Was discussing this with some colleagues and couldn't come to consensus. The NFHS rules state that in the case of a player being illegally equipped, the head coach is shown the first yellow card, and every additional incident the card goes to the player. So, let us assume that a coach is cautioned for dissent in the first half of a game. Then in the second half he sends in a sub who didn't play the first half, and comes out with earrings in. This is the first incident for this team of illegal equipment. Do you now show the coach the yellow, and then of course disqualify him with the red for a 2ct? Or is there a provision for another way to deal with this in the NFHS rules? It's especially difficult in states like mine where coaches who are disqualified have to drive to the state capitol, pay a $100 fine, and take an anger management seminar.
Red card. Sorry coach, should probably check the next time you attest to your players being legally and properly equipped.
If you feel guilty you didn't check the players before the game, I suppose you could offer to pay for the commute. If the player put in the earrings after the check, well, that is between him and his coach.
In our area at least, we're instructed not to inspect the players before the game. That's the coach's job. If he sends them out, well that's unfortunate for him.
That's unacceptable. Safety is always the referee's responsibility. What the league instructs the coach to do is irrelevant.
Take it up with NFHS and the state associations. As I recall it was their decisions to no longer to formal check in of players in high school. Onus now falls on the coach. If not NFHS I know for a fact that my state as well says this.
I know what the policy is, but they can't keep you from doing it. It is foolish not to check. First, safety, especially at the HS level is a top priority. But secondly, all of your protections disappear if you don't at least check. I can see it now. Q: Mr. X, you've been a referee for how many years? A: 6 Q: And in your 6 years you've reffed hundreds of games? A: Yes. Q. You're certified? A. Yes Q. You attend seminars? A. Yes Q. And your training, certification, seminars, etc., discuss player safety? A. Yes Q: Now, FIFA LotG state "ensures that the players’ equipment meets the requirements of Law 4", You are familiar with the LotG? A: Yes Q. One of the rules is that players can not where jewelry. A. Yes Q. And that is because jewelry can cause injury. A. Yes Q. Yes, had you ever seen a high school girl wear jewelry? A. Yes Q. And if you notice it while officiating, what do you do? A. Have them remove it. Q. And that's because it can be dangerous? A. Yes. Q. And you knew that from the years of experience, training, certification, seminars, you had attended prior to officiating on the night of X? A. Yes. Q. Now, on that night, you were officiating the game between Y & Z? A. Yes. Q. And my client was playing for Z when she had a finger amputated by a necklace worn by a player on Y A. Yes. Q. Now did you see the necklace that amputated the finger? A. Yes. Q. When did you first see it. A. When the injury occurred? Q. Did you see it in your pregame inspection? A. I didn't do a pregame inspection. Q. Why not. A. NFHS says that's the coach's duty. Q. You've been hired to referee a game between high school kids and you didn't bother to check for the safety of their equipment. A. But it wasn't my duty. Q. Well, you realize high school girls tend to wear jewelry right? A. Yes Q. And you already told us jewelry can be a danger on the soccer field? A. Yes Q. So you new there was a possibility that someone could be injured if a player were to wear jewelry on the field? A. Yes. Q. And yet you didn't bother to take a moment to check? A. No. Q. No further questions. You are asking for trouble if you allow others to usurp your duty of safety. If the NFHS were to say coaches are responsible for checking the nets for safety, would you skip that also? Think about it. At best, coaches can be lazy and simply not care. At worst, they willfully ignore rules. When someone gets hurt in YOUR game, it's too late to point the finger at the coach.
This is where your argument falls apart. If you're asked this question in a courtroom you will have discussed this question with your lawyer and be prepared to answer plus your lawyer will object. Your protections don't disappear if you followed the written rules. How can they? The coach works for the school district and will be the one on the hot seat. The school district also has more money than you.
Do I look at the players' equipment both before and during the game? Yes. Am I going to be the only HS ref in the state of Georgia who goes against our explicit instructions and lines the players up and does a formal pregame inspection? No.
Sport Billy, the whole thing falls apart when you mention LotG. A NFHS game is simply not played under under the LotG and therefore the duties ascribed to the referee under the LotG are irrelevant. The NFHS rules ascribe the duty of being legally and properly equipped to the coach and then secondly to the player. The referee has no duty beyond getting an assurance of compliance from the coach and penalizing infractions. To the OP, don't feel bad about disqualifying the coach. He's earned both yellows and he knows the consequences of doing so.
What a difference a line on a map can make! In FL, we not only do pre-game checks, but we do very anal ones. This year we are actually looking at each individual shinguard for the necessary seal.
I'll be interested to see what our instructions are on that this year, although probably not much different than last, which was more or less, if the shin guard looks suspiciously small under the sock, ask to see it.
Do you make your ARs check the goals before each half? (I do, because I once had the sandbags disappear at halftime.)
Its no different than if you walk the field and a kid slips and falls on a piece of glass that you missed. Are they going to want to hold you accountable, yes, are they going to succeed, no. Not reasonable to have checked every inch of the field. "So while no we didn't do a formal player by player check in, as per our employers rules we did do a simple walk through inspection. We didn't see anything on this walk through and then as per our employers rules the coaches attested that all their players were legally and properly equipped." Your due diligence as an NFHS referee is fulfilled by a cursory check and the simple question, its as simple as that.
First, rule 4, "Section 3 COACHES' RESPONSIBILITIES Each head coach shall be responsible for ensuring that each of his/her players is properly and legally equipped." It then proceeds to describe the penalties and procedures if players are not properly and legally equipped. In NFHS, the coaches are the ones primarily responsible to see that the players are properly and legally equipped, not the referees. That is certainly not the way it is in FIFA or even NCAA, but that is the way it is in NFHS. Please remember that high school students are legally minors and cannot consent to assume the risks of playing with improper equipment. The coaches are their supervisors. Therefore, the coaches are responsible, by rule. Second, NFHS rules provide for the referee(s) to enforce all of the rules, including those requiring certain equipment to be worn in certain ways, etc. Different states, clearly, have adopted different ways of doing that. In my personal opinion, having a look before the game is just preventive officiating. But it is certainly within the right of your state to decide otherwise. I know that we have received a proposal or two that players must be legally and properly equipped by a certain time before the game starts (i.e. to allow referees to check players before the game), but those ideas have received little discussion. Third, a pre-game 'inspection' does not need to be a U-8 style line up, 'show me your cleats' thing. I can take care of most problems with a simple, quiet "Don't forget to take the ear rings out before we get started" thing. IMHE, that takes care of 95% of the potential issues, before anybody even thinks there is an issue. The rest are teenage boys. YMMV.
But my point is that just because the NFHS says it is the coach's responsibility doesn't mean a referee shouldn't make it their responsibility also. Ignoring it and stating "If [the coach] sends them out, well that's unfortunate for him" is asinine. Sure, it maybe unfortunate for the coach because he could get a caution. How about the kid that loses an eye or a finger? Is it unfortunate for him also? Regardless of what the NFHS says, we are responsible for taking reasonable efforts to assure safety. Is checking every inch for glass reasonable? No. Is doing a cursory check to make certain there are no dangerous equipment violations reasonable? Yes.
Forgive me, but who's being asinine here? The referee has done at the very least a cursory check to have discovered the illegal equipment in order to penalize the coach in the first place. No one's saying to turn a blind eye to it, but the responsibility for ensuring compliance is the coach's.
I think perhaps we are getting a little heated here. Billy, I don't think anyone is saying complete ignore looking at players and go about your business. That being said a cursory check is just that, cursory. You look at a few people as you check the field and walk by the team warming up. Nothing more. Clearly NFHS is trying to make the coaches do more to make sure the teams are properly equipped and make it so the referee doesn't have to be the bad guy.
For others who don't know: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tmi I thought TMI meant Three Mile Island.
To the OP, yes issue the coach a 2nd CT and then a red. The coach should have done two things differently--1. not misbehave and earn a caution for dissent and 2. check the equipment of his players better. My state does exactly what Law5 says. As we check the field and the goals, we take a cursory look at the kids warming up. However, we cannot have them remove anything during the warmup period as the rule is for PLAYERS DURING THE GAME, so it doesn't apply to the warmup on the field prior to the kick-off. The kids are actually allowed to wear jewelry during this time and according to the NFHS rules, the referees shouldn't do anything about it. Once the game starts, the referee has the duty to remove any players who have dangerous items and to properly sanction the player or the head coach. Only a few years ago, each time a player had jewelry the card went to the coach and this caused several coaches to be disqualified. The rule was changed to what it is now because of that. Also the team could NOT substitute and had to play short temporarily for illegal equipment offenses. That too has been changed. Personally, I don't like it that the first player gets off with a freebie under the current rule. I believe that the NFHS committee should change the rule to have a caution issued to BOTH the Head Coach and the offending player on the first instance and then to just the player for all subsequent infractions. This would make there be a consistent penalty to the players for illegal equipment. For example: Why should #5 get a second CT and sent-off for jewelry in the 2nd half, then (in my state) miss the next game, when #3 only had to go out of the game for a few minutes ten minutes earlier when he was wearing a necklace and the Head Coach took the card? That is woefully inconsistent and lacking in balance.
Massachusetts has the addition of any dismissed coach means termination of the game, which results in a forfeit for the team that has the dismissed coach. Combine the two, and you can end up for ending a game for piece of jewelry. But that being said, the coach has already earned his yellow card, so how far is he or she from being dismissed as it is?