Unusual Incident (From O/A County Cup Final Report)

[PinnerPaul]

i've seen the picture it doesnt look that bad tbh .... sock tape looks like the issue, but he's not wearing the same socks as the outfield players in any case... in fact the tape makes it look more like what the rest are playing in anyways.... as Charlie says intriguiing


Edit: although neither of us have spelled it correctly.... intriguing

The black undershorts under a bright yellow kit though?

 

[richard ramjane]

i cant recall now, what colour shorts were the outfield players wearing? i'll take another look... just wondering if the outfield players were eligible to wear black then the keeper is obliged to follow suit if one of the others has done so? or does that part not apply to GK's? might be irrelevant i'll take another look and be back


nope, i'm wrong, the green and white cant possibly have black piping in any case

 

[AlexF]

i cant recall now, what colour shorts were the outfield players wearing? i'll take another look... just wondering if the outfield players were eligible to wear black then the keeper is obliged to follow suit if one of the others has done so? or does that part not apply to GK's?

Doesn't apply to GKs. Their attire must match their uniform appropriately, and all GKs from the same team must be dressed uniformly (ie, green shorts with black hem, if they have visible undershorts, they all wear the same colour, whether green or black).

 

[PinnerPaul]

Doesn't apply to GKs. Their attire must match their uniform appropriately, and all GKs from the same team must be dressed uniformly (ie, green shorts with black hem, if they have visible undershorts, they all wear the same colour, whether green or black).

But black undershorts under yellow kit?

 

[richard ramjane]

But black undershorts under yellow kit?

i think @AlexF is concurring... black undershorts under yellow kit is not appropriate

 

[AlexF]

i think @AlexF is concurring... black undershorts under yellow kit is not appropriate

Not having seen pictures of the kit at all, if the shorts are all yellow, then the shorts must be yellow. If the shorts had a black hem (even if only 1/32nd of an inch in thickness), then black undershorts may be worn instead (but again, if there are two dressed GKs on the team wearing undershorts, those undershorts must be identical in colours, such that one cannot wear yellow while the other wears black).

 

[PP62]

if there are two dressed GKs on the team wearing undershorts, those undershorts must be identical in colours, such that one cannot wear yellow while the other wears black).

If a substitute goalkeeper comes on and his undershorts are the same colour as his own shorts then I wouldn't care whether they matched the departing keeper's or not. That's taking fussy to another level!

 

[AlexF]

If a substitute goalkeeper comes on and his undershorts are the same colour as his own shorts then I wouldn't care whether they matched the departing keeper's or not. That's taking fussy to another level!

Personally, I agree with you. But... the desire from "on high" is that uniform is "uniform" it seems.

 

[Justylove]

Personally, I agree with you. But... the desire from "on high" is that uniform is "uniform" it seems.

Did a senior Sunday cup final recently. Turned up and both teams had black shorts and black socks! Apparently the league had not picked it up.

Game was at a supply league ground and the team had spare Yellow shorts and socks that one of the sides changed into. Next issue was they only had black tape and undershorts!

Fortunately common sense prevailed and they played in the Yellow shorts and socks with black tape and undershorts and none of the league officials batted an eyelid!

 

[Brian Hamilton]

You lot not knowing why the player was cautioned? No altercation, no dissent, just failure to comply. See text in bold.

Player's Equipment
1. Safety
A player must not use equipment or wear anything that is dangerous.
All items of jewellery (necklaces, rings, bracelets, earrings, leather bands, rubber bands, etc.) are forbidden and must be removed. Using tape to cover jewellery is not permitted.
The players must be inspected before the start of the match and substitutes before they enter the field of play. If a player is wearing or using unauthorised/dangerous equipment or jewellery the referee must order the player to:
• remove the item
• leave the field of play at the next stoppage if the player is unable or unwilling to comply
A player who refuses to comply or wears the item again must be cautioned.

 

[GraemeS]

You lot not knowing why the player was cautioned? No altercation, no dissent, just failure to comply. See text in bold.

Player's Equipment
1. Safety
A player must not use equipment or wear anything that is dangerous.
All items of jewellery (necklaces, rings, bracelets, earrings, leather bands, rubber bands, etc.) are forbidden and must be removed. Using tape to cover jewellery is not permitted.
The players must be inspected before the start of the match and substitutes before they enter the field of play. If a player is wearing or using unauthorised/dangerous equipment or jewellery the referee must order the player to:
• remove the item
• leave the field of play at the next stoppage if the player is unable or unwilling to comply
A player who refuses to comply or wears the item again must be cautioned.

I'm worried this sets a dangerous precedent then? The upshot of this incident appears to be that the player essentially decided that he'd rather take a caution and play with the incorrect equipment than change. And the referee didn't feel able to give a second caution for continued non-compliance, so just let him carry on.

When it's the wrong colour undershorts or a bit of tape, that's not a huge deal - give the caution and move on. But what if I've asked the player to sort out something I consider dangerous and he chooses to take a caution rather than make a change? Surely I have to be empowered to stop him taking part in the match somehow?

 

[Ste]

But what if I've asked the player to sort out something I consider dangerous and he chooses to take a caution rather than make a change? Surely I have to be empowered to stop him taking part in the match somehow?

I wouldn't interpret it as meaning that a caution allows the player to wear the item. After I'd issued the caution I'd instruct them again to remove/correct whatever the issue is. If they refuse I'd feel empowered to caution again.

 

[GraemeS]

I wouldn't interpret it as meaning that a caution allows the player to wear the item. After I'd issued the caution I'd instruct them again to remove/correct whatever the issue is. If they refuse I'd feel empowered to caution again.

And yet in this incident, it's been said that he continued to wear the wrong colour undershorts? I agree that there's a case for 2 cautions for the same offence here, but the referee on the day clearly didn't think so.

 

[Padfoot]

You lot not knowing why the player was cautioned? No altercation, no dissent, just failure to comply. See text in bold.

Player's Equipment
1. Safety
A player must not use equipment or wear anything that is dangerous.
All items of jewellery (necklaces, rings, bracelets, earrings, leather bands, rubber bands, etc.) are forbidden and must be removed. Using tape to cover jewellery is not permitted.
The players must be inspected before the start of the match and substitutes before they enter the field of play. If a player is wearing or using unauthorised/dangerous equipment or jewellery the referee must order the player to:
• remove the item
• leave the field of play at the next stoppage if the player is unable or unwilling to comply
A player who refuses to comply or wears the item again must be cautioned.

Should have been ordered off the field of play at the first stoppage then? Or not even allowed to start?

Otherwise the interpretation you are putting forward suggests that a player can opt to take the caution and do nothing about their inappropriate attire/equipment and thats the end of the matter.

Becomes more challenging when it's the GK as you have made them leave the field of play, you can't really restart until that team has a GK in place. So if the GK is being really obstinate and refusing to remove the offending item, you simply don't restart until they do, give them a "reasonable" amount of time to comply (or provide a substitute GK), then move towards an abandonment.
Or....caution before the KO for the refusal to comply, order them from the field of play at the first stoppage, if they still refuse, 2nd caution and red. Forces the team to provide a new GK and the game can continue.

Good luck selling those decisions, especially in a cup final.

 

[Ciley Myrus]

^^^ am along same lines ^^

"remove that ring", then you see he still has it on, so you ask for it to be removed, its not happening so you issue a caution and that makes everything ok?

 

[Brian Hamilton]

I'm worried this sets a dangerous precedent then? The upshot of this incident appears to be that the player essentially decided that he'd rather take a caution and play with the incorrect equipment than change. And the referee didn't feel able to give a second caution for continued non-compliance, so just let him carry on.

When it's the wrong colour undershorts or a bit of tape, that's not a huge deal - give the caution and move on. But what if I've asked the player to sort out something I consider dangerous and he chooses to take a caution rather than make a change? Surely I have to be empowered to stop him taking part in the match somehow?

I wouldn't interpret it as meaning that a caution allows the player to wear the item. After I'd issued the caution I'd instruct them again to remove/correct whatever the issue is. If they refuse I'd feel empowered to caution again.

And yet in this incident, it's been said that he continued to wear the wrong colour undershorts? I agree that there's a case for 2 cautions for the same offence here, but the referee on the day clearly didn't think so.

Should have been ordered off the field of play at the first stoppage then? Or not even allowed to start?

Otherwise the interpretation you are putting forward suggests that a player can opt to take the caution and do nothing about their inappropriate attire/equipment and thats the end of the matter.

Becomes more challenging when it's the GK as you have made them leave the field of play, you can't really restart until that team has a GK in place. So if the GK is being really obstinate and refusing to remove the offending item, you simply don't restart until they do, give them a "reasonable" amount of time to comply (or provide a substitute GK), then move towards an abandonment.
Or....caution before the KO for the refusal to comply, order them from the field of play at the first stoppage, if they still refuse, 2nd caution and red. Forces the team to provide a new GK and the game can continue.

Good luck selling those decisions, especially in a cup final.

^^^ am along same lines ^^

"remove that ring", then you see he still has it on, so you ask for it to be removed, its not happening so you issue a caution and that makes everything ok?

I didn't say I agreed with the failure to take subsequent action. I simply quoted the relevant part of law and explained why the player was cautioned.

If the referee chose to ignore the non-compliance thereafter, then that's his failure not mine. Like the OP, I wasn't at the game

 

[Peter Grove]

^^^ am along same lines ^^

"remove that ring", then you see he still has it on, so you ask for it to be removed, its not happening so you issue a caution and that makes everything ok?

No, according to the law after cautioning the player for non-compliance:

the player: is instructed by the referee to leave the field of play to correct the equipment [...]
A player who leaves the field of play to correct or change equipment must:

• have the equipment checked by a match official before being allowed to re-enter
• only re-enter with the referee’s permission

So a player who hasn't corrected the equipment, is not given permission to re-enter the field.

 

[pankaye]

no one knows what he was cautioned for. he could have been cautioned for say his wedding ring, which he subsequently took off. maybe the ref simply overlooked his undershirt/tape etc.

 

[Ciley Myrus]

Sorry was not at the game, was only giving an opinion based on what was written!!

 

[zarathustra]

no one knows what he was cautioned for. he could have been cautioned for say his wedding ring, which he subsequently took off. maybe the ref simply overlooked his undershirt/tape etc.

True, or making illegal markings on the pitch whilst warming up.

Maybe he was kicking off with one of the opposition before the match and got cautioned for AA.

It would be strange that you'd caution someone for refusing to change sock tape/undershorts but still let them play.

Stopping them playing wouldn't be too much of a drama at that point, the team can start with their reserve keeper