Equipment Rule Question

[Camron Rust]

First, let me make it known that I'm not a soccer referee but am a 12 year basketball referee and an 8-year soccer coach.

My child plays youth soccer (U9) and encountered a referee today that made a ruling regarding equipment that is in contradiction with what our club has clearly communicated to the coaches at our annual pre-season coaches meeting on more than one occassion.

What has been communicated by the club is that the shin guards must be completely covered by the socks. For all 8 years that I've coached for an older team, I've had players that wear them by putting on the socks, then the shin guards, then pull the socks down over the shin guards to the ankle such that the guard is completely covered.

The youth referee (an older teenager) and his mom (who was observing and apparently a referee) insisted that the shin guard had to be on first and the sock pulled up over the shin guard. My daughter, and many of my other players) finds the shin guards highly uncomfortable against her skin and she sat out for more than half of the game.

I've checked with the club and the board member I contacted said that it was sufficient as my daughter was wearing them...perhaps a club requirement.

Ignoring the possibility of a local club rule, which is the correct ruling?

In the future, I'll try to find a 2nd, thinner, sock that can be worn under the shin guard and put the main one over just so we don't have to deal with it.

[Edited by Camron Rust on Sep 24th, 2005 at 11:30 PM]

[QuebecRef87]

Camron,

Although I've never seen a player wear their shinguards/socks the way you describe, I don't see why it could be illegal. According to the Laws of the Game (Law 4 – The Players' Equipment), shinguards:[*]are covered entirely by the stockings;[*]are made of a suitable material (rubber, plastic, or similar substances);[*]provide a reasonable degree of protection.

As you describe the way your kids wear their shinguards and socks, I see no infringement to Law 4 as all three requirements are met.

Furthermore, Law 4 is not included in the permitted modifications described in the Notes on the Laws of the Game. This means your club should not be allowed to introduce modifications to Law 4.

Bottom line: the ref was wrong.

[Nevadaref]

Not so fast, Quebec! We are in the US!
Camron, You know me from the basketball forum, and that I work some high level soccer too. So, I know that you are not just a griping parent, but really want to know what is the real rule which your young girls' team must follow.

So here is what it says in the United States Soccer Federation's Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game, which is essentially the case book for US soccer. (The Laws of the Game by FIFA would be the rules book.) Since Quebec is north of the border, he may not know about this US manual. You can find it on the ussoccer website, where you used to be able to download a copy for free, but sadly this has just recently changed and now you must purchase it: http://www.ussoccer.com/referees/con...tompageid=6691

Anyway, here is the relevant portion:

"Law 4 — Players' Equipment
4.1 WEARING UNIFORMS
It is implicit in the Law that each side wear a distinctively colored jersey, that shorts and socks be uniform for each team, and that the uniforms be distinguishable from the uniforms worn by the other team. The referee shall ensure that each player wears his uniform and equipment properly. Players' jerseys must remain tucked inside their shorts, socks must remain pulled up, and each player must wear shinguards under the socks. Slide pants or similar undergarments must be the same main color as the shorts."

Ok, so what exactly is "under the socks?" What is between the sock? Well, in all seriousness, I'd have to say that there is certainly solid evidence that this youth referee and his mother were correct.

Now, at the little kids level, the shinguards are small enough and the socks are long enough such that the socks can be pulled back down over them completely in the overlapping fashion which you described. This just isn't seen at the older ages because the shinguards become too big for the socks to cover them fully this way or the play is physical enough that they would consistently be falling out the bottom.
But all that said, at the U12 level and below (particularly girls), I would likely let the kids wear them in the doubled-over manner. However, the rules really do seem to forbid it.

[QuebecRef87]

Originally posted by Nevadaref
Not so fast, Quebec! We are in the US!

Dammit! I'll remember next time...

However, I don't think the evidence is that solid. The shinguards indeed are worn under the socks! But there is obviously a grey zone here. In those cases not specifically described in the rulebook, the referee must use his judgment: "Is this dangerous to the player himself or another player?" In that case, the answer would probably be "no".

With that said, since I've never encountered this situation, I can't say out of any doubt that this way of wearing the shinguards and socks is not dangerous. But I can't figure how it could alter the protection granted by "normally" worn shinguards.

[Camron Rust]

Thanks for the feedback. It appears that US rules do suggest that the ref was correct while FIFA rules (which don't apply in this case) allow them to be worn as I had described.

The ref's reasoning for this ruling was that another player's foot might get caught on the edge of the shinguard if it shifted below the sock or came lose. For that to have happened, however, I think my daughter's foot would have to have come off since these shinguards are the type with a stirrup and ankle pads. The lower part of that shin guard is not going anywhere and the top was several inches inside the sock.

[phatneff]

My opinion on this matter is that ruling is "trifling". Especially at that age, the importance should be based on safety itself, rather than the semantics of how they are followed. We should applaud the fact that shinguards are being worn rather than them not wearing them because they are uncomfortable. I think it's ridiculous to make an 8-year old think that he/she is wrong for wearing the appropriate equipment in a manner that is comfortable to them and would make them want to continue wearing them. You can address this issue in several years from now, but let the children learn the game first before they are told about the minute details of the equipment.

Again, this is TRIFLING!

[refnrev]

Originally posted by phatneff
My opinion on this matter is that ruling is "trifling". Especially at that age, the importance should be based on safety itself, rather than the semantics of how they are followed. We should applaud the fact that shinguards are being worn rather than them not wearing them because they are uncomfortable. I think it's ridiculous to make an 8-year old think that he/she is wrong for wearing the appropriate equipment in a manner that is comfortable to them and would make them want to continue wearing them. You can address this issue in several years from now, but let the children learn the game first before they are told about the minute details of the equipment.

Again, this is TRIFLING!

__________________________________________________ _________

Sorry Phatneff, but it's not trifling. Shin guards are worn to protect kids and wearing them the way he descried in not the right way. They'll turn and you end up with a hurt kid or one with a broken leg. Suppose he lets them play that waa and one does get hurt. Who's liable in this "sue crazy" world? I've seen them worn that way being described a lot but it's not the right way. As for them not being comfortable, do what most HS and older players do. Put on a regular sock, the guard, and the game sock. Better against blisters that way anyway. I also am glad the kid was working hard to officiate how he was taught. More kids and adults need to do this.

[phatneff]

And again, we'll agree to disagree.

Let me ask you this, refnrev: I don't know if you do high school games or not but let's say you do and the NFHS mandate is that high school players shinguards are to be no higher than 2" above their ankles. Do you force them to pull them down if they are higher? If so, how do you regulate that throughout the game? Do you constantly check the players to make sure the guards don't "rise up", "shift", or that the players haven't manually raised them on their own and retaped them that way? My opinion is that it's impossible.

Here is what I do, and you can disagree with me if you want. Prior to the game, I will check all players shinguards to make sure they are legal. If I notice they are too high on their shins, I'll tell them that and ask that the lower them. However, after that I tell them that, from here on out, they are on their own. They can choose to do what they want with them, but I, and the other officials, are no longer responsible for any injury that may occur to them. That way, I can't be sued for the injury because I had already asked them to lower the guard.

The same thing should apply for the situation with the kids. You can explain that they way they are wearing them is not appropriate and it should end there. If you have to constantly keep a player off the pitch due to something like that, you're not doing the game any justice.

One more time, feel free to disagree, but it's the way of the world these days in soccer.

[Nevadaref]

Please stop with the "what if someone gets hurt and they sue the ref arguments." At least for USSF play this is NOT possible. (NFHS maybe)

Take a look at page 17 of the Law book:

Decision 1
A referee (or where applicable, an assistant
referee or fourth official) is not held liable
for:
any kind of injury suffered by a player,
official or spectator
any damage to property of any kind
any other loss suffered by any individual,
club, company, association or other body,
which is due or which may be due to any
decision which he may take under the terms
of the Laws of the Game or in respect of the
normal procedures required to hold, play
and control a match.
This may include:
 a decision that the condition of the field of
play or its surrounds or that the weather
conditions are such as to allow or not to
allow a match to take place
 a decision to abandon a match for
whatever reason
 a decision as to the condition of the
fixtures or equipment used during a match
including the goalposts, crossbar, flagposts
and the ball
 a decision to stop or not to stop a match
due to spectator interference or any problem
in the spectator area
 a decision to stop or not to stop play to
allow an injured player to be removed from
the field of play for treatment
 a decision to request or insist that an
injured player be removed from the field of
play for treatment
 a decision to allow or not to allow a player
to wear certain apparel or equipment
 a decision (in so far as this may be his
responsibility) to allow or not to allow any
persons (including team or stadium officials,
security officers, photographers or other
media representatives) to be present in the
vicinity of the field of play
 any other decision which he may take in
accordance with the Laws of the Game or in
conformity with his duties under the terms
of FIFA, confederation, national association
or league rules or regulations under which
the match is played

[phatneff]

Nevadaref, I hate to say this, but you are incorrect. Yes, it does say that for USSF, but that doesn't mean you won't get sued. It is very possible for a USSF ref to be sued for something relating to this issue. If you doubt it, do some research. Negligence plays a big role in those suits. You are no longer "immune" for being a ref. Also, try getting an umbrella coverage from your insurance company. My guess is that they'll deny it because you are a referee, or else seriously question it.

[BCer]

Doesn't being a USSF ref mean that, for affiliated games, you are covered by their insurance (including legal)? Up in Canada, this is how it works - your registration gets you insurance coverage and legal defense coverage - but only for affiliated games. Given that apparently zero equipment lawsuits have ever been filed, this is not considered to be a major expense. We've been told they will back you up 100% for any decision to wear/not wear that you make.

[phatneff]

That is correct. We are covered by an insurance policy as being a member of the USSF (and also for the NFHS). However, just like any other policy, there is a limit to that coverage. Should you be sued for something over that limit, it comes out of your pocket.

The point is that you can be sued for anything.

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by phatneff
Nevadaref, I hate to say this, but you are incorrect. Yes, it does say that for USSF, but that doesn't mean you won't get sued. It is very possible for a USSF ref to be sued for something relating to this issue. If you doubt it, do some research. Negligence plays a big role in those suits. You are no longer "immune" for being a ref. Also, try getting an umbrella coverage from your insurance company. My guess is that they'll deny it because you are a referee, or else seriously question it.

Well, they can sue all they want, but with the specific language "not held liable" in the book, that case isn't likely to be successful. It is doubtful that a judge would even let it get to the trial stage. There is no point in debating this with you. You can consult your own attorney on this matter for an expert opinion. Perhaps you already have since you provide such a concrete answer. I just know what mine tells me.



As far as insurance goes, I agree with you that the USSF provides coverage for affiliated matches.

For NFHS play, there is the Federation insurance, if you are a member, or your own, or whatever insurance your local association has procured. The referees in my state have private insurance under which each registered official has $1M of liability coverage. We don't pay very much for it either.

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by Nevadaref
Well, they can sue all they want, but with the specific language "not held liable" in the book, that case isn't likely to be successful. It is doubtful that a judge would even let it get to the trial stage.

I hope you don't count on that. The "rule book" only applies on the field. It has no power over legal liability. If you do something that causes harm to a player that could have been foreseen, you can get sued. No rulebook language will ever protect you from that...it may help you win. But by that time you've paid for an attorney.

If a referee sees a hazard on the field (perhaps broken glass) but does nothing about it, count on a lawsuit being filed if a player gets injured on it. If it can be established that the referee saw it, I'd expect the plaintiff to win.

[QuebecRef87]

This is ridiculous. Why should a referee be (legally) responsible for the player's safety? If I walk in the street and see broken glass, do nothing, and then someone hurts himself on it, am I liable?! This situation may be farfetched but that's the way I see it.