Ian McKinley

[Dirk Stickler]

This may well have already been discussed here but the IRFU stance on Ian McKinley's situation, & protective goggles in general is appalling.

The lad could easily be over in the UK representing the country at the moment were it not for an accident that took place in an AIL game.

He's being prevented from a full time contract seemingly based on the fact the IRFU won't get involved in the trial of the goggles.

Surely there is something that can be done to highlight this?

[maps]

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

[johng]

Every union bar 3 allow them. Including all the other pro12 unions. So he can play a pro12 game anywhere bar his own country. Is that not ridiculous?

[deco]

RTE on the case this morning. Hopefully will get sorted sooner rather than later.

[blockhead]

He said he was twice gouged in his good eye at club level here.

[Dirk Stickler]

The trial of the goggles was ssanctioned by World Rugby in January 2014, but the IRFU declined to participate. Reasons why goggles shouldn't be allowed, based on the trial, is one thing. To simply not take part is something else entirely.

I appreciate that kids and amateurs playing the game should be as important as the pros but given McKinley's specific status I find the IRFU's stance baffling.

The bloke can now play in all Pro 12 countries apart from his own, where the incident that caused the problem actually took place.

[Pendragon]

I am glad that this has been highlighted and always felt that he was a good player. To want to come back after a serious eye problem shows real courage. He deserves to be let play and I hope that he gets the all clear to play wherever he wants. If world rugby sanction it then surely the IRFU can as well.

[deco]

On line petition set up here:

https://www.change.org/p/world-rugby-an ... responsive

[riocard911]

Signed!!!

[BlueStreak]

Signed!!!

+1

[Ray Mc]

+1

[Ray Mc]

Keep this going. I am sure it can get at least 15,000 signatures.

[LeRouxIsPHat]

Does anyone know what the IRFU's reasoning actually is?

I find it so strange that they wouldn't want to actively help to get a solution sorted. From what McKinley said before he's basically been stone walled by them. Even if we all disagreed with their logic, he's owed a proper explanation and the chance to resolve it.

Unbelievable achievement to get to where has has, hope this campaign opens doors for him when his playing days are over too.

[neill_m]

Anyone know who the other 2 unions are?

[All Blacks nil]

Anyone know who the other 2 unions are?

England and France

[Leoslovechild]

Anyone know who the other 2 unions are?

England and France

[neill_m]

Anyone know who the other 2 unions are?

England and France

Anyone know who the other 2 unions are?

England and France

Cheers

[Flash Gordon]

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.

[Ruckedtobits]

IRFU position at time IRB approved the trial was they could not get a supply of the suitable goggles in all sizes with some sort of quality mark or guarantee. As a result, they could not take on the potential liability. Things may have changed by now, but insurance matters never are simple

[paddyor]

Has to do with insurance. Lifted from elsewhere.

From the FFR point of view, the risk is not other players being injured by Cazenave losing his only valid eye during a game. Even if the Federation and thereby insurance companies were left off the hook, it would still be legally possible for the player who would have caused the accident to be tried by Cazenave under normal jurisdiction. Which seems to be the issue, in France at least.

The french player in the same case (Cazenave, see above) is also playing in Italy. He can't play in France as no insurance in the country will cover the risk of the loss of a organ when only one of two is left (the eye in that case, but same goes for kidney, lung, etc). So that risk not being covered by insurance, the FFR won't allow those players on a pitch.