The Leinster Branch executive committee have come under further pressure to rescind their ruling which grants the province's leading schools the right to prevent their secondary pupils from playing with clubs.

Following on from the notice of intent to issue High Court proceedings against the IRFU and the Leinster Branch by the parent of one player prevented from playing with his club, both Greystones and Seapoint renewed their campaign to have this protectionist ruling changed.

"We do not have sufficient players from Section A and non-rugby-playing schools to field teams at all age levels," Greystones argued in their submission to the Leinster Branch.

"Of the 112 boys registered from under-13s to under-18s, 54 (48 per cent) attend Section B schools. Boys join us at six, seven, eight and nine onwards. We have, in many cases, encouraged and even given them a love of the game. Those who are really interested in rugby tend to go to Section B schools (the foremost rugby schools), as they are easily accessible. Why should they then be prevented from playing with their clubs? Please rescind 1.12. If you don't the future of Greystones RFC Youth Section, and by definition the club, is in serious doubt."

Seapoint's submission highlighted the 60-per-cent drop-out rate of schoolboy players after they leave school. They would undoubtedly be supported by the likes of DLSP, Clontarf, Barnhall and other community-based clubs, but earlier attempts to loosen the schools' monopoly of their players have been resisted.

A Greystones motion to have the ruling rescinded last April was beaten by one vote after a heated debate, when it is believed at least one club representative on the branch committee went against his club's mandate.

Schools committees have always enjoyed power disproportionate to their role in the game, power, indeed, that would have been viewed as unhealthy by many clubs who do not have natural feeder schools.

Sport, and not only rugby, of course, often operates as if in a legal world of its own.

However, rulings which give schools primacy over all their players, not just first-team members of Senior and Junior Cup squads, and thereby entitle them to dictate to pupils whether they can play rugby with their free time at weekends, appear not only prejudicial but also unlikely to stand up in a court of law.

This power has seen pupils suspended for breaking these rules, but now one parent of a schoolboy who wishes to play for his club but has, apparently, been refused consent has had enough.

The solicitor's letter putting the Leinster Branch and the IRFU on notice of intent to seek relief in the High Court stated the agreement between the schools committee and youth committee, approved by the executive committee, "interferes with our client's rights as a parent and his son's rights as a player".

It added that the ruling "creates an unfair and unjust impediment for talented young rugby players who wish to play club rugby and is unwarranted in all the circumstances. The agreement and decisions made pursuant to the agreement are a very serious and blatant interference with the rights of these young players to associate. This right is guaranteed under Article 40.6iii of the Constitution of Ireland. The courts in this jurisdiction have for many years upheld and vindicated this basic right."

The letter adds: "The policy and rules of the IRFU have therefore blighted this young player's playing career."

It will be interesting to see how the Leinster Branch respond.