A&H

Five a side / shinpads

K

Kent Ref

RefChat Addict
I was called today and asked to ref as a late replacement on a five a side league. There were 3 games and all was well BUT:

80% of the players did not have shinpads.

The league has the FA affiliated logo on it's website so i think that all players should have shinpads on. I spoke to the league manager and he says his company are not fussed on this.

My two questions are:

1. Does the affiliation mean they (the company) agree to all players having to have shinpads?
2. Does the referee face legal action if there is a serious injury during a 5-a-side game if shinpads are not mandatory?

I will not be reffing this league again i feel.
 
The Referee Store
in short no ...

the FA affiliation covers you as a referee if anything was to happen against you - it also means the the place is run properly etc - a bit like an accreditation for businesses ...

you should be told to 'score' the teams out of 10? and that includes behaviour, all matching kit, shinpads worn etc etc
 
Law4 compulsory equipment makes specific mention of the need for shin guards. I steer clear of events that play such scant regard for safety. If they are not prepared to enforce that element.......
 
I've never refereed 5 a side leagues and never would. You have to ask why 10 guys, basically having a kick about, need a referee? Most of such leagues are run for profit and it's probably cheaper and easier to pay a referee rather than the operation taking responsibility themselves. The quote in your post "his company are not fussed" sums it up. There are plenty of "proper" games at all levels more worthy of my time.
 
The protection afforded under Law 5 in respect of action that be taken against the referee in relation to injury to players is dependent upon the referee being seen to fulfil his responsibilities and not being adjudged negligent.

In a recent case a player who claimed the referee was partially responsible for loss of earning resulting from an injury incurred on a rock in the middle of the fop failed because the referee had been seen to carry out a fop inspection. He could therefore not have been held to be negligent in his duties.

If you allow a player to play without shin pads you would struggle to avoid some form of liability if he suffered an injury. You would not have completed your duties to a reasonable standard and even saying he played at his own risk would not negate those responsibilities.

As for commercially orientated small sided football ventures, avoid them like the plague. Lots of money but a disproportionate number of incidents to deal with and a reduced level of support when it goes wrong.
 
a referee cannot be taken to court under a circumstance such as this - it'd simply be laughed out of court

in a small sided 5v5 football match, all the referee would have to say is that he asked him to wear some - the player refused, and the company said they wasn't worried ...

and if it were the FA whom conducted the 'hearing' - the referee would be mad not to sue the FA ... claim stress at work due to worry, thought it'd effect your job, thought you'd be financially liable for the player ... any lawyer would have a field day ...

in short - the FA wouldn't put their name to such a case and the player would be lucky to find a lawyer to take it on.

in terms of the case you refer to @Brian Hamilton - even if the referee didn't conduct an inspection he still wouldn't be liable - he isn't employed by the FA, and the 'Laws of Association Football' aren't legally binding - that's almost like saying a road sweep could be sued if a pedestrian slipped on rubbish because he hadn't cleaned it quick enough?
 
Got a text to referee asking if I could referee at a local 5-a-side league last night, politely declined.

Judging by what I have read on here and what I have seen as both a player and as a parent watching my son train on adjacent pitches, wouldn't touch a 5/6-a-side league with a barge pole! The total lack of respect for fellows players and referees is at best appalling!
 
Brian Hamilton said:
In a recent case a player who claimed the referee was partially responsible for loss of earning resulting from an injury incurred on a rock in the middle of the fop failed because the referee had been seen to carry out a fop inspection. He could therefore not have been held to be negligent in his duties.
Click to expand...

Do you have a link to information about this case?
 
Charlie Jones said:
a referee cannot be taken to court under a circumstance such as this - it'd simply be laughed out of court

in a small sided 5v5 football match, all the referee would have to say is that he asked him to wear some - the player refused, and the company said they wasn't worried ...

and if it were the FA whom conducted the 'hearing' - the referee would be mad not to sue the FA ... claim stress at work due to worry, thought it'd effect your job, thought you'd be financially liable for the player ... any lawyer would have a field day ...

in short - the FA wouldn't put their name to such a case and the player would be lucky to find a lawyer to take it on.

in terms of the case you refer to @Brian Hamilton - even if the referee didn't conduct an inspection he still wouldn't be liable - he isn't employed by the FA, and the 'Laws of Association Football' aren't legally binding - that's almost like saying a road sweep could be sued if a pedestrian slipped on rubbish because he hadn't cleaned it quick enough?
Click to expand...
Charlie, believe me, it happened, it was in my County. @Trip no I don't have a link but it involved a Bradford Sunday League game. The council, The County FA, The FA, the referee and the company contracted to maintain the field were all subject to action. The referee's pre-match inspection protected him
 
Charlie Jones said:
a referee cannot be taken to court under a circumstance such as this - it'd simply be laughed out of court

in a small sided 5v5 football match, all the referee would have to say is that he asked him to wear some - the player refused, and the company said they wasn't worried ...

and if it were the FA whom conducted the 'hearing' - the referee would be mad not to sue the FA ... claim stress at work due to worry, thought it'd effect your job, thought you'd be financially liable for the player ... any lawyer would have a field day ...

in short - the FA wouldn't put their name to such a case and the player would be lucky to find a lawyer to take it on.

in terms of the case you refer to @Brian Hamilton - even if the referee didn't conduct an inspection he still wouldn't be liable - he isn't employed by the FA, and the 'Laws of Association Football' aren't legally binding - that's almost like saying a road sweep could be sued if a pedestrian slipped on rubbish because he hadn't cleaned it quick enough?
Click to expand...

That isn't right Charlie, if the referee is deemed to have failed in his basic requirements then he can be liable. Just as several rugby referees have been successfully prosecuted following player injury.

As a football referee you are protected by the FA's indemnity insurance. But that relies on you ensuring that all possible risks were dealt with before the game. A bit like home insurance, your insurance company will politely tell you to do one if you house was burgled after you left the doors or windows open.
 
Brian Hamilton said:
Charlie, believe me, it happened, it was in my County. @Trip no I don't have a link but it involved a Bradford Sunday League game. The council, The County FA, The FA, the referee and the company contracted to maintain the field were all subject to action. The referee's pre-match inspection protected him
Click to expand...
I'm not trying to be awkward here, but what aspect of the pre-match inspection covered the referee here? Is the fact that he wandered round looking at the ground and someone saw him enough, or does the inspection have to cover certain things to be valid?
 
The inspection involves not only the pitch but the safety of the goal posts etc. I walk corner to corner, along the goal line then diagonal to 4th corner, back along goal line to where I first started. I do the same routine every time, even at Step 5. & 6 games. I have found all sorts- knives, fireworks, pens, money, studs, dogs business. Nothing worse than a player picking up an object part way through the game. I am also hot in goalpost safety having seen a keeper lose part of his finger on a metal hook.
You can never be expected to find every stone buried but you are showing due regard and reasonable precaution if you carry out a decent inspection.
 
GraemeS said:
I'm not trying to be awkward here, but what aspect of the pre-match inspection covered the referee here? Is the fact that he wandered round looking at the ground and someone saw him enough, or does the inspection have to cover certain things to be valid?
Click to expand...
Pretty much covers it - be seen to be doing it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top