PDA

View Full Version : New Nike FG studs



chrismtl
11-08-14, 19:08
Hey,

I noticed these when Nike released them, but I wasn't a member here at that time, so I never thought about asking this until now. The IRB law clarifications state that the tip of a stud cannot be any smaller than 10mm in diameter. After having seen a few pairs of Nike's new FG boots, I can safely say that their new studs aren't even close (see image below). Have the IRB released a statement regarding the boots? Has anyone had issues with them during a match? I feel like I've seen some of those boots being used professionally, although I can't comment on what studs they were using, or if they used their own studs.

http://images.prodirectsport.com/v3_products/V3_1_Gallery_1/80741.jpg

Drift
12-08-14, 00:08
Are they screw ins? If so then you just get them to change the studs.

Dixie
12-08-14, 09:08
Clearly not legal. For such an egregious failure, I think you should decline to permit these studs, insisting on a change

chrismtl
12-08-14, 17:08
Are they screw ins? If so then you just get them to change the studs.

These ones appear to be screw ins, but I have seen others that seem to be molded. They also make the same studs, but in a metallic finished plastic. What should be the call for those? illegal as well?

Browner
12-08-14, 17:08
Have these Studs passed performance tests A&B of IRB regulation 12 .... Glancing and impact?

chrismtl
13-08-14, 04:08
Have these Studs passed performance tests A&B of IRB regulation 12 .... Glancing and impact?

No clue. Is there a list somewhere? I mean I know that they can't possibly pass the Figure 1 requirements of the 10mm stud tip, but if they do pass the test A & B then they are good. I just can't find anyhting that says they've passed, or even that they haven't passed. I also haven't seen those particular studs during any professional match I've watched.

Phil E
13-08-14, 09:08
This raises the question "is it practical for referees to check stud tip width?"

Referees used to get a stud guage, but no longer. I don't know any referee who carries a ruler with him. Can you imagine how long it would take to measure everyone's studs? Surely the players and team must have some responsibility here?

Some like these might be obviously under 10mm, but what if they are 8mm or 9mm? And when you are going along the line checking for burs and missing studs are you going to notice that these ones are a little narrow?

andyscott
13-08-14, 12:08
The studs are not your responsibility.

Oh damage was caused. Can they change boots after the check.

My statement, "when I checked the studs none were dangerous" thats it.

OB..
13-08-14, 16:08
The studs are not your responsibility.
4.4 (g) A player must not wear any other item which does not conform with the IRB Specifications for such clothing (Regulation 12).That makes it the referee's responsibility to check. The quesiton is the degree of compliance the referee is expected to cope with. From time to time there has been guidance - referees are not expect to measure studs, but that does not mean they should ignore any blatant contravention of Regulation 12.

andyscott
13-08-14, 16:08
4.4 (g) A player must not wear any other item which does not conform with the IRB Specifications for such clothing (Regulation 12).That makes it the referee's responsibility to check. The quesiton is the degree of compliance the referee is expected to cope with. From time to time there has been guidance - referees are not expect to measure studs, but that does not mean they should ignore any blatant contravention of Regulation 12.
When I checked them they weren't dangerous end of discussion.

Browner
13-08-14, 17:08
IMO boot manufacturers will keep chipping away at this subject to shoehorn a stud/cleat confirguration into a boot design that means that parents mum can buy 1 pair of boots to suffice all sports

USA gridiron/ baseball merging with Rugby/Soccer is likely a short term goal towards a 'One Boot fits all' .... objective.

My cynical (realist) head says they'll move from producing a 10mm stud ...to 9.5mm........9.25mm......then ..... 8.95mm..... 8.80mm....8.50mm..... Until they reach ' their' goal , whatever that may be.

I will say this, the metal studs that are 'self rounding' are so much better than yesteryear, I can't remember the last time I encountered a burr'd one.

Dixie
13-08-14, 18:08
When I checked them they weren't dangerous end of discussion.iRB regulation 12 defines dangerous as being less than 10mm. Are you saying that when you checked them, they were clearly >10mm, but became worn down during the game to the uniform 2mm discovered after a player's leg was opened up by them?

chrismtl
13-08-14, 20:08
I didn't really want to start a big discussion on a stud being just under the correct dimension. My issue is with the particular stud that Nike decided to start manufacturing this season as it CLEARLY doesn't fit into the 10mm law. Forget needing a ruler, the tip is probably about 5mm. These cleats are being mass produced, sold and are being marketed by top soccer players, and it would be good if there was something official that said "yes" or "no" to these new studs when it comes to use in rugby. I'd expect by next season, every team will have at least 1 players with these studs.

Nike manufactured them for soccer obviously, and I've seen them do some damage to players at the soccer world cup, but when you live somewhere like Canada, and you can't get proper rugby cleats, like the Adidas Predator Incurza, without ordering them from the UK and spending $300+, people go to the local soccer store and buy whatever they want.

crossref
13-08-14, 22:08
and it would be good if there was something official that said "yes" or "no" to these new studs when it comes to use in rugby. .

there IS something official -- Regulation 12.

chrismtl
14-08-14, 01:08
there IS something official -- Regulation 12.

The last time I checked Regulation 12, there wasn't a list of cleats that Passed the tests A & B. Nike is big enough that the IRB might have done the tests. Hence the question. Using the diagram alone, the call would be "no".

OB..
14-08-14, 02:08
When I checked them they weren't dangerous end of discussion.4.4 (g) talks of compliance. It does not ask you to assess risk.

Browner
14-08-14, 10:08
The last time I checked Regulation 12, there wasn't a list of cleats that Passed the tests A & B. Nike is big enough that the IRB might have done the tests. Hence the question. Using the diagram alone, the call would be "no".

If you specifically ask your union/IRB about these ( or any other new to market design) , then I suspect you'll merely get a reply of "ref decides as per reg 12" .

They know fine well that these studs ( once sold in high volumes by the big brands) will find their way into rugby. I cant imagine any referee enjoying telling a schoolboy/grassroots player that he cant play & accordingly Andy Scotts approach is, i suspect, likely to be adopted by many.

It wouldn't take much for IRB to show an approval of noticeably 'new' designs on their website, but to do so would make this subject more 'transparent' , but instead a subject shrouded in mystery/opinion delegated down to a referee provides a political position and gives them a escape hatch if & when it goes tits up, when your insurance would kick in.

Chris_j
15-08-14, 01:08
IMHO these are a risk. They clearly contravene IRB reg 12 Appendix 2 fig. 1, unlike blades which have one tip dimension > 10mm. If I see them on my pitch my line would be "these are not acceptable, please change them". If challenged the response would be "they contravene IRB reg 12. Unless you have written conformation that they pass tests A & B please change them." If they then appear :norc:

crossref
15-08-14, 13:08
I cant imagine any referee enjoying telling a schoolboy/grassroots player that he cant play & accordingly Andy Scotts approach is, i suspect, likely to be adopted by many.

i have several times told schoolboy/grassroots player to change studs. They always find some more studs - sometimes they cannibilise the pile of second-hand boots in the clubhouse for boot-exchange. I also have about 20 spare studs in my bag.

Browner
16-08-14, 00:08
http://images.prodirectsport.com/v3_products/V3_1_Main/81210.jpg http://images.prodirectsport.com/v3_products/V3_1_Main/82272.jpg The belief that these ( or most other blade configurations ) that measure <10mm at any point, and when being tested for skin glancing will damage skin less favourably than a std 10mm smoothly rounded aluminium stud is quite frankly ludicrous.

As a useful comparison 'strimmer wire' is produced in varied 'profile's purely because it is proven that non rounded shapes produce a sharper cut....exactly the same principles apply to stud shape, but I doubt any referee would always insist on removing all the various stud shapes available in soccer/rugby boots currently on the market .....

http://i00.i.aliimg.com/photo/v0/469411810/Trimmer_Line.jpg

All 'non rounded' designs will perform less favourably than the Fig1 example in reg 12 . & if any referee claims to exclude all the other shapes then quite frankly I don't believe you sir.

chrismtl
16-08-14, 01:08
Adidas makes a SG and FG cleat sole. The FG are short, triangular, plastic studs that really cause almost no damage, and for the most part, the striking surface is flat. Their metal studs are pretty much exactly what's posted in Reg 12. In fact, their Rugby specific models come in both those options and are used by hundreds of professional players. They're a far reach from what Nike came out with. For the most part, I let anything that's plastic go as long as it isn't sharp since a metal stud will have much more impact force than plastic studs.

Browner
16-08-14, 10:08
The regulation states " The shape and dimensions of other Stud/Cleat designs should be such that they present no greater risk of injury to another player than the stud cleat shown in fig 1"

It authorises ......"tests A & B can be used to assess comparative performance"

Any shape/dimension that is more angular or less rounded or sharper or narrower dimensions simply has to increase the propensity to injury risk beyond the "no greater" requirement.

Manufacturers already produce such stud/cleats, across a wide range, albeit (and interestingly!) the studs shown on boots listed as "rugby" are indeed closer to the fig 1 compliance generally.

IMO, The IRB will never seek to enforce any of their regulations that might/could limit/discourage participation, so against that backdrop and the widespread use of soccer boots the regulation is more often than not redundant at a practical level, and boot manufacturers also know this.

Insurance/Liability politics ensures that Reg 12 will always state the ultimate safety position, I'm not naieve enough to expect otherwise.

To this end, most match boot inspections are a selective & personal benchmarking & without much real value, a position that I believe AndyScott has also arrived at.

If individual referees believe otherwise, then all power to their elbow .....

ChrisR
16-08-14, 13:08
"For the most part, I let anything that's plastic go as long as it isn't sharp since a metal stud will have much more impact force than plastic studs."

Not sure where you're getting the data to support that.

chrismtl
16-08-14, 16:08
"For the most part, I let anything that's plastic go as long as it isn't sharp since a metal stud will have much more impact force than plastic studs."

Not sure where you're getting the data to support that.

Not sure where you're getting data that says PU has higher impact forces, tensile strength and specific strength than aluminum. Provide me with that data and I'll rescind my previous statement. Until the time when you can fabricate that data, I'll stick with my argument. There's a reason they make metal studs and not simply make longer PU stud. I'll give you a hint, it's because they would break and they wouldn't penetrate the ground as well.

While you may be thinking of the soles of the shoes, which can be made of nylon/fibreglass composites, and are always very hard, the studs are always made of a separate material. All you have to do is feel the materials and you'll see that the last 3-4mm of the stud are a different, softer material. That part is PU, or usually Thermoplastic Polyurethane because it is extremely resistant to impacts and abrasions.

beckett50
17-08-14, 18:08
iRB regulation 12 defines dangerous as being less than 10mm. Are you saying that when you checked them, they were clearly >10mm, but became worn down during the game to the uniform 2mm discovered after a player's leg was opened up by them?

fair point Dixie. However, when the need to not measure the studs came into being in about 2006, the iRB essentially put the onus on the boot (and other clothing manufacturers) to ensure the item complied with the full wording of Regulation 12. I see my duty as a ref as that of enduring the equipment is not dangerous.

I am not qualified, IMHO, to have a discussion as to the legality, or otherwise, of an item.

OB..
17-08-14, 20:08
I am not qualified, IMHO, to have a discussion as to the legality, or otherwise, of an item.Law 4.3 (a) clearly expects you to be sensible about it, not just wash your hands of the problem.

ChrisR
17-08-14, 22:08
Not sure where you're getting data that says PU has higher impact forces, tensile strength and specific strength than aluminum. Provide me with that data and I'll rescind my previous statement. Until the time when you can fabricate that data, I'll stick with my argument. There's a reason they make metal studs and not simply make longer PU stud. I'll give you a hint, it's because they would break and they wouldn't penetrate the ground as well.

While you may be thinking of the soles of the shoes, which can be made of nylon/fibreglass composites, and are always very hard, the studs are always made of a separate material. All you have to do is feel the materials and you'll see that the last 3-4mm of the stud are a different, softer material. That part is PU, or usually Thermoplastic Polyurethane because it is extremely resistant to impacts and abrasions.

I don't claim to have data that refutes your claim. I'm simply asking where you get your data that supports it.

Browner
17-08-14, 22:08
the iRB essentially put the onus on the boot manufacturers.... to ensure the item complied with the full wording of Regulation 12.

And the manufacturers have largely responded by definately labelling boots as rugby boots, however the majority of boots worn on rugby pitches worldwide aren't categorised as ' rugby boots ' (studs) hense the stud problem as per ( not exhaustive) the OP.

chrismtl
17-08-14, 22:08
I don't claim to have data that refutes your claim. I'm simply asking where you get your data that supports it.

I can't say I'm a materials engineer, so I can't give you numbers other than those you can find on the internet. Those clearly show that aluminum . It's hard to find comparative studies though and companies don't exactly say what specific types of alloys they use. I would also say that I would expect that a comparison of aluminum and TPU in the same shape would show that the aluminum would cut and not absorb as much of the impact force compared to the TPU.

As for my background, my family has owned Ski and Snowboard retail stores since I've been alive and I had the oportunity to work for one of our manufacturers in Italy for 4 months at which time I had the opportunity to work with TPU, PU, PP that were injected in-house plus other materials that were shipped pre-fabbed from other factories like aluminum buckles, steel skate blades, aluminum rollerblade hangars. I can tell you from handling all the materials in large pieces or once they were assembled that TPU is soft enough to put a nail into (it retains it's shape, but it's partially absorbing), something you can't do with any aluminum alloy that I know of. Give it a try yourself; grab your molded studs and try to put your nail into one of the stud tips, then grab some a pair of cleats with aluminum studs and try the same thing. If you have anything of good quality you'll be able to test it out. I just tried it with my Predator Incurza's and could put my nail in close to 0.5mm. I mean it might not sound like too much, but TPU is an anti-abrasive material, which means it won't have much friction when striking a player. Aluminum doesn't have this property. Anyways, like I said, I'm not an expert, but I do have a background that can allow me to make an educated statement.

The umpire
17-08-14, 23:08
I can't say I'm a materials engineer,
I can, I am, and you (general - not specifically getting at one you in particular) are not comparing apples and apples.


" since a metal stud will have much more impact force than plastic studs."

This is meaningless. Force = Mass x Acceleration. So while the impact force of a metal stud may well be more than for a PU stud if I threw one at you, once attached to a boot and a boot to a foot and a leg, any differences would be lost in the noise. Get stood on and all other things being equal, you wouldn't notice the difference.

T


I can tell you from handling all the materials in large pieces or once they were assembled that TPU is soft enough to put a nail into (it retains it's shape, but it's partially absorbing), something you can't do with any aluminum alloy that I know of. Give it a try yourself; grab your molded studs and try to put your nail into one of the stud tips,
Irrelevant, as no-one is trying to do that on the pitch. They are both much harder than skin and flesh.
In fact it is ther relative 'softness' of the PU which led to Al studs being the norm in rugby. PU, and other similar plastics are much more likely to be damaged in the course of a game/training/walking acrosss the concrete/gravel/tarmac/whatever to get to the pitch than Al. Indeed the clue is in the name - plastic! When it does get damaged it is more likely to form sharp edges; and it is these which are the major damage differentiator between the two.

beckett50
18-08-14, 22:08
Law 4.3 (a) clearly expects you to be sensible about it, not just wash your hands of the problem.

OB, do you have a bad ground in the press? That was a rather selective quote to use, since in my reply I had already stated that I see my duty as a ref to ensure the equipment isn't dangerous.

OB..
19-08-14, 12:08
That was a rather selective quote to use, since in my reply I had already stated that I see my duty as a ref to ensure the equipment isn't dangerous.The problem is in the meaning of the word "dangerous". It is surely safe to assume that the IRB regulations aim to prevent players wearing dangerous studs. Your approach uses your own definition of dangerous, which IMHO differs from theirs. I (and the IRB in my view) equate a significant reduction of the tip size with being dangerous.

Browner
19-12-14, 10:12
If you specifically ask your union/IRB about these ( or any other new to market design) , then I suspect you'll merely get a reply of "ref decides as per reg 12" .

They know fine well that these studs ( once sold in high volumes by the big brands) will find their way into rugby. I cant imagine any referee enjoying telling a schoolboy/grassroots player that he cant play & accordingly Andy Scotts approach is, i suspect, likely to be adopted by many.


Proof of the pudding is as they say " in the eating" ......

I did ask my RSoc about these, they in turn asked in asked the Union, and the reply was virtually as i predicted it would be ...... "ref decides as per reg 12"

Yep you got it , no uniformity, a player could be asked to remove one week, but allowed to wear the next, ...crikey the potential exists for a player to wear in one 7s match but not in the next match ...wtf! And boot buyers are merrily buying away in their droves!

So, ....... accordingly, Andy Scotts approach is, i suspect, likely to be adopted by many +1?!?!

crossref
19-12-14, 11:12
I can't really see what the fuss is here. regulation 12 is pretty clear - it says studs must be 10mm

If a stud is 4mm wide, or even pointed, I would expect any referee to notice and insist on a stud change, why is that difficult.

Yes, I can see that a 9mm stud presents a practical problem, but because you can't detect a 9mm stud, it doesn't follow that you should abdicate all responsibility.

Browner
19-12-14, 11:12
I can't really see what the fuss is here. regulation 12 is pretty clear - it says studs must be 10mm

If a stud is 4mm wide, or even pointed, I would expect any referee to notice and insist on a stud change, why is that difficult.

Yes, I can see that a 9mm stud presents a practical problem, but because you can't detect a 9mm stud, it doesn't follow that you should abdicate all responsibility.

Cmon Crossref, you must be able to see how a major boot manufacturer producing boots "with obviously non reg 12 compliant studs" that will increasingly be worn by players/children, where some referees through their diligence will permit and some won't, as a 'common policy' problem.

Or maybe your suggesting that the school team that arrives to play your next match with x6 of their 18 strong squad wearing these boots ( as the did for the last 6 week!) Will be happy to play with only 12 players and no replacements because they don't have any spare boots and you are being diligent ...... Or the opposition happy when said team jump back on the bus and head home in protest over your seemingly pedantic stance?

Leaving this subject weighing solely on the individual referee is ONLY acceptable IF a Society & RFU (other countries?, hey...this isn't a UK issue! ) will always support the referees diligent removal irrespective of the 'fixture or financial or player' consequences/fallout.

Will they?

I'm still trying to obtain evidence of such a guarantee.

crossref
19-12-14, 12:12
browner I have lost sight of what exactly is the change is that you want to happen?

are you arguing for the return of the IRB kite mark or similar? I would like that, but you still end up in the same place : referee checks the studs (yes, that check would be simpler) and if they aren't correct, insists on a change. you still will have the possibiity of boots/studs that DO have a kitemark but nevertheless are still dangerous (eg perhaps damaged) so referee judgement needed.

my experience is that every time I have ever actually objected to studs, the problem has been sorted out, either by changing studs or swapping boots. The last time I prohibited a youth player from wearing his boots, he borrowed and wore his coach's boots (and two pairs of socks :) )

ctrainor
19-12-14, 13:12
So why cant somebody come up with a cheap 10mm stud gauge that could be used as a quick guide before a debate?

OB..
19-12-14, 14:12
So why cant somebody come up with a cheap 10mm stud gauge that could be used as a quick guide before a debate?I may still have one that the RFU issued years ago.

crossref
19-12-14, 15:12
So why cant somebody come up with a cheap 10mm stud gauge that could be used as a quick guide before a debate?

I guess you could take one of these in your kitbag
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=10mm+spanner&safe=active&rls=com.microsoft:en-gb:IE-SearchBox&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBGB465&prmd=ivns&source=univ&tbm=shop&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=Qy-UVJKnJqjD7ga09YCIDw&ved=0CGUQsxg

Browner
19-12-14, 18:12
Browner I have lost sight of what exactly is the change is that you want to happen?


A 'wide' publicity to clubs /schools carrying full authoritative support from CBs RSoc & Union that players will be turned away from matches if these Nike 5-8mm studs are presented 'irrespective' of consequence.

These studs are relatively new to market, and the penetration levels within rugby will surely only increase.
If A RSoc won't support such a 'clarification' campaign, then a full indemnity to referees from the RSoc for any injury sustained when they are worn & we both know that the latter won't be forthcoming.

tim White
19-12-14, 19:12
So why cant somebody come up with a cheap 10mm stud gauge that could be used as a quick guide before a debate?

It is roughly the same size as the tip of your little finger, Simples!