RUGBY: The executive committee of the Leinster Branch last night took the significant decision to rescind their so-called 1984 agreement and the controversial Rule 1.12 which prohibited schoolboys from playing for clubs without the schools' express permission.

Instead, the Section B or stronger schools, along with some section A schools, will be allowed to nominate 50 senior cup and 35 junior cup players to play exclusively for their schools. All other schools' players will henceforth be allowed to play for their clubs, although not in existing youths competitions.

This proviso allayed fears, especially in the provincial clubs, they would come up against vastly stronger underage club sides with a plethora of elite schoolboy players.

The exact wording of the motion that was passed at last night's 31-strong executive committee was: "Schoolboys in Section B and non-exempt Section A schools shall be eligible to play youths rugby with the exceptions of those boys who are included in the Junior Cup and Senior Cup panels." It was also decided "the schools agreements of 1984 and 1991 . . . be deleted."

Already a sore issue when a similarly-worded compromise was defeated by one vote at this summer's agm, this latest development followed weeks of heated debate. It had been partly prompted by a parent of one schoolboy whose school had not granted him permission to play for his club - where he had been introduced to the game in their mini-rugby set-up - and had then served notice to issue High Court proceedings against the Leinster Branch and the IRFU.

The solicitor's letter which was sent to the Leinster Branch stated: "This agreement interferes with our client's rights as a parent and his son's rights as a player, and . . . are a very serious and blatant interference with the rights of these young players to associate," which, the letter noted, was guaranteed under article 40.6iii of the Constitution.

This served to concentrate minds, although only in the last week did matters come to a head. Unsurprisingly, the schools' lobby weren't inclined to budge one inch, and called a meeting of representatives of just the Section B schools on Tuesday last week at which they reiterated their opposition to any relaxation of the restrictive rules which have long been in place.

However, last Thursday the management committee of the Leinster Branch, realising they would have to provide some leadership on such a polarised issue, recommended the 1984 agreement and rule 1.12 be rescinded, with a compromise allowing some form of ringfencing by Section B schools.

Once they came to that decision, the die was pretty much cast. Even so, the hierarchy of the schools' committee and many of the Section B schools dug their heels in, maintaining any loosening of the rules which gave them the right to decide whether their schoolboys could play rugby for clubs would run the risk of these players being exposed to too much rugby.

This is ironic, given most of the Section B schools train during the summer, Easter and Christmas holidays, and some of them are training five times a week in addition to league matches or friendlies. Nonetheless, the schools maintain they alone should be the sole arbiters of whether their players be allowed to play for clubs - even in end-of-season friendlies or tours, and even for those clubs who originally introduced these players to the game.

Barred from playing club rugby, they could, however, play Gaelic games or football; indeed, somewhat ridiculously, playing other sports or nothing was their only option.

Some clubs, particularly junior clubs, remained deeply concerned that changes to the rules would see a flurry of highly trained and skilled players from the leading schools in the province unleashed against them.

However, the ringfencing of the top 50 SCT and 35 JCT players, plus the limit on the others playing only in friendlies or in alternative metropolitan competitions, as opposed to existing Leinster competitions, allayed those fears, so much so the representatives from the midlands, north-midlands, north-east and south-east regions are believed to have largely voted in favour of last night's recommendation by the management committee.

It was apparently not as acrimonious a meeting as had been feared beforehand. Indeed, one delegate described it as a relatively constructive meeting.

After a lengthy list of letters were read from various schools outlining their opposition to last night's proposals, ultimately it was believed the vote in favour of rescinding the 1984 and '91 agreements was 18-6, with some absentions.

Among those who voted against the motion were Caleb Powell of the schools' committee, UCD, Old Wesley and Blackrock, whose delegate Declan Molloy was mandated to vote against the motion despite his own views in favour.

Among those in favour were Clontarf, Seapoint, Suttonians, St Mary's, Bective, DLSP, Lansdowne, Wanderers, Naas and Barnhall.

As things stand, it appears those players named in the elite panels will not be permitted to play for their clubs in end-of-season friendlies or tours, even if their schools' sides are no longer in competition.

That may still be a battle for another day.