The Ref Stop

Small Earrings

The Ref Stop
I presume this Q&A is a generalisation of the new law that jewellery may be securely and safely covered rather than enforcing removal... but in this country at least that's not the case and in most countries I'd suggest earrings can't be safely covered.
 
doesn't that just lead to more ambiguity when dealing with players ? IFAB says I can cover these earrings up etc
 
My understanding is that USSF has also said earrings cannot be covered. I’d be curious what led IFAB to this change. I wonder if it was getting away from refs having to decide if things fit within religious exemptions.
 
socal lurker said:
My understanding is that USSF has also said earrings cannot be covered. I’d be curious what led IFAB to this change. I wonder if it was getting away from refs having to decide if things fit within religious exemptions.
Click to expand...
Yeah, probably. Leaving it up to us to make the judgement call as per usual
 
Its going the same direction as shinpads. I see players wearing shinpads that serve next to no purpose except because the laws say so.

We havn't started the new laws yet but I suspect the directive would be, if it is not dangerous to other players, allow it. If they choose to wear something that is not safe to themselves, it is 'their responsibility'.
 
I suppose we suggest that a certain item could be a danger themselves, but be it on their head it they proceed with it
 
Is the UK applying the shinguard guidance in youth games. In the U.S. AYSO (and I believe USSF) has said that R’s should still insist on reasonable shinguards. (For adults, I really don’t see the pin t of requiring them at all if reasonable size protection isn’t required. Though IIRC, the requirement in Law came with infection from blood concerns growing rather than actual protection of the wearer.)
 
socal lurker said:
Is the UK applying the shinguard guidance in youth games. In the U.S. AYSO (and I believe USSF) has said that R’s should still insist on reasonable shinguards. (For adults, I really don’t see the pin t of requiring them at all if reasonable size protection isn’t required. Though IIRC, the requirement in Law came with infection from blood concerns growing rather than actual protection of the wearer.)
Click to expand...
The UK is firmly of the opinion (correctly IMO) that as the size of someone’s shin guards isn’t a danger to anyone else, it should be the concern of the wearer alone (or their parents) and as such the referee’s only responsibility is as per the laws of the game, that they are wearing some sort of shin guards.
I’m not sure why referees always get caught up in this debate. Appreciate there is a safeguarding issue with kids, but we really have enough to worry about without worrying about the size of shin pads.
 
socal lurker said:
My understanding is that USSF has also said earrings cannot be covered. I’d be curious what led IFAB to this change. I wonder if it was getting away from refs having to decide if things fit within religious exemptions.
Click to expand...
I think it is exactly that. The English FA had issued guidance saying that religious jewellery should be allowed, even though the laws didn't really support that viewpoint, so I suspect it is to remove this anomoly.
 
There’s a CE standard for shinpads. The smart thing to do would be to have that in competition rules in regions/countries where it can apply. This would force upstart mini-pad manufacturers to get certified.

Here we still look to see there are shinpads. But we’ve been told not to check studs anymore.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top