Question Number: 16942

Law 4 - Players Equipment 9/27/2007

RE: All levels

Franco of Bloomington, USA asks...

This question is a follow up to question 16826

This is one I feel your being a little stubborn on [16826]. How can a rating on a shinguard be a bad thing anymore than a safety rating on a helmet, life jacket, steel toe boots, crash tests of cars, safety goggles, mouth pieces, and etc be a bad thing? I have read several refs on here talk about players having too small of shinguards and the homemade make-shift shinguards and how safety is the top concern of the ref - then why are you against the rating of shinguards which then gives players, coaches, refs, and all consumers more SAFETY information? We worry about a toe cleat, and taped up ear rings, and too small of shinguards like its the smoking gun of unsafe practices and do this in the name of safety, but then somehow object to the idea that shinguards are to have a rating that is similar to other safety gear available to the consumer. Do you think there is no difference between a $5 doller plastic shinguard and a $35 dollar OSI shinguard when it comes to protecting from an impact as long as its the correct size? Is size more crtitical than quality? There are studies out there showing that the type/material can make a difference in protecting from lower leg fractures caused by an impact.

Even the size issue is very subjective. No where in FIFA does it give information on what is a sufficient size. I have heard some say just below the knee and down to the ankle. I have never been kicked up as high as some refs tell players there shinguards must be. Sure there is a chance you may be kicked just below the knee, but not if the players have any skill at all and if they are that poor skilled then you probably need thigh. calve, ankle and achilles protection as well. FIFA tells you exactly what are the laws and what is a foul and describe in much detail situations, and other specifics about safety and how important that duty really is, but then send refs off unprepared, or at best inconsist in making that determination on shinguard size relative to the player. Not even manufacturers agree on the size or even give you a way to base it on the length of your shin. So why is it wrong to try and explore and be open to continous improvement and determine standards on shinguards, regardless if its a size, material or impact standard? Today's technology may open doors that were not possible in the past and the ratings or the testing may educate people. Not too long ago many were ignorant about the danger of smoking and now most consurmers are educated and I happen to think thats a good thing.

So I figure you will say that your not against a rating but mandating that the rating has to be used, then why do you mandate a size of shinguard? Why is size more important than quality and really don't know how usage in another country somehow indicates its safe. I am sure that at one time shinguards were not even used in soccer but the game's safety evolved and this may be another step forward.

As far as red carding the coach, thats NFHS and if you ref in their games then that what you must do. I am not a fan of the NFHS and I love this website and staff and always hope that your experience, knowledge and passion would somehow end up correcting the direction of NFHS. Now with me saying that I can't stand the NFHS ideas, but this does not mean they never have a good idea.

Franco

Answer provided by Referee Michelle Maloney

First of all, "we" did not mandate a size for shinguards. Various leagues and the NFHS took that upon themselves to do that all by themselves. "We" are the referees who are paid to enforce the LOTG and any local rules that are acceptable modifications or that are stricter than the LOTG - within reason. If NFHS mandates what type of shinguard a player may wear by size, type and standard, then fine - I as the referee am bound to enforce that rule if I agree to do those games.

Answer provided by Referee Gary Voshol

We're not saying a mandate for safety is a bad thing.

NFHS, in their usual style, has decided that the only shinguards that are safe are those that have been certified to meet a certain standard, and are stamped as such. The problem is, the shinguard manufacturers didn't jump to meet NFHS's demand. They knew they were making a product that met the needs of their customers in every league in the world except NFHS. Most likely their existing products meet the specifications - they just haven't seen the need to get that seal of approval. NFHS had to delay implementation of the rule because the shinguards were not widely available in the marketplace for this school year.

The balls we use in FIFA-affiliated games (i.e. all USSF, AYSO, USYS, US Club ... plus leagues world-wide) are supposed to say "FIFA Approved" on them. I wonder how often that gets checked. That's not a safety issue, but it is the same type of mandate - to have a product certified by an authority before it can be legally used.

Answer provided by Referee Chuck Fleischer

I still wonder what "logic" has decided a shinguard that may be worn throughout the rest of the world may not be worn in the USA on a high school match unless it has a "found to be safe" label on it. This is simply mystifying. If that is stubborn than so be it, I am still at a loss to explain why unless it is just justifying the existence of another layer of bureauacy and that, by the way, is never a good thing.