I thought FIFA banned those neck scarves that European players used to wear. How come the New York Red Bulls goalkeepers is wearing one in the game with Chicago today?
Thought the same thing. We allowed a girl to wear one last week at a U-14 state cup game. 9 degree wind chill, 23 degrees.
Thanks. That link actually says IFAB met and made a ruling. I guess there was nothing else on the agenda.
Not a good idea - opponent yanks on it from behind and you have a potential serious injury problem - it's cold out, tough luck - no scarves or rigid head bands
IFAB/FIFA ruled on the hijab's. There are specifically designed hijab's that conform to the IFAB/FIFA rules. Same goes for the turbans that some Hindu players wear.
Yeah, allowed one of those last year, except it was 86 degrees, humid and on field turf. Looked like a tough gig to play in one of those.
The other two refs were wearing pants. Whole lot of non-comliance going on all around. I get the whole danger thing. This wasn't going to be a game with that. Higher level teams? U-16 and up, where the shit gets a whole lot more cynical, we would think about it. This was one of those days when none of us wanted to be there. My hands were numb after a full match and double overtime.
"* not pose any danger to the player wearing it or any other player (e.g. opening/closing mechanism around neck)" This is the kinda stuff that is getting into liability for us. Having anything wrapped around a neck is dangerous. Why do we have kids remove necklaces? Most of them are cheap made in china crap that a swift wind would tear but the potential for injury is there. You don't think a scarf around the neck could cause injury? Has anyone here received any instruction or guidance as to what "not pose any danger" means, because to me ANYTHING wrapped around the neck that could be grabbed or caught during a fall or tackle is dangerous. You think this one would be safe if a scarf around the neck were yanked like that?
Having safety opening mechanisms on stuff around your neck is nothing new though. Plenty of police/security staff use ties that open if pulled (velcro is a popular solution), I'm sure similar solutions could be made for scarfs/hijabs.
So you are going to inspect the function of that how? I assume touching that kind of stuff is a no no. I don't like assuming safety
I'm not the IFAB so I don't know how they expect it to be inspected but I guess you could require anyone wanting to wear one to show its safety features.
And if it's just loosely wrapped around the neck? I guess my point is the vagueness of the "safety" definition. If a quick release is what it takes then say so. Personally anything around the neck is a no no.
We (referee on the match) are the sole judge of what is and is not safe. To everyone's point this may not be a good thing without very specific guidelines as what is safe to me may not be to you. We also have to deal with referees that just don't care enough to know, check, or do anything about it making it so much harder on those of us that do - "but the referee in the last game let me wear it..."
Well I doubt that many here have degrees in textile engineering or know the shear forces of various fabrics or the amount of force it takes to fracture a larynx. Are you also making judgements about which necklace is safe to wear (a thick pimp-chain will be riskier than some thin 18K daddy's little girl chain)? What qualifications do you have to judge (what specific training or expertise) other than what guidelines are given by someone in authority of the game on a larger scale? My point is this, if and when an injury happens, you have been PROVEN wrong with regards to your assessment of safety. If all you have is your own judgement at that point (no objective guidelines to follow) then it's a lonely day at your deposition.
People always bring up liability in these discussions. My dad's a lawyer who works almost exclusively in personal injury cases, and I asked him if a referee would be held liable for a player's injury because the referee didn't enforce equipment rules properly. His answer? Not a chance. He won't even take a case like that. There are a whole lot of risks associated with playing sports, and people who sign up to play them assume those risks. He cited a case where a baseball player broke 2 bones in his leg sliding in to home plate because the plate--which by rule is supposed to be totally flush with the ground--was elevated a couple inches off the dirt. It was a serious injury, from something that was clearly against the rules, and was something that the umpire either did see or should have seen, and the judge threw the case out. Tough luck, was the opinion, if you're playing a sport you might get hurt. And for anyone who doesn't believe me on this, I challenge you to find a single case in the US where a referee has been held liable for an injury in court for not enforcing a safety rule. There are many reasons for us to enforce the rules. It's our jobs, and our duty to our associations and the players. But we don't have to abandon all common sense for the sake of following rules to the letter out of fear that we'll get sued in the case of some freak accident.
Ok, so I'm the first guy to laugh at the lawsuit boogeyman whenever I'm told that if I do X, I will get sued into oblivion. There was a case from 2009 in Michigan where a kid committed SFP and seriously injured an opponent. The referees were enjoined as responsible parties, since they didn't prevent the miscreant from committing the foul by sending the miscreant off prior to the injurious event. While it didn't go to a jury for judgement, it wasn't thrown out or dismissed, nor were the referees released from the tort, and they eventually settled for $300K. The only thing I get from a web search is a fragment in front of a paid service from Michigan Lawyers Weekly: Now, bad cases make bad law, and from a quick scan of the deposition, it appears that the referees had essentially non-existent counsel. Plaintiff established that the referees had responsibility for the game from they time they arrived until the time they left the area of the field, and that the miscreant had displayed "aggressive behavior" prior to the event, blah blah blah. The defense strategy seemed to be "we don't prevent fouls, we call fouls." Edit: And just be be more clear, I consider this a "Man Bites Dog" story.
Here's a thoughtful and fairly thorough law review article on the subject. Reader's Digest version: Referee should usually win, but it depends. And another one for our UK colleagues.
Obviously there is always the chance of some bizarre judgment being found, but when I did the research, I was not able to find a single case anywhere of a judge or jury finding a referee liable for injury. There has been a settlement or two of that nature, but not actual judgments. I'm not a lawyer myself, but it is my dad's area of expertise, so I'm inclined to believe him. I'm not saying we should start ignoring safety rules, but I am saying that there are a whole lot of factors that should go into every decision we make, but trying to cover our asses from lawsuits probably doesn't need to be one of them.
A HS wrestling referee was apparently found at least potentially liable in the Carabba case cited in the first article. Also, in addition to unreported out-of-court settlements, be mindful that most trial court decisions are not reported unless they go to appeal, and many cases are settled between the trial and appeal stages. Besides, even if we win - which we very very likely do - just getting sued is one of life's biggest PITAs, definitely something to be avoided if at all possible. (And, on quick read, it appears the UK article describes two cases in which rugby referees were indeed found liable.)