Pre match stud check

[CrouchTPEngage]

Sorry just read the other thread on missing studs. Opinions varies as to how serious this is or not.
My point is that LOOSE studs are more dangerous generally than the odd missing stud.
( Front rows should be encouraged to have a full set to avoid scrum collapses )

 

[Blue Smartie]

I refereed an NZ school team on tour recently and the prop had on Nike boots with the stud configuration below. I was so shocked at seeing a toe stud; felt awkward trying to determine whether it was or wasn't in accordance with the new permitted configuration; and couldn't comprehend how Nike could make an illegal boot that, to my shame, I let him play

Though I wanted to make him change his boots I should have just asked for the stud to be removed.

As it happens they were NFL (American Football) boots. Keep your eyes open - especially you N American guys.

 

[crossref]

I would say there's no difference between the boot above and the boots below

and you made the right call.

http://www.irblaws.com/index.php?domain=11&amendment=20

 

[Blue Smartie]

Honestly I had my phone out on the pitch trying to tell whether the stud was in that configuration or not. It felt nuts.

This is the Adidas boot that prompted the law amendment
http://blog.lovell-rugby.co.uk/the-new-adidas-ff80-pro-xtrx-sg-rugby-boot/

I felt uneasy and so it was only when I went away and looked found out that they were A. Football cleats that I felt they would not have been done with the IRB in mind...

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

The Nike boot looks like the same configuaration as the Adidas one to me and without my micrometer & calipers I'd tempted to let it go in the light of what I know of recent rulings.

Any ref still unaware of the Adidas Boot config and still a member of the "no single stud in the toe" school of thought would make them change boots/remove the stud I'd guess???

Another load of bollocks from Dublin to try and administer on your own, in the middle of a field, 6 inches deep in mud.

 

[thepercy]

I refereed an NZ school team on tour recently and the prop had on Nike boots with the stud configuration below. I was so shocked at seeing a toe stud; felt awkward trying to determine whether it was or wasn't in accordance with the new permitted configuration; and couldn't comprehend how Nike could make an illegal boot that, to my shame, I let him play

Though I wanted to make him change his boots I should have just asked for the stud to be removed.

As it happens they were NFL (American Football) boots. Keep your eyes open - especially you N American guys.

View attachment 2678

This is the configuation of almost all Footbal (gridiron) boots with replaceable studs. With molded football (gridiron) boots, in the past players have cut off the front toe stud. Are we to interpret the new law trial as any front toe stud is exceptable, or is it only the configuation with the front toe stud off center to the outside? I always thought it was odd that in rugby we allow large metal studs but a single stud in the front was some how dangerous.

 

[crossref]

. Are we to interpret the new law trial as any front toe stud is exceptable, or is it only the configuation with the front toe stud off center to the outside? .

I believe the intention of the IRB is that any boot that has studs in the 2+2+1 configuration shown is acceptable. The IRB have said nothing about the front one having to be slightly off centre, I can't think of any reason why that would be important? anyone?

In any case, for those who do think it's important- the gridiron boot shown does indeed have the front stud off-centre.

In actual fact I think all boots will have it off centre -- because it's designed to be under the big toe.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

Are we to interpret the new law trial as any front toe stud is exceptable, or is it only the configuation with the front toe stud off center to the outside? .

It's off centre to the inside -but I know what you mean - shall we say medial?:biggrin:

 

[Browner]

This is the configuation of almost all Footbal (gridiron) boots with replaceable studs. With molded football (gridiron) boots, in the past players have cut off the front toe stud. Are we to interpret the new law trial as any front toe stud is exceptable, or is it only the configuation with the front toe stud off center to the outside? I always thought it was odd that in rugby we allow large metal studs but a single stud in the front was some how dangerous.

This is the Adidas boot that prompted the law amendment
http://blog.lovell-rugby.co.uk/the-new-adidas-ff80-pro-xtrx-sg-rugby-boot/.

Does anyone honestly think that the reason for the single toe stud trial, ISN'T appeasing the fact that Gridiron boots are routinely worn, and a] vast sums of money are at stake ...b] north American parents won't buy into owning x2 pairs of boots, if the IRB don't embrace these designs into the sport? I'm with LLP to a large degree. With 178 permitted Headgear's & 204 permitted shoulder pads on the current list [my sons count, not mine] .... FFS how long would a PMInspection take whilst I consult the lists ....... Dear IRB, I respectfully suggest you permit ALL Headgear/shoulder pads/studs designs produced by RUGBY KIT/boot MANUFACTURERS to be acceptable & you 'IRB' manage/produce an 'EXCEPTIONS LIST' which will likely contain very few names but will include 'homemade' , and lets file this subject away in the circular filing cabinet at the bottom of my desk !

 

[bodybyvi]

this is a very important part to check the Stud perfectly before the game. the wide is also exactly told. try to have it.

 

[Account Deleted]

this is a very important part to check the Stud perfectly before the game. the wide is also exactly told. try to have it.

Sorry I don't understand what you have typed.

 

[ChrisR]

bodybyvi said: Size matters, and she should know.

Put this one to bed. Toe studs are OK. Just get the word out and get on with it.

 

[Simon Thomas]

this is a very important part to check the Stud perfectly before the game. the wide is also exactly told. try to have it.

I think I understand you.

The width of the stud used to be defined in IRB Regulation 12 but that was changed quite a few seasons ago and all a referee has to do now is check for safety - the actual specification (width, length, shape, material) is no longer a referee's responsibility.

 

[Taff]

... Put this one to bed. Toe studs are OK. Just get the word out and get on with it.

Sorry Merauder, but I think you're wrong. If I was to see a central toe stud (like the American Football boots shown) they would have to change their boots.

I think I understand you. The width of the stud used to be defined in IRB Regulation 12 but that was changed quite a few seasons ago and all a referee has to do now is check for safety - the actual specification (width, length, shape, material) is no longer a referee's responsibility.

Forgive me for being blunt Mr T but was it? I googled "IRB Regulation 12" and the minimum width of the painful end is still clearly shown as 10mm.

Its on Page 29 of the 34 page of THIS document.

 

[Simon Thomas]

Sorry Merauder, but I think you're wrong. If I was to see a central toe stud (like the American Football boots shown) they would have to change their boots.


Forgive me for being blunt Mr T but was it? I googled "IRB Regulation 12" and the minimum width of the painful end is still clearly shown as 10mm.

Its on Page 29 of the 34 page of THIS document.

Fair enough call Taff - it may well be still be 10mm, but it is no longer the ref's responsibilty to check for compliance, only safety.

 

[Biropen]

I think I would disagree with my learned friend from Hampshire.

The Laws of the Game (2013)clearly state 4.3.(a) "studs of players' boots must conform with the IRB specifications (Regulation 12)." which says 13mm at the base and 10mm at the top.

 

[winchesterref]

Sorry Merauder, but I think you're wrong. If I was to see a central toe stud (like the American Football boots shown) they would have to change their boots.

I don't believe that this should be the case? I don't think the IRB regs require the toe end stud to be off centre, merely an approximate configuration

 

[Taff]

I don't believe that this should be the case? I don't think the IRB regs require the toe end stud to be off centre, merely an approximate configuration

Then they could simply delete 4.4(i). The fact is that it's still there.

 

[winchesterref]

True, but don't the new regs supersede this?

 

[Jenko]

I think I would disagree with my learned friend from Hampshire.

The Laws of the Game (2013)clearly state 4.3.(a) "studs of players' boots must conform with the IRB specifications (Regulation 12)." which says 13mm at the base and 10mm at the top.

a quick read of the regulation will indicate that is not the case.

"Stud/cleat length shall be no greater than 21 mm
(see Law 4).
Studs/cleats complying with the design and
dimensions shown in Figure 1 should give
satisfactory performance.
The shape and dimensions of other stud/cleat
designs should be such that they present a no
greater risk of injury to another player than the
stud/cleat shown in figure 1. Tests A and B can be
used to assess comparative performance.
The plan view cross-sectional contact area of the
stud/cleat shown in Figure 1 at a plane 2 mm below
the tip is 78 mm. Other studs/cleats having the
same or greater contact area might be expected to
give satisfactory performance dependent on
minimum stud/cleat width in any direction.
All edges of the studs/cleats should be finished
smooth and rounded to a radius of not less than
1mm. "

The only stipulated dimension is length 21 mm. As you can see there is reference to 'other stud/cleat design' as long as they 'present no greater risk of injury.

Figure 1 is a representation of a design that 'should give
satisfactory performance'

Regulation 12 is a 'GENERAL DESIGN GUIDANCE
GUIDANCE FOR SHOE AND STUD/CLEAT MANUFACTURERS '

It is not a directive to Referees.