• Please bear with us. We have moved to a new provider, and some images and icons are not working correctly. We are working hard to fix this

New Nike FG studs

C

chrismtl


Referees in Canada
Hey,

I noticed these when Nike released them, but I wasn't a member here at that time, so I never thought about asking this until now. The IRB law clarifications state that the tip of a stud cannot be any smaller than 10mm in diameter. After having seen a few pairs of Nike's new FG boots, I can safely say that their new studs aren't even close (see image below). Have the IRB released a statement regarding the boots? Has anyone had issues with them during a match? I feel like I've seen some of those boots being used professionally, although I can't comment on what studs they were using, or if they used their own studs.

80741.jpg
 
Clearly not legal. For such an egregious failure, I think you should decline to permit these studs, insisting on a change
 
Drift said:
Are they screw ins? If so then you just get them to change the studs.
Click to expand...

These ones appear to be screw ins, but I have seen others that seem to be molded. They also make the same studs, but in a metallic finished plastic. What should be the call for those? illegal as well?
 
Browner said:
Have these Studs passed performance tests A&B of IRB regulation 12 .... Glancing and impact?
Click to expand...

No clue. Is there a list somewhere? I mean I know that they can't possibly pass the Figure 1 requirements of the 10mm stud tip, but if they do pass the test A & B then they are good. I just can't find anyhting that says they've passed, or even that they haven't passed. I also haven't seen those particular studs during any professional match I've watched.
 
Last edited:
This raises the question "is it practical for referees to check stud tip width?"

Referees used to get a stud guage, but no longer. I don't know any referee who carries a ruler with him. Can you imagine how long it would take to measure everyone's studs? Surely the players and team must have some responsibility here?

Some like these might be obviously under 10mm, but what if they are 8mm or 9mm? And when you are going along the line checking for burs and missing studs are you going to notice that these ones are a little narrow?
 
The studs are not your responsibility.

Oh damage was caused. Can they change boots after the check.

My statement, "when I checked the studs none were dangerous" thats it.
 
andyscott said:
The studs are not your responsibility.
Click to expand...
[LAWS]4.4 (g) A player must not wear any other item which does not conform with the IRB Specifications for such clothing (Regulation 12).[/LAWS]That makes it the referee's responsibility to check. The quesiton is the degree of compliance the referee is expected to cope with. From time to time there has been guidance - referees are not expect to measure studs, but that does not mean they should ignore any blatant contravention of Regulation 12.
 
OB.. said:
[LAWS]4.4 (g) A player must not wear any other item which does not conform with the IRB Specifications for such clothing (Regulation 12).[/LAWS]That makes it the referee's responsibility to check. The quesiton is the degree of compliance the referee is expected to cope with. From time to time there has been guidance - referees are not expect to measure studs, but that does not mean they should ignore any blatant contravention of Regulation 12.
Click to expand...
When I checked them they weren't dangerous end of discussion.
 
IMO boot manufacturers will keep chipping away at this subject to shoehorn a stud/cleat confirguration into a boot design that means that parents mum can buy 1 pair of boots to suffice all sports

USA gridiron/ baseball merging with Rugby/Soccer is likely a short term goal towards a 'One Boot fits all' .... objective.

My cynical (realist) head says they'll move from producing a 10mm stud ...to 9.5mm........9.25mm......then ..... 8.95mm..... 8.80mm....8.50mm..... Until they reach ' their' goal , whatever that may be.

I will say this, the metal studs that are 'self rounding' are so much better than yesteryear, I can't remember the last time I encountered a burr'd one.
 
andyscott said:
When I checked them they weren't dangerous end of discussion.
Click to expand...
iRB regulation 12 defines dangerous as being less than 10mm. Are you saying that when you checked them, they were clearly >10mm, but became worn down during the game to the uniform 2mm discovered after a player's leg was opened up by them?
 
I didn't really want to start a big discussion on a stud being just under the correct dimension. My issue is with the particular stud that Nike decided to start manufacturing this season as it CLEARLY doesn't fit into the 10mm law. Forget needing a ruler, the tip is probably about 5mm. These cleats are being mass produced, sold and are being marketed by top soccer players, and it would be good if there was something official that said "yes" or "no" to these new studs when it comes to use in rugby. I'd expect by next season, every team will have at least 1 players with these studs.

Nike manufactured them for soccer obviously, and I've seen them do some damage to players at the soccer world cup, but when you live somewhere like Canada, and you can't get proper rugby cleats, like the Adidas Predator Incurza, without ordering them from the UK and spending $300+, people go to the local soccer store and buy whatever they want.
 
crossref said:
there IS something official -- Regulation 12.
Click to expand...

The last time I checked Regulation 12, there wasn't a list of cleats that Passed the tests A & B. Nike is big enough that the IRB might have done the tests. Hence the question. Using the diagram alone, the call would be "no".
 
chrismtl said:
The last time I checked Regulation 12, there wasn't a list of cleats that Passed the tests A & B. Nike is big enough that the IRB might have done the tests. Hence the question. Using the diagram alone, the call would be "no".
Click to expand...

If you specifically ask your union/IRB about these ( or any other new to market design) , then I suspect you'll merely get a reply of "ref decides as per reg 12" .

They know fine well that these studs ( once sold in high volumes by the big brands) will find their way into rugby. I cant imagine any referee enjoying telling a schoolboy/grassroots player that he cant play & accordingly Andy Scotts approach is, i suspect, likely to be adopted by many.

It wouldn't take much for IRB to show an approval of noticeably 'new' designs on their website, but to do so would make this subject more 'transparent' , but instead a subject shrouded in mystery/opinion delegated down to a referee provides a political position and gives them a escape hatch if & when it goes tits up, when your insurance would kick in.
 
IMHO these are a risk. They clearly contravene IRB reg 12 Appendix 2 fig. 1, unlike blades which have one tip dimension > 10mm. If I see them on my pitch my line would be "these are not acceptable, please change them". If challenged the response would be "they contravene IRB reg 12. Unless you have written conformation that they pass tests A & B please change them." If they then appear :norc:
 
Browner said:
I cant imagine any referee enjoying telling a schoolboy/grassroots player that he cant play & accordingly Andy Scotts approach is, i suspect, likely to be adopted by many.
Click to expand...

i have several times told schoolboy/grassroots player to change studs. They always find some more studs - sometimes they cannibilise the pile of second-hand boots in the clubhouse for boot-exchange. I also have about 20 spare studs in my bag.
 
81210.jpg
82272.jpg
The belief that these ( or most other blade configurations ) that measure <10mm at any point, and when being tested for skin glancing will damage skin less favourably than a std 10mm smoothly rounded aluminium stud is quite frankly ludicrous.

As a useful comparison 'strimmer wire' is produced in varied 'profile's purely because it is proven that non rounded shapes produce a sharper cut....exactly the same principles apply to stud shape, but I doubt any referee would always insist on removing all the various stud shapes available in soccer/rugby boots currently on the market .....

Trimmer_Line.jpg


All 'non rounded' designs will perform less favourably than the Fig1 example in reg 12 . & if any referee claims to exclude all the other shapes then quite frankly I don't believe you sir.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top