Monotone Whistle
Well-Known Member
I still think the original advice was incorrect, which was the point of my post. I understand Law 4 and have used it a number of times on kids wearing glasses, plaster casts, etc. and not allowed them to play. On other occasions, the parents have produced a note, or letter confirming the glasses are for sports use and are approved, and I have accepted that.
But to get on topic, if a player is wearing glasses, you as referee deem them to be acceptable (whatever that means), and the parents or coach have communicated their acceptance of the risk, you cannot and will not be liable for anything. I don't understand the continuing fear of litigation, and in this case (as in most in football), it is the players and coaches who bear the risk. Unless someone can show me a legitimate case law example to the contrary, in 150 years of football I don't think this has ever been an issue, so why is it an issue now?
It's always best to play safe, which I do, but the original comment was that the referee could be liable, which I dispute.
But to get on topic, if a player is wearing glasses, you as referee deem them to be acceptable (whatever that means), and the parents or coach have communicated their acceptance of the risk, you cannot and will not be liable for anything. I don't understand the continuing fear of litigation, and in this case (as in most in football), it is the players and coaches who bear the risk. Unless someone can show me a legitimate case law example to the contrary, in 150 years of football I don't think this has ever been an issue, so why is it an issue now?
It's always best to play safe, which I do, but the original comment was that the referee could be liable, which I dispute.
