Nike Illegal Studs

[Drift]

Apparently the Nike studs, on these boots http://www.lovell-rugby.co.uk/Rugby-Boots/brand/Nike#tag=Ground Type.Soft*Ground,page=all are illegal. The metal ones are too thin at the base. Some communication has come out from the IRFU about this.

 

[Drift]

Here are pictures of the studs:
http://imgur.com/a/m10Y7

The tip of the stud needs to be at least 10mm wide and these are only 7mm wide. It's on all of the Nike boots out at the moment which are for soft ground.

 

[crossref]

Are the studs replaceable? If so, not much of a problem

 

[Taff]

Are the studs replaceable? If so, not much of a problem

No problem, provided they are replaced. I bet the vast majority wouldn't bother. :frown:

Those are advertised as "football boots" but just under the Rugby section of Morrants website.

 

[Browner]

No problem, provided they are replaced. I bet the vast majority wouldn't bother. :frown:

Those are advertised as "football boots" but just under the Rugby section of Morrants website.

We've debated these studs before .....

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?17960-New-Nike-FG-studs&highlight=Nike

 

[crossref]

Interestingly none of the boots on the Lovell's page are actually described as rugby boots.
Looking at the Nike UK site for boots, they don't even list rugby in the drop-down of sports they make boots for.

do Nike actually claim to make rugby boots ? I can't find any.

 

[Taff]

Interestingly none of the boots on the Lovell's page are actually described as rugby boots. Looking at the Nike UK site for boots, they don't even list rugby in the drop-down of sports they make boots for.

do Nike actually claim to make rugby boots ? I can't find any.

I noticed that last night before posting, but as I seemed to be sent to the Nike.com website, I assumed I was just getting the American website and not a Nike.co.uk website.

Personally, I just reckon somebody at Morrant has looked at them and thought "OK, they're advertised as football boots, but we'll stick them under the Rugby section as well because you can use them for Rugby if you wanted to".

 

[crossref]

to be fair to Nike, I can't find anywhere at all where Nike describe any of their boots as being rugby boots.

Yes, I can find plenty of shops that list Nike boots in their rugby-boot section, but every boot I can found, when I look them up in Nike's own literature, they are for football (US) or other sports.

I may well be wrong, but so as I can tell Nike themselves don't actually make or market any of their boots as rugby boots (?)

 

[Browner]

Interestingly none of the boots on the Lovell's page are actually described as rugby boots.
Looking at the Nike UK site for boots, they don't even list rugby in the drop-down of sports they make boots for.

do Nike actually claim to make rugby boots ? I can't find any.

They mightn't, but I'm damned sure they are;
A) aware of Rugby stud reg 12 requirements
B) doing zero to ensure their products don't get ' inadvertantly' marketted to rugby buyer to their financial profit!
C) uncaring if Jonny's mother buys him a £100 pair that he is told he can't wear in a school match when there is a 'diligent' referee, expecting that the referee gets it in the neck not Nike!

Hold on a minute ....... Stop that thought, I'm going to purchase spare studs sets and a wrench, that way I can profit from selling replacement both wrench & studs prior to the match £15 each lads, no cash? teacher merely signs this credit agreement to buy these products, and then you can play.

Seriously though, this is not one supplier advertising these its virtually all, this problem is in the early stages of increased penetration ( by one of the global superpowers of sports shoe production) it wont go away crossref, its naieve (IMHO) to think it might.

http://www.prodirectrugby.com/Produ...te-Volt-Hyper-Pink-Black-641860170-96802.aspx

Perhaps London based players/mums don't buy Nike??!!

Let me come at this from another direction with two questions
1) what % of the total rugby market are nike expecting eventually have wearing their brand/studs ?
2) if a player is badly injured by one of these studs, is the referee on his own OR supported by his Union/RFU ?

If its the latter, then I'd like evidence of that support please.

 

[chrismtl]

2) if a player is badly injured by one of these studs, is the referee on his own OR supported by his Union/RFU ?

I can tell you that my union completely ignored my e-mail when I asked them the question of whether I should not allow players to use boots with those studs installed. I contacted the head of referees as well as a member of Rugby Quebec. My guess is that they don't want to get their hands dirty and tell players that they can't use the boots they bought.

The problem is that unless you buy the expensive versions of these boots, they come with molded studs so you can't change them. I can say that I have seen the boots being used professionally, some with different studs, and some with the studs that came on the boots. World Rugby needs to be the ones to set the example at the top level of the game, otherwise I'm going to get yelled at every time I refuse a pair because they saw "xyz" player using them, so why can't they use them.

 

[crossref]

Browner, what is the change that you want to happen, I have lost track..

 

[Pinky]

The same sort of issue happened with Adidas and Predator Blades years ago. But Adidas would not let the IRB ban them and in the end there was some (I think) unwritten assurance that the studs were no more dangerous than "vanilla reg 12" Manufacturers are supposed to state that boots pass reg 12, but you rarely see that said. I think we need to get WR to talk to Nike about this, but is that going to happen?

 

[Taff]

... I think we need to get WR to talk to Nike about this, but is that going to happen?

Sorry but I don't see why Nike need to do anything. This isn't rocket science gents.

Nike have manufactured a Football boot; it could be the best Football boot in the world for all I know - I have no idea. But ... it's being advertised as a Rugby boot - a game it wasn't designed for. OK, it's no "biggie" as we can get round that by changing the studs to Regulation 12 standard studs, but that's up to whoever wants to use them for Rugby, not Nike, or Adidas, or Puma or Mitre or any other manufacturer of Football boots for that matter. Boots designed for Rugby, will surely have Reg 12 standard studs off the shelf - these Nike boots don't.

IMO, that's all Nike need to do is make sure that the original studs are interchangeable for Reg 12 standard studs if somebody wanted to use them for Rugby. And it's up to us, to make sure that that person has changed the studs - or if he hasn't swap boots with a sub who has Reg 12 standard studs.

 

[Pinky]

Sorry but I don't see why Nike need to do anything. This isn't rocket science gents.

Nike have manufactured a Football boot; it could be the best Football boot in the world for all I know - I have no idea. But ... it's being advertised as a Rugby boot - a game it wasn't designed for. OK, it's no "biggie" as we can get round that by changing the studs to Regulation 12 standard studs, but that's up to whoever wants to use them for Rugby, not Nike, or Adidas, or Puma or Mitre or any other manufacturer of Football boots for that matter. Boots designed for Rugby, will surely have Reg 12 standard studs off the shelf - these Nike boots don't.

IMO, that's all Nike need to do is make sure that the original studs are interchangeable for Reg 12 standard studs if somebody wanted to use them for Rugby. And it's up to us, to make sure that that person has changed the studs - or if he hasn't swap boots with a sub who has Reg 12 standard studs.

Taff, that is not what happened with Adidas Predators when Adidas originally indicated they woudl challenge the IRB about banning their boots from rugby. Nowadays there are many boots that have studs that do not conform to the standard Reg 12 pattern - some obviously being designed specifically for rugby. My understanding of Reg 12 is it is up to the manufacturer to say the boots perform at least to the required standard, and as far as I know Adidas say so for all their boots whether aimed at football or rugby. Not so sure about other manufacturers, but Canterbury have two piece studs and these are OK, as do some of the Adidas rugby boots. Now without a testing machine and a lot more time than a stud check, I am expected to accept that the variety of legal studs and any others are Reg 12. I will look for sharp edges and broken missing studs and soles, but that's about it. It would be helpful if WR were to get Nike's view on whether these are OK for rugby or not, and then we can let them play or not from a basis of better knowledge.

 

[Pegleg]

The same sort of issue happened with Adidas and Predator Blades years ago. But Adidas would not let the IRB ban them and in the end there was some

They don't have to ban the boots. Wolrd rugby can, and has (under it's previous incarnation [beware companies changing names - often a sign that they are rudderless]) banned studs that do not conform to it's regulations. So YOu can wear any boot you like Rugby, Football or other as long as there is nothing on it that does not conform to WR regs. If you rock up to a game that I am refereeing with Predators (or any boot) on and they don't fit my stud gauge. You are not taking the field in those boots. Adidas can take a hike.

In the case of the football boots being marketed as rugby. It is the sellers responsibility to ensure they are "fit for purpose". Though perhaps manafacturers could stamp the box to state that the boots, as supplied, conform to the regulations for XYZ sport. OUR advise to players should be if they is no statement that they do change the studs or buy other boots.

 

[crossref]

It would be helpful if WR were to get Nike's view on whether these are OK for rugby or not, and then we can let them play or not from a basis of better knowledge.

But why?
- Nike aren't marketing them for rugby, they are boots for [american] football. Isn't that all we need from Nike?
- anyway the studs are clearly <10mm at the tip

 

[Taff]

But why?
- Nike aren't marketing them for rugby, they are boots for [american] football. Isn't that all we need from Nike?
- anyway the studs are clearly <10mm at the tip

Exactly. the boots themselves aren't the problem. The problem is the sub-standard studs they put in those boots.

OK, they can be changed. Change them then.

 

[Browner]

http://training.rugbydump.com/freeboots

Another marketing survey !
Given the subject matter of the questionaire... I doubt the front studs of the white boots in the photo will pass the "skin glance" test A of regulation 12
http://playerwelfare.worldrugby.org/?documentid=51:deadhorse:

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

http://training.rugbydump.com/freeboots

Another marketing survey !
Given the subject matter of the questionaire... I doubt the front studs of the white boots in the photo will pass the "skin glance" test A of regulation 12
http://playerwelfare.worldrugby.org/?documentid=51:deadhorse:

I'm not as worried on front studs as the studs just aft. These have metal caps. w/o looking I'm sure reg12 is specific against these


Edit-can't find it in reg12, must be from a previous pipe dream

 

[thepercy]

I'm not as worried on front studs as the studs just aft. These have metal caps. w/o looking I'm sure reg12 is specific against these


Edit-can't find it in reg12, must be from a previous pipe dream

http://usarugby.org/documentation/refereeing/protective-equipment-clothing-guidelines.pdf

According to this document from USARugby, studs made of multiple materials are banned, at least in the US.