Single stud on toe of boot?

[Carl_1986]

Are you living at the taxpayer's expense, Carl, or just in a dodgy area? We can see reflected in the TV the bars over the windows.

Well, I work for a bank, so you could say I'm living off the taxpayer (although the bank didn't receive a direct government bailout like other competitors did)! Believe it or not, it was sunny today, and it was the blinds reflecting in the TV!

BTW for those wondering, my TV is a Samsung 3D jobby, just the ticket for watching 2 props fighting (a la Harlequins v Tigers).

Sent an email to SA refs, will wait for a response:

Hi, whilst watching the Hurricanes v Bulls match on Saturday, I noticed that the Hurricane no 3 was wearing boots with a single stud on the toe. I thought that to have a single stud on the toe of the boot is illegal (law 4.4 (i). Surely this should have been spotted during the pre-match stud check?

As an aside, do elite referees (or their ARs) check the players studs and clothing before a match, as is the norm in grassroots rugby in England?

Carl, Lichfield, England

Oh, and I knew it was a Swoosh :swet:

 

[OB..]

I think that Carl's excellent and perceptive "spot" should be brought to the attention of the authorities. Perhaps another one for the SA Refs site, just to ask whether they bother with kit checks - copy to Paddy.

I have sent the picture direct to the SA refs editor, since you can't do attachments on the Duty Ref questions.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

If those boots are not screw-ins, that is molded, they are legal in the US
I don't agree with it, but true.

 

[dave_clark]

BTW for those wondering, my TV is a Samsung 3D jobby, just the ticket for watching 2 props fighting (a la Harlequins v Tigers).

cheapskate :biggrin: :wink:

 

[ROY T]

Occasionally, I have seen a boot with two studs at the front toe end with one of them being being more slightly forward than the other thus making it look dangerous. Any views?

 

[Phil E]

If those boots are not screw-ins, that is molded, they are legal in the US
I don't agree with it, but true.

Not for Rugby they aren't.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

If those boots are not screw-ins, that is molded, they are legal in the US
I don't agree with it, but true.

Not for Rugby they aren't.

I'm afraid so. I can't find the email from USA rugby, but it goes something like this. A stud is the type that can be screwed in. Moulded rubber multi- studed with a toe cleat are acceptable as they are not studs.

If in fact these studs in the picture are molded (note spelling) they would be acceptable in da good ol USA.

I think it is a mistake to allow them, but I'll search for the letter. Maybe Jjamo has it.

 

[ddjamo]

I can look for it. but I have yet to see anyone maimed by a molded "so called" toe cleat....

 

[ddjamo]

He asked me to do it!

that way there are no expectations when you see me referee...

 

[SimonSmith]

He asked me to do it!

he comes from the MidWest. There's moves in Congress to make that a "protected" category - that way it would stop normal grown-ups from taking advantage of the less able in Society!

 

[Dixie]

I can look for it. but I have yet to see anyone maimed by a molded "so called" toe cleat....

I've yet to have anyone maimed in one my games by a Kalashnikov - but that doesn't mean I'll allow one on the pitch.

 

[crossref]

at my game on Sunday I again encountered the missing stud.. ie the boot is a normal UK rugby boot, designed with a pair of studs side by side at the front.... but the outside stud was missing.

I am still confused as to whether most refs consider the resulting boot illegal or not. (I would be interested in a poll...)

 

[PaulDG]

I am still confused as to whether most refs consider the resulting boot illegal or not. (I would be interested in a poll...)

There is some debate about this but, FWIW, in my opinion there is absolutley no way that a missing stud means the boot is illegal per se.

The regulations are clear that the ban applies to boot designed to have a single stud at the toe. (Like the one in the picture).

Now, not only is a boot with a missing stud not designed to have a single stud at the toe but it actually doesn't have a single stud at the toe - no missing stud pattern is anything like the boot in the picture!

However, with all that said, you might still decide, on a case by case basis that the absence of a stud (any stud) is a safety issue - there might be part of the stud remaining and creating a hazard or the surface of the boot with the stud removed might be dangerous, etc.

So, IMHO, no, the absence of a stud is not illegal by itself but it might result in you deciding not to allow it for general safety reasons.

 

[crossref]

i don't think there is anything in the Laws/Regualtions that mentions the design of the boot?
It just says a boot with a single stud at the toe is illegal.

 

[Dixie]

The regulations are clear that the ban applies to boot designed to have a single stud at the toe. (Like the one in the picture).

Perhaps not so clear as Paul would hope - the regulation does indeed cover design, but it does so because having a single stud is an unacceptable risk

Three main injury mechanisms are prevalent during play:
(a) Glancing
(b) Raking
(c) Stamping
In each case one or more studs/cleats on the boot sole may contact the
other player depending on circumstances.
The worst-case scenario in any event will be when a single stud/cleat,
normally one toward the edge of the sole, makes contact alone.

it is for this reason that the deliberate design of a single toe-stud is banned in the regs. But simply HAVING a single toe stud is banned in the LoTG - because that still gives you the worst-case scenario.

i) A player must not wear a single stud at the toe of the boot.

Now, not only is a boot with a missing stud not designed to have a single stud at the toe but it actually doesn't have a single stud at the toe - no missing stud pattern is anything like the boot in the picture!

I beg to differ.

View attachment 1457

In this extremely popular brand of boot, if you remove the stud at the far left of the top row, the result differs from the TV picture by just 1cm. (The specific boot is called the "Stampede"). To my mind, as near as dammit the worst case scenario described in the regs. So you act as Paul DG went on to propose:

However, with all that said, you might still decide, on a case by case basis that the absence of a stud (any stud) is a safety issue - there might be part of the stud remaining and creating a hazard or the surface of the boot with the stud removed might be dangerous, etc.

So, IMHO, no, the absence of a stud is not illegal by itself but it might result in you deciding not to allow it for general safety reasons.

 

[crossref]

Originally Posted by Law 4.4(i)
i) A player must not wear a single stud at the toe of the boot.

seems to clearly outlaw the regular boot with the missing toe stud. with the reasons given in the regs.

I have seen other refs disallow boots with missing studs and - following that example - have done so myself.

But more recently I have got the impression that disallowing a boot becasue of a missing stud is very unusual, so not wanting to be the only stickler in the village i have let them go.

 

[OB..]

Once again we are trying to draw lines in the sand. The only clear point is that a boot designed with a single stud at the toe is illegal, whatever USA rugby says. Arguing that a moulded stud is not a stud is supreme sophistry. Law 4.3 (b) refers to "Moulded rubber multi-studded soles".

It is clear that if one of a pair of front studs is missing, the remaining stud is not "at the toe of the boot" in the same sense as when a boot is designed with a single toe stud. Whether the is difference is significant or not is anybody's guess - we have no common understanding or ruling.

I support PaulDG's position.

 

[crossref]

the reason a single stud is dangerous is helpfully explained, and we can look to that for guidance...

The worst-case scenario in any event will be when a single stud/cleat, normally one toward the edge of the sole, makes contact alone.

OB points out that in the missing stud scenario

the remaining stud is not "at the toe of the boot" in the same sense as when a boot is designed with a single toe stud

but I struggle to see that small difference as significiant, becasue the boot will still be such that

a single stud/cleat, normally one toward the edge of the sole, makes contact alone.

hence still dangerous :chin:

however standard practice seems to be 'let it go', so I do.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

Here is the law clarification for USA rugby regarding studs. I believe it is still in effect. I found this in a 07 thread on rugbyrefs. I do not know the date of the letter.

This just adds to our (US refs) confusion regarding toe studs. I see them every week and hear "last week he let us wear em"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
USARFU
Laws Committee
Clarification on Allowable Cleat Patterns
It has recently become apparent there is some confusion in the US on the application of Law 4.4 (i):
A player must not wear a single stud at the toe of the boot.
I have heard reports of referees requiring that players cut a toe stud off molded rubber soles. This is not a requirement in Law. In fact, I have seen the results of this and they can be actually dangerous after a sloppy trim job, with sharp edges created when cutting off the stud.
The prohibition on single studs is meant for boots with replaceable studs. Soccer style cleats with molded bottoms are covered in Law 4.3 (b), as are many boots intended for other sports such as football:
Molded rubber multi-studded soles are acceptable provide they have no sharp edges or ridges.In a similar vein, the boot style known as “blades” were accepted provisionally in 2001. That has not changed.
That said, the referee on the day always has the right and the obligation to decide that a particular shoe is unacceptable. Many shoes that are just fine when new can, after use and wear, become dangerous. That is why there is an equipment inspection before every game.
Peter Watson
Chair, USARFU Laws Committee


RED my highlight.

 

[OB..]

The "single stud" prohibition is Law 4.4 (i). Law 4.3 (b) does not address the issue.

It looks to me like a bad case of special pleading.