The latest fad about shinpads
However, there was also another piece (or pieces) of kit that I cannot recall we were ever encouraged to wear during matches when I was still knee-high to a grasshopper. The shinpads, or shinguards as some players now call them. Just why we were not pushed into wearing them is as big a mystery as my boot laces coming undone at inopportune moments. Maybe it was thought that we couldn't kick another player's shins hard enough to break their tibia or fibula? Either way, sometimes a big bruise hurt almost as much.
According to Law 4 of the Laws of the Game as at April 2026 (when I am typing this), it is compulsory for players at all levels to wear shinpads during a match. They must be made of an acceptable material like rubber or plastic, should cover the front of the legs and offer 'a reasonable degree of protection' and, they must be fully covered by the player's socks.
So, was I breaking Law 4 all those years ago by not wearing shinpads? Well, no, because FIFA only updated Law 4 in 1990 to include them following a spate of broken leg injuries. In fact, prior to 1990, I was doing most of my refereeing and it was quite commonplace for players not to wear shinpads in park matches. If I ever mentioned it to players who were not wearing them, the response from wingers was generally "they've got to keep up with me first", referring to opposition defenders. Yes, they were that blasé about it and, it was not in my remit to order players to wear them; that part of Law 4 simply didn't exist to back up such insistences.
But, whiz along to nowadays and, what do we have? Not only have I witnessed English Premier League (EPL) players playing in games with their socks pulled down to the ankles and wearing no shin protection whatsoever but there's a more modern take on shinpads called 'mini pads'. In the first instance, that's downright barmy having no leg protection whatsoever and, in the second instance, why bother wearing mini pads at all if they don't cover the hurty parts of the legs - the shins? I assume such players have never seen or been near a footballer who has had half of his (or her) leg minced by broken tibia or fibula (or both) bones caused by 'over the top' tackles because, if they had, I am sure it would encourage them to put as much protection permissible between shins and socks no matter how annoying the pads can be to run around with them on.
I've seen plenty of broken legs when I was a player and when I refereed games and, believe me, there are nasty ones and there are nastier ones. If the player was lucky, they would spend a month or two in a plaster cast with two crutches holding them upright. If a player was unlucky, they would spend several months sidelined where the breakage was so bad it wouldn't 'knit together' properly. If a player was really unlucky, the injury refused to heal or gangrene could even set into the wound - and that last event usually meant the loss of a leg. Yes, it all sounds terrible and, for why? Because players gambled with not wearing leg protection known as shinpads.
Referees nowadays are apparently afforded carte blanche discretionary authority in deciding whether or not a player's whole playing equipment is suitably protective; in my day, such discretionary powers were limited to ensuring players did not wear rings, watches, ear rings or studs and medallions, which could injure not only themselves but everyone else on the pitch too. Referees have their uses occasionally but only if they do their job correctly. However, as a player, it is wise to listen to a referee when they say "no shinpads, no play". Hopefully you now know the reason why.
Trevor Mulligan
