PDA

View Full Version : SmartPower Profiler stud set



Phil E
28-02-18, 17:02
Apologies if these have been covered before, but Lovell Rugby have just emailed me with an advert for these. Would you allow them?

Profiler Studs Link (https://www.lovell-rugby.co.uk/shop/Collection/Smartpower-Studs?utm_source=Lovell+Rugby+UK&utm_campaign=d45371582b-Rugby_Round-Up_Newsletter_Jan_V12_09_01_18&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_df2435344b-d45371582b-194509189&mc_cid=d45371582b&mc_eid=bb75a27691)

3706
3707

chbg
28-02-18, 18:02
Beat me to it Phil!

This should put much of the argument to bed - "Approved World Rugby" written on the box of the 18mm set. "as worn by England prop Joe Marler (well, that doesn't persuade me) and All Black's Ben Franks." But also "Although legal, it's best to check with the referee of your league to confirm their opinion."

crossref
28-02-18, 18:02
If they weren't 25 I would buy a set and take them to my next society meeting..

Shelflife
01-03-18, 14:03
They are legal, asked the question when they came out first and was told that they were.

They look horrible and dangerous though.

crossref
01-03-18, 14:03
What's the mechanism by which someone can ask if studs are legal ? Who do you ask, is there a WR hotline ?

Shelflife
02-03-18, 15:03
I brought it up at our society meeting. Our "boss" an international ref told us that WR had approved them and that was all that mattered.

beckett50
02-03-18, 15:03
Well, not on my pitch.

"The Referee is the sole judge of fact" and I judge those to be fu@$ing dangerous

Shelflife
02-03-18, 16:03
I was of the same opinion Beckett50 but was told that unless there was a deformity in the stud that made it dangerous then I was obliged to let them use them.

crossref
02-03-18, 16:03
I brought it up at our society meeting. Our "boss" an international ref told us that WR had approved them and that was all that mattered.

My understanding is that WR don't actually give opinions on particular studs.

WR publish the regulations and manufacturers self-certify that their studs meet them - not by meeting the specs, but by virtue of being no more dangerous than a stud that does meet the specs.

Hence the problem

Happy to be corrected - can anyone point me an actual example of World Rugby stating that a specific stud is OK ?
I don't mean this stud -- any stud -- and any example perhaps on a website, or perhaps an original email from WR?

Christy
02-03-18, 16:03
http://playerwelfare.worldrugby.org/content/getfile.php?h=21974c3ae428b671604976ce312ff245&p=pdfs/World_Rugby_Regulation12_EN.pdf

I cant see how they comply ( hopefully link will work )
When you eventually scroll down to the picture of a stud .
Read the page above it .as printed next

Materials used in the studs/cleats should be such that they do not
give rise to hazards as a result of mechanisms such as abrasion or
impacts in wear; or through any other form of damage or
deterioration. Materials used in replaceable studs/cleats should be
capable of repeated fixing and removal without creating a hazard.
Nylon has been found previously not to be a suitable material due to
its propensity to burring.
Shape and
Dimensions
Stud/cleat length shall be no greater than 21 mm (see Law 4).
Studs/cleats complying with the design and dimensions shown in
Figure 1 should give satisfactory performance.
The shape and dimensions of other stud/cleat designs should be
such that they present a no greater risk of injury to another player
than the stud/cleat shown in figure 1. Tests A and B can be used to
assess comparative performance.
The plan view cross-sectional contact area of the stud/cleat shown in
Figure 1 at a plane 2 mm below the tip is 78 mm2
. Other studs/cleats
having the same or greater contact area might be expected to give
satisfactory performance dependent on minimum stud/cleat width in
any direction.
All edges of the studs/cleats should be finished smooth and rounded
to a radius of not less than 1mm.
Construction
and design
The edge profile of the sole unit itself should be rounded with no
sharp edges.
The studs/cleats should have no external projections on its surface
except where text or a logo is desired. In such cases, the
embossment details shall be no more than 0.3 mm proud of the
surrounding material of the stud.
The studs/cleats and their attachment should be capable of
withstanding mechanical demands of service, including impacts and
abrasive wear, without becoming damaged and creating a potential
hazard. Performance can be assessed by means of tests C, D and E.
In the case of studs/cleats incorporating a spigot or similar, it is
recommended that:
(a) when the attachment spigot is of a different material from the
stud/cleat, a clearly visible warning should become evident when the
stud/cleat has worn down to a length that gives a minimum of 2 mm
cover to the end of the spigot.
(b) Any flutes or other recesses for the fixing tool, should not extend
nearer to the tip of the stud/cleat than the clearly visible warning
mark.
Replaceable studs/cleats should be designed in such a way that they
can be fitted by a method that does not damage the stud/cleat and
thereby introduce a cutting hazard or any other hazard.

To me it basically says studs have to conform to diameters & picture of actuall stud .
And studs that dont meet this minimum standard , simply dont comply ..

Ive never seen them ,,i wouldnt allow them .

Can somebody show whete world rugby have approved same .
When the ski masks ( i mean rugby goggles ) got approval ,,we were all sent clarification about same .
I dont recall been given clarification about these studs ..

crossref
02-03-18, 16:03
we have done this before -- but the key bits are

Studs of players’ boots must conform to the “Safety Aspects of Rugby
Boot Sole Design” set out below:” (Appendix 2 hereto)

The following guidelines provide guidance on the design, dimensions and
performance of rugby studs/cleats. Suitable performance tests are
suggested which can be used to evaluate the performance of new
stud/cleat designs

The performance criterion for tests A and B is that the stud/cleat be
evaluated should cause no greater damage to the artificial skin than the
reference stud/cleat defined in Figure 1 above

SmartPower will tell you they have performed some tests and their profiler studs caused no greater damage than the reference stud. Hence they meet the regulation, hence they are 'world rugby approved'

Note that they don't even have to perform those exact tests, which are only suggested tests. Just some tests.

Taff
02-03-18, 17:03
.... Note that they don't even have to perform those exact tests, which are only suggested tests. Just some tests.
Back in my my school playing days, we used to compare boots to see which one we preferred to be "raked" by. Do we still have "raking"? Back then, the Adidas Cap boot (with the single toe stud at the front) came out bottom, which may explain why the single toe stud was banned for years.

My test would be.


Here is a boot with standard issue Regulation 12 studs in it - specifying minimum width, maximum length etc.
Here is an identical boot with the new SmartPower Profiler studs in it.
Now, lay on the ground and pretend you are making a nuisance of yourself at the bottom of a Ruck and Mr Tank here is going to show you the error of your ways.
Which one hurts most?

If the answer is "To be honest, one was no worse than the other" then crack on - they've passed the test.

If the answer is "If you're going to do that again, can I have the standard issue studs please" - they've failed the test.

crossref
02-03-18, 18:03
I think the law should be that everyone wears standard studs

Pinky
02-03-18, 20:03
I think the law should be that everyone wears standard studs

Whilst I agree with this, this battle was lost in the late 90s when Adidas went in to bat in favour of Predator Blades and the then IRB allowed them.

crossref
02-03-18, 20:03
Not too late to change

Taff
02-03-18, 21:03
I think the law should be that everyone wears standard studs
For what it's worth, I agree.


Whilst I agree with this, this battle was lost in the late 90s when Adidas went in to bat in favour of Predator Blades and the then IRB allowed them.
The IRB / WR has changed it's mind once; it can change it again. I would phase in any changes, eg Standard Issue Regulation 12 studs only from 2020.

crossref
03-03-18, 09:03
For what it's worth, I agree.


The IRB / WR has changed it's mind once; it can change it again. I would phase in any changes, eg Standard Issue Regulation 12 studs only from 2020.

I think it could say
On all boots where studs are changeable, standard studs immediately
On boots where the studs can't be changed , a years grace period

TheBFG
03-09-19, 14:09
Sorry to dig this one up from so long ago, but allegedly WR were going to release a statement on these studs, has anyone ever seen it?

I see these doing the rounds again on Twitter, but think they've just regenerated the old story, but they rely on "someone at WR stated they were legal and would be issuing a statement"...……..?

ctrainor
03-09-19, 21:09
Thanks BFG for digging this up.
About to embark on the season here where half the players have been playing RL all summer.
I don't believe there are any clear guidelines that are easily understood for what is legal footwear.
About time there was

beckett50
04-09-19, 11:09
Thanks BFG for digging this up.
I don't believe there are any clear guidelines that are easily understood for what is legal footwear.
About time there was

Regulation 12 covers clothing - including boots and can be found buried in the RFU website.

Remember that you, as the referee, are the sole arbiter of fact. If you deem the footwear to be dangerous and unacceptable then the player must accept your decision.

As referees WE are the only people on a rugby field covered by 3rd Party Liability Insurance and so liable to be in the firing line of some ambulance chasing lawyer or 'where there's a claim, there's a blame' phone line.

crossref
04-09-19, 11:09
If what you are worried about is 3rd party liability , then your best protection is probably to (in all good faith) judge the studs safe.

Judging one set of studs dangerous can open questions about why this other set here were passed...or were they missed out

mcroker
05-11-19, 15:11
Beat me to it Phil!

This should put much of the argument to bed - "Approved World Rugby" written on the box of the 18mm set. "as worn by England prop Joe Marler (well, that doesn't persuade me) and All Black's Ben Franks." But also "Although legal, it's best to check with the referee of your league to confirm their opinion."

Our soc. proactively sent us guidance that they have been approved by WR, but NOT by RFU - and therefore they were not legal.