Rules question

[oknative]

So I go back to my original statement which you took offense to - it's PC and frivalous to require the removal of earrings and not require head gear. The problem is no one has the guts to require the use of headgear.

 

You're arguing with the wrong guy about headgear. It would be easy, yet not very popular, for a coach to require all players on his/her team to wear headgear. Wear it or dont' play. The referees don't have that kind of pull.

 

And you are WRONG - its neither PC nor frivolous to require the removal of jewelry. Would you let them wear jewelry just because they won't wear headgear? Would you knowingly let players wear items that have a real possibility of injuring or hurting another player - simply because they're not wearing headgear. I appreciate your concern, but you are wrong.

[oknative]

Anyone who knows anything about scalp injuries knows even minor ones bleed like stink and look horrible for a few minutes then stop. The fact that it "almost needed a hospital visit" means it wasn't serious. We should discourage the use of cleats since they can do exactly the same thing.

 

So we should allow bobby pins because bleeding like a stuck pig on the head isn't a serious head wound??????

[soccer67]

You are missing my point. I am not advocating not enforcing the removal of the aforementioned items. Of course they are a possible cause of injury. I am trying to point out the how ludicrous it is not to require the use of head gear in soccer. Of course earrings, hair pins, wrist bands, etc are dangerous - I am not disputing that - what I do feel strongly about is the cavalier attitude concerning the lack of attention concerning the need for head protection. Don't take this personally. I just take care of too many kids with brain dysfunction due to head injuries in sports including soccer.

[Canesoverhere]

So we should allow bobby pins because bleeding like a stuck pig on the head isn't a serious head wound??????

 

So, if the center is on the field, the seem every bit at risk, why can they wear a watch (bracelet)?

[oknative]

You are missing my point. I am not advocating not enforcing the removal of the aforementioned items. Of course they are a possible cause of injury. I am trying to point out the how ludicrous it is not to require the use of head gear in soccer. Of course earrings, hair pins, wrist bands, etc are dangerous - I am not disputing that - what I do feel strongly about is the cavalier attitude concerning the lack of attention concerning the need for head protection. Don't take this personally. I just take care of too many kids with brain dysfunction due to head injuries in sports including soccer.

 

I'm not missing anything. But you just called a head cut that bled profusely "nothing serious". You called the rules banning the wearing of rings and bracelets and earrings "politcally correct" and "frivolous". Why not be happy that we at least have those rules. I know the dangers - I see them - I understand where you're trying to go. I officiated at a game just last week in which a girl was carried off the field in a neckbrace and a backboard by an ambulance. Ask coaches to weigh in on the matter. But don't downplay any injury or any rules that help protect soccer players to make your point. Let the merits of your argument stand on their own, without making silly statement that make it sound like if we don't have headgear, we shouldn't have any rules to protect players.

[soccer67]

So we should allow bobby pins because bleeding like a stuck pig on the head isn't a serious head wound??????

 

As I said - "almost needing a hospital visit" means it was not a serious injury. I have seen more brain injuries (concussions) in soccer than bleeding scalps or torn earlobes - and I have seen many soccer games - but do you have any idea of the severity of these "minor head injuries"? Probably not, since they only manifest themselves further down the road of life and you have know way of knowing. The scalp "bleeding like a stuck pig" for 5 minutes gets more attention than the 40 future years of inadequate brain function due to the concussion no one thought twice of.

[oknative]

So, if the center is on the field, the seem every bit at risk, why can they wear a watch (bracelet)?

 

The answer is easy, because its too hard to count "One, two, three, four ... for eighty minutes! Canes, come on now you're just playing devils advocate because its me. You should know my answer by now! Don't you???? Because the rules require me to have a watch, as well as a pen or pencil. So even though my mommy told me not to run with a pencil, the rules of soccer say I can, and have to.

[oknative]

As I said - "almost needing a hospital visit" means it was not a serious injury. I have seen more brain injuries (concussions) in soccer than bleeding scalps or torn earlobes - and I have seen many soccer games - but do you have any idea of the severity of these "minor head injuries"? Probably not, since they only manifest themselves further down the road of life and you have know way of knowing. The scalp "bleeding like a stuck pig" for 5 minutes gets more attention than the 40 future years of inadequate brain function due to the concussion no one thought twice of.

 

Look, don't take it out on me because you made some stupid statements while trying to make a good point. I'm just the one who called you on it. Separate the two issues and we're on the same page. ANY rule that helps protect a player in ANY way, is a good rule.

[soccer67]

Look, don't take it out on me because you made some stupid statements while trying to make a good point. I'm just the one who called you on it. Separate the two issues and we're on the same page. ANY rule that helps protect a player in ANY way, is a good rule.

 

What you consider a stupid statement (poor choice of words in a mannerly discussion) is actually an attempt to point out the rules to protect the players are inadequate - and yes, even frivalous when put in context as to the severity of the sequellae of a head injury. But you are correct in stating any rule to protect a player in any way is a good rule. In that vain, as a ref, I hope you push forward in the efforts to require head gear to prevent what I consider one of the top 2 most serious injuries (neck is the other) possible in soccer. In the mean time, go boldly forward and give those yellow cards out in an effort to protect our girl's earlobes.

[oknative]

What you consider a stupid statement (poor choice of words in a mannerly discussion) is actually an attempt to point out the rules to protect the players are inadequate - and yes, even frivalous when put in context as to the severity of the sequellae of a head injury. But you are correct in stating any rule to protect a player in any way is a good rule. In that vain, as a ref, I hope you push forward in the efforts to require head gear to prevent what I consider one of the top 2 most serious injuries (neck is the other) possible in soccer. In the mean time, go boldly forward and give those yellow cards out in an effort to protect our girl's earlobes.

 

Now you just playing with words and semantics. The rules that concern rings, bracelets and earrings aren't inadequate, because they cover areas and equipment that needs to be covered. Those rules adequately cover the areas as they pertain to wearing extraneous jewelry during a soccer match, and would be good rules regardless of whether there were rules on headgear or not. And yes, there may need to be additional rules to protect players, but the rules that are in place are good rules - in any context. They don't become frivolous just because high school soccer doesn't require headgear.

 

And rest assured that as long as I'm on the field, the earlobes of our girls will be adequately looked after because I still check for earrings before a game.