Ian McKinley

[irish_munster]

It's an unfortunate situation for the player, but the irfu and other unions have their reasons for not allowing these, not least of which is the safety of other players.

Whether that's a ligitimate concern is a matter for debate I guess

They've been extensively tested and I'm also seeing players campaigning to allow Ian to play. Best of luck to the lad its great to see him back on the pitch after everything he's been through.

absolutely, if they have been tested then let him play, fine player too

[domhnallj]

Ian's Ma gives her opinion IRFU and his exclusion from playing in Ireland

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/lette ... -1.2446333

[Oldschoolsocks]

Ian's Ma gives her opinion IRFU and his exclusion from playing in Ireland

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/lette ... -1.2446333

I really feel annoyed for her and for Ian, IRFU still haven't given a credible reason for refusing to trial the goggles.

EDIT: in saying that, appeals to emotion shouldn't really be the to sway the debate. If, as the IRFU seem to be stating, the goggles do raise a valid concern for player safety, then please do publish the reasoning or report or study or whatever is the basis for these concerns, and signed off by an expert please,

[outcast eddie]

Ian's Ma gives her opinion IRFU and his exclusion from playing in Ireland

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/lette ... -1.2446333

This thread should now be renamed 'celebrate the goggles'.

Poor PR story for the IRFU, surely this is something they can easily put right.

[Ruckedtobits]

I believe that the association of the people who supply glasses and other eye equipment in Ireland have confirmed that there is no medical issue withe safety of these goggles. If that is the case, the only other question is insurance. If the equipment is safe, that should be no problem either. IRFU should revisit their decision not to participate in World Rugby trial, which is apparently going well. This is not a big deal, just a matter of common sense, something it is rumoured is sometimes in short supply in Irish rugby

[Not_Today]

Ian's Ma gives her opinion IRFU and his exclusion from playing in Ireland

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/lette ... -1.2446333

I wonder would Ian's ma be asking what are the IRFU doing for her son if he lost the sight of one eye after being injured by a player wearing these goggles.

The IRFU have a responsibility to all players not just one.

[Oldschoolsocks]

Ian's Ma gives her opinion IRFU and his exclusion from playing in Ireland

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/lette ... -1.2446333

I wonder would Ian's ma be asking what are the IRFU doing for her son if he lost the sight of one eye after being injured by a player wearing these goggles.

The IRFU have a responsibility to all players not just one.

Do you mind me asking, in what scenario would one player wearing goggles cause an injury that would cause another to lose the sight in their eye?

Honest question, I mean you've obviously thought of something that's passed me by here.

[Not_Today]

Ian's Ma gives her opinion IRFU and his exclusion from playing in Ireland

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/lette ... -1.2446333

I wonder would Ian's ma be asking what are the IRFU doing for her son if he lost the sight of one eye after being injured by a player wearing these goggles.

The IRFU have a responsibility to all players not just one.

Do you mind me asking, in what scenario would one player wearing goggles cause an injury that would cause another to lose the sight in their eye?

Honest question, I mean you've obviously thought of something that's passed me by here.

Are you saying that goggles will never ever cause an injury which might result in the loss of sight in one eye?

IMHO, they're not around long enough to know what might or might not happen.

[Oldschoolsocks]

Do you mind me asking, in what scenario would one player wearing goggles cause an injury that would cause another to lose the sight in their eye?

Honest question, I mean you've obviously thought of something that's passed me by here.

Are you saying that goggles will never ever cause an injury which might result in the loss of sight in one eye?

IMHO, they're not around long enough to know what might or might not happen.

No, I'm asking you for a plausible scenario, and you responded by asking me to prove a negative. Now no offence meant, but you're asking the equivalent of prove to me that Joey wearing a mouth guard or scrum cap will never cause a serious injury to another player. It is a fine rhetorical device, but has no real application in the real world.

I can see no way that protective goggles can cause a serious injury to another player. My question to you is "what is the scenario where you see this happening?"

[Not_Today]

Do you mind me asking, in what scenario would one player wearing goggles cause an injury that would cause another to lose the sight in their eye?

Honest question, I mean you've obviously thought of something that's passed me by here.

Are you saying that goggles will never ever cause an injury which might result in the loss of sight in one eye?

IMHO, they're not around long enough to know what might or might not happen.

No, I'm asking you for a plausible scenario, and you responded by asking me to prove a negative. Now no offence meant, but you're asking the equivalent of prove to me that Joey wearing a mouth guard or scrum cap will never cause a serious injury to another player. It is a fine rhetorical device, but has no real application in the real world.

I can see no way that protective goggles can cause a serious injury to another player. My question to you is "what is the scenario where you see this happening?"

You see none and what is that based on?

The IRFU sought professional advice on the wearing of goggles, based on that advice they like their English and French counterparts have decided not to participate on the trial.

[Oldschoolsocks]

...
...
...
You see none and what is that based on?

The IRFU sought professional advice on the wearing of goggles, based on that advice they like their English and French counterparts have decided not to participate on the trial.

1: what was the nature of this professional advice? (Legal expert, medical expert, insurance expert, etc,...)
2: where was this professional advice published?
3: did this professional advice call out a plausible scenario where Player A wearing goggles would endanger the eyesight of Player B?

As for me seeing no plausible scenario, that's based on how the eye usually gets injured in a game of rugby, which is by stray hands or fingers or boots. Head collisions rarely affect the eye, which is where you wear goggles.

Now, can you answer the question I put to you: "In what scenario,that you can see, could one player wearing goggles cause an injury that would cause another to lose their eyesight in one eye?"

[Not_Today]

...
...
...
You see none and what is that based on?

The IRFU sought professional advice on the wearing of goggles, based on that advice they like their English and French counterparts have decided not to participate on the trial.

1: what was the nature of this professional advice? (Legal expert, medical expert, insurance expert, etc,...)
2: where was this professional advice published?
3: did this professional advice call out a plausible scenario where Player A wearing goggles would endanger the eyesight of Player B?

As for me seeing no plausible scenario, that's based on how the eye usually gets injured in a game of rugby, which is by stray hands or fingers or boots. Head collisions rarely affect the eye, which is where you wear goggles.

Now, can you answer the question I put to you: "In what scenario,that you can see, could one player wearing goggles cause an injury that would cause another to lose their eyesight in one eye?"

I think you need to address some of your questions to the IRFU.

They have a Q&A on their website on the goggles have a look there for some answers to your questions.

Finally, it ain't up to me to give you any scenario on anything and I can't see why you think I should.

[Oldschoolsocks]

I think you need to address some of your questions to the IRFU.

They have a Q&A on their website on the goggles have a look there for some answers to your questions.

Finally, it ain't up to me to give you any scenario on anything and I can't see why you think I should.

OK I've read their Q&A, it cites the "independant medical advice" of an anonymous surgeon, it has not been published, and has no transparency as to how this "advisor" came to his/her conclusion. This vagueness and lack of transparency does not lend credibility to the decision.

The reason I asked for you to give a scenario was because I honestly thought you had considered something about the goggles I had missed. But it appears that you didn't, otherwise you probably would have presented the scenario or theory. The link between losing sight in one eye and,as you state it, another player wearing goggles is not clear and on face value the same might be said about one player losing teeth because another was wearing a mouth guard.

I wonder would Ian's ma be asking what are the IRFU doing for her son if he lost the sight of one eye after being injured by a player wearing these goggles.

The IRFU have a responsibility to all players not just one.

EDIT: in fairness to the IRFU, I think that they're just being conservative and are awaiting the outcome of the study, and I actually have no problem with that. I'd just prefer they be honest about it.

[Dave Cahill]

the same might be said about one player losing teeth because another was wearing a mouth guard.

mouthguards aren't made of toughened glass or plastic. Can it shatter, how does it shatter if it does, is its strength undermined by repeated blows, by heat, by cold, could the strap snap, is fogging an issue, what conditions might it be an issue in. These are the lowest common denominator (ones that even a thicko like me can think of) reasons why there is a trial in the first place - and until there is a level of certainty that the product is, within reasonable expectations, safe - then the Union aren't entirely wrong to take the position they have taken.

[Oldschoolsocks]

the same might be said about one player losing teeth because another was wearing a mouth guard.

mouthguards aren't made of toughened glass or plastic. Can it shatter, how does it shatter if it does, is its strength undermined by repeated blows, by heat, by cold, could the strap snap, is fogging an issue, what conditions might it be an issue in. These are the lowest common denominator (ones that even a thicko like me can think of) reasons why there is a trial in the first place - and until there is a level of certainty that the product is, within reasonable expectations, safe - then the Union aren't entirely wrong to take the position they have taken.

Thank you DC, if this was the published finding of the "independant expert advisor" I would happily accept it. And as I said, I've no problem with the Union being conservative and awaiting the outcome of the trial.

To be fair, I did write "on the face of it the same might be said.."

Out of curiosity, did you happen to check the specs of the goggles to see if they promuse not to shatter or fog etc., because you could then assume that that would definitely form part of the trial.

EDIT: I haven't checked the Specs of the goggles and don't expect you to.

[LeRouxIsPHat]

I hate this situation and signed the petition to allow him to play but something is nagging away at me thinking that there must be a good reason why the IRFU are being so stubborn about it. I'm beginning to wonder if there is something they're aware of that might scupper the project entirely so they don't want to say it. It may not even be the goggles themselves but something similar that caused an injury and so they're worried for insurance purposes.

[Oldschoolsocks]

I hate this situation and signed the petition to allow him to play but something is nagging away at me thinking that there must be a good reason why the IRFU are being so stubborn about it. I'm beginning to wonder if there is something they're aware of that might scupper the project entirely so they don't want to say it. It may not even be the goggles themselves but something similar that caused an injury and so they're worried for insurance purposes.

But thats the thing LRIP, if they o hav good reason,neven if its anecdotal, it shoukd be published. The fact that they are sitting behind one single anonymous "expert opinion", giveslittlevweight to their stance.

[Peg Leg]

I hate this situation and signed the petition to allow him to play but something is nagging away at me thinking that there must be a good reason why the IRFU are being so stubborn about it. I'm beginning to wonder if there is something they're aware of that might scupper the project entirely so they don't want to say it. It may not even be the goggles themselves but something similar that caused an injury and so they're worried for insurance purposes.

But thats the thing LRIP, if they o hav good reason,neven if its anecdotal, it shoukd be published. The fact that they are sitting behind one single anonymous "expert opinion", giveslittlevweight to their stance.

An interesting dichotomy with how they are responding to the concussion issue and the numerous claims countering their own data.

[Peg Leg]

Sorry to lob the Concussion grenade, but interesting how they deal with the two.

[Oldschoolsocks]

Sorry to lob the Concussion grenade, but interesting how they deal with the two.

You've been dying to get "concussion grenade" into a sentence for weeks