Weird technical one with equipment

[santa sangria]

Sorry but you don't carry out equipment checks until you reach a certain level? WTF it is done from the first game at the youngest level here right the way up? What other LOTG do you ignore, by that I mean if you don't inspect equipment they pretty much wear what they want and you allow it?

OK, if it is of interest, for example, here are other differences in different lower divisions:

Lower leagues: no ceremonial equipment checks, flying unlimited subs with ball in play, shorter game times, shorter half times, discretionary added time, not compulsory to have uniform matching socks/shorts, no ARs (no CARs here).
Hobby leagues: can wear equipment dangerous to yourself, unlimited squads, shin pads not mandatory, corner flags not mandatory.
Youth leagues: some leagues have e.g. max. 3 2nd half substitution events, some leagues have a bonus injured GK sub.
Small pitch games from adults down to 7 year olds have differences, like e.g. no offside, offside only from edge of the box, GK start of play not over half way, small balls, small goals.

If I understand correctly there are only full, by the book, LotG for the top 4 adult divisions and top 1-2 youth divisions at each age. The rest is a sliding scale of grassroots football. I only know all this by the way as I have just tried to memorise it all. Most of it makes sense. There are a couple of youth anomalies that must have historical reasons that are over-complicated.

Presumably, as discussed elsewhere, this is all to lower barriers to participation in grassroots football in a country where only the top 1-2 divisions have pros/semi pros.
I live in a city region where the local FAs handle - and provide officials - for something crazy like 1000 matches per week. And they make it work, which is amazing.

 

[lincs22]

2nd season and doesn't know that shin guards are mandatory equipment? Sorry, that's unforgivable.

Very very basic thing, players mandatory equipment.

Unless your AR is in his first few games then just asking them to check equipment should be sufficient. You are not really there to teach them the basics and the standard stuff otherwise you would have a very long session of instructions by the end of which they would have forgotten half of it. The AR stuffed up, let the team down and he will learn from it.
It is not your or the ARs fault that the player was not wearing the right equipment. It is their responsibility. Equipment check is to make it easier for yourself and avoid any future issues.

Never known anyone to miss shin guards........sock tape, yes......wristbands, yes......jewellery, yes.......but not shin guards!

If you were being observed and allowed a player to play without shin guards, you will lose marks. Even if it was the AR who checked them......buck stops with the referee. Referee's responsibility to ensure that players are wearing the correct equipment before play starts.

The purpose of the pre match equipment check is ensure that equipment is legal. I was never ask to ensure shin guards existed and have never seen them checked by Ar when observing.

Am I (and a number of referees) wishing this point?

 

[GraemeS]

The purpose of the pre match equipment check is ensure that equipment is legal. I was never ask to ensure shin guards existed and have never seen them checked by Ar when observing.

Am I (and a number of referees) wishing this point?

I've sepcifically been asked to check undershirt colour on one occasion, and sock tape on multiple occasions. Never specifically shin pads - don't know if that's because the referees assume I check that, or because they don't do it themselves!

 

[RustyRef]

The purpose of the pre match equipment check is ensure that equipment is legal. I was never ask to ensure shin guards existed and have never seen them checked by Ar when observing.

Am I (and a number of referees) wishing this point?

I thought the same to be honest, I can't ever remember an assistant specifically checking for shin pads. I used to check shorts, sleeves, neck then hands in that order, then studs as they walked past me. I'll be big enough to admit that I probably would have struggled to notice a problem with shin pads. And I'm certain that I won't be alone in that.

 

[santa sangria]

I thought the same to be honest, I can't ever remember an assistant specifically checking for shin pads. I used to check shorts, sleeves, neck then hands in that order, then studs as they walked past me. I'll be big enough to admit that I probably would have struggled to notice a problem with shin pads. And I'm certain that I won't be alone in that.

A bit odd for me - checking studs as players walk past, really?
In my experience (having missed a captain missing his shin guards when AR!) I always always always check for shin guards first! And work up and back from there - shins, tape, studs (as flicked up), scarves, jewellery - and then in reverse (head to toe) coming back down the line the other side... it has a certain logic... would love to know if there is a manual!

 

[RefJef]

Ah, the benefits of being a lone wolf stalking the (overgrown) plains of grass roots football (a more glamorous way of saying that I operate at (or below!) the very bottom rung of the football ladder) - no ARs to brief.

I've developed my own routine - ask the players to line up, facing away from me, I go along the back checking studs (bit of an anachronism now, boots are now so well made, not like when I were a lad and nylon studs developed a sharp edge after walking three yards on concrete) then back across the front, checking for "rings, bling and pads". Some will try and wander off, but a quick "hold on, fellas" and they stay in place until your done. (And then, of course, you get the comedians who, when checked will whizz round to rejoin the queue ... Funny the first time, still, got to humour them)

To be honest, I'm far more interested in whether or not they have shin pads than if they've used yellow and green earthing tape on their blue socks, or if you can see a peak of black undershort poking out from blue shorts.

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

take it as a learning curve to reinforce in your prematch next time,and as it was the officials fault no caution this time

I disagree with the blame on the refs. The refs are supposed to catch it, yes, but the player knows the law. It's his fault - but the refs compounded it by not taking the required steps.

Let's think about the purpose of the caution here. Given that he only left the field without permission to minimise the impact of a Law 4 breach, I think there's justification to let him have that one and appreciate the fact that he caught it himself and took steps to resolve. Perhaps not the best ones, but he tried. We certainly can use our judgement here.

I feel like the AR should have noticed him leaving and been able to explain this to you - if you have something confusing like this, don't be afraid to go to the player/AR/coach and ask what's happening!

 

[Ciley Myrus]

Can I ask, has anyone ever found a stud which they deemed as unsafe ?
Do folk carry out a boot inspection before a game on astroturf?

 

[richard ramjane]

Can I ask, has anyone ever found a stud which they deemed as unsafe ?
Do folk carry out a boot inspection before a game on astroturf?

no and yes

some grounds are very specific about what type of boot is worn on their artificial surfaces, so i'll always respect that and make sure that the players do also.
sometimes the groundsman is there to let you in etc and mentions the footwear issue, but ive not been cheeky enough (yet) to ask him/her to do the boot part of the equipment check for me!

 

[Goldfish]

Hi
There is a saying that the problem with common sense is that it is not common enough. The focus here has been on assessor marks. The facts are for whatever reason the shin pads were missed. I have to look twice at players now with these mini shin pads. I have had at times to ask players if they are wearing them.
Anyway this Youth player knows he should be wearing them, made a mistake and did not know that he had to ask permission to leave the FOP. Would he have got permission had he asked. Yes and who was disadvantaged by his leaving? His own team. Did he leave before the whistle? At least the team asked permission to come back on after play had restarted so as to not disadvantage the opponents. If he had ran back on should be have been sent off for two cautions?
There are two ways to handle this. Caution the player for leaving without permission or speak with the player, tell him the error of his ways and get on with it. Remind the ARs for better checks in the future.
At lower levels I am going with speaking with the player. At higher levels players know or should know the laws and what is expected.
I once had a player sprint off after getting hit by the ball in the stomach. Asked permission to return and I spoke to him about his leaving. He told me that he had to get to the toilet pronto otherwise there was going to be very unpleasant incident. Would I have given permission You betcha so would it have been appropriate to caution? I did not think so. If he did not come back what would I have done? Would it have helped to caution him for doing what he had to do.
The game is not black and white and observers need to exhibit some common sense as well. How was the game effected by an incident and what is the learning points. If the player ran back on to thwart an attack then different matter. I lost a mark recently as a 4th official because a sub stood up to kick a requested replacement ball on to the FOP as he was sat next to the spare balls as the 4th official area was part of the two benches. No one except the assessor even thought about it. There was i thinking about having a ball nice and ready for a replacement request. Also not happy about the physio who stood at the inside of the TA leaning against the side for the full game after asking me was it okay to stand as he cannot sit for any length due to a back problem. Never moved the whole game, nor said one word. Says it all IMO

 

[Ciley Myrus]

no and yes

some grounds are very specific about what type of boot is worn on their artificial surfaces, so i'll always respect that and make sure that the players do also.
sometimes the groundsman is there to let you in etc and mentions the footwear issue, but ive not been cheeky enough (yet) to ask him/her to do the boot part of the equipment check for me!

Same, in my 26 years I have never inspected a boot which I found to be defective, and, in all honesty, do I even know what I am looking for ?!!

The astro one is a different bag of spanners. Personally, I don't care if the boots are deemed unsuitable for the pitch, to me, that's not a safety issue, but a wear and tear on the pitch issue, for which I don't feel am responsible. If the pitch owners wish to tell a player that they cannot play on their pitch due to a problem with footwear then I would say to player "look, this person is responsible for the pitch and he/she says you cannot go on their pitch with your footwear"
It has happened local to me. A senior league club got new astro put down and they prohibit a certain shoe/sole. On the very first game, the groundsman made himself responsible for checking footwear and instructed the referee not to allow said players onto the park. Referee said he would not do so as there was no safety issues so groundsman refused the players with "incorrect" footwear to use them on the park. To me, the groundsman is within right to do so, as is the referee to refuse to comply. Going forward, circular was sent out to visiting teams on suitable footwear.

Throw another one in here, would someone allow or has allowed a player to play, in say, running shoes ? Afterall, its footwear and is it dangerous?

 

[Goldfish]

Hi
The laws do not specify the type of footwear to be worn just that it must not be dangerous to the player or his opponents. I would allow a player to wear running shoes as they are no different from the modern ,slippers' that pass for boots.
As regards a local competition rule on footwear that is up to the League and then when it made a CR the referee has to enforce it. Man U did not allow its players to wear blades which is of no concern to the referee nor their opponents as it was not a competition rule.

 

[Ciley Myrus]

Hi
The laws do not specify the type of footwear to be worn just that it must not be dangerous to the player or his opponents. I would allow a player to wear running shoes as they are no different from the modern ,slippers' that pass for boots.
As regards a local competition rule on footwear that is up to the League and then when it made a CR the referee has to enforce it. Man U did not allow its players to wear blades which is of no concern to the referee nor their opponents as it was not a competition rule.

Sorry maybe my post was too long and unclear. Not a league rule. The home groundsman dictated what boots/soles could be worn.
As it was, the visiting team were left with, 4/5 players who could play, so there was no game! My point was, as referee, I am not going to enforce a groundsman's rules.

As in, are the boots unsafe, or indeed unsafe for astro? The answer was "no". They were however deemed by the groundsman as being unsuitable for his newly laid new surface...

 

[zarathustra]

The problem with 4G etc is the rules laid down by clubs/grounds men are todo with the footwear damaging the surface.

I did a cup final at the Gallagher Stadium last season, the league sent out a document which detailed what footwear was and wasn't suitable, no studs, no flat soled shoes, molds were fine but studs had to be under a certain length etc.

As AR I checked boots, but I'm not going to go around with a ruler making sure studs are under a certain length.

I do equipment checks, but I do them as I'm inspecting the pitch/warming up wander over to the teams check for jewellery, correct under shirt/short colour, sock tape etc.

Aside from boots which are missing studs, or molds with obviously worn down studs etc, what would classify as unsuitable footwear,

 

[Ciley Myrus]

Why would a missing stud be unsuitable ?

Clearly worn down studs also, whats the problem? if they are not, say, jaggy and pointy, whats the issue?

sorry to sound argumentative, but I cant see a safety factor in a missing stud. A personal preference, maybe. But I don't believe you could force someone to put a missing stud in before they could play.

 

[zarathustra]

Why would a missing stud be unsuitable ?

Clearly worn down studs also, whats the problem? if they are not, say, jaggy and pointy, whats the issue?

sorry to sound argumentative, but I cant see a safety factor in a missing stud. A personal preference, maybe. But I don't believe you could force someone to put a missing stud in before they could play.

You're right, perhaps not a singular missing stud, but missing a couple could cause problems, and with word studs/blades I did mean obviously sharp edges etc.

 

[Ciley Myrus]

Also, and am being honest if a bit stubborn, I would refuse to comply with a directive re damaging the surface. I don't believe as referee's we are trained (unless of course you are) to dictate what boots are suitable for what surface.
So, you do your inspection as per document, but, as you are not the expert, you miss a few studs/boots/soles and lo and behold, there is damage to the pitch ! Are you then going to be responsible as referee for the damage? Afterall, you have deemed the boots legit.
If not, what was the point in the inspection or document in the first place !

 

[Ciley Myrus]

You're right, perhaps not a singular missing stud, but missing a couple could cause problems, and with word studs/blades I did mean obviously sharp edges etc.

I will go to extremes, can you force a player to change or amend his boots if he has no studs at all (where there should be studs) ??
I don't believe you can. Its "footwear" after all. and as another poster has already said, there can be no objection to running shoes....

 

[zarathustra]

I will go to extremes, can you force a player to change or amend his boots if he has no studs at all (where there should be studs) ??
I don't believe you can. Its "footwear" after all. and as another poster has already said, there can be no objection to running shoes....

Yes, the footwear has to be suitable, and a pair of boots with now studs would provide absolutely no grip, and as such would pose a risk to the wearer and other players.

Running shoes? The provide more grip than boots with no studs, but, if it's raining and the pitch is soaking wet then I wouldn't allow them to play, again for safety reasons, as they would be like bam I on ice.

 

[Ciley Myrus]

Totally disagree, sorry. As referee its not up to you to decide based on weather conditions what players can wear ?
On your rationale, you would allow running shoes on a nice sunny day yet if the park gets saturated say, 50-60 mins mark, you going to stop game and force players to change footwear? Sorry, that's not in the referees remit !!
I referee in black running shoes sometimes. If I can referee in them, and run more and twist and turn more than a player, then how can anyone stop a player from wearing them !!