Safety V Rights

[pankaye]

I saw a thread on an American Facebook group. a referee refused to let a u10 player play in a game because she was using a heart monitor cos apparently she has a had a chest pain previously.

Anyway, One respondent say he would also have refused to let the player play without medical clearance from the player's doctor. Another said we shouldn't be seeking the player's medical information s that's confidential, and generally speaking, we should confine to physical safety rather than medical safety of players.

is a player obliged to provide such confidential information to a referee without it breaching her human rights? is the answer different for an adult player?

 

[Tim - 2013]

I was a coach of a player, 8 or 9 years old. They had a medical issue. Simply put, a weak chest.

They asked me not to use them as a goalkeeper, but his doctor recommended the sport to build his stamina.

So, here is a kid with a potential health issue. I am an unpaid volunteer coach for the season.

As an after thought, I'm sitting here thinking about liability and it never dawned on me. I just figured parents would be held liable, not me...but anyone can be sued.

As a referee, I've had coaches tell me of asthmatics on the field playing, asking me and my crew just to keep an eye out.

Should we ban the players for their personal risk? Imagine other kids reactions when they see another kid drop in a game. Is it fair to put other youth at risk playing risky players?

This is what I learned over the years. If there is a player with a health risk they made known to me and my crew, we'll watch. First sign of real trouble, I use the LOTG for injury. If they player continues to show serious signs, that player will be sent off over and over, coaches/parents/health staff called over.
I did this with concussion protocol and kept stopping play. The player had to go and the coach and the parent kept trying to send the kid out. Sorry, the kid was not in good shape and I was prepared to do whatever necessary.

 

[Big Cat]

I saw a thread on an American Facebook group. a referee refused to let a u10 player play in a game because she was using a heart monitor cos apparently she has a had a chest pain previously.

Anyway, One respondent say he would also have refused to let the player play without medical clearance from the player's doctor. Another said we shouldn't be seeking the player's medical information s that's confidential, and generally speaking, we should confine to physical safety rather than medical safety of players.

is a player obliged to provide such confidential information to a referee without it breaching her human rights? is the answer different for an adult player?

None of our business unless the contraption itself causes some risk (akin to wearing jewellery)

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

I suspect the answer will vary by country, e. g. in countries where almost any issue can result in prosecution the officials would be ultra careful.
I would hope that in England the referee would have a discussion with the team manager/coach before making a decision. If the monitor could be dangerous to the player or any other player, it's a "No".
If not, a discussion with coach and possibly a parent of the 9-year-old may lead to a shared decision.
Law 5 protects the referee to some degree, but they need to have considered the possible risks beforehand.

 

[Trip]

Law 5 protects the referee to some degree, but they need to have considered the possible risks beforehand.

Nothing in Law 5 will give the referee any legal protection outside the remit of the relevant national football association. If the law of the land says you're liable, you're liable.

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

Nothing in Law 5 will give the referee any legal protection outside the remit of the relevant national football association. If the law of the land says you're liable, you're liable.

Agreed. That's why consultation and obtaining advice are vital, to prove due diligence in the event of a problem. If in doubt, say "Sorry, no"

 

[RefIADad]

I have experience with this from both an officials' perspective and a parent's perspective. My oldest son is a Type 1 diabetic and played basketball and has played football as well. The coaches always just let the referees know about his condition and some of the warning signs of low blood sugar. In every single case, the officials would say that they'd keep an eye on him and if he exhibited any symptoms like being disoriented, they would immediately stop the game. Thankfully, we never had to do that.

I always appreciate it when coaches tell me if someone's asthmatic, diabetic, is deaf, etc. I'm able to be on the lookout and take action if something bad happens. I always feel like if I stop the game and get the coach or trainer on the field quickly, I have fulfilled my duty.

 

[Anubis]

The age old glasses issue never sits good with me either

here, we are told to allow glasses at kids level, does not have to be sport wrap round either.

 

[GraemeS]

The age old glasses issue never sits good with me either

here, we are told to allow glasses at kids level, does not have to be sport wrap round either.

Given that actual "glass" glasses are pretty much a thing of the past, I'm OK with attitudes shifting with respect to this. 20 years ago, a ball hitting a glasses-wearing player in the face could blind them - nowadays, it'll hurt a bit more than without the glasses and potentially cost the parents quite a lot in replacements, but actual long term-damage potential is pretty much the same as for a non-glasses wearer.

Personally, I go out of my way to make sure I have contacts in when refereeing, but that's more for the sake of appearance than because I'm worried my glasses will injure me. And I've seen occasional referees in glasses at grassroots level - when you're at a level where participation is a key factor to consider, I think excluding players or referees because they're wearing a perfectly safe piece of plastic on their face is over-cautious.

 

[Anubis]

Given that actual "glass" glasses are pretty much a thing of the past, I'm OK with attitudes shifting with respect to this. 20 years ago, a ball hitting a glasses-wearing player in the face could blind them - nowadays, it'll hurt a bit more than without the glasses and potentially cost the parents quite a lot in replacements, but actual long term-damage potential is pretty much the same as for a non-glasses wearer.

Personally, I go out of my way to make sure I have contacts in when refereeing, but that's more for the sake of appearance than because I'm worried my glasses will injure me. And I've seen occasional referees in glasses at grassroots level - when you're at a level where participation is a key factor to consider, I think excluding players or referees because they're wearing a perfectly safe piece of plastic on their face is over-cautious.

oh they def get to play, and its so extreme it will never happen but not even the wearer, who is to say the frame does not fall into an opponents eye
Avoidable.
Have certainly seen glasses smash off kids face and onto the ground.

it has indeed went from no glasses, to, safety/wrap round glasses, to todays glasses. Am not 100% comfy with it, imagine the gk? but, yes, they play

 

[Kes]

oh they def get to play, and its so extreme it will never happen but not even the wearer, who is to say the frame does not fall into an opponents eye
Avoidable.
Have certainly seen glasses smash off kids face and onto the ground.

it has indeed went from no glasses, to, safety/wrap round glasses, to todays glasses. Am not 100% comfy with it, imagine the gk? but, yes, they play

They don't get to play in my game.

The glasses issue (discussed on here before) is a ridiculously two-sided approach from the FA and many leagues.

It seems to be unacceptable (safety reasons) for an adult player to be wearing a pair of NHS specs on their face (when do you ever see it?) but yes, it's okay for a kiddie to wear em? What sort of daft direction is that?

If it's okay/safe for a player to race around a football field with a pair of hard plastic things attached to their face, then surely the justification for insisting that players should remove jewellery such as earrings. wedding rings, friendship bracelets etc. is gone?

If "glasses" are safe to have on your face playing football, would we still consider it safe if for instance, if they were glued or sellotaped to the ball?

No, for me, it's proper safety-type glasses/goggles designed for "contact" sport or not at all.

 

[Anubis]

They don't get to play in my game.

The glasses issue (discussed on here before) is a ridiculously two-sided approach from the FA and many leagues.

It seems to be unacceptable (safety reasons) for an adult player to be wearing a pair of NHS specs on their face (when do you ever see it?) but yes, it's okay for a kiddie to wear em? What sort of daft direction is that?

If it's okay/safe for a player to race around a football field with a pair of hard plastic things attached to their face, then surely the justification for insisting that players should remove jewellery such as earrings. wedding rings, friendship bracelets etc. is gone?

If "glasses" are safe to have on your face playing football, would we still consider it safe if for instance, if they were glued or sellotaped to the ball?

No, for me, it's proper safety-type glasses/goggles designed for "contact" sport or not at all.

am with you

we are told though they play. Its not my call. My call, sorry no play

 

[Trip]

It seems to be unacceptable (safety reasons) for an adult player to be wearing a pair of NHS specs on their face (when do you ever see it?) but yes, it's okay for a kiddie to wear em? What sort of daft direction is that?

I had to tell an adult goalkeeper he couldn't wear his (totally normal prescription) glasses quit recently. A goalkeeper ffs!

I don't let kids play wearing glasses either unless they are proper sports glasses. I'd love to know how to tell for sure if the lenses are polycarbonate (as opposed to CR39 for example). I had a parent tell me his kid's glasses were polycarbonate. They didn't have a strap so he still couldn't play but I'd be prepared to bet a lot of money that parent had never even heard the word polycarbonate before I mentioned it.

 

[socal lurker]

If it's okay/safe for a player to race around a football field with a pair of hard plastic things attached to their face, then surely the justification for insisting that players should remove jewellery such as earrings. wedding rings, friendship bracelets etc. is gone?

Apples and oranges. The jewelry has no reason to be on during a game. The glasses allow the player to see.

I definitely would prefer players to always wear sports glasses, but in the US it is pretty well established that glasses are permissible, and it would be quite shocking for a referee to make a player take them off. (Applies to prescription glasses, not to the player who wants to wear sun glasses.) But past rec level, you don't see non-sports glasses, because sports glasses are just better from a player perspective anyway.

(I don't know about the UK, but in the US no one will sell glass glasses to kids, and it is a challenge for adults to get them. Last I heard was some years ago, but at least then some places would still sell glass glasses to adults who had been wearing glass for a long time and were adamant about not switching to plastic.)

 

[Kes]

Apples and oranges. The jewelry has no reason to be on during a game. The glasses allow the player to see

So do contact lenses and proper sports goggles. The principle behind it is one of safety - the same as jewelry items.

 

[RobOda]

Glasses = a no-no.

Sending kids on or attempting to send kids on with glasses is reportable to safeguarding.

Other devices may have some exceptions (rights) even though they do present a danger, simply because the rights/benefits outweigh the risks, however it is unlikely a referee will know for all cases. So, I think the onus is on the player to get permission from the FA and just print the letter/e-mail to give to referee's when/if challenged, because I think all referees should be within their rights to say no on safety grounds if we have any doubts. It just isn't worth the risk usually.