The Ref Stop

Micro shin pads

The law says they need to be shinpads. If they have been hacked to pieces they are no more shinpads than your newspaper example.

I would also go further.

I know how much we all love our laws history. The 1995/6 laws say:
(2)Shinguards,which must be covered entirely by the stockings, shall be made of a suitable material (rubber,plastic,polyurethaneorsimilarsubstance) and shall afford a reasonable degree of protection.

In 2009 (persisting until 2015/16) it said:
Shinguards
-covered entirely by the stockings,
- are made of rubber, plastic or similar suitable material,
- provide a reasonable degree of protection

In 2016/17 the laws were changed to read as they are now. About 10 changes to law 4 were explained at the back of the book that year. Even changes to socktape and we're explained. There was no explanation about the changes to the shinpad law. I would suggest this is because IFAB did not think they in fact had made any changes.

We know how mealymouthed the IFAB has become. In many othere parts of the laws we interpret the plain words purposively. We should do the same with law 4. We know what is intended and we should drive at that.

We give far too much credit to IFAB if we think that just because they put words in a certain order that they actually mean the for them to be read in that order.
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
The Ref Stop
ARF said:
As has been quoted above, law only stipulates that the material the shinpads are made of provides reasonable protection. Cutting the pad in half doesn't change what it's made of ;)
Click to expand...
RustyRef said:
No they don't, they only require a suitable material. If he'd put newspaper down his socks, which I have seen someone try, you would be justified to make him correct it. But a shinpad cut in half is exactly the same material as before it was cut, so under the law as it is written it is perfectly legal.
Click to expand...
This to me is following the law word by word without understanding that IFAB is often incapable of wording what they mean.

If a player wears a home made shinguard the size of a small coin made of 'good material' is he complaint with law? Yes they are with the wording of it but a long way away from its intent.

Keep in mind the laws don't define a shinguard, if they have to be commercially made, standards or specs. Or who defines what constitutes a shinguard.
 
Redster said:
The law says they need to be shinpads. If they have been hacked to pieces they are no more shinpads than your newspaper example.

I would also go further.

I know how much we all love our laws history. The 1995/6 laws say:
(2)Shinguards,which must be covered entirely by the stockings, shall be made of a suitable material (rubber,plastic,polyurethaneorsimilarsubstance) and shall afford a reasonable degree of protection.

In 2009 (persisting until 2015/16) it said:
Shinguards
-covered entirely by the stockings,
- are made of rubber, plastic or similar suitable material,
- provide a reasonable degree of protection

In 2016/17 the laws were changed to read as they are now. About 10 changes to law 4 were explained at the back of the book that year. Even changes to socktape and we're explained. There was no explanation about the changes to the shinpad law. I would suggest this is because IFAB did not think they in fact had made any changes.

We know how mealymouthed the IFAB has become. In many othere parts of the laws we interpret the plain words purposively. We should do the same with law 4. We know what is intended and we should drive at that.

We give far too much credit to IFAB if we think that just because they put words in a certain order that they actually mean the for them to be read in that order.
Click to expand...
Whatever has been written previously is irrelevant at this moment in time - we can only apply the laws as they are written in current form.

There could be an argument that IFAB deliberately removed the wording of "shall afford a reasonable degree of protection"

1) because it is incredibly vague
2) to protect referees in light of the trend of players wanting to use smaller shinguards.

It is very simple.

As per Law 4, shinguards are compulsory equipment, they must be made of a suitable material to provide reasonable protection (i.e. plastic, rubber, carbon fibre, etc. and not newspaper, bag of porridge oats, etc.) and they must be covered by the socks.

There is no mention of what size or shape they must be. So as long as a player is wearing something under his socks in the shin area then I am satisfied that the requirement within law has been met.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ARF
CA1992 said:
Whatever has been written previously is irrelevant at this moment in time - we can only apply the laws as they are written in current form.

There could be an argument that IFAB deliberately removed the wording of "shall afford a reasonable degree of protection"

1) because it is incredibly vague
2) to protect referees in light of the trend of players wanting to use smaller shinguards.

It is very simple.

As per Law 4, shinguards are compulsory equipment, they must be made of a suitable material to provide reasonable protection (i.e. plastic, rubber, carbon fibre, etc. and not newspaper, bag of porridge oats, etc.) and they must be covered by the socks.

There is no mention of what size or shape they must be. So as long as a player is wearing something under his socks in the shin area then I am satisfied that the requirement within law has been met.
Click to expand...
Change "reasonable" to "appropriate" or "satisfactory" and the job would be done, albeit still open to interpretation but by the referee.

It's a minefield to be honest. Let's face it, we still can't get whether or not kids can/should wear glasses nailed down properly ... :rolleyes:
 
CA1992 said:
It wouldn't - because it would still refer to the material that the shinguards were made out of...
Click to expand...
Well it would though, because as I've said, it would then be down to the referee to decide what was appropriate or satisfactory regarding size and material. Although the word "suitable" as already stated in the laws should cover this in reality ...
 
CA1992 said:
Whatever has been written previously is irrelevant at this moment in time - we can only apply the laws as they are written in current form.

...
It is very simple.

As per Law 4, shinguards are compulsory equipment, they must be made of a suitable material to provide reasonable protection (i.e. plastic, rubber, carbon fibre, etc. and not newspaper, bag of porridge oats, etc.) and they must be covered by the socks.

There is no mention of what size or shape they must be. So as long as a player is wearing something under his socks in the shin area then I am satisfied that the requirement within law has been met.
Click to expand...
Again, you're giving credence to a reading of the laws which is based on order of phrases. 'to provide reasonable protection' could easily refer to the shinguards as a whole and not merely the material. My argument is that this is what is intended and I base that on the history of the laws and the absence of explanatory memoranda regarding any change to the laws. You base your argument on order of words.

The IFAB could not order a pie in a bakery. I would not rely on them for coherent nuance in the laws which could be derived from a plain reading. More work is required than that.
 
Redster said:
My argument is that this is what is intended and I base that on the history of the laws and the absence of explanatory memoranda regarding any change to the laws. You base your argument on order of words.
Click to expand...
I base my argument on reading what is written in black and white in the LOTG.

Your argument is based on reordering the words written to suit your argument and your personal opinion of what you feel is the 'intended' wording, without knowing what actually is intended as you're not part of IFAB and I assume haven't contacted them to ask their intentions?

The fact 'provide a resonable degree of protection' has been actively removed from previous iterations of the laws, suggests that it was removed deliberately. My opinion is that the reason this has been removed is to protect referees from potential claims in light of the growing trend of players wearing small shinguards and potential injuries occurring as a result.

The question posed in the original post, was "is there anything we as officials can do to combat them" - the answer, informed by the LOTG is no.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ARF
Redster said:
The law says they need to be shinpads. If they have been hacked to pieces they are no more shinpads than your newspaper example.

I would also go further.

I know how much we all love our laws history. The 1995/6 laws say:
(2)Shinguards,which must be covered entirely by the stockings, shall be made of a suitable material (rubber,plastic,polyurethaneorsimilarsubstance) and shall afford a reasonable degree of protection.

In 2009 (persisting until 2015/16) it said:
Shinguards
-covered entirely by the stockings,
- are made of rubber, plastic or similar suitable material,
- provide a reasonable degree of protection

In 2016/17 the laws were changed to read as they are now. About 10 changes to law 4 were explained at the back of the book that year. Even changes to socktape and we're explained. There was no explanation about the changes to the shinpad law. I would suggest this is because IFAB did not think they in fact had made any changes.

We know how mealymouthed the IFAB has become. In many othere parts of the laws we interpret the plain words purposively. We should do the same with law 4. We know what is intended and we should drive at that.

We give far too much credit to IFAB if we think that just because they put words in a certain order that they actually mean the for them to be read in that order.
Click to expand...
This reads more like an argument in favour of the majority here rather than an opposing view.
 
CA1992 said:
I base my argument on reading what is written in black and white in the LOTG.
Click to expand...
I have used this example before. If you follow what's in black and white without trying to understand why it's there then every goal after the first offence in the game has to be disallowed. No one believes or follows what's in the law for this 'in black and white'.

What @Redster is providing is a way of understanding the reason behind what is written in law.

As I said, put a small coin under your socks and you have a shinguard. Surely you don't believe the law was ment to make this legal.
 
There must be a line somewhere where reasonable interpretation (whatever that is) trumps literal reading of LOTG (I'm not suggesting that I know where that line falls though).
If not, and we really want to take the literal reading of LOTG to its logical conclusion then since it doesn't say that the shinguards have to be on the shins*, are we allowing players to wear their shinguards on their arms (covered by their socks, of course since that is mandatory)?
This should be fine, since the socks do not have to be on the feet according to LOTG*. ;)

*As far as I can tell from reading LOTG - though happy to be corrected.
 
I suspect IFAB don't want to get into the grounds of defining what is and isn't suitable protection. The likes of Grealish and others who wear tiny pads would no doubt argue that their performances would be affected if a minimum size was mandated, and they just won't want to get into that argument. Also would a minimum size even work, Haaland's legs are double the length of Messi's (creative license 😂), so the level of protection the same sized shin pad offers each of them would be vastly different.

For me this comes down to player responsibility. If they are OK risking injury by wearing tiny shin pads it is down to them and really not one for referees to be getting involved with.
 
RustyRef said:
For me this comes down to player responsibility. If they are OK risking injury by wearing tiny shin pads it is down to them and really not one for referees to be getting involved with.
Click to expand...

I agree. Maybe at youth, speak to managers. OA, I'm leaving it to the players.
 
As others have said the wording of Law 4 is not helpful.

Much revolves around whether reasonable protection refers to just the material pads are made of, or does this include the amount of protection provided by the size of the pad. Clarification is needed here me thinks.

With regard to advice i asked the question and was told:

I should ask the player if they think it's offering a suitable amount of protection. If they say yes then nothing more to be said.

But once you ask the question and the worst actually happens point one will be "the referee knew there was a problem" so maybe it's best just not to notice!
 
Kent Ref said:
As others have said the wording of Law 4 is not helpful.

Much revolves around whether reasonable protection refers to just the material pads are made of, or does this include the amount of protection provided by the size of the pad. Clarification is needed here me thinks.
Click to expand...
Redster said:
'to provide reasonable protection' could easily refer to the shinguards as a whole and not merely the material.
Click to expand...
"shinguards - these must be made of a suitable material to provide reasonable protection and covered by the socks"

There is no ambiguity there - it refers to the material. If IFAB meant otherwise then they could have used the word 'and' instead of 'to'. But they didn't.

Redster said:
You base your argument on order of words.
Click to expand...
That is literally what language is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top