Know your gear

Check for the stamp of approval!

The envoy, David Carigy, warned against the tendency by some suppliers and retailers to manufacture, stock and sell headgear and shoulder pads that were not IRB-approved. There were also garments sold with no IRB-approved-labels.

According to Christo Ferreira, manager of legal affairs of the South African Rugby Union, Carigy visited distributors and retailers, investigated their IRB-compliancy and even photographed some faulty garments.

He expressed the concern of the IRB that some distributors and retailers sold headgear and shoulder pads that were not tested and approved by the IRB, nor displayed the IRB-approved-logo.

"The IRB was adamant that the distributors had to get in line. Initially, some big name-suppliers dug in their heels against the measure that all the garments had to be IRB-approved and –labeled.

"I pleaded with the IRB for a gradual phasing out of the old garments before introducing the new ruling. The international body, though, was unmoved and said the whole SA rugby community had to abide by Regulation 12," said Ferreira.

SARU, as a member of the IRB, must ensure that this regulation is strictly adhered to. This means that all schools, clubs, provincial and international matches organized under the auspices of SARU, must comply in full to Regulation 12.

Any player who does not comply with the Regulation 12 can be charged before a SARU Judicial Committee. "Retailers are requested to only stock items with an official IRB approved logo attached thereto," adds Ferreira.

Canterbury’s protective wear supply was not affected in any way by the ruling about IRB approved labels on headgear and shoulder pads, says Paul Zacks, MD of Canterbury SA. "We have an international team of designers and a Canterbury global supplier/manufacturer who are constantly working with the IRB to ensure timeous compliance and delivery."

Canterbury International’s headgear and shoulder pads have always been IRB-approved and labeled, and therefore the recent rulings have not affected sales in the least, said Zacks.

However with regards to Canterbury SAs non-IRB approved shoulder vest that the company marketed and sold in the past as a training product (that is not intended for use on match day) year-on-year-sales for the first quarter have dropped by 96 %. The loss of sales on this product, however, has been more than compensated for by the company’s introduction of its new IRB approved entry price point Club range.

The process of getting a specific brand of product tested and approved, takes anything between 4 to 8 weeks once the garments have been submitted to the IRB.

The label is purchased from the IRB and attached by the manufacturer.

Some SA suppliers used the argument in the past that the shoulder vests were IRB compliant and therefore did not need to be IRB approved. The IRB, though, is unmoved on the issue that every protective garment has to have the IRB Approved label attached.

Based on average annual sales, it will cost about R64 per vest to get the product IRB approved and labeled. Each label costs $1.10.

The two biggest suppliers of protective gear in SA sell more than 20 000 protective garments per year — and there are several other suppliers. Gilbert sells between 6 000 – 8 000 units of shoulder pads and about 1 500 headgears per year. This year, Canterbury already have sales orders for more than 5 200 units of headgear and for more than 7 000 shoulder pads.

"The IRB, via their meetings twice a year with rugby manufacturers, have communicated the reasons behind their policies and processes and clarified any areas of confusion. Canterbury, as a leading rugby brand, respect these rules and are happy to comply with them," said Zacks.

Du Toit Botes, GM of James Gilbert SA, says suppliers would pay R45 000 to get the full size range approved from XS – 3XL because each size must be approved.

When Carigy visited South Africa, Botes and Ferreira had a meeting with him. Carigy warned that the SA protective gear market was spiraling out of control.

According to Botes, Gilbert vowed after that meeting to set the tone and to abide by the IRB-regulations. One has to play by the rules on the field when participating in the Rugby World Cup, so the same applies to the garments of which the IRB is the official guardian, he says.

"We are the official supplier of balls and equipment to SA rugby and we endeavour to be an agent of positive change in SA. We contacted Sportsman’s Warehouse and together we decided to start a marketing initiative aimed at changing the mind-set of the consumer. Our purpose was to explain to the consumer why we would only supply IRB-approved products," says Botes.

Tony Barker, director of Optimum, says Christo Ferreira told him the IRB put a lot of pressure on SA to get into line.

In the rest of the world, retailers would not touch an item of clothing if there were no IRB-label on it. In SA, there was a tendency of ignoring, or not sufficiently respecting, the IRB-regulation that protective gear had to be tested, approved and appropriately labeled.

"When I came on board with Optimum SA in 2004, I said we had a problem: We (Optimum) were playing by the rules, but not the other guys."

When Carigy visited SA, some of the suppliers did not want to toe the line, until the IRB-envoy warned them that when new sponsorships were negotiated, the IRB would not utilize their company.

That threat forced the big boys to come to the party.

What worries Barker, is that the playing field may not be level for all the suppliers. Some unscrupulous agents might hoodwink retailers into believing they are stocking legal garments, but what happens to parents when they buy protective gear for their children, just to learn later that legally they are not allowed to play in a match under Saru’s auspices.

"Why should Gilbert, Canterbury and Optimum supply IRB-approved protective gear, and one or two others not?" asks Barker.

According to a retailer who sells a lot of rugby gear, but does not want to be named, some SA players, amongst them Springboks, have for some time been playing in protective garments that were not IRB-approved or IRB-labelled. The source said the IRB-regulation stipulates that the thickness of the foam on the shoulder must not exceed 10 mm and the thickness of the foam on the sternum must not be thicker than 5 mm. Some of those garments were 10 mm on the shoulder and on the sternum.

"There have been a helluva lot of illegal models on the SA market for more than 5 years," says the source.

"The IRB feared that if you had too much protection, like 10 mm or more, you could argue that you were bullet-proof, and the game was in danger of becoming too robust.

"I still believe that the headgear cannot prevent concussion, but is anti-abrasive and could prevent serious cuts when somebody’s studs connect with your head," he adds.

Martin Ferreira of Sportoria, a specialist-retailer of rugby stock in Pretoria, says the IRB-regulation regarding protective wear has little affect on the supply and sales of rugby protective wear.

"There is no monitoring system in place to check whether the regulations regarding head gear and shoulder pads are being implemented," he says. "Furthermore, the end users of these products are largely uneducated. You have a system in place that is not enforced."

Ferreira believes that the largest volumes of protective wear – headgear and shoulder pads – currently sold in SA are not IRB-approved.

The IRB-regulations regarding the protective wear and the necessity of labels are also not widely available in South Africa, according to the Pretoria-based retailer.

SA Rugby never condoned or approved protective gear that was not IRB-approved, says Christo Ferreira. "It could be that we did not apply the law strictly in the past," he concedes. "We have now asked the retailers and the referees to ensure that players adhere to the regulation."

At provincial and Super 14-level, SA rugby has asked André Watson, the director of refereeing affairs in South Africa, and the referees under his authority, to police the headgear and shoulder pads to ensure that all items worn are IRB-approved.

It means that if players do not wear the required garments, they could be prohibited from taking the field.

Schools and clubs have the responsibility to make their players aware that they may only wear the IRB-approved garments. The referees must similarly ensure that only garments with IRB-labels are used.

Barker says SA rugby has a commitment to the public and suppliers of the garment to make sure that unscrupulous companies don’t take retailers and the public for a ride.

SA rugby must also engage with the media in a marketing drive to spread the message that IRB-approval and IRB-labels are necessities.

By putting posters in change rooms, by running articles in rugby-specific magazines and by using the sporting channels on TV to impress upon the suppliers, retailers and rugby players the need to wear the labeled garments, they would spread the message and convince the major players that the IRB-approval is the only way to go.

Halfhearted policing by SA Rugby might result in another IRB-visit to South Africa, and another plea for South African conformity to Regulation 12, said Barker.

Whether Barker and Ferreira’s sentiments are shared by all, is not sure. Maybe the real question for a few is not, as Shakespeare once said: To be (IRB-approved and –labelled) or not to be (IRB-labelled), but rather: how can we observe the eleventh commandment: thou shall not be caught.