I always said that this focus on the front stud being offset was a complete red herring, and not intended to be an actual requirement.
The pertinent feature in the original diagram was - I always thought - the three rows, 1+2+2 configuration.
But whatever.
This wording had changed
[LAWS]
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 mm2
. 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.[/LAWS]
I really wish the IRB didn't say
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
that seems to make almost any stud potential legal and it makes it much harder out on the pitch to object to any particular stud shape, but I do like
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 mm2
. 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.
which seems to imply that the 78mm2 area IS a requirement, even if the minimum dimensions isn't.
IE - no pointy studs.
I think it's muddle, and suspect that it will take a serious injury somewhere before WR sorts it out properly