Single stud on toe of boot?

[Rit Hinners]

Is it so hard to buy conforming boots?

You have to go a very long way out of your way to find boots with a single stud at the toe and if your players are stupid enough to have done this then they'll have to go back to the store and buy a proper pair.

On this side of the pond it's not so difficult to find such boots.

I'm not saying that I personally condone the wearing of such. The USARFU ruling is an embarrasment to me.

 

[ChrisR]

Rit, I don't understand your embarrassment. This 'ruling' makes perfect sense if you're familiar with the moulded sole football (gridiron) boot. These boots are excellent for artificial turf (becoming more common) or the rock hard grounds in our area. It makes NO sense to cut off the small cleat at the toe.

I coach and referee youth rugby in Virginia, USA. Much of our growth comes from recruiting football players. The single stud at the toe is quite common. In our rural area we have many young players that don't have the $$ to run out and get a pair of 'rugby' boots and if that's what they have, so be it.

The perceived danger from the single toe stud is way overblown. In fact I think it's zero. The real issue is stamping and raking. I have no tolerance for that. An injury caused by stamping with the two heel studs? Now, there's a real injury.

 

[ddjamo]

Rit, I don't understand your embarrassment. This 'ruling' makes perfect sense if you're familiar with the moulded sole football (gridiron) boot. These boots are excellent for artificial turf (becoming more common) or the rock hard grounds in our area. It makes NO sense to cut off the small cleat at the toe.

I coach and referee youth rugby in Virginia, USA. Much of our growth comes from recruiting football players. The single stud at the toe is quite common. In our rural area we have many young players that don't have the $$ to run out and get a pair of 'rugby' boots and if that's what they have, so be it.

The perceived danger from the single toe stud is way overblown. In fact I think it's zero. The real issue is stamping and raking. I have no tolerance for that. An injury caused by stamping with the two heel studs? Now, there's a real injury.

agree! :clap:

have yet to see that molded rubber front cleat do any damage and have no idea how that sinister cleat is any more dangerous than the others. you would have to stand on the player like a ballerina to even get the damn thing to touch the body it's so far forward and grouped with 2-4 other rubber cleats...like it's henchmen protecting it's evil ways.

 

[OB..]

Marauder, ddjamo - you are entitled to disagree with the IRB's view. You are not entitled to ignore the law.

 

[ddjamo]

OB - define "single stud."

 

[ChrisR]

Prince William?

 

[ddjamo]

how about a "prince albert"?

 

[Rit Hinners]

My embarrisment comes from the hubris in this country, that we are above the Law and that we have no need (or desire) to play by the same rules (Laws) as everyone else.

 

[ChrisR]

Rit, sounds like you're still miffed at Walter Camp! Me too!

 

[ddjamo]

My embarrassment comes from the hillbillies in this country....

there you go rit - I fixed your post for you....ME TOO!!

 

[OB..]

OB - define "single stud."

I have no idea what point you are trying to make with that query.

Whatever the arguments about studs missing from a pair, it is absolutely clear that a boot designed to have a "single stud/cleat at the toe of the boot" (IRB wording) is illegal. I see no wiggle room at all.

 

[ddjamo]

I'm just curious. what do you tell a kid that shows up to play wearing these gridiron cleats?

http://www.underarmour.com/shop/us/en/pcid1208532?cid=SE|Google&campaign=gbaseUA%20Nitro%20II%20Low%20MC%20Football%20Cleat&CAWELAID=507168386

 

[dave_clark]

that the laws of the game mean that they can't be worn, much like rings, necklaces and watches.

do you suggest any different?

 

[ChrisR]

I think that the game has evolved nicely over the 55 years of my experience.

Consider the lineouts. Lifting was a fact long before it was law. Then it was 'tested' as an ELV. So, perhaps we need an ELV for the US to allow the use of the 'gridiron-single-stud-at-the-toe' boot. Then we could collect the data and see how many maimed players are due to the boot.

 

[dave_clark]

in order to make it a fair test, you'd need to isolate this variable. one potential way is to have 1000 heads stamped on with these boots, and 1000 stamped on without. any volunteers?

 

[Phil E]

in order to make it a fair test, you'd need to isolate this variable. one potential way is to have 1000 heads stamped on with these boots, and 1000 stamped on without. any volunteers?

Sounds like a job for "mythbusters".

 

[ddjamo]

in order to make it a fair test, you'd need to isolate this variable. one potential way is to have 1000 heads stamped on with these boots, and 1000 stamped on without. any volunteers?

again...the toe stud is much more sinister than the rest...

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

http://www.sareferees.co.za/news/ref_news/2723301.htm

Here is SArefs answer. I posted the link to help complete the thread. I think someone wrote earlier that sent the pic to SA refs.

 

[ddjamo]

One way or another, wearing that boot was wrong. That single stud is regarded as particularly dangerous. If Tialata had injured somebody wearing an illegal boot he - and possibly others - could have =ended in serious trouble.

says who? the editor of the web site?

 

[Robert Burns]

And - note - the section prohibiting a single stud at the toe is headed "Construction and design"

If the single stud is simply the remaining stud of a pair where one is lost the boot was neither constructed nor designed with a single stud...

Disagree, If it is a single stud and the front where there used to be two, YOU have constructed it in this way.

Take the other one out, or put another one in!

With regards to the designed single stud, may I turn the question around?

What advantage does the single stud give that they are designed that way? And also consider that in sports where this is allowed, the players have protection to avoid serious injury, where as rugby players do not.

I would suggest the issue is pressure, the pressure on a single stud is twice that on double studs. and as such is more likely to puncture the skin should it come in contact with a player. This is not saying double studs will not do this too, but the chance of all pressure being on one stud and not the other is much reduced.

If you want proof go to the beach and stand in the wet sand with your feet apart, this distributes your weight through both feet. you'll not sink very much. Do the same standing on one leg so all your weight is through that foot. The imprint you leave will be much deeper.