the trouble is hypothetical discussion don't necessaryily help. You know the answeer you will get from the question.
Mr Chairman - if I see studs that I consider dangerous, should I refuse to let them on the pitch? - Yes.
Mr Chairman - if I see football studs, are they OK? Answer - not sure what you mean by football studs. Are they dangerous?
You can go round in circle here.
I am thinking of taking a boot to our next meeting, with eight different, carefully selected studs in, and asking those present which studs are OK and which arent. With some actual examples right in front of us (rahter than hypotheticals) maybe we'd get a useful discussion
I just need to go collect some studs!
Dont forget to take some triangular, ribbed, or other 'blade' variations (such as those that caused that horrific injury) and ask everyone whether any of those examples would also pass the '
optional' :wtf: glancing & raking tests A&B listed in Regulation 12 Appendix 2.
It's even arguable that even a spring loaded 70mm glance test, doesn't accurately replicate cleat/stud propensity to injure in a match scenario.
:shrug:
If anyone can get their society/CB or Union to give a written position beyond the standard liability GOoJFC of "
its up to the referee to decide" (
knowing that he isnt equipped to accurately assess) then please share it.
We're :deadhorse
n this IMO, 'referees are absorbing the risk, everyone will run for cover and leave the 'referee lamb' to his own fate.
As a reminder, here is the stud dimensions deemed to be the benchmark standard, from which all 'propensity to injure comparisons' need to be made.
I stumbled across this illustration on the WWW , posted by a UK rugby club, who themselves deal with this subject in this way on their website
http://www.newarkrugby.com/news/correct-stud-sizes-1324925.html