Local footballers in the Reading area have found a new poster pinned up in their dressing rooms this season. The poster, produced by the Reading Referees' Association, was designed by Lillington Green, the firm of referee Stephen Green, and has been printed free of charge by Ospec owned by Chris Jarvis, goalkeeper of West Reading, both showing their
commitment to local football, which is to be admired. It has also received favourable comment from other football authorities throughout the country who have asked for copies, including the FA.
The poster has the heading 'Dangerous Strikers' and it shows the back of two footballers with the numbers 9 and 10 on their shirts along with their names, 'Stud' and 'Bling'. Stud of course refers to the FAs instruction this year, that all boots must be inspected by referees before each game, to try and eradicate dangerously worn studs, particularly the bladed type, that have caused a number of injuries over the last few seasons.
But Bling? The Head of Refereeing at the FA, when one of these posters arrived on his desk, immediately phoned one of his younger colleagues. 'What on earth,' he asked, 'is Bling?' If you are hip like me, of course you won't need to be told that Bling is modern day slang for jewellery, the more ostentatious the better.
I've always thought the wording in the Laws of the Game about jewellery was a little ambiguous. What it says is, 'A player must not use equipment or wear anything, which is dangerous to himself or another player (including any jewellery)'. Does that mean players may no wear any jewellery at all, or not wear jewellery which is dangerous and, if that is the case, is it left to the referee to decide which jewellery is dangerous and which is not?
For example in the past, some referees have allowed ear-rings to be taped up rather than be removed, while others haven't. The FA have now removed this ambiguity, for they have said this season, the only jewellery that can be worn is the 'wedding' ring, in other words, the flat type of ring and that must be taped up.
Some people might think that the FA is imposing a nanny state, with referees instructed to make players remove anything that is dangerous to themselves. Surely that is up to players if they want to take the risk? Well it might be worth considering a situation that is ongoing in the west country at the moment. A player took part in a game, wearing one of those curious eyebrow rings, a piece of jewellery, which is pierced through the eyebrow. During the course of the game the player headed the ball a little lower than he had intended and it hit the eyebrow ring. The pin fixing it to his face went into his eye. He is now suing the referee, for allowing him to play, wearing this piece of Bling.
Another incident happened locally, when a colleague of mine was faced with a player wearing a similar piece of jewellery. 'You'll have to take it out,' the referee told him. 'It won't come out,' the player replied. 'In that case,' said the referee, 'you won't be able to play'. It's amazing that when you say this to players, they find that miraculously, it does come out after all. During the game, the player clashed heads with an opponent. The player's eyebrow split along the point where the jewellery had been, no doubt weakened by the piercing. A nasty injury of course but the other incident shows how much worse it could have been. Imagine also, the damage that could have been caused to his opponents head if the jewellery had been left in.
Bling may be fashionable and look good on celebrities but it has no place on the football field.