Ipswich v Maidstone United Law 4

[Quarryref]

Anyone else surprised by Maidstone players being allowed to wear black undershirts in this game ?

I know a few observers much further down the pyramid who would be sharpening their pencils seeing that.

Interestingly, in my experience, I have found the further up the leagues you go, the more likely observers seem to be to ignore minor infringements on kit matters and put them in the 'no impact, not interested' box. Pedantry on these things seems to peak at around level 4, including one observer I know who is obsessed with the length of white ankle socks.

This Maidstone infringement was, however, pretty blatant. They have a black edge, but no way you could argue it is the 'main colour of the shirt sleeve'

 

[JamesL]

Anyone else surprised by Maidstone players being allowed to wear black undershirts in this game ?

I know a few observers much further down the pyramid who would be sharpening their pencils seeing that.

Interestingly, in my experience, I have found the further up the leagues you go, the more likely observers seem to be to ignore minor infringements on kit matters and put them in the 'no impact, not interested' box. Pedantry on these things seems to peak at around level 4, including one observer I know who is obsessed with the length of white ankle socks.

This Maidstone infringement was, however, pretty blatant. They have a black edge, but no way you could argue it is the 'main colour of the shirt sleeve'

And, in the Newport County game V Man utd the goalkeeper was wearing black undershorts under green shorts, with no black in the short what so ever.
Considered a thread on it too.

Blackburn V Wrexham was interesting last night as they have 1 blue main sleeve colour and 1 white main sleeve colour.

You are right, I got dinged over undershirts in a game on a freezing cold evening, and they didn't cause a clash.

 

[RefereeX]

I wonder if the Maidstone one is allowed on the basis of:

Undershirts must be:
• a single colour which is the same colour as the main colour of the shirt sleeve
or
• a pattern/colours which exactly replicate(s) the shirt sleeve

They could argue that the pattern replicates the fact that the yellow part of the sleeve ends above the elbow and then it is black from there down. Does that make sense?

Interestingly the shorts wording is:

Undershorts/tights must be the same colour as the main colour of the shorts or the lowest part of the shorts – players of the same team must wear the same colour

If undershorts can be worn to match the colour of the bottom of the shorts, why can't undershirts be the same?

Not saying you're wrong to question it, but just another angle.

 

[Quarryref]

I wonder if the Maidstone one is allowed on the basis of:

Undershirts must be:
• a single colour which is the same colour as the main colour of the shirt sleeve
or
• a pattern/colours which exactly replicate(s) the shirt sleeve

They could argue that the pattern replicates the fact that the yellow part of the sleeve ends above the elbow and then it is black from there down. Does that make sense?

Interestingly the shorts wording is:

Undershorts/tights must be the same colour as the main colour of the shorts or the lowest part of the shorts – players of the same team must wear the same colour

If undershorts can be worn to match the colour of the bottom of the shorts, why can't undershirts be the same?

Not saying you're wrong to question it, but just another angle.

I don't think so. This is the explanation issued when the Law was updated in 19/20. The word 'exactly' seems deliberate and I think this was added for sleeves that have more complicated patterns like checks or stripes. I also vaguely remember seeing an example being quoted at some point - maybe a Schalke shirt ? ... but my memory may also be failing me

Law 4
• Undershirts can be multi-coloured/patterned if exactly the same as the sleeve of the main shirt

The undershirts in Maidstone's case were a single colour - black - so can only fall under the first bullet

 

[Quarryref]

If undershorts can be worn to match the colour of the bottom of the shorts, why can't undershirts be the same?

I agree that would make common sense, but it is definitely not the way the law is written.

 

[JamesL]

If undershorts can be worn to match the colour of the bottom of the shorts, why can't undershirts be the same?

My logic suggests this is to do with identifying (handball) offences and to avoid clashes of undershirt, although I don't think that's bulletproof.

For example, 1 team in all black, wear black undershirt Vs a team in white with a black hem on the sleeve could then also wear black undershirt.

This would make distinguishing a potential handball offence more difficult than a black Vs white undershirt.

Shorts are for less important decisions and are usually mostly hidden under the short as well.

 

[RefGod]

Maidstone do this at Step 2 on almost every game. The undershirt being black makes it even more difficult to enforce. Delaying kick off at that level by sending players back to correct it would cause controversy most 2Bs would be eager to avoid. At worst, the observer would hit the AR who checked but as previously referenced, there are so many 3s who couldn't care less about the 1 line they may or may not do once every few months.

 

[RefereeX]

Maidstone do this at Step 2 on almost every game. The undershirt being black makes it even more difficult to enforce. Delaying kick off at that level by sending players back to correct it would cause controversy most 2Bs would be eager to avoid. At worst, the observer would hit the AR who checked but as previously referenced, there are so many 3s who couldn't care less about the 1 line they may or may not do once every few months.

So basically, you're telling me if I do end up on the line for a Maidstone game and I do care about my mark, make sure I'm checking the other team?

 

[RefGod]

So basically, you're telling me if I do end up on the line for a Maidstone game and I do care about my mark, make sure I'm checking the other team?

As Senior AR usually checks away and marks 0.1 higher than junior on average, definitely.

 

[Quarryref]

So basically, you're telling me if I do end up on the line for a Maidstone game and I do care about my mark, make sure I'm checking the other team?

I'd say bring it up as a known issue in the pre-match brief when all 3 officials and observer are there. Two possible outcomes :

1. We enforce - tell the club at teamsheet exchange and then enforce on a 'no surprises' basis
2. We ignore because it's not important - happy days

I've heard a Step 2 observer this season (not with Maidstone) caveat the referee's 'look after yourselves at kit inspection' instruction with 'use common sense and don't fall out before kick-off with them over stuff that doesn't matter'. Pretty sure he would go option 2 all day

 

[santa sangria]

There might be something in the competition rules.

Here we have a sliding scale for matching underwear depending on the level. (You are gonna say that has to be agreed with Ifab in writing, and I’m gonna think about 200 countries and 30,000 divisions/competitions worldwide each with their own rules and guess that Ifab doesn’t have the resources to actually approve alterations to the laws that are in competition rules.)

 

[Quarryref]

There might be something in the competition rules.

Here we have a sliding scale for matching underwear depending on the level. (You are gonna say that has to be agreed with Ifab in writing, and I’m gonna think about 200 countries and 30,000 divisions/competitions worldwide each with their own rules and guess that Ifab doesn’t have the resources to actually approve alterations to the laws that are in competition rules.)

With Maidstone we are talking FA Cup and National League North. There is nothing in those competition rules opting out of part of Law 4.