Failure to check boots

[didds]

A good number of US Players wear hard plastic blades and in my experience and from what has been relayed to me, there has never been a problem with safety.

FTR and FYI, and FWIW, AIUI manchester United has banned its players from wearing blades.

didds

 

[Mike Whittaker]

FTR and FYI, and FWIW, AIUI manchester United has banned its players from wearing blades.

didds

Excuse my ignorance Didds, please expand abbreviations... Thanks

 

[Padster]

For The Record, For Your Info, For What Its Worth, As I Understand It

IYSWIM (if you see what I mean)

 

[Mike Whittaker]

For The Record, For Your Info, For What Its Worth, As I Understand It

IYSWIM (if you see what I mean)

Thank you...

 

[Emmet Murphy]

Despite one's personal feelings concerning 'blades', the referee is only interested in whether footware is sharp or not. Any footware is allowed from hob nailed boots to carpet slippers, providing it is not dangerous to other players.

Right ... That makes sense.

 

[Emmet Murphy]

FTR and FYI, and FWIW, AIUI manchester United has banned its players from wearing blades.

didds

That's true - for at least the last five years the younger players have been told not to wear them and the senior players "advised" not to! It's to do with how rigid they are when you plant your foot - the lack of movement causes stress on the knees and the lack of rotation can cause additional knee injuries. It's very similar at a number of other football clubs - Arsenal Watford Charlton to name a few.

 

[jboulet4648]

I admit I was kind of oblivious to "the danger of blades"

Just googled it and found a couple of interesting articles.....but there is not an overwhelming amount of evidence against it from what I saw. I would be interested in looking at some articles written by sports physiologist or that sort concenring the biomechanics of knee injuries from blades.....as well as the number of lacerations caused by blades versus studs.

I have a pair of Kelme plastic blades and I love them for the traction I get in longer grass, as well as not killing my feet on harder ground.

 

[Sinkers]

I understood that the metal tipped blade was illegal.
in my opinion the whole boot inspection is just a paradigm the blokes can show you boots and wear a different set.
Nylon blades or moulded studs can can severely erode and become dangerous.
legal boots are then used to walk across roads tracks and pathways were chips and changes can occur.
Difficult...

 

[Deeps]

I inspected a set of studs today which, although not sharp, individually measured approximately 5 mm across. The player admitted to them being attached to soccer boots so I decided they were not fit for purpose and disallowed their use.

In the absence of IRB labels on boots, how does a referee know whether the clothing has been manufactured for rugby purposes or not?

 

[Mike Whittaker]

I inspected a set of studs today which, although not sharp, individually measured approximately 5 mm across. The player admitted to them being attached to soccer boots so I decided they were not fit for purpose and disallowed their use.

In the absence of IRB labels on boots, how does a referee know whether the clothing has been manufactured for rugby purposes or not?

What the were manufactured for is, surely, irrelevant? Fit for purpose? Thought the only criterion was safety? Were they unsafe?

Personally I do not think a referee should have to make this judgement in this way. It is like starting a game on a muddy pitch. The team says whether the pitch is fit and the ref can stop it if the evidence of the play leads him to the conclusion that it is unsafe? But before the game he does not say that the pitch looks unsafe and cannot be used. It should be the same for studs.

In other words the law makers should specify what is or is not acceptable in measurable terms rather than with judgement calls on equipment.

And regulation 12 is just a load of mumbo jumbo that has no relevance for a ref before a game unless, for example, he wants to make all the players go for a 400m run on concrete to test the abrasion properties...

Of course if you regard a blade as being moulded and the actual blades as being ridges then you can of course just ban them all???

Sorry, but getting a bit annoyed with this stupid ruling on a matter of safety...

 

[Deeps]

What the were manufactured for is, surely, irrelevant? Fit for purpose? Thought the only criterion was safety? Were they unsafe?

The iRB has placed the onus on manufacturers, retailers, clubs and individual players to comply with Law 4 and Regulation 12 in regard to boots and studs yet the referee is unable to establish whether players' boots and studs have been manufactured/supplied for use in the game of rugby as there are no markings on studs or footwear to indicate this. (I suspect the iRB does not want to risk losing all those little Johnnys whose parents can only afford cheap soccer boots.)

With his knowledge of Law and a little research the referee can determine the acceptable physical characteristics of studs from Regulation 12 Appendix 2. Yet guidance, as I have suggested elsewhere, is to check only that footwear/studs are not sharp in which case I should have allowed the player to wear the boots/studs for the game this afternoon.

I believed these studs were potentially dangerous in that the weight distribution per stud would place other players at risk should these boots come into body contact. I had no problem coming to this conclusion and believe this is a fair use of one's discretion.

Thus automatic approval of all presented footwear (provided it is not sharp) is no longer valid. As long as the referee is required to conduct an inspection of kit prior to a game (to what standard is he inspecting? Law 4, Reg 12?) then he will retain complete discretion as to what players are permitted to wear.

 

[Mike Whittaker]

Given safety as a prime requirement one might suggest that every referee in training should be made to understand and demonstrate a competence in the application of Law 4 and Reg 12 before he takes the field. This would be as ludicrous as the expectation that referees can do any more than guess what will or will not prove to be safe in play.

 

[Deeps]

Given safety as a prime requirement one might suggest that every referee in training should be made to understand and demonstrate a competence in the application of Law 4 and Reg 12 before he takes the field.

A referee in training should be made to understand the requirements of Law 4 and Reg 12 particularly as these requirements govern what the iRB deem to be safe for players to wear.

This would be as ludicrous as the expectation that referees can do any more than guess what will or will not prove to be safe in play.

No, that has quite rightly been taken away from the referee by the standard set in Law. It's up to the referee to ensure players comply which is why he inspects studs prior to the game. The problem is the lack of clarity as to what does and what does not meet the standard. Let's lobby for the famous iRB label on studs or undersoles before a court has to pronounce on the issue or this lack of clarity.

 

[Mike Whittaker]

...agree with your conclusion Deeps. Meanwhile off to see the U14s are studded ok!!

 

[Deeps]

...agree with your conclusion Deeps. Meanwhile off to see the U14s are studded ok!!

Enjoy.

Safely returned from the far end of the line in the Michael Green part of the Isla de Wigit late last evening, am off this morning to watch Deeps junior manage US Portsmouth v Jersey U15s in a league match; I'll ensure he is up to speed on studs. Thence in my Manager's hat to administer Hav Colts v G+F, in an eagerly contested affair no doubt, watched over by one of our newly promoted Level 5s thank goodness.

 

[Davet]

Deeps - I understand your concerns; but the ref is responsible only for immediate, and frankly obvious, safety issues such as sharp edges. I have read the regulations - they are complex and not checkable without laboratory facilities.

It is the responsibility of the clubs and of the individual players to ensure that the boots they wear comply with regulation 12. If the boots do not so comply then it will NOT be the ref who appears in court - but the player and the club. That is the whole point. If you take on the further responsibility of checking for compliance with regulation 12 then you are undermining the whole legal framework which puts the onus on the player and takes it away from the referee.

So long as the ref checks for sharp or clearly dangerous studs before the game then the ref is covered.

 

[Deeps]

Deeps - I understand your concerns; but the ref is responsible only for immediate, and frankly obvious, safety issues such as sharp edges. I have read the regulations - they are complex and not checkable without laboratory facilities.....So long as the ref checks for sharp or clearly dangerous studs before the game then the ref is covered.

Dave, I don't think it is quite as simple as that. My laboratory calibrated Mk 1 eyeball can tell the difference between a 5 mm diameter pin stud and a 10 mm normal stud which, frankly, was obvious. Thus I have identified the set of 5 mm studs as failing to meet the designated safety standard and, in common with other safety issues, having identified the safety shortfall, I own it until it is resolved.

One's responsibilities cannot be dismissed as easily as sharp edges only, if you identify a problem you must resolve it or you are negligent. 'Law 4 is quite specific, why did you restrict yourself to sharp edges and not apply it to the full?'...'Well M'lud.'

 

[OB..]

Law 4.3 (a) Studs of players’ boots must conform with the IRB specifications (Regulation 12).

This does not actually say the referee is responsible for checking. Since the official advice is that he is not so responsible, I doubt if a court would pursue that line.

Anyway, the point is probably moot. It would be hard to argue that a particular size of stud was the reason for an injury unless it was such as to be easily recognised as dangerous.

 

[Mike Whittaker]

The problem we now have is one of the inevitably hopeless inconsistency between referees as to what is or is not 'safe' and allowable.

We all have our own views and who is to say who is right given this framework in which to work.

Personally I think that the hard back corner of a blade ("sharp edge or ridge") is dangerous and do not now allow them on the pitch although regular call is that ref last week says they are fine. Until such time as assurance provided that they are deemed 'safe' officially, this will remain my view.

It is also about time that the risk to the wearers of these blades was publicised more, but then this would upset manufacturers and sponsors no doubt?

 

[Dixie]

For the first and second times this weekend, I had to tell players that their studs were dangerous, and would not be allowed on the pitch. The first was on Saturday, when the visiting lock had ali stids ground so far down that the edges were sharp and a hole was visible in the centre, so the stud was like an inverted volcano. The second was on Sunday, when a visiting colts player had worn his metal-tipped blades away, and all that was left at the ball of the foot was a sharp plastic base.

The lock trudged to the home team's shop, and was able to play after replacing the offending studs. The colt was last seen trudging to the changing rooms, having ascertained that no-one else had a spare pair of boots, and there was no way of buying replacements for his specialist product at the home ground.

Two questions: a) why do players continue to wear blades, when a stud issue can require replacement of the entire shoe? and b) - how could I, as a ref working alone and without technical areas, ensure that the affected colt did not return to the playing enclosure and get onto the pitch as a substitute, still wearing the dodgy boots? I'm sure I'll be accused of being a something-ist, but after a fleeting meeting with 40 young men inside 5 minutes, I find they all look the same. I certainly couldn't have confirmed that the winger who appeared in the second half was not the lad trudging despondently back to the changing rooms - though I can absolutely guarantee that his No. 17 jersey did not appear on the pitch at all.