The Bobcat Nation

So, I can't seem to find the answer so I thought I would turn to BN for help.

After the Chinook Sugarbeeters trouncing of Wibaux there has been some questioning of whether or not Chinook wore illegal, metal screw type cleats.

Does anyone have any information or link to the rules/regulations of legal/acceptable footwear in Montana HS Class C?

Thanks for the help nation.

GO SUGARBEETERS!!!

the cleats have to be one piece, with the posts built in and cant be any more than 1/2 in..........I'll get the rule reference

catamaran wrote:the cleats have to be one piece, with the posts built in and cant be any more than 1/2 in..........I'll get the rule reference

1-5-1-c5
Shoes which shall be made of a material which covers the foot (canvas,
leather or synthetic) and attached to a firm sole of leather, rubber
or composition material which may have cleats or which may be cleatless.
Among the items which do not meet these requirements are gymnastic
slippers, tennis shoes cut so protection is reduced, ski and logger
boots and other apparel not intended for football use:
(a) Removable cleats shall conform to the following specifications:
(1) Constructed of a material which does not chip or develop a
cutting edge. Legal material includes leather, nylon, certain
plastics and rubber. Cleats may be tipped with low carbon steel
of 1006 material, case hardened to .005-.008 depth and drawn
to Rockwell hardness of approximately C55; the use of aluminum
or ceramics is not permissible.
(2) The base and the tip of the cleat shall be parallel. The free end
may be rounded in an arc with a radius of not less than 7/16
inch provided the overall length is not more than ½ inch measured
from the tip of the cleat to the sole of the shoe. The cleat
may be attached to a raised platform which is molded to the
shoe. The platform may be no more than 5/32 inch in height
and must be wider than the base of the cleat. The widest part
of the cleat must be in direct contact with the platform. The
5/32-inch raised platform must be wider than the base of the
cleat and must extend across the width of the sole to within ¼
inch or less of the outer edges of the sole. A single toe cleat
does not require a raised platform that extends across the
width of the sole. The raised platform of the toe cleat is limitRule
1-5 Page 20 2010 NFHS Football Rules
ed to 5/32 inch or less. The 5/32-inch platform is measured from
the lowest point of the platform to the sole of the shoe.
(3) An effective locking device which prevents the exposure of
metal posts shall be incorporated.
(4) The cleat wall shall be at least 3/16 inch in diameter.
(5) The sides of the cleat shall taper uniformly from a minimum
base of ¾ inch in diameter to a minimum tip of 3/8 inch in
diameter.
(b) Nonremovable cleats are limited to studs or projections that do not
exceed ½ inch in length measured from the sole of the shoe to the
tip of the cleat and which are made with nonabrasive rubber or rubber-
type synthetic material that does not have or develop a cutting
edge.

Thanks Catamaran. You seem to be fluent in this. Here's the link to the blog that is causing alot of the hoopla and it has a picture of the cleats that were worn. Do they look like they are in regulation?

http://six-eight-eleven.blogspot.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

BearCat wrote:Thanks Catamaran. You seem to be fluent in this. Here's the link to the blog that is causing alot of the hoopla and it has a picture of the cleats that were worn. Do they look like they are in regulation?

http://six-eight-eleven.blogspot.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

with just cursory knowledge, it appears to be legal.
here's the part of the definition that would fit

Cleats may be tipped with low carbon steel
of 1006 material, case hardened to .005-.008 depth and drawn
to Rockwell hardness of approximately C55; the use of aluminum
or ceramics is not permissible.

Thanks!

Sounds like some bitter Wibaux fans...
And just out of curiosity, what would happen if they were deemed illegal?

Very interesting...I tried to read the cleat regulations, but got no further than

"Shoes which shall be made of a material which covers the foot..."

Funny how one team wearing different cleats than the other could result in such an unexpectedly lopsided score.

With the weather conditions last weekend I think the home team probably had the advantage in all of them. The Fairfield/Bigfork game played at Bigfork was also a pretty frozen field and key players for Bigfork work Basketball shoes rather than football cleats. They were able to practice on that field all week and figure out what worked best.

longhorn_22 wrote:Sounds like some bitter Wibaux fans...

Always have been. Worst losers EVER.

longhorn_22 wrote:Sounds like some bitter Wibaux fans...
And just out of curiosity, what would happen if they were deemed illegal?

couldn't wear them in the game. If a player was asked to leave and came back with them on, they would be using illegal equipment and flagged. If caught again, there would be an unsportsmanlike on the coach

So they can't deem them illegal after the fact?

longhorn_22 wrote:So they can't deem them illegal after the fact?

nope, in the case of equipment, they might be able to file a complaint with a state's HS association. At the beginning of every game a coach has to verify that their players are properly equipped.

The cleats are legal, a lot of players wear the metal-tipped cleats year round. As an official, we ask the coaches before every game to make sure all players are legally equipped. The main thing we are looking for is casts or braces, but it includes ALL equipment. As stated, if a player goes into the game illegally equipped they are flagged and are not allowed to return until they are legally equipped. If the team believes that the opposition used illegal cleats they may petition the game to MHSA. The problem with that is it would be dam near inpossible to prove the use of illegal cleats unless they have a definitive picture of what was used. Even then, I can't see the MHSA going forward with the petition because something like that is almost impossible to actually prove