RefSix

Masks

one

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
Low division grassroots open age. I had a player come on with a mask on. Looked like a snood going all around his neck but it was a mask and worn as a mask. I let him play with it. Has anyone else had this?
 

JamesL

RefChat Addict
Level 4 Referee
Low division grassroots open age. I had a player come on with a mask on. Looked like a snood going all around his neck but it was a mask and worn as a mask. I let him play with it. Has anyone else had this?
In the UK our friendly football is only starting today and the continuation of that, I feel, is underthreat given the UK government's narrative yesterday.
If it looked like and appeared to be a snood, I wouldn't have allowed it.
Our resumption guidance is very much football is the same so I think for me that means the laws around equipment are.
I would perhaps stretch to allowing a traditional face covering/mask, the cloth kind that hook behind the ears provided their was no obvious impact to safety.
Can't imagine playing covering the face is particularly comfortable in Australia, even in Winter 😅
 
  • Like
Reactions: one

Justylove

RefChat Addict
Level 4 Referee
In the UK our friendly football is only starting today and the continuation of that, I feel, is underthreat given the UK government's narrative yesterday.
If it looked like and appeared to be a snood, I wouldn't have allowed it.
Our resumption guidance is very much football is the same so I think for me that means the laws around equipment are.
I would perhaps stretch to allowing a traditional face covering/mask, the cloth kind that hook behind the ears provided their was no obvious impact to safety.
Can't imagine playing covering the face is particularly comfortable in Australia, even in Winter 😅
Apparently clubs in Blackburn with Darwen have been told to cease contract training and cancel friendlies. Local lockdowns are likely to cause havoc with schedules. September restart has got to be in doubt now.
 

one

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
In the UK our friendly football is only starting today and the continuation of that, I feel, is underthreat given the UK government's narrative yesterday.
If it looked like and appeared to be a snood, I wouldn't have allowed it.
Our resumption guidance is very much football is the same so I think for me that means the laws around equipment are.
I would perhaps stretch to allowing a traditional face covering/mask, the cloth kind that hook behind the ears provided their was no obvious impact to safety.
Can't imagine playing covering the face is particularly comfortable in Australia, even in Winter 😅
Yes it was a pleasant sunny 18 degrees Celsius (contrary to last week when I did two games under pouring rain). I can't imagine him wearing it to keep warm. Although it looked like a snood it had outward indentation out the front for chin and nose with specific stitching around it. He wore it on the bench as well. Anyway I allowed it with current climate considerations.
 

socal lurker

RefChat Addict
If players are that concerned about it that they want to wear a mask on the field, then perhaps they should stay at home.
Seriously?! With hundreds of thousands of people dying you’re mocking someone for being overly cautious?

We aren’t at a stage here where games are remotely possible, but no way would I make someone take off a mask unless there was something specifically dangerous about it—and I have yet to see a mask anywhere that I would consider dangerous.

I’m actually surprised that the guidance hasn’t specifically addressed it. (In the US, quite a few professional baseball players are wearing masks during games. I haven’t noticed it in soccer.)
 

PinnerPaul

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
I didn't read ARF's post as mocking - just pointing out the inconsistency in approach.

Same logic as if you're worried about catching covid in the pub then erm....don't go to the pub!
 

one

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
I didn't read ARF's post as mocking - just pointing out the inconsistency in approach.

Same logic as if you're worried about catching covid in the pub then erm....don't go to the pub!
Its not as simple as that. I am worried about catching covid from other people, the answer is not to stay at home for a whole year. Its a matter of still living your life and taking appropriate precautions. I went to the pub with 3 work colleagues last Friday after work. We all registered our contact details at the entrance. Sat 1.5 meters apart. Enjoyed a drink before heading home.
 

Kes

I'll Decide ...
Level 5 Referee
Seriously?! With hundreds of thousands of people dying you’re mocking someone for being overly cautious?
Wearing a mask protects others from you. Not the other way around.
Consider also that the vast majority of people who contract the virus recover fine and that the average age for fatalities is 80.

Wearing a face mask to play football is ultimately pointless.
 

PinnerPaul

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
Its not as simple as that. I am worried about catching covid from other people, the answer is not to stay at home for a whole year. Its a matter of still living your life and taking appropriate precautions. I went to the pub with 3 work colleagues last Friday after work. We all registered our contact details at the entrance. Sat 1.5 meters apart. Enjoyed a drink before heading home.
Yes that's fine, but as you say its about acceptable risk - given the new 'normal' in whatever activity you want to do.

Here - new normal for football is that players and officials not expected, nor is it really practical, given restrictions to airflow, for players/officials to wear masks during play. If you're not comfortable with that - fine - its not 'wrong' but maybe best you wait until you are comfortable with the new normal before resuming football.
 

LothianRef

Member
Level 7 Referee
new normal for football is that players and officials not expected, nor is it really practical, given restrictions to airflow, for players/officials to wear masks during play
Very true. But why have the 4th officials in the EPL and now SPFL had to wear one when everyone around them doesn’t have one? Everyone’s apparently been tested so no one there has it. For me it reinforces that masks are ultimately for show, without bringing many benefits.
 

socal lurker

RefChat Addict
Wearing a mask protects others from you. Not the other way around.
Consider also that the vast majority of people who contract the virus recover fine and that the average age for fatalities is 80.

Wearing a face mask to play football is ultimately pointless.
Umm, no. While the primary value of the mask is protecting others, the more recent guidance is that the maks also protects the wearer to a lesser degree. (How much depends on the particular mask and context.) And "recover fine" is a bit of mis-statement as well. Many who recover--including those who are younger--have ongoing health issues. (And of course the young victims are quite able to transmit the virus to the old victims who do die.) It's not just the death rate that is the problem--it's also the hospitalization rate that overwhelms health systems.

Very true. But why have the 4th officials in the EPL and now SPFL had to wear one when everyone around them doesn’t have one? Everyone’s apparently been tested so no one there has it. For me it reinforces that masks are ultimately for show, without bringing many benefits.
Umm, no. You can argue it is overkill, but sports in the US have pretty clearly demonstrated that regular testing is not alone a panacea. Depsite regular testing, last weekend 20% of baseball games were not played because of infections within teams. There is a time lag in testing results (maybe you have better timing there than we do) and there can be infections that get passed on. While I agree it makes sense not to require masks for those currently playing (as an acceptable, necessary risk if games are realistically going to be played), based on everything I've read, it seems the smarter approach would be to mandate that everyone not playing be wearing a mask. If I were a 4O I would absolutely wear one (and I would get an N95 mask that is better than the ones I currently have at protecting the wearer).

Here in the US we can't get out of the first @#$%ing phase of this because stupidity continues to trump prudent behavior. . . .I'm tired of only working from home, but the realities here mean I'm unlikely to be able to return to my office until the new year.
 

Kes

I'll Decide ...
Level 5 Referee
Umm, no. While the primary value of the mask is protecting others, the more recent guidance is that the maks also protects the wearer to a lesser degree. (How much depends on the particular mask and context.) And "recover fine" is a bit of mis-statement as well.
You can get bogged down in the "what ifs" and the endless drivel and minutiae of it if you like mate, that's your right. The bare scientific facts are that it's transmitted in its airborne form via minute droplets. No face mask will protect you from breathing it in, else you'd suffocate. A mask will absorb (to a degree) any droplets you yourself expel whilst breathing sedately but for a limited time only. Certainly not whilst you're huffing, puffing and blowing during heavy or even moderate cardiovascular activity. In short, simple logic dictates that wearing a facemask/covering playing football will be about as effective as a cat flap in an elephant house!!
True, there are some recovered cases who have represented with organ damage thought to be directly attributed to having fought the virus, but again, those are a tiny percentage.
So, umm yes. ;)
 

Justylove

RefChat Addict
Level 4 Referee
You can get bogged down in the "what ifs" and the endless drivel and minutiae of it if you like mate, that's your right. The bare scientific facts are that it's transmitted in its airborne form via minute droplets. No face mask will protect you from breathing it in, else you'd suffocate. A mask will absorb (to a degree) any droplets you yourself expel whilst breathing sedately but for a limited time only. Certainly not whilst you're huffing, puffing and blowing during heavy or even moderate cardiovascular activity. In short, simple logic dictates that wearing a facemask/covering playing football will be about as effective as a cat flap in an elephant house!!
True, there are some recovered cases who have represented with organ damage thought to be directly attributed to having fought the virus, but again, those are a tiny percentage.
So, umm yes. ;)
The main problem is we don't know so many things about this virus at the moment. The "Known Unknowns" if you like. Things like

"How much immunity will having Covid antibodies give you?"
"How long will that immunity last?"
"What are the long term implications of someone who has had Covid on how other illnesses or diseases could manifest themselves?"

There are also certainly going to be "Unknown Unknowns" the things we don't know that we don't know right now.

For all the progress that is being made, in terms of disease and virology these months since Covid hit the world is only a tiny proportion of the time it's going to take us to fully understand the impact of it.

Reality is we're just scratching the surface and everyone is trying to make decisions based on the limited information we have right now.

One individual may see a lower perceived risk, another may see a higher one and both will act accordingly to those risks. Neither is right, nor wrong, it's simply a case of perspective.
 

Big Cat

RefChat Addict
Level 6 Referee
There's no place for masks on the football field
Scientists have yet to reach a consensus on their use
They probably offer some protection against transmitting the droplets to someone else and they may also stop everyone from picking their nose (and eating it), but none of this is particularly relevant outdoors
At the least, I'd be telling the player to get a life
 

Mintyref

RefChat Addict
Level 6 Referee
And other nations have very limited requirements to wear a face covering, the Netherlands I believe only require them on transport........hygiene and social distancing only
 

Mintyref

RefChat Addict
Level 6 Referee
Of course they do, they always have. Anything covering your nose and mouth will prevent the infected droplets reaching your breathing zone......just not very effectively.
Even the best respiratory protective equipment will not exclude all droplets, not unless you can get hold of self contained breathing apparatus. Face coverings and surgical masks are designed to protect others, not the wearer, but yes, they will afford some as yet unquantified protection.
 

Big Cat

RefChat Addict
Level 6 Referee
Studies and counter-studies... no real consensus
It's surprising really; common sense would tell us masks are of obvious benefit. In the absence of symptoms, I defy anyone to tell me they're wearing a mask to protect gibing others virus they almost certainly haven't got themselves! Everyone wears them, either because it's mandatory, or to protect 'number 1'
Quite literally, i never have my fingers anywhere other than on surfaces, up my nose or in my eyes/ears/mouth, so maybe masks are my way forward
FWIW I've bought one of these for refereeing (and robbing places)
Anything that promises 'cool', is up my street
 
Top