PDA

View Full Version : Protective Equipment



ExHookah
09-08-05, 19:08
A few questions on this.

With regard to headguards and shoulder pads, the laws state that they need to be soft and pliable etc. If they have the IRB logo then that means that it is definitely OK in order to receive this designation.

However is it 100% necessary to look for the logo assuming we've already verified it is pliable?

The laws are :

(e) A player may wear shoulder pads, made of soft and thin materials, which may be incorporated in an undergarment or jersey provided that the pads cover the shoulder and collar bone only. No part of the pads may be thicker than 1cm when uncompressed. No part of the pads may have a density of more than 45 kilograms per cubic metre.

(g) A player may wear headgear made of soft and thin materials provided that no part of the headgear is thicker than 1 cm when uncompressed and no part of the headgear has a density of more than 45 kilograms per cubic metre.


Now I'm not going out there to test density. I'm not a scientist. I do know whether something is safe or not, so am I obliged to check for IRB logos?


Secondly, there was a note a year or so back indicating that black headguards were not permitted as they concealed blood. Is this in effect, I can't find a law mentioning color anywhere.

Robert Burns
09-08-05, 22:08
I think the red and black colour ruling was reversed, don't know why though.

Deeps
09-08-05, 22:08
Law 4.1 (e). 'A player may wear headgear which must bear the IRB Approval Mark (Regulation 12).' I would say that you will need to sight the IRB logo in every case therefore.

If you are a stickler for Regulation 12 then you will be aware that a vest with an IRB logo that contains legal shoulder pads may also have additional padding on the chest and upper arms, fine for use in training. Just because the garment has an IRB label attached it does not necessarily mean that all of the padding contained therein is legal for match play. Depending on your gender, the chest padding may be legal but the arm padding probably not.

Mat 04
09-08-05, 22:08
Famous referee, whos name I wont mention told my class..

"If the player comes out looking like Darth Vader, send him back"


...probably of no revelevance or help here, but it was so funny at the time I thought I would share it.

Ian_Cook
10-08-05, 02:08
Picked this up on another forum...

Jedi ref, moves finger in an almost impreceptible circular motion, and says "you were offside....."

Player replies "I was offside..."

Jedi ref repeats finger motion and says "You will now retire ten metres...."

Player replies "I will now retire ten metres......"

Oh, if only!

Robert Burns
10-08-05, 10:08
The point was Deeps that there was a time when you could not get headgear that was black, dark blue or red with an IRB logo as if you had a cut to the head the blood would not be seen.

This seems to have been discontinued as I encountered plenty of Black and Red headgear last season with IRB logos in.

As for other padding I normally feel it, it i can squash it easily and it's not mega thick unsquashed I'm happy, If I think it's too thick i'll ask to see the IRB logo. Not come accross anyone trying to wear chest padding before (men I mean).

Mat 04
10-08-05, 12:08
Picked this up on another forum...

Jedi ref, moves finger in an almost impreceptible circular motion, and says "you were offside....."

Player replies "I was offside..."

Jedi ref repeats finger motion and says "You will now retire ten metres...."

Player replies "I will now retire ten metres......"

Oh, if only!



OHHHHHH that is soooo cool!!!!!, I love star wars :D

ExHookah
10-08-05, 14:08
Ah, so the ones with the arm padding are not legal? Especially over here I see players appearing looking as if they are about to play Rollerball rather than Rugby.

SimonSmith
10-08-05, 16:08
No padding on biceps or chest.

Chest is allowable for ladies as I understand it.

Chris Picard
10-08-05, 16:08
Not come accross anyone trying to wear chest padding before (men I mean).

I have. Funny, B-side match for a Div 1 side, I asked the loose head prop if he was girl in front of the other pack players. They replied in UNISON that he was in fact a girl. :)

Hookah, yes check all equipment.

ExHookah
10-08-05, 16:08
I'll have to start my pregame talks/inspection earlier I think!

I don't like the proliferation of knee braces either. I have not yet had to deal with someone trying to wear one of the hinged ones in a match I'm officiating yet, but I don't intend to allow it on the pitch. Two reasons. One it hurts the tacklers. Two, if they need that then maybe their leg is not strong enough to play.

Deeps
10-08-05, 23:08
Robert,

The restrictions on colour of headguards were removed a couple of seasons back but I do not have chapter and verse to hand unfortunately.

While we are on the subject of IRB logos, I have yet to see one on a pair of shin guards. These should be made of a soft material. Those potentially dangerous are the plastic soccer shin guards that have a sharp edge to them, they could slice flesh quite easily. When I get a bold riposte to my suggestion of their illegality, it usually settles itself when I ask for an IRB label.

ExHookah
10-08-05, 23:08
I used to wear exactly the shinguards that you're referring to! Like a suit of armor they were!

Of course now I'm in the "poacher turned gamekeeper" role!

Sam1707
13-08-05, 02:08
Slightly off subject I know but I recently did an under 12s tournament where I refused to let a player play with spectacles. :eek: They were the kind you see basketball players wear sometimes.

The players father was adamant that they couldnt harm another player and that he had gone to the expense because the optician had said he couldnt have contact lenses until the lad was 14.

He quietened down some when I explained that my concern was not that they could damage another player but that they could break and the splinters of glass/plastic might damage his own sons eyes.

Simon Griffiths
13-08-05, 12:08
There's a similar problem that we were hit with around here (team wore black and white - can't remember who). The player had a problem (not sight) which made his eyes overly sensitive to light so had to have specialist sunglasses. They were made of a malleable material and the lenses would not break.

We had much debate over whether they should be allowed over a period of months within the society. In the end we agreed that no would be the answer. However, this wasn't the problem. The main problem from our side was the father (who happened to be the coach). He claimed that they had a dispensation from the RFU which allowed him to play in them. In brief, it was a lie meant to make us allow him to play - we found out when the Secretary and RRDO both contacted the RFU who categorically denied that there was a dispensation for them. They also clarified that they would NOT grant dispensation for any form of sunglasses/spectacles.

Here's an extract from our newsletter from around that time:


Safety Issues
Players Clothing
At the AGM an issue was brought up regarding the wearing of sunglasses by players. Whilst we ought not go into specifics we were asked to produce a piece on clothing etc to advise on our authority as referees to ask for the removal of what we may feel is dangerous.
Under Law 4.4 (h) A player must not wear any item of clothing that is normally permitted by Law, but, in the referee's opinion that is liable to cause injury to a player.
Under Law 4.5 (b) The referee has power to decide at any time, before or during the match, that part of a players clothing is dangerous or illegal. If the referee decides that clothing is dangerous or illegal the referee must order the player to remove it. The player must not take part in the match until the items of clothing are removed.
In addition to this, Law 4.6 prohibits the wearing during a match of items not specified in Law 4. Law 4 does not specify eye protectors such as sunglasses or goggles of any description.
Other Laws relevant in this context as 6.A.3(b) and 6.A.5(a).
So in conclusion, it is clear from the above that apart from any application of common sense, a referee is empowered under the Laws to decide whether an item worn by a player is allowed. Whilst these Laws weigh very heavily on us to bear responsibility for much of what happens on the pitch, they also give us the power to deem clothes not suitable, not just according to the written Laws, but also by common sense led by what we can see in front of us prior to a match. Please refer to Laws 4 and 6.
Simon Griffiths

Robert Burns
14-08-05, 10:08
I hope the coach was reported!

SimonSmith
15-08-05, 12:08
We had a debate some seasons ago in Hampshire about protective eye wear because of a child who HAD to wear goggles. Can't remember the details. Deeps?

Deeps
15-08-05, 19:08
Sorry Simon, I can't recall this discussion, I may have been deployed in the Middle East at the time though there are a couple of pitches hereabouts where goggles may even now be useful - snorkels too!

OB..
15-08-05, 19:08
The child may have HAD to wear goggles, but he did not HAVE to play rugby. Desperately wanting to is not the same (though i understand it full well).

Simon Thomas
16-08-05, 06:08
Simon / Deeps

The lad involved played for Havant U16s 3 or 4 years ago and the RFU (or perhaps Marsh Insurance ?) eventually refused permission. He has already one eye with poor sight and this was a protective issue - I forget the exact disability he had. He was lost to the Game unfortunately and switched to soccer.

He had played in the rubber goggles (no plastic or metal) without problem and with full agreement of both sets of coaches and players for a few matches.

Recently there was a similar thread on www.rfu.com and Andy Dixon has had a protective goggle approved by RFU for use with some Continuum ages groups. Hovever RFU have said 'now way' for contact level matches.

The Continuum pages have now been changed to incorporate the wearing of safety eyewear :
Paragraphs 3.26 (d), 4.25(e) and 5.26(f) all now say:-
"Players may wear specially designed and manufactured 'goggles' on the understanding that the child's optician certifies that:
. They allow the player to have properly corrected vision and do do not substantially restrict any normal field of vision.
. They do not constitute a physical danger to the wearer or other players.

Account Deleted
31-08-05, 12:08
I think the red and black colour ruling was reversed, don't know why though.

Because the All Blacks refused to comply.
I had a game (U 14) last season where the one side had (almost) all dyed their hair the day before. red streaks thorugh the hair. The coach was fuming as he franticly checked evey lad for cuts after noticing the red in the hair.
He ended up saying " Do it again next week and you're dropped!"

nobackchat
16-03-08, 21:03
What of the following situation?

Upon inspection, player has IRM approved shooulder padding, BUT underneath he has another set of neoprene/padding stapping to one shoulder as protection or support. Combined, the padding was quite thick, enough for me to state that he could pick one or the other but not both. My reasoning being that excess padding (figuring 2.5cm or 1 inch) is not lawful. I hate being so picky, but what is the point of the inspection unless laws enforced.

Gareth-Lee Smith
16-03-08, 21:03
"If it's made of wood, it's no good!"

Dixie
17-03-08, 09:03
What of the following situation?

Upon inspection, player has IRM approved shooulder padding, BUT underneath he has another set of neoprene/padding stapping to one shoulder as protection or support. Combined, the padding was quite thick, enough for me to state that he could pick one or the other but not both. My reasoning being that excess padding (figuring 2.5cm or 1 inch) is not lawful. I hate being so picky, but what is the point of the inspection unless laws enforced. You were correct. Thin end of the wedge - won't be long before you end up with American Football padding as a top layer!

Simonsky
13-01-09, 21:01
Any of you refs that use (soft) contact lenses? My middle-aged eyesight is a bit wobbly so I'll probably use them for the ELRA. Just wondered whether any of you have had untoward experiences using them such as one popping out during a game.

Lee Lifeson-Peart
13-01-09, 21:01
Any of you refs that use (soft) contact lenses? My middle-aged eyesight is a bit wobbly so I'll probably use them for the ELRA. Just wondered whether any of you have had untoward experiences using them such as one popping out during a game.

I wear CLs (Glossary term Robbie?) They are Bausch and Lomb soft disposable ones. £90 for 90 pairs. I only wear them to referee soo they last me about a year or so.

nothing pops out when i referee. :wow: :wow: :wow: :wow:

I only remember one coming out when i played and that was after a finger in the eye :eek:

Donal1988
14-01-09, 08:01
Didnt a previous Italian rugby jersey have some kind of inbuilt chest padding. I got a bad head injury during a game 2 or 3 years ago. I got stitched up and put on a scrumcap to protect myself slightly. Referee refused to allow it as it was black (even though two other players on pitch had it). Said I had lost lot of blood and needed to monitor it.

andyscott
14-01-09, 09:01
Didnt a previous Italian rugby jersey have some kind of inbuilt chest padding. I got a bad head injury during a game 2 or 3 years ago. I got stitched up and put on a scrumcap to protect myself slightly. Referee refused to allow it as it was black (even though two other players on pitch had it). Said I had lost lot of blood and needed to monitor it.

If he was concerned, then he shouldnt have let you play at all.

Hmm alot of blood, possibly, but it would look alot more than it is though, as all head injuries do.

I had U17 match on Sunday and one guy got a knock on the head, obviously concussion, so I told him he couldnt continue, and for the coach to run him down to A&E. The coach was livid and ranting, he wanted the young lad to play on and so did the young lad.

So I had a quick word in the coaches ear. Went something along the lines of, "look I do anaesthesia for a living, he is concussed, wind your neck in" He then did as he was told and the lad, was ok in the end. You have to be so careful.

Andy

Lee Lifeson-Peart
14-01-09, 09:01
I had a head injury (oooooooohhh aaaaahhhhh prarrrrppppppp mmmnnn mnnnmnnn bark bark) ........but recovered. :rolleyes: :biggrin: In October 1995 I banged my head and had double vision for 10 weeks. I didn't play for the rest of that season.

I came back wearing a canterbury (a la Josh Kronfeld 1995 RWC) headguard - relatively speaking it cost a fortune - and I invariably had referees checking, discussing, refusing to let me wear it, letting me wear it etc etc. I played for about 2 seasons before I saw anyone else wearing one.

They just started to become popular as I retired in 1998.

I have only refused one to be worn - it was a heavily padded Rugby League type one which matey said he'd never been asked to remove it before.

Donal1988
14-01-09, 09:01
Andy I was actually told 5 minutes later he wasnt happy and ordered me off.

andyscott
14-01-09, 09:01
Andy I was actually told 5 minutes later he wasnt happy and ordered me off.

Possibly sensible decision, what would you do as the ref though.

I only take the cautious route, because of my day job, if I did something else, I dont know if I would be the same.

Sort of my comfort zone, I know I am confident in my decisions when it comes to injuries. Now if I could just sort out the rest of my game I would be a happy man.:chin:

Donal1988
14-01-09, 09:01
Well I was 18 and had just completed my refereeing course so tried to argue my case he was a ref from my society. He said it would be better for me to go off. Being honest I would do the safe option myself (as a law student have studied too many cases of litagation) :Nerv:

didds
14-01-09, 22:01
He claimed that they had a dispensation from the RFU which allowed him to play in them.

Its only a dispensation if

1) its on RFU headed notepaper (in England anyway!)
2) The player/coach/manager produces it.

A dispensation "at home" is not a dispensation. It is the square root of not a lot.

didds

didds
14-01-09, 22:01
SG:

"In addition to this, Law 4.6 prohibits the wearing during a match of items not specified in Law 4. Law 4 does not specify eye protectors such as sunglasses or goggles of any description."


However... It is my understanding that in England for CONTINUUM purposes (ie U7-U12) there is ONE accepted make of "sports spectacle" that players may wear. A bit like what that Dutch footballer used to wear (still daoes... ??? Davide or somesuch?)

didds

didds
14-01-09, 22:01
Recently there was a similar thread on www.rfu.com and Andy Dixon has had a protective goggle approved by RFU for use with some Continuum ages groups. Hovever RFU have said 'now way' for contact level matches.

Except that U9-U12 (within the continuum) ARE contact matches. The only non contact rugby generally played is U7 and U8 tag.

ST - do you have a definitive source for the "no contact" ruling... I ask cos we have a lad at U11 that plays in them still and we would need to know!

didds

didds
14-01-09, 22:01
I had U17 match on Sunday and one guy got a knock on the head, obviously concussion, so I told him he couldnt continue, and for the coach to run him down to A&E. The coach was livid and ranting, he wanted the young lad to play on and so did the young lad.


As a coach i am embarrassed by idiots like this.

Strewth.

didds

Simon Thomas
15-01-09, 07:01
Except that U9-U12 (within the continuum) ARE contact matches. The only non contact rugby generally played is U7 and U8 tag.

ST - do you have a definitive source for the "no contact" ruling... I ask cos we have a lad at U11 that plays in them still and we would need to know!

didds

Blimey Didds it was two and a half years ago I posted and about five years ago this came up at Havant. The decision was from RFU via Refs Department.

'Contact' was used in context of full 15 a side rugby at U13 and above.

As he is a mini midi player just carry on as before as long as both coaches happy each match - why stir it up ?

Cymro
17-01-09, 09:01
I had an U19 College match on Wednesday, home THP was wearing rubberised goggles ala
http://www.spex4less.com/acatalog/sports_goggles_zoom.html

I had a discussion with him and his coach explaining that no eyewear AFAIK was IRB approved and his spex didn't have an IRB logo on. He understood but explained that his eyesight was so poor that they "don't do CL for my prerscription" he also said he's played in them for about 5 seasons and never been asked not to wear them. I decided that provided he, his coach and the opposition coach were happy to play then he could continue, the opposition coach had no problem and so we played. Comments ?

OB..
17-01-09, 11:01
From the advert:
Zoom meets ASTM F803 impact standards for football, basketball, racquetball, tennis, squash, field hockey and women's lacrosse.

These are not contact sports in the same sense as rugby.

After 5 years they still have nothing official to show you? So next week's referee will be put in the same embarrassing position. I think it appropriate to take the matter further for official clarification.

Dixie
17-01-09, 18:01
I decided that provided he, his coach and the opposition coach were happy to play then he could continue, the opposition coach had no problem and so we played. Comments ? Best not. I stopped a player wearing a pair today - he was not at all surprised. They were clearly sports googles, but were not at all suitable - not least because the bridge across the nose could have broken his nose in a collision. These things have been live issues for years. When the iRB grants its logo AND the RFU tells me its OK, then we'll see them on my pitch.

Dixie
19-04-09, 16:04
This issue reared its head again this morning, when an U.14 hooker presented himself wearing prescription "sports" goggles. No iRB logo, and a hard plastic bridge to the lens. Coach claimed to have a dispensation (paperwork not available, naturally), and also claimed to have played in them without comment for the last two seasons, including league games under the auspices of London Society. I stood firm, and the lad didn't play - very disappointed, but unable to continue without eyewear.

It is bitterly disappointing for him, and as it was pointed out to me, it could be the end of his career if other refs take the same stance. But we had an injury later - broken collar bone, requiring an ambulance - and if I'd allowed the goggles and someone had suggested that they played a part in the injury, where would I be?

I do think the iRB/RFU should take a clear stance on this issue, and communicate it with clarity to the clubs.

Simon Thomas
19-04-09, 16:04
My official advice to the Hampshire Refs is DO NOT ALLOW such sports goggles.

They are not IRB approved, not RFU approved and my last instructions from RFU Refs Dept were to NOT allow them (in answer to a direct question on the topic of such goggles). I feel desperately for the young men (or women) involved but Dixie is right to feel highly exposed should an injury occur and there be any possible blame laid at the goggles.

Dixie, there may well be dispensation to wear such goggles at Continuum ages (Paul DG mentioned a while ago I recall) but I know for cerytain it is not possible at U13 and older.

gillburt
19-04-09, 16:04
I don't even allow kids to wear glasses when I'm "reffing" an U7s game.

Whenever I get an objection I politely explain reasons, if the coach/parent continues to complain I offer them the whistle along with the words (ish) "perhaps you would like to be held responsible when his glasses shatter and either the player or an opponent has to go to hospital to have glass removed from their eyes and potential blindness for the next 80 years"

I agree... RFU need to give a ruling, pdq. We should not be in this position.

PaulDG
19-04-09, 18:04
Dixie, there may well be dispensation to wear such goggles at Continuum ages (Paul DG mentioned a while ago I recall) but I know for cerytain it is not possible at U13 and older.

For Continuum, yes:

"11.3 Players may wear specially designed and manufactured “goggles” provided the child’s optician certifies that:

(a) They only allow the player to have properly corrected vision and do not substantially restrict any normal field of vision.

(b) They do not constitute a physical danger to the wearer or other players."

I concur with Simon that these goggles are not permitted at any other age.

Simon Thomas
19-04-09, 19:04
Gillburt

The RFU did give a ruling about this at Continuum level and also for Youth.

And as they are not IRB approved then they are not permissable.


So we have a very clear position.

dave_clark
19-04-09, 19:04
I don't even allow kids to wear glasses when I'm "reffing" an U7s game.

Whenever I get an objection I politely explain reasons, if the coach/parent continues to complain I offer them the whistle along with the words (ish) "perhaps you would like to be held responsible when his glasses shatter and either the player or an opponent has to go to hospital to have glass removed from their eyes and potential blindness for the next 80 years"

I agree... RFU need to give a ruling, pdq. We should not be in this position.

would you take a similar stance if a referee did a game wearing glasses, for the same rationale as a player playing tag rugby?

PaulDG
19-04-09, 19:04
would you take a similar stance if a referee did a game wearing glasses, for the same rationale as a player playing tag rugby?

I must admit to being nervous whenever I've seen a referee wearing glasses - it always serves as one of those "oh no, here we go, another guy with a whistle who's never read the Laws/Continuum/etc." indicators.

It never occurred to me before that it could be a safety issue. Thinking about it though, it certainly is one.

(FWIW, I am slightly short sighted and normally wear glasses. I always wear contact lenses when refereeing.)

Simon Thomas
19-04-09, 19:04
My advice to any referee is to wear contact lenses rather than glasses from both a safety and also an 'image' point of view.

Referees should also either remove or tape around wedding / signet rings while on the pitch.

dave_clark
19-04-09, 20:04
right, so that's why i'm still a level 15 then :) that and having a spastic knee/hamstring/hip/back/whatever the latest specialist/physio thinks is wrong :mad:

best have another shot at lenses i suppose.

or can referees wear those goggles???

gillburt
19-04-09, 23:04
Gillburt

The RFU did give a ruling about this at Continuum level and also for Youth.

And as they are not IRB approved then they are not permissable.


So we have a very clear position.

Oh... good to know..... shame it's not clearly (regularly) communicated down to the weeds round these parts.

Oh well, now I know :D


re: the question of refs wearing glasses. I remove my glasses when reffing. They're v.v.mild prescription and long distance... means if I'm at one end of a pitch the writing on any advertising boards would be out of focus at the other end - plus means I can maintain the tradition and uphold the standards of being a blind ref(!).

As one of the others said, if I see a ref wearing specs during a game, I cringe. I also cringe if a coach is wearing them on the pitch (common in mini/midi).
As for proof, other day I was doing some coaching, kids having their usual muck about during a drinks break and by accident (I hope!) one of them kicks the ball full into my face. I shudder to think what would have been the result if I had been wearing my glasses. Easily done. Eyes don't grow back.

Donal1988
20-04-09, 00:04
Yea Gilburt during a final i did last season I got a "clearing kick" straight into face. Boy did that fella slice it. I dont think our society lets wearing of glasses. Also long hair must be tied back "Fernando Torres style".

Simon Thomas
20-04-09, 09:04
Also long hair must be tied back "Fernando Torres style".

Long hair - a referee ?

Hurrrrrrrumph..................................... .........


PS Deeps - is Junior suitably 'shorn' these days ?

Dixie
20-04-09, 09:04
Also long hair must be tied back "Fernando Torres style".
Doesn't Fernando wear a girlie Alice band? Surely that would warrant dismissal from the Society. I thought Sea Bass Chabal had the rugby look down to a T.

Donal1988
20-04-09, 10:04
Yup thats right one of those girlie black bands. There was only three lads with long enough hair that merited it. 2 have cut their hair. One lad wears it -likes teams to recognise him as "that ref"

Lee Lifeson-Peart
20-04-09, 10:04
Yup thats right one of those girlie black bands. There was only three lads with long enough hair that merited it. 2 have cut their hair. One lad wears it -likes teams to recognise him as "that ref"

teams recognise me as "that ref" - but it usually has an expletive in the middle. :biggrin:

Donal1988
20-04-09, 10:04
Haha yea I know what you mean. You'd be surprised how things like that stick. Last season I got a boot to my face leaving a pretty deep red scar for about 2 months. I was told by a coach before a game it was good to see a ref who "had 1st hand experience of the breakdown" and many clubs recognise me now even though scar has faded.

Staybound
20-04-09, 10:04
Reading this has scared the bejesus out of me! I can't wear contact lenses for all sorts of boring reasons and my uncorrected eyesight would force me to take a "suitably trained and experienced" labrador on the pitch. I therefore wear my specs when reffing. The only time this poses a problem is in driving rain. I also confess, since I'm in that mood now, that I often also wear a baseball style hat when reffing. Keeps the sun and, often, rain out my eyes / glasses.

Do I have to hand back my log-in and dayglo shirt?:o

gillburt
20-04-09, 10:04
Just take a big white stick on with you, frantically wave it around in front of you as you run and use it to administer beatings on any players.

If it's long enough, you can also use it at rucks and mauls to prod offside players whilst maintaining your positioning.

Problem with taking a dog on is that I suspect most teams will try to swap him with one of their players and then stick him on the the wing[1].



[1] And as we all know, dogs don't like playing wing, they much prefer inside centre.

Staybound
20-04-09, 11:04
Just take a big white stick on with you, frantically wave it around in front of you as you run and use it to administer beatings on any players.

If it's long enough, you can also use it at rucks and mauls to prod offside players whilst maintaining your positioning.

Problem with taking a dog on is that I suspect most teams will try to swap him with one of their players and then stick him on the the wing[1].



[1] And as we all know, dogs don't like playing wing, they much prefer inside centre.


The dog would have a much easier time staying on his feet than most of the players I've seen this season.

Dixie
20-04-09, 11:04
I also confess, since I'm in that mood now, that I often also wear a baseball style hat when reffing. Keeps the sun and, often, rain out my eyes / glasses. Oh dear. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. But it could be worse - you could wear lycra leggings. At least you'll be in line for a cabinet job as Minister for Sport if Hague ever makes it back to the top for the Tories.:biggrin:

On the subject of reffing in specs, there are tow aspects: safety and image. If there is no alternative to glasses, image is an irrelevance. Safety, however, is important. As you will rarely come into contact with other people on the pitch, it is less relevant to consider how your glasses might adversely affect other people. You do need to worry about having a ball hit you in the face, and the effect that might have on your glasses, your eyes and your facial bones. Edgar Davids played football in specs in the expectation that he would head a ball. If he can do that, you can ref - but do make sure you've got the safest specs you can afford.

dave_clark
20-04-09, 12:04
i did get hit in the face once while reffing an U16s game. quick tap penalty, the scrum half dropped onto his foot and kicked a bit too hard.

nice muddy smear across my left lens. which was nice.

i'd never thought of the image issue. does specs combined with a big fluffy ginger beard not go down well then? :D

Simon Thomas
20-04-09, 12:04
I therefore wear my specs when reffing. The only time this poses a problem is in driving rain. I also confess, since I'm in that mood now, that I often also wear a baseball style hat when reffing. Keeps the sun and, often, rain out my eyes / glasses.

Staybound you do what you need to, and sod the image (but please just don't wear lycra leggings !)

If you are prepared to go out and give 30 guys a match, and being able to see is a pre-requiste, then well done to you - respect.

Image is mainly an issue for the young whippets, who have aspirations to get onto Group and Panel !

But as Dixie says saftey is the biggest worry - especially your eyes/face etc !

Donal1988
20-04-09, 13:04
Image is mainly an issue for the young whippets, who have aspirations to get onto Group and Panel !!

Guilty as charged.

SimonSmith
20-04-09, 13:04
Which bit - image as an issue, or the aspirations? ;)

truck'n'trailor
20-04-09, 16:04
Anyone got a solution for this:

For some reason in the first 15mins or so of a hot match (ambient temperature rather than player temperature), I suffer badly from sweat pouring into my eyes and blinding me. After 15mins it doesn't seem to have an effect.

Does anyone else suffer from the same problem, or have a solution for this?

Many thanks...! :confused:

Staybound
20-04-09, 16:04
I sometimes get that. I wear a hat (see previous posts confessing to lack of pitch side street cred) and don't overhydrate before exercise - I tend to try to take on fluid at regular intervals during the game. I am also a massive sweaty betty anyway.

Simon Thomas
20-04-09, 16:04
do what I did when I played - especially when it was hot for sevens at end of season.

draw a line of vaseline across the top of each eyebrow and the bridge of your nose

TheBFG
20-04-09, 16:04
you cannot be serious:chin: :wow: :chin:

Think mid 80's stroppy USA tennis player

Lee Lifeson-Peart
20-04-09, 16:04
Anyone got a solution for this:

For some reason in the first 15mins or so of a hot match (ambient temperature rather than player temperature), I suffer badly from sweat pouring into my eyes and blinding me. After 15mins it doesn't seem to have an effect.

Does anyone else suffer from the same problem, or have a solution for this?

Many thanks...! :confused:


Have you seen Olivia Newton John in the "Physical" Video? Try that.That'll get you sweaty!!!!! :drool: 689

Index finger and quick flick of the sweat, towelling wrist band or do like Olivia and "tonight Matthew I'm going to be Mark Knopfler".690

Once Dennis Lillee became a baldy he had to adopt the sweat band.691







Needless to say some will view sweat absorbing paraphenalia much as they do under shorts and long hair.

Phil E
20-04-09, 16:04
Needless to say some will view sweat absorbing paraphenalia much as they do under shorts and long hair.

You missed a couple!

692


693

Not Kurt Weaver
20-04-09, 18:04
Phil E,

Great image. I'm going to nominate you for the best post in 2009.

You know, that is a UH-1 in the background. Not sure if any
U.S. forces ever painted them camo though.

Lee Lifeson-Peart
21-04-09, 08:04
Phil E,

Great image. I'm going to nominate you for the best post in 2009.

You know, that is a UH-1 in the background. Not sure if any
U.S. forces ever painted them camo though.

Let's see. You've got a picture of Sylvester Stallone and a woman showing her volkswagen's bonnet and you've noticed....................................a helicopter.:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

Lee Lifeson-Peart
21-04-09, 08:04
...............

Not Kurt Weaver
21-04-09, 14:04
Not only that, the shape of the tailcone and its cowling looks more like an 800 series dual engine Huey, not the old T53-L13.

BTW, that must be a Timex she is wearing since it's circa 1980's. I've clicked on the photo several times hoping to be redirected and get a better look at this timepiece.

Phil E
21-04-09, 14:04
Not only that, the shape of the tailcone and its cowling looks more like an 800 series dual engine Huey, not the old T53-L13.

BTW, that must be a Timex she is wearing since it's circa 1980's. I've clicked on the photo several times hoping to be redirected and get a better look at this timepiece.

You really need to check out the you tube click on the same page the photo came from:

1980s-fitness-and-aerobics-fashion-disasters (http://www.motleyhealth.com/articles/2008/09/1980s-fitness-and-aerobics-fashion-disasters.html)

They call them disasters, I call them ............memorable :love:

gillburt
21-04-09, 21:04
the shape of the tailcone and its cowling looks more like an 800 series dual engine Huey, not the old T53-L13.

her or the plane?