on here that can give the 30 seconds required to help try to bring him back to Dublin for the Leinster v Zebre game.

Redgirl82

Gerry Thornley was talking about this on one of the podcasts a few months back, he knows Ian very well and I think he might have wrote an article on it....its been very quiet since so I think for IRFU to make a change the press need to kick up a fuss about it....a petition will not change there mind

rrpc

Although I've supported the petition, I think the IRFU are in a difficult position with this.

As far as I can make out, it's not just a matter of signing a piece of paper and carrying on. They'd need to have someone monitor it, have refs check the equipment at every match, report on its use and probably have to inform their insurance providers and have it added as a risk.

You can't actually take part in a trial without signing up for a lot of ancillary work and systems.

World Rugby need to make a decision on this soon.

Why are the IRFU against it? Do they have a good reason not to let Ian play?

Redgirl82

Deleted User wrote: »

Why are the IRFU against it? Do they have a good reason not to let Ian play?

They are concerned about other players and not Ian from what I can gather, that potentially if tackling Ian the player could get hurt from the head gear

Redgirl82

Redgirl82 wrote: »

They are concerned about other players and not Ian from what I can gather, that potentially if tackling Ian the player could get hurt from the head gear

Ok fair enough. So my next question is are they basing this on reliable evidence?

If so.. why the petition?

.ak

Whilst I'd be delighted for McKinley if the IRFU join the trial I'm more interested in it going ahead as there's a lot of grass roots/underage players that can't play because of eye related issues. If this opens it up for them to play I'm all for it.

A lot of R&D have gone into these goggles, I'm sure they're completely safe. I presume they're quite soft and pliable, certainly no harder then a stiff bottom sole of a boot and studs.

.ak

.ak wrote: »

Whilst I'd be delighted for McKinley if the IRFU join the trial I'm more interested in it going ahead as there's a lot of grass roots/underage players that can't play because of eye related issues. If this opens it up for them to play I'm all for it.

A lot of R&D have gone into these goggles, I'm sure they're completely safe. I presume they're quite soft and pliable, certainly no harder then a stiff bottom sole of a boot and studs.

Here is the only statement I could find online and it relates to mini rugby only:

"Wearing of glasses/ Sports goggles In the interest of safety (of the player wearing the goggles and other players) and best practice the wearing of glasses or goggles when participating in the contact format of rugby cannot be allowed. Regarding "approved eyewear" like boots, shoulder pads and head gear it must be IRB approved before it can be used when playing rugby and as this has not been approved by the IRB it is against the regulations."

So is it still the IRB that have yet to approve these googles or is it just the IRFU at this stage? Similarly is it the same set of rules for senior players?

Zzippy

Deleted User wrote: »

Here is the only statement I could find online and it relates to mini rugby only:

"Wearing of glasses/ Sports goggles In the interest of safety (of the player wearing the goggles and other players) and best practice the wearing of glasses or goggles when participating in the contact format of rugby cannot be allowed. Regarding "approved eyewear" like boots, shoulder pads and head gear it must be IRB approved before it can be used when playing rugby and as this has not been approved by the IRB it is against the regulations."

So is it still the IRB that have yet to approve these googles or is it just the IRFU at this stage? Similarly is it the same set of rules for senior players?

Yes, it's an ongoing trial, but as far as I know it's a global trial and only Ireland and England have refused to sign up to it.

sydthebeat

the issue for a lot of clubs (and teh IRFU) is that the goggles worn my underagers are not these protective goggles, they are actual sports goggles with a corrective prescription included. These kind of goggles arent tested or approved for rugby, though they are tested for other contact sports such as soccer, gaa, etc.

the "Rugby Goggles" developed by IRB are quite expensive for a mini or youth player

your looking at approx €140 + before getting the lenses to fit into the head piece

irishbucsfan

World Rugby haven't approved them. There's a trial going on currently that has been very successful. The IRFU, RFU and FFR didn't take part in that trial. So players can't wear the goggles in England, Ireland or France.

I signed the petition because I'm a big fan of McKinley.

However, I completely understand where the IRFU are coming from. The IRFU made the decision not to join the trial, they're in the best position to make these decisions. McKinley knew this when he signed for Zebre. Hes known this for a long time. I would absolutely love to see him playing in the RDS but maybe it's better to wait for the trial to complete in the originally intended manner and then adopt these worldwide. At the end of the day if someone gets injured because they were wearing poor quality goggles or there was something unsafe about these that's yet to be discovered, it's not going to be McKinley or any of the undersigned who has to take responsibility for that. Saying that the goggles appear to be entirely safe so far so maybe they can hurry up and conclude the trial and adopt them worldwide.

Zzippy

Zzippy wrote: »

Yes, it's an ongoing trial, but as far as I know it's a global trial and only Ireland and England have refused to sign up to it.

I would assume if the trial is successful that we will allow the goggles along with everyone else? We've just opted out of the testing phase then?

irishbucsfan

Deleted User wrote: »

I would assume if the trial is successful that we will allow the goggles along with everyone else? We've just opted out of the testing phase then?

Yeah, if the trial is successful it'll be World Rugby who adopt it and then the goggles will be available to everyone.

The Lost Sheep

The RFU are currently trialing the use of these goggles at under 13 and below. Which is mini rugby and then the first grade where players play full pitch.
To be honest its a trial period. The IRFU are perfectly entitled to wait until this trial is up. It is unfortunate for Ian but I don't see why the IRFU should have to take part.

Zzippy

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

The RFU are currently trialing the use of these goggles at under 13 and below. Which is mini rugby and then the first grade where players play full pitch.
To be honest its a trial period. The IRFU are perfectly entitled to wait until this trial is up. It is unfortunate for Ian but I don't see why the IRFU should have to take part.

Do you have to defend the union/referees every time there's a hint of criticism? They're not infallible you know, they do make mistakes.
As for not seeing why they should have to take part, they're not forced to, but they're denying plenty of kids the opportunity to play rugby by refusing to take part. Is that not a good enough reason?

sydthebeat

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

It is unfortunate for Ian but I don't see why the IRFU should have to take part.

they should however give a legitimate reasons as to why they 'opted out' of the trial

The Lost Sheep

Zzippy wrote: »

Do you have to defend the union/referees every time there's a hint of criticism? They're not infallible you know, they do make mistakes.
As for not seeing why they should have to take part, they're not forced to, but they're denying plenty of kids the opportunity to play rugby by refusing to take part. Is that not a good enough reason?

I don't defend them at every opportunity. Theyre doing a poor job at a lot of things - ive mentioned a lot of what theyre doing wrong in plenty of other threads....

This is a trial period. There is no reason why the IRFU should have to be involved. Denying kids the opportunity to play isn't great but the World Rugby trial is of just one style of goggles which are only available from World Rugby, and not available at retail in any country of the world, is a trial and there is no obligation for them to be involved. The IRFU have to look at whats best for them and the sport

sydthebeat wrote: »

they should however give a legitimate reasons as to why they 'opted out' of the trial

Yes they should

Rigor Mortis

Zzippy wrote: »

Yes, it's an ongoing trial, but as far as I know it's a global trial and only Ireland and England have refused to sign up to it.

France too apparently

CIARAN_BOYLE

sydthebeat wrote: »

they should however give a legitimate reasons as to why they 'opted out' of the trial

Theres a nice article a few months back where someone from the IRFU was interviewed. I can't find it at the moment.

The IRFU had two main points.
1. The goggles are a trial and may cause injuries to other players. Let other countries collect the original data.
2. There are two major insurance companies operating in Ireland and the UK (though their UK presences are centred in England) that threatened a significant increase to insurance premiums for rugby clubs as they didn't have faith in the goggles being trialed.

irishbucsfan

If that part about insurance is true then the IRFU are completely justified in not opting in to the trial really.

Dero

Deleted User wrote: »

Here is the only statement I could find online and it relates to mini rugby only:

"Wearing of glasses/ Sports goggles In the interest of safety (of the player wearing the goggles and other players) and best practice the wearing of glasses or goggles when participating in the contact format of rugby cannot be allowed. Regarding "approved eyewear" like boots, shoulder pads and head gear it must be IRB approved before it can be used when playing rugby and as this has not been approved by the IRB it is against the regulations."

So is it still the IRB that have yet to approve these googles or is it just the IRFU at this stage? Similarly is it the same set of rules for senior players?

Hmm. That's interesting. My son played minis a few years ago (u9-u11), and he wore prescription "Rec Specs", which are designed for contact sports (if not Rugby specifically). They were fitted and supplied by his regular optician who was fully aware that they were for (mini) rugby.

No-one batted an eyelid, either his team/coaches, nor any team they played against. Did they just turn a blind eye? I'm inclined to think nobody was aware of any eyewear specific rules.

They worked very well, and neither he nor any other player ever got hurt by them.

P.S. Fair play to Ian, I signed the petition and I hope the goggles get approved soon.

Redgirl82

Anyone get this email?

16 Oct 2015 — Hi folks,

Any of you heading to the Connacht v. Zebre game in Galway this evening, or fancy coming along as part of the #letianplay campaign?

We will be collecting signatures for the campaign petition outside the Sportsground in Galway this evening (where Ian was due to play tonight). Please come along at 6.45pm if you are willing to wear a #letianplay t-shirt and help gather signatures.

We've been blown away by the level of support so far (over 10,000 signatures in just over 24 hours!!!), and we really want to keep the momentum for the campaign going. So if you can help in any way, let us know!

Thanks so much!

The #letianplay Campaign Team

https://www.change.org/p/world-rugby-and-the-irfu-let-ian-mckinley-play-on-irish-soil/u/13806596?tk=RlPW7zP028BO46KhN4KO9j4JDmxydv648Y7zV36XORo&utm_source=petition_update&utm_medium=email

Neil3030

I would be slightly concerned about the integrative overload that these goggles might impose on his peripheral visual system.

From what I understand, the goggles expand his field of view by refracting a larger portion of his left visual field into the capture of his right eye. This will increase the workload of the temporal part of his right retina.

The field of vision rehab is still divided on whether such an approach is inherently a good thing (a similar prosthetic/compensatory approach has been used in conditions like neglect and hemianopia and opinion is mixed).

When you consider that his right eye is already double jobbing it, so to speak, I would certainly be a bit worried about the long term implications of increased workload and possible stress on this area.

rrpc

Neil3030 wrote: »

I would be slightly concerned about the integrative overload that these goggles might impose on his peripheral visual system.

From what I understand, the goggles expand his field of view by refracting a larger portion of his left visual field into the capture of his right eye. This will increase the workload of the temporal part of his right retina.

The field of vision rehab is still divided on whether such an approach is inherently a good thing (a similar prosthetic/compensatory approach has been used in conditions like neglect and hemianopia and opinion is mixed).

When you consider that his right eye is already double jobbing it, so to speak, I would certainly be a bit worried about the long term implications of increased workload and possible stress on this area.

That's not a function of the goggles themselves though. They are purely a protective device with the ability to have corrective lenses fitted. What you seem to be talking about is this:

https://twitter.com/ianmck7/status/641592380785881088

https://twitter.com/ianmck7/status/641592516995846148

Losty Dublin

Dero wrote: »

Hmm. That's interesting. My son played minis a few years ago (u9-u11), and he wore prescription "Rec Specs", which are designed for contact sports (if not Rugby specifically). They were fitted and supplied by his regular optician who was fully aware that they were for (mini) rugby.

No-one batted an eyelid, either his team/coaches, nor any team they played against. Did they just turn a blind eye? I'm inclined to think nobody was aware of any eyewear specific rules.

They worked very well, and neither he nor any other player ever got hurt by them.

The amount of variations that you will see in playing gear, sportswear, safety wear, kit etc that you see in the non senior game, from junior to mini's to kids to women's, schools, tag and golden oldies etc is amazing.

In terms of eyewear, all you are allowed on the field of play is contact lenses. Still I've seen so many players who swear blind that they were allowed to wear glasses and shades last week and that the ref said it was fine I've no doubts that your young lad has gotten away with wearing these, regulated or otherwise, and here's hoping that he continues to enjoy rugby.

freyners

irishbucsfan wrote: »

World Rugby haven't approved them. There's a trial going on currently that has been very successful. The IRFU, RFU and FFR didn't take part in that trial. So players can't wear the goggles in England, Ireland or France.

I signed the petition because I'm a big fan of McKinley.

However, I completely understand where the IRFU are coming from. The IRFU made the decision not to join the trial, they're in the best position to make these decisions. McKinley knew this when he signed for Zebre. Hes known this for a long time. I would absolutely love to see him playing in the RDS but maybe it's better to wait for the trial to complete in the originally intended manner and then adopt these worldwide. At the end of the day if someone gets injured because they were wearing poor quality goggles or there was something unsafe about these that's yet to be discovered, it's not going to be McKinley or any of the undersigned who has to take responsibility for that. Saying that the goggles appear to be entirely safe so far so maybe they can hurry up and conclude the trial and adopt them worldwide.

When is the trial due to conclude?

Neil3030

rrpc wrote: »

That's not a function of the goggles themselves though. They are purely a protective device with the ability to have corrective lenses fitted. What you seem to be talking about is this:

https://twitter.com/ianmck7/status/641592380785881088

https://twitter.com/ianmck7/status/641592516995846148

The goggles themselves i have no issue with. It's the projection of 30 degrees more information on an organ not evolved for such workload. I know the brain is plastic and can sometimes recruit nearby areas to help when tissue is lost, but his condition is peripheral and i am not aware of the retina being similarly flexible.

pickarooney

Dero wrote: »

Hmm. That's interesting. My son played minis a few years ago (u9-u11), and he wore prescription "Rec Specs", which are designed for contact sports (if not Rugby specifically). They were fitted and supplied by his regular optician who was fully aware that they were for (mini) rugby.

No-one batted an eyelid, either his team/coaches, nor any team they played against. Did they just turn a blind eye? I'm inclined to think nobody was aware of any eyewear specific rules.

They worked very well, and neither he nor any other player ever got hurt by them.

P.S. Fair play to Ian, I signed the petition and I hope the goggles get approved soon.

Jasis, the puns, the goggles they do nothing!

Zzippy

Neil3030 wrote: »

The goggles themselves i have no issue with. It's the projection of 30 degrees more information on an organ not evolved for such workload. I know the brain is plastic and can sometimes recruit nearby areas to help when tissue is lost, but his condition is peripheral and i am not aware of the retina being similarly flexible.

Is there any research on this? I wouldn't imagine myself there would be retinal problems - the retina can only take in the same amount of light - it is merely the lens of the camera so to speak, it's more that the brain has to process the information coming back differently. The retina isn't processing anything, it's merely passing what it "sees" up the optic nerve. What is reflected through the prism into the good eye will just replace what the good eye would see in that part of the field of vision, the retina isn't straining to cover an extra wide field.

duckysauce

Joe Duffy will be talking about protective eye ware in Irish rugby today .