In your response you say 'good health and safety'. A guy whose job is H&S, said that the fact that these metal caps are on the field of play would mean that, if an equivalent was happening in his workplace, he would be raising concerns. Your analogy with pegs is not the same as a metal covering on the field of play. What if the metal cap was elsewhere on the pitch? Are you appreciating there is a difference and you still say, in effect, carry on?
Metal caps on the goal line
- Thread starter Viking
- Start date
- Status
And I'm a health and safety consultant.......we are discussing caps on the edge of the field of play not the centre circle. If on your inspection they are visibly dangerous then yes you must do something about them. But to take issue with them being there in any event is just nonsense.
In the workplace there are metal caps or coverings all over the place, drain grates, manhole covers, this is not germane to the discussion.
And net pegs are just as much the field of play for practical purposes, as caps on the goal line, I reckon you've seen many a player, often more than one, slide into the netting during a challenge....
You didn't answer my question. You answered a question you thought I asked. I'm used to that. My response is nothing to do with my level or my role as an observer but as a referee with 20 years experience, as a parent and as a fan of football.
But seeing as you've raised the matter. It is on one of the lines marking the boundary of the field. It should actually be "they", because if there's one pair for each set of goals, then there are a maximum of 4 of these hole coverings. It's likely however that not only have the goals been narrowed, the field has been shortened. So let's go with 2 caps, one for each hole, because the previous holes for the other goals are not on our field.
Each is probably 18cm in diameter, giving them a total area of 500cm squared in an area of around 40M cm squared (50mx80m). So the chance of standing on any part of one of the caps is 1 in 80,000 (@RefJef please check my calculations). You'll notice I use the word standing as it is unlikely that anyone will be running along the goal line itself, preferring to actually stay inside the white lines.
You also need to take into account the frequency of a player actually being in that area. The heat maps you see on tv, etc. are built using a system based on a branch of maths called choropleth mapping. It uses data to establish boundaries relating to the frequency of the data. I have never seen a choropleth map show players frequently entering an area 1.5m outside of the goal posts.
So considering the probability of a player being in that area demonstrates that the probability of the cap affecting them is relatively small. So now, looking at the assessment of the likely outcome of them stepping on the cap. When compiling risk assessments, they are usually subject to a RAG analysis. Red-Amber-Green. Red - risk of serious injury (life threatening or life changing), Amber - less risk of injury (game ending or possible loss of school time), Green - minimal risk (jump back up or rub it better injury).
So taking the probability and likely outcome, I would have to say that both are low risk. I would also have to say that there is probably more risk from the hard patch near the middle of the centre circle, the tactics of the win at all costs opposition manager and the opposition centre half who really should produce his birth certificate to prove his age, because that moustache looks well cultivated.
So if you choose not to play on this field, I think you're wrong. I think you are being over protective. I think you are denying the players the opportunity to participate in a game of football. If you are really worried about it, then tell both coaches you have noticed the caps and ask them if they have any concerns? If they say yes, then you suggest they put their heads together, decide how the minute risk can be mitigated and to let you know what they have decided. If they say no, you play the game. You'll also be demonstrating that you have completed an effective field of play inspection which will help you avoid/mitigate any allegations of negligence on your part.
You really are over thinking this.
one
RefChat Addict
Let's assume your calculations are correct as far as one in 80K (roughly saying you can have 80K ppl on the field side by side). But they are incomplete. What you have not taken into account is the duration of the match and players are not stationary in a match. One in 80K is at any given time so at a rough estimate of 1 second to relocate from one place to another, that chance is reduced to one in 15 (80000 / 90m / 60s). That is if one person walks one the field randomly and continuously for 90 minutes, we have 1 in 15 chance of stepping on one of the plates. Given we have 22 players, we have a better than even chance of someone stepping on it. There is also the factor that some places on the field which get more foot traffic than others.
@Brian Hamilton if your not a health and safety officer, you could be...interested in a career change?
I was highlighting the area of risk in relation to the total area of the field. I acknowledge that my calculations are incomplete in that it does not take into account the duration of the game, however I have referenced choroplath mapping regarding the level of foot traffic.
I have completed enough RAG assessments in my time in 25 years in management to be able to write my own, however today is the first day of my teaching career.
I did try by referencing the choroplath mapping as acknowledged to @one above
Honestly @Ben448844 I'm climbing the walls here after almost 8 weeks at home. It's a wonder I've not started taking bets on two flies climbing the window.
THIS.
See you all at Half Term (or maybe sooner if you misbehave).
- Status