Mark Shield takes a stand on Jewelry [R]

[MassachusettsRef]

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=346864&cc=5901

Is this going too far? Is Shield at fault for being too rigid, or are previous refs at fault for being too lenient? And is there a place for common sense here?

Perhaps most importantly, maybe our Australian posters can enlighten us as to whether or not there is more to this whole story, which I kind of feel (or maybe hope) that there might be.

[Statesman]

Definitely more to this story, but traditionally wedding rings haven't been an issue so long as they are smooth. Women obviously can't play with them unless they have a broke husband...

But, as you say MassRef, there's probably more to the story than just Mark Shield not allowing the guys to wear rings.

[refontherun]

Maybe he has been reading this board and the comments about how the double standard in the pros makes it more difficult for us to enforce the standard at the lower levels.

[Laggard]

Anyone see Liverpool's Garcia a couple weeks back trying to get past having to take his ring off? The 4th told him he'd have to take it off before entering the field. When no one's looking Garcia puts the ring in his mouth. When on the field he puts it back on. Poll saw the trick and made him get rid of it before play restarted.

Reading the article, it's hard to believe that a player who's been playing that long would not know about the no jewelry law.

[blind_clown]

Just a reminder to USSF referees that a smooth wedding band is allowed. ATR quote not possible thanks to greed in Chicago.

[Laggard]

Just a reminder to USSF referees that a smooth wedding band is allowed. ATR quote not possible thanks to greed in Chicago.

I have a question. Everything I've been taught has lead me to believe that I referee under FIFA's LOTG. All my USSF training used LOTG. Though our state organization adds some restrictions and rules, none of them usurp FIFA. No where in the LOTG does it differentiate between smooth and jagged rings.

No wonder players are confused.

I'm confused.

From FIFA:

All items of jewellery are potentially dangerous. The term “dangerous” can sometimes be ambiguous and controversial, therefore in order to be uniform and consistent any kind of jewellery has to be forbidden.

[chrisrun]

Just a reminder to USSF referees that a smooth wedding band is allowed. ATR quote not possible thanks to greed in Chicago.
See Position Paper for quote:

http://www.ussoccer.com/templates/includes/services/referees/pdfs/position_papers/Law4_Jewelry.PDF

[JohnR]

How can a wedding ring be dangerous and Edgar Davids' eyewear be safe?

[Laggard]

How can a wedding ring be dangerous and Edgar Davids' eyewear be safe?

Well Edgar Davids isn't safe to begin with, so they probably figure that his eyewear couldn't be much worse.

[blind_clown]

I have a question. Everything I've been taught has lead me to believe that I referee under FIFA's LOTG. All my USSF training used LOTG. Though our state organization adds some restrictions and rules, none of them usurp FIFA. No where in the LOTG does it differentiate between smooth and jagged rings.

No wonder players are confused.

I'm confused.

From FIFA:

All items of jewellery are potentially dangerous. The term “dangerous” can sometimes be ambiguous and controversial, therefore in order to be uniform and consistent any kind of jewellery has to be forbidden.

The best answer is USSF, not FIFA, decides what happens to you so listen to them. If that's not good enough for you, you could try asking around up top.

[Laggard]

The best answer is USSF, not FIFA, decides what happens to you so listen to them. If that's not good enough for you, you could try asking around up top.

Thanks, Clown. So, what is the relationship betwen FIFA, the USSF and our state association? Does our state organization and the USSF have any responsibilities towards FIFA? If not, I'm still trying to figure out why the USSF hands out a FIFA lawbook.

[JohnR]

Well Edgar Davids isn't safe to begin with, so they probably figure that his eyewear couldn't be much worse.

:D

Actually, indirectly that's a pretty good point. We're worrying about jewelry when guys are leaping at each other at high speeds? I'm with Paul Gardner on this one, take a hard line on tackles from behind and you'll save many more careers than you will by forcing players to remove jewelry.

[MassachusettsRef]

Thanks, Clown. So, what is the relationship betwen FIFA, the USSF and our state association? Does our state organization and the USSF have any responsibilities towards FIFA? If not, I'm still trying to figure out why the USSF hands out a FIFA lawbook.Each national federation is responsible for managing and instruction of their referees. As such, the federations are also responsible for interpretation of the laws. That's why you see minor discrepancies from country-to-country.

When there's a widespread discrepancy causing misinterpretations, FIFA issues a clarifying circular or edits its "Questions and Answers on the LOTG" document. Those documents are binding on the federations. So, while the federations are still responsible for interpreting them, they cannot contradict them.

The ATR is the general instructions and law interpretations of the USSF. Position papers and memoranda are also binding on referees in USSF.

The responsibility of the state associations is to implement the federation's teachings. If you wanted to get real nit-picky, each State Director of Instruction (SDI) is responsible for clearing up any confusion from the national level, so there could be small discrepancies amongst the states--but that's theoretically not supposed to happen, as their are national conventions where all SDIs and SDAs gather and are instructed with the exact same material.

[Laggard]

So, while the federations are still responsible for interpreting them, they cannot contradict them.


So then the USSF is contradicting FIFA on wearing of rings?

[MassachusettsRef]

So then the USSF is contradicting FIFA on wearing of rings?I didn't say, or mean to imply, that was the case.

The USSF has decided/interpreted that wedding rings do not constitute "jewelry". So long as they are not inherently dangerous, they are allowed. FIFA has not made a fuss over this. If this became a huge issue, with different countries interpreting it different ways--or, if FIFA thought the US interpretation was particularly baseless--you'd see a clarification (and probably a behind-the-scenes reprimand) come down from FIFA.

[Ref Flunkie]

The ATR is the general instructions and law interpretations of the USSF. Position papers and memoranda are also binding on referees in USSF.


I know I'm beating a dead horse/preaching to the choir/etc., but this is why it is such a crock that USSF charges for the ATR and does not hand them out. They shouldn't be upset when referees take it upon themselves to make law interpretations.

[Englishref]

In England, wedding rings are the only form of jewellry (other than charity wristbands made of rubber) allowed to be worn, however, it must be taped up.

The Aussie Football Association must have just said all jewellry is banned and Shield is following their instructions, whilst seemingly, his colleagues aren't. :rolleyes:

[Caesar]

In Australia, the national refereeing directive regarding jewellery at present is flat wedding bands and medical bracelets/necklaces are the only acceptable items and they must be taped.

However, Mark Sheild was acting on a recent memo from Football Federation Australia to A-League (our top league) clubs. It reads as follows (sorry, don't have a source - it was emailed to me by an A-League assistant referee):

Dear Clubs

This ACM is to clarify Match Officials interpretations regarding to jewellery. With priority, please disseminate this information to all Players, Team Officials and respective Football Operations staff.

“FIFA LAWS OF THE GAME

LAW 4 - PLAYERS' EQUIPMENT

SAFETY - A player must not use equipment or wear anything that is dangerous to himself or another player (including any kind of jewellery).”

At the recent Confederations Cup (Germany) and the Youth World Championships (Netherlands), FIFA was very strict in enforcing this Law.

Therefore, for the Pre-Season Cup and Hyundai A-League Regular Season, all players must remove all items of jewellery prior to entering the Field of Play.

This includes anti-discrimination bands, leather necklaces and any other loose wristbands.

The taping of jewellery is no longer allowed (including earrings and wedding rings).
(my emphasis)

This was followed up by a press release yesterday:

FFA Media Release
Monday 24 October 2005
CLARIFICATION REGARDING PLAYERS WEARING JEWELLERY

Following yesterday's Round 9 Hyundai A-League match between Perth Glory and Melbourne Victory, Football Federation Australia wish to confirm the regulations concerning the wearing of jewellery during a match.

FIFA's Laws of the Game (Law 4 - The Player's Equipment) state that the wearing of jewellery of any kind is not allowed and furthermore that taping jewellery is also not permitted.

This instruction was included in the 2005 FIFA Laws of the Game book and a memo detailing such was passed onto all Hyundai A-League clubs prior to the commencement of the Hyundai A-League Pre-Season Cup.

"Yesterday's situation involving Damian Mori was unfortunate however we are obliged to operate the competition strictly in accordance with the Laws of the Game and under FIFA's instruction," says FFA Head of Operations Matt Carroll.

"The onus is on the clubs and players to ensure that they comply with the Laws of the Game."

In response to media comments regarding the respective coaches of Queensland Roar and Adelaide United, Carroll said,

"The clubs are responsible for the actions and behaviour of their coaches and players and therefore the FFA requires the clubs to take appropriate action. If the sanctions are not to FFA's approval then we reserve the right to intervene.

"The FFA reviews all matches following each round as part of our weekly review and if it is felt action is necessary contact will be made with the clubs."

At present, we (i.e. referees in Australia) are advised that this is A-League policy only, and that the national directive allowing taping of wedding bands and medical bracelets/necklaces is applicable until the National Referees Commission discusses the matter in further detail, and considers changes to the national policy.

[MassachusettsRef]

At the recent Confederations Cup (Germany) and the Youth World Championships (Netherlands), FIFA was very strict in enforcing this Law.If this is the pretext for the Australian FA coming down as they have, then it's possible we might see a clarification from FIFA at some point. Remember the whole controversy of the playing being sent off in a USMNT qualifier with a second caution for something to do with jewelry? FIFA might very well be cracking down universally. Will be interesting to see what happens next year at the World Cup.

And, for the record, I don't think this is a good thing. I'm in the camp of 'let's eliminate tackles from behind and professional fouls before wedding bands'. FIFA has better things to worry about than whether or not every federation is restricting jewelry in the exact same fashion. And from a practical sense, I don't want to be telling amateur players that they have to take their wedding rings off--it's hard enough getting them to remove ear rings and chains.

[Statesman]

It's hard enough getting amateur players to remove their knives and brass knucks..