New Nike FG studs

[chrismtl]

Adidas makes a SG and FG cleat sole. The FG are short, triangular, plastic studs that really cause almost no damage, and for the most part, the striking surface is flat. Their metal studs are pretty much exactly what's posted in Reg 12. In fact, their Rugby specific models come in both those options and are used by hundreds of professional players. They're a far reach from what Nike came out with. For the most part, I let anything that's plastic go as long as it isn't sharp since a metal stud will have much more impact force than plastic studs.

 

[Browner]

The regulation states " The shape and dimensions of other Stud/Cleat designs should be such that they present no greater risk of injury to another player than the stud cleat shown in fig 1"

It authorises ......"tests A & B can be used to assess comparative performance"

Any shape/dimension that is more angular or less rounded or sharper or narrower dimensions simply has to increase the propensity to injury risk beyond the "no greater" requirement.

Manufacturers already produce such stud/cleats, across a wide range, albeit (and interestingly!) the studs shown on boots listed as "rugby" are indeed closer to the fig 1 compliance generally.

IMO, The IRB will never seek to enforce any of their regulations that might/could limit/discourage participation, so against that backdrop and the widespread use of soccer boots the regulation is more often than not redundant at a practical level, and boot manufacturers also know this.

Insurance/Liability politics ensures that Reg 12 will always state the ultimate safety position, I'm not naieve enough to expect otherwise.

To this end, most match boot inspections are a selective & personal benchmarking & without much real value, a position that I believe AndyScott has also arrived at.

If individual referees believe otherwise, then all power to their elbow .....

 

[ChrisR]

"For the most part, I let anything that's plastic go as long as it isn't sharp since a metal stud will have much more impact force than plastic studs."

Not sure where you're getting the data to support that.

 

[chrismtl]

"For the most part, I let anything that's plastic go as long as it isn't sharp since a metal stud will have much more impact force than plastic studs."

Not sure where you're getting the data to support that.

Not sure where you're getting data that says PU has higher impact forces, tensile strength and specific strength than aluminum. Provide me with that data and I'll rescind my previous statement. Until the time when you can fabricate that data, I'll stick with my argument. There's a reason they make metal studs and not simply make longer PU stud. I'll give you a hint, it's because they would break and they wouldn't penetrate the ground as well.

While you may be thinking of the soles of the shoes, which can be made of nylon/fibreglass composites, and are always very hard, the studs are always made of a separate material. All you have to do is feel the materials and you'll see that the last 3-4mm of the stud are a different, softer material. That part is PU, or usually Thermoplastic Polyurethane because it is extremely resistant to impacts and abrasions.

 

[beckett50]

iRB regulation 12 defines dangerous as being less than 10mm. Are you saying that when you checked them, they were clearly >10mm, but became worn down during the game to the uniform 2mm discovered after a player's leg was opened up by them?

fair point Dixie. However, when the need to not measure the studs came into being in about 2006, the iRB essentially put the onus on the boot (and other clothing manufacturers) to ensure the item complied with the full wording of Regulation 12. I see my duty as a ref as that of enduring the equipment is not dangerous.

I am not qualified, IMHO, to have a discussion as to the legality, or otherwise, of an item.

 

[OB..]

I am not qualified, IMHO, to have a discussion as to the legality, or otherwise, of an item.

Law 4.3 (a) clearly expects you to be sensible about it, not just wash your hands of the problem.

 

[ChrisR]

Not sure where you're getting data that says PU has higher impact forces, tensile strength and specific strength than aluminum. Provide me with that data and I'll rescind my previous statement. Until the time when you can fabricate that data, I'll stick with my argument. There's a reason they make metal studs and not simply make longer PU stud. I'll give you a hint, it's because they would break and they wouldn't penetrate the ground as well.

While you may be thinking of the soles of the shoes, which can be made of nylon/fibreglass composites, and are always very hard, the studs are always made of a separate material. All you have to do is feel the materials and you'll see that the last 3-4mm of the stud are a different, softer material. That part is PU, or usually Thermoplastic Polyurethane because it is extremely resistant to impacts and abrasions.

I don't claim to have data that refutes your claim. I'm simply asking where you get your data that supports it.

 

[Browner]

the iRB essentially put the onus on the boot manufacturers.... to ensure the item complied with the full wording of Regulation 12.

And the manufacturers have largely responded by definately labelling boots as rugby boots, however the majority of boots worn on rugby pitches worldwide aren't categorised as ' rugby boots ' (studs) hense the stud problem as per ( not exhaustive) the OP.

 

[chrismtl]

I don't claim to have data that refutes your claim. I'm simply asking where you get your data that supports it.

I can't say I'm a materials engineer, so I can't give you numbers other than those you can find on the internet. Those clearly show that aluminum . It's hard to find comparative studies though and companies don't exactly say what specific types of alloys they use. I would also say that I would expect that a comparison of aluminum and TPU in the same shape would show that the aluminum would cut and not absorb as much of the impact force compared to the TPU.

As for my background, my family has owned Ski and Snowboard retail stores since I've been alive and I had the oportunity to work for one of our manufacturers in Italy for 4 months at which time I had the opportunity to work with TPU, PU, PP that were injected in-house plus other materials that were shipped pre-fabbed from other factories like aluminum buckles, steel skate blades, aluminum rollerblade hangars. I can tell you from handling all the materials in large pieces or once they were assembled that TPU is soft enough to put a nail into (it retains it's shape, but it's partially absorbing), something you can't do with any aluminum alloy that I know of. Give it a try yourself; grab your molded studs and try to put your nail into one of the stud tips, then grab some a pair of cleats with aluminum studs and try the same thing. If you have anything of good quality you'll be able to test it out. I just tried it with my Predator Incurza's and could put my nail in close to 0.5mm. I mean it might not sound like too much, but TPU is an anti-abrasive material, which means it won't have much friction when striking a player. Aluminum doesn't have this property. Anyways, like I said, I'm not an expert, but I do have a background that can allow me to make an educated statement.

 

[The umpire]

I can't say I'm a materials engineer,

I can, I am, and you (general - not specifically getting at one you in particular) are not comparing apples and apples.

" since a metal stud will have much more impact force than plastic studs."

This is meaningless. Force = Mass x Acceleration. So while the impact force of a metal stud may well be more than for a PU stud if I threw one at you, once attached to a boot and a boot to a foot and a leg, any differences would be lost in the noise. Get stood on and all other things being equal, you wouldn't notice the difference.

T

I can tell you from handling all the materials in large pieces or once they were assembled that TPU is soft enough to put a nail into (it retains it's shape, but it's partially absorbing), something you can't do with any aluminum alloy that I know of. Give it a try yourself; grab your molded studs and try to put your nail into one of the stud tips,

Irrelevant, as no-one is trying to do that on the pitch. They are both much harder than skin and flesh.
In fact it is ther relative 'softness' of the PU which led to Al studs being the norm in rugby. PU, and other similar plastics are much more likely to be damaged in the course of a game/training/walking acrosss the concrete/gravel/tarmac/whatever to get to the pitch than Al. Indeed the clue is in the name - plastic! When it does get damaged it is more likely to form sharp edges; and it is these which are the major damage differentiator between the two.

 

[beckett50]

Law 4.3 (a) clearly expects you to be sensible about it, not just wash your hands of the problem.

OB, do you have a bad ground in the press? That was a rather selective quote to use, since in my reply I had already stated that I see my duty as a ref to ensure the equipment isn't dangerous.

 

[OB..]

That was a rather selective quote to use, since in my reply I had already stated that I see my duty as a ref to ensure the equipment isn't dangerous.

The problem is in the meaning of the word "dangerous". It is surely safe to assume that the IRB regulations aim to prevent players wearing dangerous studs. Your approach uses your own definition of dangerous, which IMHO differs from theirs. I (and the IRB in my view) equate a significant reduction of the tip size with being dangerous.

 

[Browner]

If you specifically ask your union/IRB about these ( or any other new to market design) , then I suspect you'll merely get a reply of "ref decides as per reg 12" .

They know fine well that these studs ( once sold in high volumes by the big brands) will find their way into rugby. I cant imagine any referee enjoying telling a schoolboy/grassroots player that he cant play & accordingly Andy Scotts approach is, i suspect, likely to be adopted by many.

Proof of the pudding is as they say " in the eating" ......

I did ask my RSoc about these, they in turn asked in asked the Union, and the reply was virtually as i predicted it would be ...... "ref decides as per reg 12"

Yep you got it , no uniformity, a player could be asked to remove one week, but allowed to wear the next, ...crikey the potential exists for a player to wear in one 7s match but not in the next match ...wtf! And boot buyers are merrily buying away in their droves!

So, ....... accordingly, Andy Scotts approach is, i suspect, likely to be adopted by many +1?!?!

 

[crossref]

I can't really see what the fuss is here. regulation 12 is pretty clear - it says studs must be 10mm

If a stud is 4mm wide, or even pointed, I would expect any referee to notice and insist on a stud change, why is that difficult.

Yes, I can see that a 9mm stud presents a practical problem, but because you can't detect a 9mm stud, it doesn't follow that you should abdicate all responsibility.

 

[Browner]

I can't really see what the fuss is here. regulation 12 is pretty clear - it says studs must be 10mm

If a stud is 4mm wide, or even pointed, I would expect any referee to notice and insist on a stud change, why is that difficult.

Yes, I can see that a 9mm stud presents a practical problem, but because you can't detect a 9mm stud, it doesn't follow that you should abdicate all responsibility.

Cmon Crossref, you must be able to see how a major boot manufacturer producing boots "with obviously non reg 12 compliant studs" that will increasingly be worn by players/children, where some referees through their diligence will permit and some won't, as a 'common policy' problem.

Or maybe your suggesting that the school team that arrives to play your next match with x6 of their 18 strong squad wearing these boots ( as the did for the last 6 week!) Will be happy to play with only 12 players and no replacements because they don't have any spare boots and you are being diligent ...... Or the opposition happy when said team jump back on the bus and head home in protest over your seemingly pedantic stance?

Leaving this subject weighing solely on the individual referee is ONLY acceptable IF a Society & RFU (other countries?, hey...this isn't a UK issue! ) will always support the referees diligent removal irrespective of the 'fixture or financial or player' consequences/fallout.

Will they?

I'm still trying to obtain evidence of such a guarantee.

 

[crossref]

browner I have lost sight of what exactly is the change is that you want to happen?

are you arguing for the return of the IRB kite mark or similar? I would like that, but you still end up in the same place : referee checks the studs (yes, that check would be simpler) and if they aren't correct, insists on a change. you still will have the possibiity of boots/studs that DO have a kitemark but nevertheless are still dangerous (eg perhaps damaged) so referee judgement needed.

my experience is that every time I have ever actually objected to studs, the problem has been sorted out, either by changing studs or swapping boots. The last time I prohibited a youth player from wearing his boots, he borrowed and wore his coach's boots (and two pairs of socks )

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

So why cant somebody come up with a cheap 10mm stud gauge that could be used as a quick guide before a debate?

 

[OB..]

So why cant somebody come up with a cheap 10mm stud gauge that could be used as a quick guide before a debate?

I may still have one that the RFU issued years ago.

 

[crossref]

So why cant somebody come up with a cheap 10mm stud gauge that could be used as a quick guide before a debate?

I guess you could take one of these in your kitbag
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=1...u&sa=X&ei=Qy-UVJKnJqjD7ga09YCIDw&ved=0CGUQsxg

 

[Browner]

Browner I have lost sight of what exactly is the change is that you want to happen?

A 'wide' publicity to clubs /schools carrying full authoritative support from CBs RSoc & Union that players will be turned away from matches if these Nike 5-8mm studs are presented 'irrespective' of consequence.

These studs are relatively new to market, and the penetration levels within rugby will surely only increase.
If A RSoc won't support such a 'clarification' campaign, then a full indemnity to referees from the RSoc for any injury sustained when they are worn & we both know that the latter won't be forthcoming.