It is but if one parent for whatever reason doesn't want their child being photographed then does anyone else have the right to say "tough" you have to? and at rugby games/sports days/plays etc this is often the issue.

If all parents consent then its fine but if one says no (and believe me their are a wide variety of reasons they say no) then surely this has to be respected?

What I've never understood is why taking pictures of kids playing rugby would be something paedos will do?

Not that I'm a connoisseur of child porn but surely the sorts of images on those sites are something a bit more hardcore than kids dressed decently on a rugby pitch?

A couple of years ago my Mum got some old cinefilms converted to dvd of her and her brother and sister playing on Blackpool beach in about 1960 and there was some full on child nudity in those. I'm surprised she's not banged up with Gary Glitter.

Yep, I believe it is part of the Clubmark rules (although I may have that wrong) for child protection.

Wasn't there an incident at Salford a couple of years back that made the press of somebody taking photo's of children?

I'm not, Glitter's been free for ages.

Thats very interesting, everytime we play at Rylands we get stopped from talking photographys by Rylands club appointed "Pitch side officer" even though the Rylands team we are playing have said they have no objections to photography.