Micro shin pads
- Thread starter OnlyUseMeWhistle
- Start date
Language - "the principal method of human communication, consisting of words used in a structured and conventional way and conveyed by speech, writing, or gesture"
So yes, order of words is literally what language is.
The way the IFAB uses language is neither particularly well structured nor does it tend to follow any useful convention. That's why we try to work out their meaning by referring to what they have said previously.
I'm sure you read my previous point that, unlike with most deliberate changes to the laws, there were no explanatory memoranda included in the 2016/17 laws indicating that this particular part of the laws had changed at all.
I'm sure you read my previous point that, unlike with most deliberate changes to the laws, there were no explanatory memoranda included in the 2016/17 laws indicating that this particular part of the laws had changed at all.
I suggest you write to IFAB and ask them to say what you think they mean then.
Until then I will continue to apply the laws as they are written.
one
RefChat Addict
This will be my last post on this.
In 2016 IFAB tried to simplify the laws and make it less wordy. They went from this
to this by simply merging the points together
If you really think IFAB thought through which transition word to use you haven't been reading the threads that talk about how poorly, sometimes conflicting, confusing and ambiguous some laws are written. My guess is if they used and the sentence would not have read well with two 'and's but who knows.
Using your logic and a previous example I used, IFAB wants every goal scored by a team to be disallowed after their first offence in a game
If IFAB wanted what everyone practices they would have qualified the offence by words "immediately" or "lead up to". There is plenty more where that came from.
I can't fathom how a referee can insinuate it is legal to use a finger nail size piece of hard plastic as a shinguard and IFAB has deliberately and knowingly allowed it.
EDIT: @JamesL Can I ask you apply Law 10 as is written as well
. Please. Please. Pretty please 
You are giving too much credit to IFAB's ability to word the laws. I have lost count of the number times that ifab had to change the wording of laws the year after a release because what they said was not what they meant. This one had no material (pardon the pun) impact so they didn't change it.
In 2016 IFAB tried to simplify the laws and make it less wordy. They went from this
to this by simply merging the points together
If you really think IFAB thought through which transition word to use you haven't been reading the threads that talk about how poorly, sometimes conflicting, confusing and ambiguous some laws are written. My guess is if they used and the sentence would not have read well with two 'and's but who knows.
Using your logic and a previous example I used, IFAB wants every goal scored by a team to be disallowed after their first offence in a game
If IFAB wanted what everyone practices they would have qualified the offence by words "immediately" or "lead up to". There is plenty more where that came from.
I can't fathom how a referee can insinuate it is legal to use a finger nail size piece of hard plastic as a shinguard and IFAB has deliberately and knowingly allowed it.
EDIT: @JamesL Can I ask you apply Law 10 as is written as well
. Please. Please. Pretty please
Last edited:
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
No, it is not. The order of words is literally only a very small part of what language is. Language is much, much more than mere word order.
For instance, the main components of language are often given as syntax, morphology, phonology, semantics and pragmatics.
Word order is in turn, simply a part of syntax. So word order is not "what language is," rather it is merely a part of a part of what language is.
"these must be made of a suitable material to provide reasonable protection..."
1. In other to satisfy this criteria, the material must be suitable and the material must provide reasonable protection.
2. When it comes to micro shin pads, I can't think of any material which would provide reasonable protection.
3. In the future, scientists might invent a material which creates a forcefield around a player's shin. This might explain IFAB's choice of wording - it's always good to plan for the future.
4. However, until this happens, micro shin pads cannot possibly comply with Law 4 because there is no present-day material they could be made out of to provide reasonable protection.
Case closed. Adios.
1. In other to satisfy this criteria, the material must be suitable and the material must provide reasonable protection.
2. When it comes to micro shin pads, I can't think of any material which would provide reasonable protection.
3. In the future, scientists might invent a material which creates a forcefield around a player's shin. This might explain IFAB's choice of wording - it's always good to plan for the future.
4. However, until this happens, micro shin pads cannot possibly comply with Law 4 because there is no present-day material they could be made out of to provide reasonable protection.
Case closed. Adios.
Interesting as they make it clear it is the players responsibility.
Make of that what you will
The material is not suitable if it does not offer reasonable protection. The material not extending further up the shin means it is no longer suitable in providing the player reasonable protection.
one
RefChat Addict
Yes interesting but what does it mean? Do referees allow players to be 'irresponsible' ?
I think 'player's responsibility' is just a non consequential (redundant) comment. Just like all other compulsory equipment are the player's responsibility not the manager's or the referee's. If it is not an appropriate size to provide reasonable protection the referee doesn't allow it. Simples.
The paragraph about Shinguards has also been added to the glossary in the LOTG this season. Wasn't there last season so I'd assume this is a deliberate clarification.
I think that there is an slight difference in the emphasis of responsibility here in reference to the safety of other players.
Dodgy shin guards is only likely to impact the individual concerned so therefore their responsibility, but things like footwear, glasses etc may have a negative impact on other players so we also have a responsibility to check and adjudicate if necessary.
one
RefChat Addict
I see your point but I don't think ifab thought into this the way you have in terms of 'responsibility'. I think they just added it without meaning this is any different to any other equipment. A sleeveless shirt has no safety impact but application of law is all the same in terms of responsibility. Player have to make sure they comply and referees enforce it.
ladbroke8745
RefChat Addict
Surely by saying appropriate size, and knowing the size of a shin, the micro versions are not appropriate size to cover a shin, at any age. It only partially covers the shin.
The law doesn't talk about size though, just says they must be a suitable material. That supposed IFAB post does, but as I don't subscribe to the Dubbo & District Association site I haven't seen it until now.
ladbroke8745
RefChat Addict
But in this guidance it does say AND of appropriate size.
Attachments
Law now includes reference to shinguard size in the glossary.
