Which Nike Maxsight contact lens?

[Wreave]

(sorry for long post, key points in bold if you want to skip the backstory)

Well, it looks like I'm finally getting contacts. My vision's been getting worse for a little more than five years now. I've had glasses, which I wear occasionally (movies, night driving, the mall), and have also had prescription sunglasses which have been great for refereeing.

However, my sunglasses broke, and having to wear glasses refereeing was a real pain last year.

The real kicker, though, has been in not being able to see the TV well if I am not wearing my glasses. I don't even normally carry them with me, and it's a pain not being able to read the channel guide or the game score without getting closer or going to get my glasses. I was thinking about getting contacts just to wear for skiing/refereeing/other outdoor sports, but it looks like I should just bite the bullet, admit I'm getting older, and start wearing contacts so I can see all day long.

Part of my reluctance, I guess, is in just admitting that I am not as young as I used to be, and that my body is starting to show its age. My dad has worn contacts for as long as I can remember, and though I've gracefully accepted some of the elements of growing older, this one has been hard. I always had better-than-perfect vision, so facing the facts on that hasn't been easy.

Regardless, I'm wearing a trial set now, and expect to end up wearing contacts all the time. It is what it is.

So, facing that reality (sorry for the long post), I'm looking at getting a box of the Nike Maxsight tinted lenses. For long days on the field, having sunglasses sure has been nice. Sunglasses are somewhat frowned upon for referees, though I've always gotten away with it by a) "they're prescription" and b) taking them off whenever I talk to anyone. I suppose b) still applies, but I now only have a cheap pair that don't seem nearly as appropriate for refereeing (I'm only an aspiring 7, but I try to look good under the "fake it till you make it" policy).

It's really a two-part question:

1. Are sports-tinted contact lenses any more or less appropriate than sunglasses? The athletes are starting to wear them, and I have heard of some referees that wear them. However, in at least one case, many parents didn't know what they were for, and thought the referee was wearing tinted lenses for appearance purposes.

The main issue with this is that they make the eyes look weird. I believe the amber tint makes the eyes look red. Not sure about the grey-green, which might be more natural-looking. It's easy to take off your sunglasses to have an eye-to-eye with a player. However, if your eyes looking funny are a distraction, there's no quick fix for that.

2. Which color is the right color? The chart says amber for soccer (and other ball sports) as it's designed to help you pick up a fast-moving ball. However, that's obviously from a playing, not refereeing perspective. Truthfully, though I enjoy most of the sports listed, I'm not often playing a ball sport. I run (grey-green) and do some other outdoor activities like hiking/camping, frisbee, etc.

http://www.see2020now.com/maxsight/

Does anyone else use these lenses? Which color, or have you tried both?

Would love to hear from anyone with experience with these lenses - either wearing them, or even having seen/talked to any referees or players who use them.

I am 34 years old (35 in March) and do youth games, primarily U14-U19 rec.

[Tarheel Ref]

Hello, Wreave...long time no write...we first crossed paths on our local NC soccer board where you helped me with a few issues. I hope you're enjoying your new home state of Colorado and that all is well for you and your family (except, apparently, this vision issue!).

I've worn contact lenses since I was about 13 years old and don't even own a pair of glasses. I hate the idea of wearing glasses to ref since that would only give folks another obvious reason for some catcalls. The amber lenses are, IMHO, outstanding! I was given a sample pair by my optometrist and I LOVE THEM!!! I must say that I haven't used them during a match but I have worn them during some extremely bright days and they're great. I play golf and tried the green ones as well but they seemed kinda strange...of course I was in the middle of a city and there was no grass to be seen but but the amber ones worked better, in my mind, than advertised.

Very bright sunlight causes actual pain for me sometimes, and I asked my eye doctor about this since I work with some African and Middle Eastern refs who seem completely unfazed by the bright sunlight. She explained that what I experienced was a normal reaction based on pigment and a host of other scientific reasons that I don't remember. The amber lenses allow me to look in the general direction of the sun without squinting or feeling the need to either close my eyes or look away...two reactions that could cause many problems for a referee on the soccer field, for obvious reasons.

I haven't tried them in match conditions, although I carry them with my ref kit, because I don't want to try them in a higher-level match first and haven't run across a super-bright sunny day yet on those occasions where I'm working with the younger kids. From the experience I've had just wearing them around on sunny days, I can't see how they could be anything but helpful. The AMBER, not the GREEN.

Reading numbers on the players' backs is something that I've heard could be a problem as some colors conflict or have little in the way of contrast...but that's gotta be better, in my mind, than missing something because you found yourself all of a sudden looking toward the sun and squinting or looking away. Yes they make your eyes look weird...but if you don't look in the mirror it won't bother you!

I'd be interested to know what you find after using them for a match.

[Wreave]

Thanks buddy. Yes, I remembered you as soon as I saw your name on the reply. I still post on nc-soccer.net from time to time - haven't found a good local board here in CO yet.

So you're saying amber. Interesting.

It does look like I can get a free sample... the question is whether I can get one free sample of each color! Maybe I'll try writing Nike.

[Tarheel Ref]

I would think that you could get a sample of each...when I got my sample I thought my eye doctor was being generous and helpful by giving me a pair to keep (which, of course, she was, but...) but later I saw an ad from Nike saying that you could get a free sample just by asking for one. Worst case scenario...ask another optometrist, too...most clinics have more than one eye doctor working there.

The samples are "30-day" lenses which, for our purposes of wearing them just a few hours at a time, should last much longer than 30 days as advertised. I've had mine for almost a year now and they only have about 15 hours of use so far.

[USSF REF]

In my humble opinion - working as a technician in a Neurology/Ophthalmology practice... those lenses always make me think the person who wears them has their eyes dilated. Dilated eyes often mean either a person is ill, stoned/high/under some influence, or that they had their eyes dilated by a doctor (which causes a temporary drop in visual acuity). All of which, I've always felt were bad things.

Welcome back Wreave.

[Tarheel Ref]

In my humble opinion - working as a technician in a Neurology/Ophthalmology practice... those lenses always make me think the person who wears them has their eyes dilated. Dilated eyes often mean either a person is ill, stoned/high/under some influence, or that they had their eyes dilated by a doctor (which causes a temporary drop in visual acuity). All of which, I've always felt were bad things.

Welcome back Wreave.

Do you have some sort of scientific study to support this theory of dilated eyes? I'm NOT trying to dispute your theory at all (and your profession certainly gives you more insight than my anecdotal evidence)...just interested in any scientific proof/theories about this "dilated pupils" issue. The last thing I'd want to do is give rise to some serious reason to dispute a match should I eventually happen to wear them while refereeing.

I found that the Maxsight lenses of the same prescription as my regular (clear) lenses seemed to give me sharper, better focused vision than my normal lenses. I did notice while looking in the mirror that my pupils seemed a little different than normal, but I chalked that up to the whole "devil's red eye" thing as my whole eye (both of 'em) just looked weird.

[USSF REF]

Do you have some sort of scientific study to support this theory of dilated eyes? I'm NOT trying to dispute your theory at all (and your profession certainly gives you more insight than my anecdotal evidence)...just interested in any scientific proof/theories about this "dilated pupils" issue. The last thing I'd want to do is give rise to some serious reason to dispute a match should I eventually happen to wear them while refereeing.

I found that the Maxsight lenses of the same prescription as my regular (clear) lenses seemed to give me sharper, better focused vision than my normal lenses. I did notice while looking in the mirror that my pupils seemed a little different than normal, but I chalked that up to the whole "devil's red eye" thing as my whole eye (both of 'em) just looked weird.

The "devil's red eye" thing that you see in photographs is caused by the natural dilatation of the eyes under subdued lighting. Then once one uses a camera flash the light is reflected off the back of the inside of the person's eye ball - this is typically of a reddish tint - and then the person shows what you call "red eye". Naturally a person will have dilated eyes in this scenario, as the eye is attempting to allow more light to enter through the iris (like a camera apature).

Cameras that have "red eye reduction" fire off a series of bright light bursts just before taking the flash photo, these burts cause the brain to tell the eyes to constrict to "protect" them from the new bursts of light that are bombarding them, and by the time the photo is taken the pupils are small enough to prevent the appearance of "red eye".

I can pull up studies for you, and while every one has naturally different sized pupils - widely dilated pupils are usually a sign that something is up... cops look for this a lot when pulling a person over -- one of the many reasons they shine the flash light right into your eyes.

I wouldn't worry about a match being sucessfully protested over this, as all you do is explain that you're wearing special neutral density contacts and people should be satisfied, but first impressions can be very important sometimes.

[falcon.7]

When I was at a tournament in Virginia, one of the referees I worked with had the Nike contact lenses. Whenever I talked to him, they distracted me. Also, Sandra Serafini was one of the instructors there, and she suggested that he drop them and get regular clear ones.

I worked with another, older referee at a camp in RI, and the general consensus among fellow referees and instructors was the same - they are distracting, look funny, and the benefits gained probably don't outweigh the fact that when you have to ream someone out, instead of listening to what you have to say, all the player will be thinking is "what the hell is up with this guys eyes?"

[DWickham]

The "crazy eye" is very noticeable, and I would be concerned about refereeing in them. Eye contact is an important part of the referee's tools.

In choosing contacts, however, I would recommend contacts with UV protection. Not all have them.

[Wreave]

Sounds like the amber is out, due to the "red eye" factor.

Still considering the grey-green, though. Some pictures I found on the web seem to show a pretty normal appearance. Somewhat darker, yes, but not unreasonably so. I don't think they'd be noticed. I'm going to try to get a sample set. If I can, I'll take some pictures and post them for discussion.

Hi Steve! Thanks for remembering me.

[ObliviousScout]

My eye doctor let me try a set of both lenses. I used them on some slightly less competitive games (as well as for running/training) just to get a feel for them.

The amber lenses are very noticeable; if you have light color eyes, they make the whole eye appear to be red, but even if you have dark eyes, they leave a red-orange ring outside the iris (since the lens is larger than your iris by a millimeter or two). They can distract players a bit when you’re trying to make eye contact; they can also help scare the pants off a player when you want to chew some butt. That said, they are becoming more common in the athletic world, and so many players are already familiar with these kinds of contacts. As such, they are less surprised to see them on the refs.

The gray/green lenses are not very noticeable at all. As a ref, most people will only see you from a distance of a few yards; from that distance it’s almost impossible to tell you’ve got them in. Unless you already knew what color my eyes were before (and notice the change) or you really stare closely into my eyes (like I assume USSF Ref (http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/member.php?u=70960) would do, lol, jk!) you won’t really notice.

The idea behind these lenses is that you filter out “unwanted” wavelengths of light, and force your eyes to focus on specific wavelengths. The amber lenses make bright colors (yellow, orange, red) pop out at you; the grey/green make the darker colors pop out. The advertising and instructions that come with each explain (http://www.bausch.com/en_US/consumer/visioncare/product/softcontacts/nikemaxsight.aspx)that the amber is designed for tennis (to make the speeding ball easier to see), while the grey/green is designed for golf (to make the lay of the grass easier to see).

So the appeal of the lenses is that they decrease your perception of certain colors. The problem I ran into as a referee: there is no one color I want to filter out. For example, I tried wearing the amber lenses on a women’s league game one sunny afternoon. One team was wearing green jerseys; the other team was wearing purple jerseys. The amber lens made both teams look like they were wearing black!

I still have a prescription for them, and I think it might be advantageous to use them to block UV sunlight (particularly since I don’t wear contacts anymore after having the LASIK surgery). But I haven’t worn them or purchased a new pair since this summer.

[Tarheel Ref]

The "crazy eye" is very noticeable, and I would be concerned about refereeing in them. Eye contact is an important part of the referee's tools.

In choosing contacts, however, I would recommend contacts with UV protection. Not all have them.

Very true about the importance of eye contact and its effect on issues that arise during a match...hard fouls can sometimes be stopped before they happen simply by eyeballing the player about to commit one (often we can see them coming before they happen) and letting him know that he's being watched. This is one of the reasons I've shied away from wearing them during a match. Maybe the best situation for their use is as AR facing west late in the afternoon (being ready to change back if both teams' jerseys look similar).

As for the UV-protective contact lenses, I've never heard of them and wonder why my optometrist hasn't recommended them. I'll definitely ask about them so thanks, DWickham, for that tip.

[USSF REF]

I don't see the useful effectiveness of filtering out a perticular wavelength of light within the human perceptual gamut. Filtering out IR and UV rays would be of great use, but they can be made to look clear.

In photography, black and white film can be usefully manipulated by using a solid sheet of colored plastic and these filters one color to appear close to black, some others will get darker, and the converse happens for colors similar to the filter.

ex. A red filter will allow red light through, while absorbing the majority of light from cyan and blue colors. The Red objects appear white, the blue objects appear black. That is a way to manipulate the color perception of black and white film.

The thing is, black and white film does not have color layers. Removing certain wavelengths of light seems to be to reduce your perceptual ability so why would you do this? That would like be filtering out the highest notes that you can hear to isolate the lower ones. Why diminish your abilities when your primary task is observation, wouldn't you want your fill sesnory ability in order to be the best observer that you could be?

I could see certain athletes (like with an amber lens, a basketball might appear brighter or stand out more clearly) or certain professionals using this, but I don't see how it is practical for a referee...

Though I think their Marketing is a little goofy considering how it reccomends the amber color for soccer and the gray for rugby... whatever.

[ObliviousScout]

USSF Ref,

Thank you for the thorough description of how filtering certain wavelengths can improve clarity of black and white photography. I’m thus surprised to read you say, “I don't see the useful effectiveness of filtering out a perticular wavelength of light within the human perceptual gamut.”

As I’m sure you are aware, our sight depends on two types of cells in our retina: cones and rods. Cones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cone_cells) are able to perceive color; rods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_cell) perceive only light and dark (i.e. black and white). Rods are more sensitive to light than cones, are more numerous in your retina (and are particularly more responsible for your peripheral vision), and are better at perceiving motion. In some games, increasing your sensitivity to these things (at the expense of some color and detail perception) may be useful.

Even though our “primary task is observation,” we do not watch everything that happens on the field, nor would we want to. As humans, we can’t see everything, so as referees we focus on the things that matter. Through training and practice, we learn where to be and where to look so we catch as much as possible, but we’re not observing everything.

These contacts reduce glare (useful on a bright day). They can also improve your perception of motion (useful for making quick offside decisions, or watching fast players), and can help improve your peripheral vision. Still, it’s important to understand the trade-off you’re getting with these kinds of lenses. As I pointed out yesterday, that trade-off is not always a net benefit.

Cheers

[USSF REF]

As pointed out, filtering out certain colors make it more difficult for a referee to distinguish colors. I do not know to what degree these contact lenses filter out color, as I have not worn them. However, in theory restricting your color perception is going to make it tough to tell differences between certain jersey colors, it might even make the quick identifcation of blood, from a distance more difficult. Ask referees with partial or full color blindness, they will probably tell you refereeing is that much harder.

Rods are the vision cells responsible mainly for luminance, they are more sensitive to the differences between light and dark. They have poor color reception compared to cones. Rods do not function nearly as well when there is too much light, however they do work under dark situations. They are also much more receptive to viewing motion.

Cones are responsible for color reception, primarily. They also are densly packed into the fovea, a portion of the macula where all of your central vision happens. If your fovea is damaged you may not see any better than 20/400 and with only peripheral vision available, you would basically be blind. Cones stop functioning under low light, but are better at dealing with high levels of light.

Cones are outnumbered 120:7 roughly.

Given that cones are the predominant cells used in central vision, I don't see why we would want to do anything to inhibit them from doing their job well.

If the referee needs all information, including color information available to him immediately, then stunting your senses doesn't make much sense to me. And I think that is exactly what these contacts are doing.

[USSF REF]

USSF Ref,

Thank you for the thorough description of how filtering certain wavelengths can improve clarity of black and white photography. I’m thus surprised to read you say, “I don't see the useful effectiveness of filtering out a perticular wavelength of light within the human perceptual gamut.”


These contacts reduce glare (useful on a bright day). They can also improve your perception of motion (useful for making quick offside decisions, or watching fast players), and can help improve your peripheral vision. Still, it’s important to understand the trade-off you’re getting with these kinds of lenses. As I pointed out yesterday, that trade-off is not always a net benefit.

Cheers


Real quick - the clarity of black and white photos are not increased or improved with filters. Instead, the density of the negative and print is altered with their use, to capture the photographers vision of an image. Or for a practical purpose - if I were to take a photograph of a red rash, I may like to use a green filter as the red rash will appear darker and stand out more clearly against lighter colored skin, if I used a red filter the data would barely be visible on the image. So a filter doesn't improve, it just provides a different perspective so to speak.

If it's too bright, then standard neutral density contacts (sunglasses, with no color tint) would be fine as they do not alter color perception, they just reduce light intensity. I do not see how these Nike lenses improve the perception of movement though, you'll have to explain it to me.

[Wreave]

I will say that my prescription sunglasses are polarized, and have presented color perception problems very rarely.

Once, a blue-white striped team was playing a purple-white striped team. They pretty much both looked like black-white stripes to me. I took off my sunglasses and that helped a little, but not much. Two minutes into the game, the coaches got my attention on a throw-in - they couldn't tell the difference, either. We flipped a coin and one team wore pennies.

The point on the contacts is fair one, though. What if the tint on the lenses makes it hard to tell the difference between certain color teams? Like I said, I'm going to see if I can get a trial pair of the grey-greens and give them a test run.

[Nashvillian]

I don't know what they actually do but, according to the website, what they intend to do is "give any athlete more comfort, less glare, enhanced contrast" and that's what's intriguing to me.

The older I get, the more the bright sunlight seems to cast a glare over the entire field. I wear a cap most times (and catch some flak for it, too). It's amazing to look at the field while taking the cap off and putting it back on, and to discover how much better I can see the players and the action with my eyes shaded by the bill of the cap.

It's never made sense to me to give up something that helps me do my job better for the sake of what someone has decided a referee should look like.

[Tarheel Ref]

I don't know what they actually do but, according to the website, what they intend to do is "give any athlete more comfort, less glare, enhanced contrast" and that's what's intriguing to me.

It's never made sense to me to give up something that helps me do my job better for the sake of what someone has decided a referee should look like.

When I wear the amber lenses in intense sunlight, they most certainly do give me a MUCH higher degree of comfort and kill the glare that makes me squint and want to look away. I don't notice any "enhanced contrast" though, and a negative effect is that they do make a couple of the darker colors (greens, browns, reds and blacks) look the same...major problem!

I've never been a "hat" kind of referee but if it helps you and the guys I work with who wear one, I wouldn't think of asking you or them to take it off if I was in the middle. I'm sure you're not trying to make any kind of fashion statement with it. "Referee fashion" ... now there's an oxymoron!

[campton]

I've never been a "hat" kind of referee but if it helps you and the guys I work with who wear one, I wouldn't think of asking you or them to take it off if I was in the middle. I'm sure you're not trying to make any kind of fashion statement with it. "Referee fashion" ... now there's an oxymoron!


Oxymoron? How? With USSF and OSI creating the new kits i think thats what they are very will intending to do. Just wait until we have to match short color and sock color like the SERIE A referees. Just being a smart a$$ though.