Jewellery

[Kes]

I had a situation where a 11 year old had to play with glasses or he would not be able to see. Normal glasses not sports glasses. Is it ok to let him play if I say it's his responsibility if anything breaks or he gets injured?

There's been a few threads on this subject already.

The FA advice on the wearing of spectacles is wishy washy and contradictory to say the least.

Bottom line (and this is just the opinion of myself and other referees - not all) is that if you view the spectacles as "unsafe" under the provisions of Law 4 then you've every right to insist that the player remove them before playing.

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

I had a situation where a 11 year old had to play with glasses or he would not be able to see. Normal glasses not sports glasses. Is it ok to let him play if I say it's his responsibility if anything breaks or he gets injured?

The advice from The FA is that they recognise that in grass roots youth football the referee will be faced with this situation on occasions. It continues along these lines:
If any part of the spectacles could be dangerous to the player or any other player, the answer has to be "No".
Glass lenses are a definite "No", for example.
You may say it is his responsibilty if anything breaks or an injury occurs, but when it comes down to it you will be likely to end up in court claiming it was not your responsibility because the 11-year-old said OK when you suggested he would accept responsibility.
We all want as many young players as we can get to play football, but their safety is your paramount responsibility - you wouldn't allow a regular plaster cast on a broken arm, or a player without shinguards, and as safer specs are available it's up to the player (and responsible parents) to go that route.
Safety first!

 

[RustyRef]

Remember it isn't just the player wearing the glasses, but also his oppoenents and even team mates. If the glass shatters and goes in an opponent's eye you have a safety issue there. Or if the metal frame breaks and spears a team mate in the eye you also have a problem.

Although be aware, modern sports glasses don't always look like the traditional ones that Edgar Davids used to wear, they can look quite normal. I told a player he couldn't wear them at which point he took them off and bent them in half, something you clearly wouldn't do with normal glasses

 

[RobOda]

I had a situation where a 11 year old had to play with glasses or he would not be able to see. Normal glasses not sports glasses. Is it ok to let him play if I say it's his responsibility if anything breaks or he gets injured?

Absolutely not. Don't permit him to play.

 

[Peter Grove]

TBH they should ban those stupid sports bra things they put the GPS fitness transponder things in. Look absolutely ridiculous.

Maybe so, but what they look like doesn't matter. So long as they're not dangerous to a player and meet the published FIFA technical specs, they are permitted under the law.

Law 3 states:

Where wearable technology (WT) as part of electronic performance and tracking systems (EPTS) is used in matches played in an official competition organised under the auspices of FIFA, confederations or national football associations, the competition organiser must ensure that the technology attached to the players' equipment is not dangerous and meets the requirements for wearable EPTS under the FIFA Quality Programme for EPTS.

 

[Peter Grove]

I have worn glasses since a relatively early age and used to wear them in informal "kickaround" games and sometimes (although I knew I probably shouldn't) when I was older, in short scrimmages during practice sessions when I was coaching.

On more than one occasion I was left with blood streaming down my face, not from the lenses breaking (they never did, luckily enough) but from the nose piece being driven into the bridge of my nose or lower eyebrow area, depending on the angle the ball hit me at.

On one occasion I needed hospital treatment and a couple of stitches which I still bear the scars of.

So unless they're sports glasses specifically designed for playing sports in, I would not allow them for any child in a game I refereed. I wouldn't want to see any child needing medical attention and possibly hospital treatment (like I did) when it could have been so easily prevented.

 

[one]

I have worn glasses since a relatively early age and used to wear them in informal "kickaround" games and sometimes (although I knew I probably shouldn't) when I was older, in short scrimmages during practice sessions when I was coaching.

On more than one occasion I was left with blood streaming down my face, not from the lenses breaking (they never did, luckily enough) but from the nose piece being driven into the bridge of my nose or lower eyebrow area, depending on the angle the ball hit me at.

On one occasion I needed hospital treatment and a couple of stitches which I still bear the scars of.

So unless they're sports glasses specifically designed for playing sports in, I would not allow them for any child in a game I refereed. I wouldn't want to see any child needing medical attention and possibly hospital treatment (like I did) when it could have been so easily prevented.

I'd imagine an easy decision to sell for you having the scars to support it.

 

[Southerner In The North]

There's been a few threads on this subject already.

The FA advice on the wearing of spectacles is wishy washy and contradictory to say the least.

Bottom line (and this is just the opinion of myself and other referees - not all) is that if you view the spectacles as "unsafe" under the provisions of Law 4 then you've every right to insist that the player remove them before playing.

Under current Disability Discrimination Laws been strongly advised this may not be a great idea

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

Under current Disability Discrimination Laws been strongly advised this may not be a great idea

Wearing spectacles does not make someone "disabled" under The Equality Act, and provision is made for players to wear spectacles as long as they are safe (e. g. polycarbonate not glass lenses, secured with a band to the wearer's head, etc) so any action under the Act is most unlikely to succeed.

 

[Kes]

Under current Disability Discrimination Laws been strongly advised this may not be a great idea

I'd happily take my chances in court with someone trying to prove that I discriminated against them by enforcing Law 4.
Far more than I would with someone trying to sue me for personal injury as a result of not enforcing Law 4.

 

[Viridis1886]

I'd happily take my chances in court with someone trying to prove that I discriminated against them by enforcing Law 4.
Far more than I would with someone trying to sue me for personal injury as a result of not enforcing Law 4.

Lock 'im up, I say.

 

[ReallyRef?]

Dangerous or not, Law prevents it.



Very unlikely to cause themselves or an other potential injury through contact, but not a good look if we're trying to impose "do as i say, not as i do"

Don't think it is very unlikely to be injured. If you get slapped, punched or headbutted over the ear (as part of the game), your skin or a vein might be punctured and not sure the afterwards will be pleasant to witness.

There's been a few threads on this subject already.

The FA advice on the wearing of spectacles is wishy washy and contradictory to say the least.

Bottom line (and this is just the opinion of myself and other referees - not all) is that if you view the spectacles as "unsafe" under the provisions of Law 4 then you've every right to insist that the player remove them before playing.

 

[PinnerPaul]

On a more general note, has anyone ever tested the no liability clauses in the LOTG in a court of law?

 

[GraemeS]

Glasses being called "glasses" is misleading everyone - glasses (certainly kids glasses) haven't been made with actual glass for years. So any referee saying glasses can't be worn because the glass might break and cause damage is well out of date.

Similarly, as a glasses wearer who has been hit in the face with a ball, I sympathise with @Peter Grove's point about the nose guards. But again, I'm not convinced with modern glasses the danger is much greater than you would get with a ball being hit hard into your face without the glasses. Look out for wire holding the nose guards in place, but again, that's not always how they're made now.

When it comes to metal frames, you might actually have a case. But where that's not the case and the glasses have plastic frames, I don't think you're obliged to ban them from playing.

 

[RustyRef]

On a more general note, has anyone ever tested the no liability clauses in the LOTG in a court of law?

Don't think so in football, but there have been cases in rugby where the decision has gone against the referee. There was one fairly recently after a player was paralysed after a "spear tackle"