At a game where I was running the line last season the referee had to deal with an incident on the field, whilst the ball was out of play. To make sure that the ball wasn't thrown in before he was ready, I stood with one foot on the ball. When the game was ready to restart, a player bending down to pick up the ball said 'Blimey Lino, are those the boots you used to play in?' My boots might not be high tech but they are leather uppers on a moulded rubber sole. 'You must be joking' 1 replied, 'when I played football, studs were small round pieces of leather which were nailed into leather soles'.
These studs were the most dangerous item of a player's equipment and not only to an opponent who might get injured if some of the leather strips came away and exposed the nails, but also to the player. Very often the nails were hammered right through into the sole of the foot. They were replaced with studs that screwed in to the boot. Some of these were plastic or metal which were better but could be dangerous. They sometimes sheared off giving sharp edges which could cause nasty wounds. Then of course there were the safer rubber studs
mainly moulded to the sole of the boot.
The Laws of the game were very specific to the depth and width of studs. There were no less than four paragraphs outlining what was permissible. And then suddenly in 1990 all references to studs disappeared from the Laws seemingly without explanation.
At the Reading Referees' meeting last week, the Training Officer displayed two pairs of new boots which would never have passed the previous requirements. On the sole were thin strips of metal and plastic, you couldn't call them studs. Every referee in the room thought they could be dangerous and would consider refusing their use. However, one pair was emblazoned with the
FlFA logo as well as the manufacturer's trade mark. Does this mean that these potentially lethal boots have FlFA approval? We clearly need some new guidelines quickly.
In the mind of the RA. something else has taken over from studs as the item
most likely to cause injury. Something which a decade or so ago no one would I have considered in connection with football - jewellery. And we are not talking ladies' football either. Many male players wear a large amount of jewellery. Large rings on their fingers, ear-rings, eye-rings and rings through other parts of their body. Heavy medallions swinging from chains around their neck.
The Football Association have issued a reminder yet again this year that players must not wear anything which is dangerous to themselves or other players including, they say, any kind of jewellery. To me that's slightly ambiguous. Does it mean that all jewellery is dangerous or that the referee has to decide what is and what isn't dangerous?
Players will usually accept that large rings could cause injury when arms flail around and the same with medallions that might swing into opponents' faces, but some query how you can injure anyone with an ear-ring or an eye-ring. Well, imagine the damage that could be done in head to head contact by an eye-ring and there have been cases where a blow from a football on an ear-ring has torn it off causing considerable injury and distress to the player. Some players question a referee's authority to make them remove jewellery but the law clearly states 'A player may not wear clothing or equipment that is dangerous to himself or another player'. Clubs should not leave it to the referee but take action themselves before players enter the field.
Dick Sawdon Smith