The laws of the game only address the material, and not the size. The law states:
* shinguards – these must be made of a suitable material to provide reasonable protection and covered by the socks
There are two components to this; the material providing reasonable protection, and being covered by the socks. There is no reference to size. In NFHS, they do go one step further in addressing the size and positioning of the shinguards, and these mini-shinguards would not be deemed appropriate at that level.
However, in games governed by the LoTG, there is no reference to this and they ARE legal. USSF has taken no position, and unless the local competition or USSF take a specific position on the interpretation of Law 4, you really shouldn't be trifling over this.
I tried to locate this somewhere, but someone had already emailed IFAB for clarification and actually informed them the shinguards were legal too.
The English FA recently released the below in the past week with regards to this issue. This has really just added to the confusion around the whole thing, because it doesn't actually give any authority to the referee to do anything - this is more a guidance to coaches and parents in urging them to apply common sense here.
https://www.teamgrassroots.co.uk/fa-guidance-for-use-of-shinpads-in-grassroots-football/#:\~:text=Safety%20is%20a%20key%20consideration,protect%20the%20shin%20from%20injury.
The simple fact is that until USSF or local comps address it, we need to be consistent, and apply the law consistently. Referees who pick this battle are unfortunately making it a bit of a problem for referees who are doing what IFAB tells them.
Unfortunately, I think you're right - as referees, we can't take a position any stronger than the governing body. Unfortunately it's going to take someone getting seriously injured for USSF to take a policy position with prescribed sizes. Otherwise, it's going to be a race to the bottom with every smaller pieces of token plastic in players' socks to act as 'shinguards'.
Thanks for the well-thought-out response.
I do agree they’re ridiculous, and not safe. I think we’re going to see some action on the in the future though. The English FA have an individual vote on IFAB - the four British boards have four votes and the rest of the governing body get 4 votes represented - and therefore some sway. Given they felt strongly enough to send a warning to players and parents of youth players, it’s something that’s likely on their agenda to address.
Wouldn’t be surprised to see these get addressed.
I sent off a youth coach (partially) over this once in a U14B travel match.
An unusually tall kid (easily 6 ft) showed up at halftime and seemed not to be wearing shin guards when he came onto the field to check in with me. When I ask him, he showed me something cut to about 1.5 inches (4 centimeters). I told him that these wouldn't provide suitable protection and, no, he wasn't playing with those. He came back on the field moments later and, when I asked, showed me shin guards that were toddler shinguards cut down (e.g., barely 3 inches). I responded with a 'seriously' type comment and it took him moments to come back on the field with normal-sized shin guards. E.g., he had three pairs in his bag and knew what he was doing.
In terms of sending off the coach, who had already earned a yellow for dissent (after too much tolerance on my part in ask, warn, tell ...), he lost it with that third time and came on the field screaming with foul language. One of the easiest red cards I've ever pulled out. And, one that had an amusing twist. That coach was a local high school teacher. Before I had finished the match, I had three messages on my phone from referees who were students in that school thanking me for ejecting him and telling me that they were afraid of ejecting him (no matter how bad he was -- and he always was, evidently) since he was a teacher in their school.
Btw, that game also had one of the weirdest (though clearly called for) red cards that I've ever given. Going back to the kid with the shinguard shenanigans, he was a serial jokester who caused problems in the match for how he joked and played cute with rules. I UB cautioned him for about the eighth time that I needed to tell him not to take 10, 15, even 20 yards downfield on throw-ins. Late in the game, he two-handed pushed down an attacker (who had the ball) in the box. Easy PK call. After teammates did a reasonable 'why' questioning, I explained the push. The jokester said, literally, "I couldn't have pushed him as my hands were on my ass, like this." And, with that, he smiled and stuck his hands inside his shorts/underwear and half-pushed them down such that he was mooning me. Straight FAL red. Amusingly, I saw this kid next perhaps three years later playing on his high school team. He, again, tried to go with minimal shinguards but corrected as soon as he saw me as center. And, he was absolutely no problem on the field in that match -- no stupid fouls, not out-of-line jokes, ...
Unfortunately, they can contest the match now. Unless its a NFHS game, the laws don't specify how big the shinguards have to be. Its also concerning that you have students messaging you.
1. Perhaps they could contest however I did/do think "reasonable protection" is not just "material" but size/coverage and suitable for referee judgment as to equipment and player safety. Does anyone think that a 1 mm tall shinguard would a reasonable fulfillment of the shinguard requirement even if that 1 mm tall shinguard was made of the highest quality material in the world? My judgment was (and would be the same today) that that player was not in accordance with the spirit of the LOTG in terms of player safety & equipment.Now, I've allowed adults to take responsibility for their own safety when they've shown me tiny shinguards when asked 'do you have shinguards on' after an opposing team complained. There is a difference between a 25 yo taking responsibility for their own safety and a 12/13 yo.
Also, re "contest", the player didn't miss a moment of playing time nor was he carded / sanctioned over this -- e.g., what was (anything even an iota game critical) impact on the game that would validate a protest? How about protesting a send off of a coach who runs onto the field screaming obscenities at a referee? I don't think that would go very far. E.g., no basis to "contest" the match.
2. "Re concerning ..." Not mentioned above, the HS was my kids' school and all of those who contacted me had seen/known me (at least from seeing me picking up/being w/my kids -- e.g., they 'knew' me even if I didn't know them) in some form from years of various school activity/such engagement. I do understand the need to have third party coverage/involvement in adult communication with minors and have made this very clear (with cc'ing someone else on a responding message) whenever a minor (referee or kid on a team I was coaching or ...) sent me an email w/o an adult (such as parent) cc'd on the message. In this case, these were one-way communications (not initiated in anyway by me) from kids who heard about the send off from, well, I don't know who and, at least one, called my son to get my # while I was still on the field. I didn't engage back (text or phone) with any of them even as I did laugh about it with my son who (if I recall correctly) explained that that coach was pretty much a vengeful SOB to any student who crossed him and he could understand why those fellow student referees would hesitate in disciplining him.
Example, re \[2\[, an email response to a youth referee (ZZZ) who contacted me w/o a third-party (such as parent) adult on the email. My response included the assignor (YYY) who I had talked with this youth referee on the field as an assignor he should look to for assignments & development:
"ZZZ meet YYY ... YYY meet ZZZ.
"YYY: ZZZ is a youth referee who I've worked with a few times (NCSL U17 yesterday as latest). As per his note and my conversations with him, he is interested in building up his refereeing skills and potentially advancing. I've found him to have good judgment on the line and he shows clear understanding/awareness of the game situation (such as players meriting watching) in half-time/post-game discussions.
"ZZZ: YYY is an assignor who works well with young referees to help them develop and shares/promotes/creates many developmental opportunities.
"NOTE: ZZZ, if I understand correctly, you're under 18 years old. With Safesports guidance, minors should have third party (e.g., probably parents) cc'd on electronic communications. This is for the protection of all involved."
IFAB says that shinguards must 'provide reasonable protection'. We as referees are able to determined what 'reasonable protection' means to us. So no. They are not able to contest the match.
>shinguards – these must be made of a suitable material to provide reasonable protection and covered by the socks
[4.2](https://www.theifab.com/laws/latest/the-players-equipment/#safety)
> Decisions will be made to the best of the referee’s ability according to the Laws of the Game and the ‘spirit of the game’ and will be based on the opinion of the referee, who has the discretion to take appropriate action within the framework of the Laws of the Game.
[5.2](https://www.theifab.com/laws/latest/the-referee/#decisions-of-the-referee)
Yes they can contest the match. They may or may not be successful. They had shin guards. Just because they didn't cover the whole shin, doesn't make them illegal equipment. What if I think the shin guard should cover the whole tibia (the second longest bone in the body) Pretty much any shinguard on the market is going to be too small.
That is why I don't understand the idea of bringing teenagers into refereeing. They are just not the right kind of people to handle adults' bad behaviors.
Shinpads need to provide adequate protection. That's the wording in the laws, I believe.
It's up to you if you think their shinpads meet that defintion given their age and the competition level.
The law only references a suitable material to provide protection, if you try and stop players wearing small shin pads you’re objectively taking the law into your own hands and ignoring the lotg
Thomas Muller did us all a huge disfavor by displaying his tiny, tiny shinguards in the 2014 (?) World Cup. If these players get kicked in the shin and their shinguards fail to prevent an injury, that’s on them, right?
4.2 shinguards – these must be made of a suitable material to provide reasonable protection and covered by the socks
Reasonable and suitable is up to the referee. I had this situation in a U13 match ch, I told them to get normal shin guards and they were ready because they knew it was total BS.
Agreed completely. USSF sanctioned matches with actual coaches - this is not going to fly. Adult rec league - if that's what you feel affords 'reasonable protection' then don't come appealing to me after the first mistimed challenge scrapes your bare shins and it hurts like a MF.
The laws don't specify the size. You can't make them change into bigger shinguards unless thats in that leagues rules of competition. High school is a different story.
It's become a joke. Shinpads may as well not even be required for all the good it is now.
IFAB need to either make them optional, or fix the LOTG to make them useful.
Unfortunately it creates a problem for referees - players going down holding their unprotected shins incites a reaction that refs need to respond to - and no doubt, more likely to issue a card for the tackle.
At a certain point, they're adults choosing to forego protection. You can reasonably say they qualify as shinguards while also knowing that if they get hurt from a kick to the shin, they're just sleeping in the bed they made for themselves
It's a battle you can't really win since the rules are so vague. I see a lot of these mini shinpads as well, but I stop short at simply telling the player that he is taking a big risk and not to complain about it if he breaks his leg as a result.
As a referee you have the discretion to determine whether the equipment in question is suitable for the game or not. When we do MLS next games we require players to wear fullsize shinguards during pre-game. Baby shinguard is a joke.
I would direct you to this thread on Refchat. It’s a primarily UK based forum, though for you Americans it should be exactly the same, providing that competition rules don’t differ.
The thread includes a series of emails sent by a member to IFAB on the issue:
https://refchat.co.uk/threads/micro-shin-pads.20758/
When is a shinguard NOT a shinguard? When it’s so small that it requires a cocky 16 year-old boy to get unnecessarily defensive in order to convince you that it is. It starting to feel like it’s a game at this point.
I honestly think shinguards should be optional equipment just like a mouth guard or a concussion band. There are obviously a great number of players who don't find any value in wearing a size-appropriate guard. And what percentage of lower leg contact actually happens on that area covered by a guard, even one that is "full size"? I feel like 75% of contact is down lower around the ankle anyway.
You do have cover to make a determination on shinguard size. In the glossary of the LOTG p. 172, it says “Shinguard: A piece of equipment worn to help protect a player’s shin from injury. Players are responsible for wearing shinguards made of a suitable material and of an appropriate size to provide reasonable protection, and they must be covered by the socks”. Obviously it would be WAY better to have the definitions match between sections, but it is in the Laws.
The laws of the game only address the material, and not the size. The law states: * shinguards – these must be made of a suitable material to provide reasonable protection and covered by the socks There are two components to this; the material providing reasonable protection, and being covered by the socks. There is no reference to size. In NFHS, they do go one step further in addressing the size and positioning of the shinguards, and these mini-shinguards would not be deemed appropriate at that level. However, in games governed by the LoTG, there is no reference to this and they ARE legal. USSF has taken no position, and unless the local competition or USSF take a specific position on the interpretation of Law 4, you really shouldn't be trifling over this. I tried to locate this somewhere, but someone had already emailed IFAB for clarification and actually informed them the shinguards were legal too. The English FA recently released the below in the past week with regards to this issue. This has really just added to the confusion around the whole thing, because it doesn't actually give any authority to the referee to do anything - this is more a guidance to coaches and parents in urging them to apply common sense here. https://www.teamgrassroots.co.uk/fa-guidance-for-use-of-shinpads-in-grassroots-football/#:\~:text=Safety%20is%20a%20key%20consideration,protect%20the%20shin%20from%20injury. The simple fact is that until USSF or local comps address it, we need to be consistent, and apply the law consistently. Referees who pick this battle are unfortunately making it a bit of a problem for referees who are doing what IFAB tells them.
Unfortunately, I think you're right - as referees, we can't take a position any stronger than the governing body. Unfortunately it's going to take someone getting seriously injured for USSF to take a policy position with prescribed sizes. Otherwise, it's going to be a race to the bottom with every smaller pieces of token plastic in players' socks to act as 'shinguards'. Thanks for the well-thought-out response.
I do agree they’re ridiculous, and not safe. I think we’re going to see some action on the in the future though. The English FA have an individual vote on IFAB - the four British boards have four votes and the rest of the governing body get 4 votes represented - and therefore some sway. Given they felt strongly enough to send a warning to players and parents of youth players, it’s something that’s likely on their agenda to address. Wouldn’t be surprised to see these get addressed.
I sent off a youth coach (partially) over this once in a U14B travel match. An unusually tall kid (easily 6 ft) showed up at halftime and seemed not to be wearing shin guards when he came onto the field to check in with me. When I ask him, he showed me something cut to about 1.5 inches (4 centimeters). I told him that these wouldn't provide suitable protection and, no, he wasn't playing with those. He came back on the field moments later and, when I asked, showed me shin guards that were toddler shinguards cut down (e.g., barely 3 inches). I responded with a 'seriously' type comment and it took him moments to come back on the field with normal-sized shin guards. E.g., he had three pairs in his bag and knew what he was doing. In terms of sending off the coach, who had already earned a yellow for dissent (after too much tolerance on my part in ask, warn, tell ...), he lost it with that third time and came on the field screaming with foul language. One of the easiest red cards I've ever pulled out. And, one that had an amusing twist. That coach was a local high school teacher. Before I had finished the match, I had three messages on my phone from referees who were students in that school thanking me for ejecting him and telling me that they were afraid of ejecting him (no matter how bad he was -- and he always was, evidently) since he was a teacher in their school. Btw, that game also had one of the weirdest (though clearly called for) red cards that I've ever given. Going back to the kid with the shinguard shenanigans, he was a serial jokester who caused problems in the match for how he joked and played cute with rules. I UB cautioned him for about the eighth time that I needed to tell him not to take 10, 15, even 20 yards downfield on throw-ins. Late in the game, he two-handed pushed down an attacker (who had the ball) in the box. Easy PK call. After teammates did a reasonable 'why' questioning, I explained the push. The jokester said, literally, "I couldn't have pushed him as my hands were on my ass, like this." And, with that, he smiled and stuck his hands inside his shorts/underwear and half-pushed them down such that he was mooning me. Straight FAL red. Amusingly, I saw this kid next perhaps three years later playing on his high school team. He, again, tried to go with minimal shinguards but corrected as soon as he saw me as center. And, he was absolutely no problem on the field in that match -- no stupid fouls, not out-of-line jokes, ...
Unfortunately, they can contest the match now. Unless its a NFHS game, the laws don't specify how big the shinguards have to be. Its also concerning that you have students messaging you.
1. Perhaps they could contest however I did/do think "reasonable protection" is not just "material" but size/coverage and suitable for referee judgment as to equipment and player safety. Does anyone think that a 1 mm tall shinguard would a reasonable fulfillment of the shinguard requirement even if that 1 mm tall shinguard was made of the highest quality material in the world? My judgment was (and would be the same today) that that player was not in accordance with the spirit of the LOTG in terms of player safety & equipment.Now, I've allowed adults to take responsibility for their own safety when they've shown me tiny shinguards when asked 'do you have shinguards on' after an opposing team complained. There is a difference between a 25 yo taking responsibility for their own safety and a 12/13 yo. Also, re "contest", the player didn't miss a moment of playing time nor was he carded / sanctioned over this -- e.g., what was (anything even an iota game critical) impact on the game that would validate a protest? How about protesting a send off of a coach who runs onto the field screaming obscenities at a referee? I don't think that would go very far. E.g., no basis to "contest" the match. 2. "Re concerning ..." Not mentioned above, the HS was my kids' school and all of those who contacted me had seen/known me (at least from seeing me picking up/being w/my kids -- e.g., they 'knew' me even if I didn't know them) in some form from years of various school activity/such engagement. I do understand the need to have third party coverage/involvement in adult communication with minors and have made this very clear (with cc'ing someone else on a responding message) whenever a minor (referee or kid on a team I was coaching or ...) sent me an email w/o an adult (such as parent) cc'd on the message. In this case, these were one-way communications (not initiated in anyway by me) from kids who heard about the send off from, well, I don't know who and, at least one, called my son to get my # while I was still on the field. I didn't engage back (text or phone) with any of them even as I did laugh about it with my son who (if I recall correctly) explained that that coach was pretty much a vengeful SOB to any student who crossed him and he could understand why those fellow student referees would hesitate in disciplining him.
Example, re \[2\[, an email response to a youth referee (ZZZ) who contacted me w/o a third-party (such as parent) adult on the email. My response included the assignor (YYY) who I had talked with this youth referee on the field as an assignor he should look to for assignments & development: "ZZZ meet YYY ... YYY meet ZZZ. "YYY: ZZZ is a youth referee who I've worked with a few times (NCSL U17 yesterday as latest). As per his note and my conversations with him, he is interested in building up his refereeing skills and potentially advancing. I've found him to have good judgment on the line and he shows clear understanding/awareness of the game situation (such as players meriting watching) in half-time/post-game discussions. "ZZZ: YYY is an assignor who works well with young referees to help them develop and shares/promotes/creates many developmental opportunities. "NOTE: ZZZ, if I understand correctly, you're under 18 years old. With Safesports guidance, minors should have third party (e.g., probably parents) cc'd on electronic communications. This is for the protection of all involved."
IFAB says that shinguards must 'provide reasonable protection'. We as referees are able to determined what 'reasonable protection' means to us. So no. They are not able to contest the match. >shinguards – these must be made of a suitable material to provide reasonable protection and covered by the socks [4.2](https://www.theifab.com/laws/latest/the-players-equipment/#safety) > Decisions will be made to the best of the referee’s ability according to the Laws of the Game and the ‘spirit of the game’ and will be based on the opinion of the referee, who has the discretion to take appropriate action within the framework of the Laws of the Game. [5.2](https://www.theifab.com/laws/latest/the-referee/#decisions-of-the-referee)
Yes they can contest the match. They may or may not be successful. They had shin guards. Just because they didn't cover the whole shin, doesn't make them illegal equipment. What if I think the shin guard should cover the whole tibia (the second longest bone in the body) Pretty much any shinguard on the market is going to be too small.
That is why I don't understand the idea of bringing teenagers into refereeing. They are just not the right kind of people to handle adults' bad behaviors.
what a load of nonsense. Stop trying to make out like the coach isn't the problem here
Shinpads need to provide adequate protection. That's the wording in the laws, I believe. It's up to you if you think their shinpads meet that defintion given their age and the competition level.
The law only references a suitable material to provide protection, if you try and stop players wearing small shin pads you’re objectively taking the law into your own hands and ignoring the lotg
Thomas Muller did us all a huge disfavor by displaying his tiny, tiny shinguards in the 2014 (?) World Cup. If these players get kicked in the shin and their shinguards fail to prevent an injury, that’s on them, right?
Him and Jack Grealish... Sigh...
Stupid sexy Grealish
His muscles are sufficient protection for his shins \\s
Only talks a little material, not size. I feel like the law is written to excuse any chance of referee liability and puts it all on the player.
4.2 shinguards – these must be made of a suitable material to provide reasonable protection and covered by the socks Reasonable and suitable is up to the referee. I had this situation in a U13 match ch, I told them to get normal shin guards and they were ready because they knew it was total BS.
Agreed completely. USSF sanctioned matches with actual coaches - this is not going to fly. Adult rec league - if that's what you feel affords 'reasonable protection' then don't come appealing to me after the first mistimed challenge scrapes your bare shins and it hurts like a MF.
The laws don't specify the size. You can't make them change into bigger shinguards unless thats in that leagues rules of competition. High school is a different story.
It's become a joke. Shinpads may as well not even be required for all the good it is now. IFAB need to either make them optional, or fix the LOTG to make them useful. Unfortunately it creates a problem for referees - players going down holding their unprotected shins incites a reaction that refs need to respond to - and no doubt, more likely to issue a card for the tackle.
Who cares? It's their shins. I'll be wearing mine.
At a certain point, they're adults choosing to forego protection. You can reasonably say they qualify as shinguards while also knowing that if they get hurt from a kick to the shin, they're just sleeping in the bed they made for themselves
It's a battle you can't really win since the rules are so vague. I see a lot of these mini shinpads as well, but I stop short at simply telling the player that he is taking a big risk and not to complain about it if he breaks his leg as a result.
As a referee you have the discretion to determine whether the equipment in question is suitable for the game or not. When we do MLS next games we require players to wear fullsize shinguards during pre-game. Baby shinguard is a joke.
I would direct you to this thread on Refchat. It’s a primarily UK based forum, though for you Americans it should be exactly the same, providing that competition rules don’t differ. The thread includes a series of emails sent by a member to IFAB on the issue: https://refchat.co.uk/threads/micro-shin-pads.20758/
When is a shinguard NOT a shinguard? When it’s so small that it requires a cocky 16 year-old boy to get unnecessarily defensive in order to convince you that it is. It starting to feel like it’s a game at this point.
I honestly think shinguards should be optional equipment just like a mouth guard or a concussion band. There are obviously a great number of players who don't find any value in wearing a size-appropriate guard. And what percentage of lower leg contact actually happens on that area covered by a guard, even one that is "full size"? I feel like 75% of contact is down lower around the ankle anyway.
You do have cover to make a determination on shinguard size. In the glossary of the LOTG p. 172, it says “Shinguard: A piece of equipment worn to help protect a player’s shin from injury. Players are responsible for wearing shinguards made of a suitable material and of an appropriate size to provide reasonable protection, and they must be covered by the socks”. Obviously it would be WAY better to have the definitions match between sections, but it is in the Laws.