Are mini shin guards a thing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Studies have shown that kids who wear mini shin guards will apply to colleges that do not accept SAT scores. Similar studies have shown that kids who cut their socks so they wear them over other socks are addicted to social media. A third sturdy has shown that parents of children who wear mini shinguards and let their kids cut their socks in half are likely to drive several hours to stay in mediocre hotels.

It's true. Peer reviewed and everything

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:ECNL daughter has been using the smallest possible for years. Her whole team doesn't wear them at practice. There are games where a girl gets caught without shin guards on and the ref checks all girls. Then 6 of them have to go put them on. I've never played soccer. Do they protect shins or just a nuisance?

Don't want to steer this topic in a different direction but I hate that my kid cuts off the foot part of her socks to wear "soccer socks". That's all the rage too. I never needed non slip socks 30 years ago, playing youth sports.

My DD prefers to wear shin guards to
Practices and games cuz they have scrimmages sometimes at practice. She has been kicked on the shin too many times and without shin guards, that would hurt way more and caused more problem.

Gripped socks though - that help reduce the blisters on her feet a lot. We didn’t cut the socks, adidas and Nike do sell some soccer sleeves and just happen that they have one in our club colors. If I recall correctly they come in black, blue, red and white for adidas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's dumb, but it's a thing. The rules (laws of the game) just say a player must wear shin guards, but it does not specify the size. A lot of pros don't wear shin guards, except for games. And when they do wear them, they are small or even comically small.

"Reasonable Protection" is still decided upon by ref for safety... but spineless refs believe the futile interpretations of others nowhere written in the rule.

Player is responsible to choose to wear shinguards that comply within Law 4... (size + comfort/suitability)

Ref is still responsible as always for safety which is determined by "reasonableness"... + suitable material

note: suitability and suitable material are 2 completely different tenets of rule.

appropriate size is not the same as size... appropriate size goes with "reasonable protection" while "size" goes with player responsibility to choose for their size... which may or may not be an appropriate size. Players who select based upon fashion statements are the least likely to choose appropriate sized gear which offers reasonable protection.





reasonable safety is determined by ref.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When is the last time you saw a broken shin bone? go back to baseball. Shinguards are pointless, players want total feel for the ball no matter what part of their leg or body it touches, shinguards do not prevent injuries, and more of a nuisance to players who actually want to have control of the ball.

I have spoken

High School, compound tibia fracture, w/ blood... two players kicking at ball concurrently, similtaneously... break was halfway between center of shin and knee on tibia...

... the more naturally protected area of tibia bone will be where the bone flares girthier at both ends... so, shin guards that offer reasonable protection are not going to be covering either ends of tibia, but rather the more narrow portion of tibia bone...

...I'll never allow, as a ref, inappropriate sized minis that do not offer reasonable protection... so yes, size still matters... must be appropriate to offer reasonable protection.

[Anonymous]

appropriate protection may be determined during player equipment check, but if during match, the ref determines that the appropriate protection is really not offered during live play, ref may reconsider equipment legality.

[Anonymous]

Straight from Law 4.

shinguards – these must be made of a suitable material and be of an appropriate size to provide reasonable protection and be covered by the socks. Players are responsible for the size and suitability of their shinguards.

Referees are not the shinguard size police.

[Anonymous]

my u16 wears a kids XS. they are absurdly small but I don't think any shinguard is effective

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's dumb, but it's a thing. The rules (laws of the game) just say a player must wear shin guards, but it does not specify the size. A lot of pros don't wear shin guards, except for games. And when they do wear them, they are small or even comically small.

"Reasonable Protection" is still decided upon by ref for safety... but spineless refs believe the futile interpretations of others nowhere written in the rule.

Player is responsible to choose to wear shinguards that comply within Law 4... (size + comfort/suitability)

Ref is still responsible as always for safety which is determined by "reasonableness"... + suitable material

note: suitability and suitable material are 2 completely different tenets of rule.

appropriate size is not the same as size... appropriate size goes with "reasonable protection" while "size" goes with player responsibility to choose for their size... which may or may not be an appropriate size. Players who select based upon fashion statements are the least likely to choose appropriate sized gear which offers reasonable protection.





reasonable safety is determined by ref.

If a ref decides mercurials aren’t safe, both teams are forfeiting and the assigner is getting screamed at by two angry clubs

[Anonymous]

Would be too bad if a kid wearing these stupid thing's opponents decided to kick the heck out of him/ while legally going for the ball, of course.

[Anonymous]

No

[Anonymous]

I just had this discussion with my middle schooler on the way to practice tonight. She hates the socks and guards. Not sure that the minis would fly with her club coach.