Player Takes Shirt Off During Match ....

Status
Not open for further replies.

Kes

I'll Decide ...
#21
I had something similar on the weekend but I was slightly compassionate to the situation. Everyone was kitted up for really cold weather with the majority of players having under shirts on (including myself). It turned out to be mild with sunny spells and about 5 players took their shirts off (within a 10 minute period) when the ball was out of play. I didn't think it warranted a caution (or 5 in this case) but it did cross my mind. I did instead order the players to leave the field of play and warned the captains this shouldn't happen without my attention.

Would I really have been pulled up for this by an assessor?

Where do people stand with gloves for the icey days...? (que abuse)
Only by a really anal one (IMO). ;)

I've never worn gloves to referee in but have been tempted. I expect it would just make things more difficult when it came to reaching into my pockets for cards, using my pen etc. Don't like fannying around during a match ....
 

Peter Grove

Well-Known Member
#22
A well known assessor was watching, not there to assess, but as usual comes over at the end and offers advice. Said I "should have cautioned for the shirt coming off, as soon as the shirt is removed it's a caution".
Then I'm afraid that 'well known assessor' was wrong, if he meant that every single time a player removes the shirt, they must be cautioned. Although in this case, where the player has removed the shirt and thrown it to the ground in an apparent fit of pique after a decision went against him, a caution for dissent (not simply for removing the shirt) would certainly be possible
Those of you insisting that a yellow card for removing your shirt during a goal celebration is correct, but that simply removing your shirt for any other reason is okay
I don't think anyone has said that - what people have said its that it is only mandatory for a goal celebration. In other circumstances it would be up to the referee to decide, based on the circumstances. It could for instance be a show of dissent (as in the case above).
 
#23
A well known assessor was watching, not there to assess, but as usual comes over at the end and offers advice. Said I "should have cautioned for the shirt coming off, as soon as the shirt is removed it's a caution". I could have for dissent? I do feel he was frustrated at himself rather than me and didn't gesture it in anyway towards me. I had no problems all game and the penalty was the only incident of any note throughout the game.
I know plenty of 'well known assessors' who are dangerously incompetent. Your assessor needs to read the laws - they only mandate a caution if it's in celebration of a goal.
Having said that, your local area may have a directive/comp rule that would require a caution (such as my area requires a caution for a player wearing jewellery or not wearing shinpads)

With hindsight, I may have got it wrong. I'm not overly concerned by it, else I wouldn't have put myself up for scrutiny by my fellows on here. ;)
Removing your shirt in any non-goalscoring even is situational. It's up to your assessment of the incident as to whether it requires a caution.
Now, if you turned around and he was putting his shirt on and not involved in play, then you can let it slide. But he's become involved in play not wearing a shirt - that's quite a major breach of Law 4!!

Obviously you can't allow play to continue (I'm assuming nobody advocating against a caution is saying that play should have continued here?), so how do we handle the restart?

There's no IFK offence under Law 4, so the only 2 options are the IFK + Caution (for any other offence not previously listed), or a drop ball.

Given that you're stopping play as a direct result of a player's actions in breaching Law 4, I don't think a drop ball is suitable. Therefore, caution and IFK. I think the player left you with no choice here!!

Having said that, I'd agree with the others that perhaps you could have asked him why first. If he's telling you he thought he got bit by something, then I think you can make the argument that the actions aren't his fault, thus drop ball. If he, say, was simply removing an undershirt...well, nothing specifically wrong with that, but you're going to make a judgement on whether he appeared to be trying to put his jersey back on or not.

Does he have to leave the FOP?
I think not. The Laws state that you don't need to stop play but you can direct him to leave the FOP to correct his equipment. That is, the passage that says he must leave the FOP is specifically referencing a situation where play is continuing and you've told him to leave.
The laws then state that when play is stopped the player must leave unless it's been corrected.
Here, play was stopped because of the equipment issue, but he's corrected it in the time you've been talking to him and cautioning him. I don't think either passage in the law explicitly covers this scenario - and also consider the spirit of the law; telling him to leave the FOP to do absolutely nothing just seems silly.

As for everybody who has argued that he must leave the FOP, I'm calling you out. Every one of you.

I'm sure you've all had a situation where play has stopped for whatever reason, and a player is reattaching his shinpad or boot that's gone flying off. When ball is out of play immediately after a challenge is the more likely scenario - possibly from a foul. In that case are you going to tell that player to leave the FOP to put his shoe or shinpad back on? I doubt you've even considered it :)

I had something similar on the weekend but I was slightly compassionate to the situation. Everyone was kitted up for really cold weather with the majority of players having under shirts on (including myself). It turned out to be mild with sunny spells and about 5 players took their shirts off (within a 10 minute period) when the ball was out of play. I didn't think it warranted a caution (or 5 in this case) but it did cross my mind. I did instead order the players to leave the field of play and warned the captains this shouldn't happen without my attention.

Would I really have been pulled up for this by an assessor?

Where do people stand with gloves for the icey days...? (que abuse)
This is perfectly fine - absolutely no justification for a caution here. gloves? Who cares? Players wearing them, refs wearing them, who cares!

Only by a really anal one (IMO). ;)

.
I'd correct that to saying 'only by an incompetent one'
 

JamesL

Well-Known Member
#24
Obviously you can't allow play to continue
Why cant play continue?

Offences and sanctions
For any offence play need not be stopped and the player:
• is instructed by the referee to leave the field of play to correct the equipment
• leaves when play stops, unless the equipment has already been corrected

I'd say you can stop and caution for a repeat offence but certainly the law is clear here "for any offence" play continues.

Unless anyone is in immediate danger, of course.
 

one

Well-Known Member
#25
Why cant play continue?

Offences and sanctions
For any offence play need not be stopped and the player:
• is instructed by the referee to leave the field of play to correct the equipment
• leaves when play stops, unless the equipment has already been corrected

I'd say you can stop and caution for a repeat offence but certainly the law is clear here "for any offence" play continues.

Unless anyone is in immediate danger, of course.
And the law clearly sets precedence for allowing play to continue for a player without footwear or shinpad. Even a goal scored without them is allowed to stand.
 
#26
All fair points, but the jersey is a bit different to a shoe or shinpad. The Jersey is what identifies the player AS a player, a match participant, and one specific to a team. So I think it holds particular importance there. I don't think a player suddenly taking it upon himself to run 'shirts vs skins' is within the spirit of the game at all. Had he released the ball quickly, or even taken a moment to quickly put it over his head, I'd be okay with it. But choosing to run with the ball while holding onto the jersey....he's gotta be taking the mickey here.....
 

JamesL

Well-Known Member
#27
All fair points, but the jersey is a bit different to a shoe or shinpad. The Jersey is what identifies the player AS a player, a match participant, and one specific to a team. So I think it holds particular importance there. I don't think a player suddenly taking it upon himself to run 'shirts vs skins' is within the spirit of the game at all. Had he released the ball quickly, or even taken a moment to quickly put it over his head, I'd be okay with it. But choosing to run with the ball while holding onto the jersey....he's gotta be taking the mickey here.....
I suppose you can pull the unspecified behaviour card out here. But not for me... unless, as I intimated earlier, it was a repeat offence without any reasonable justification.
 

Padfoot

The Enlightened One
#28
All fair points, but the jersey is a bit different to a shoe or shinpad. The Jersey is what identifies the player AS a player, a match participant, and one specific to a team. So I think it holds particular importance there. I don't think a player suddenly taking it upon himself to run 'shirts vs skins' is within the spirit of the game at all. Had he released the ball quickly, or even taken a moment to quickly put it over his head, I'd be okay with it. But choosing to run with the ball while holding onto the jersey....he's gotta be taking the mickey here.....
Rubbish.

The shirt is part of the mandatory equipment, with no more, or less, significance than the other mandatory equipment. Otherwise it would be specified as such in the LOTG.

Therefore, the LOTG are crystal clear that play does not need to be stopped making your whole argument worthless.

Another example of someone making up their own interpretation of the LOTG to suit their own agenda.
 
#30
W
I suppose you can pull the unspecified behaviour card out here. But not for me... unless, as I intimated earlier, it was a repeat offence without any reasonable justification.
So a player has removed his jersey for no apparent reason, is making no attempt to put it back on and proceeds to play wearing no jersey and you're going to allow that? Just so I'm clear :)
 
#33
Here is my thought and it all hinges on the totality of the situation and the OOTR. Yes, the norm is when a player has an inadvertent equipment issue - blood on uniform, lost boot, lost shinguard, wearing jewelry, etc to have them leave the FOP to correct the issue if it is not something quickly corrected. I get the points as to asking why the shirt was removed and there may be a reasonable explanation depending on the age, level, etc. If this were a U10 low level player, I might see it differently than an adult. There are two questions in my mind. Is the removal of the shirt to deal with an issue (i.e. blood, something else reasonable)? and can you play without a shirt albeit temporarily?

There is more info needed. If the shirt was removed for no valid reason then I would say they have INTENTIONALLY removed compulsory equipment (must wear a shirt with sleeves a different color than their opponents. Our local rules of competition typically require a unique uniform number). Here is the critical question - is intentionally removing compulsory equipment without an acceptable reason ITOOTR unsporting/showing lack of respect for the game? I would say it could be. Can you realize an advantage as a player by not being easily differentiated from your opponent? Possibly. I would say that the caution all comes down to the opinion of the referee and not an automatic (as in a goal celebration).
 

Padfoot

The Enlightened One
#35
Padfoot has spoken.... Case closed!! :)
There can be no debate around whether play needs to be stopped
Here is my thought and it all hinges on the totality of the situation and the OOTR. Yes, the norm is when a player has an inadvertent equipment issue - blood on uniform, lost boot, lost shinguard, wearing jewelry, etc to have them leave the FOP to correct the issue if it is not something quickly corrected. I get the points as to asking why the shirt was removed and there may be a reasonable explanation depending on the age, level, etc. If this were a U10 low level player, I might see it differently than an adult. There are two questions in my mind. Is the removal of the shirt to deal with an issue (i.e. blood, something else reasonable)? and can you play without a shirt albeit temporarily?

There is more info needed. If the shirt was removed for no valid reason then I would say they have INTENTIONALLY removed compulsory equipment (must wear a shirt with sleeves a different color than their opponents. Our local rules of competition typically require a unique uniform number). Here is the critical question - is intentionally removing compulsory equipment without an acceptable reason ITOOTR unsporting/showing lack of respect for the game? I would say it could be. Can you realize an advantage as a player by not being easily differentiated from your opponent? Possibly. I would say that the caution all comes down to the opinion of the referee and not an automatic (as in a goal celebration).
But as the referee never bothered to find out why the shirt was removed that whole argument is utterly irrelevant.

Also, Law 4 is already specific about what action is to be taken in the event of an offence........which doesn't really leave any leeway for a referee to decide to pretend another offence has happened to justify a stupid caution.
 

Kes

I'll Decide ...
#36
But as the referee never bothered to find out why the shirt was removed that whole argument is utterly irrelevant.

Also, Law 4 is already specific about what action is to be taken in the event of an offence........which doesn't really leave any leeway for a referee to decide to pretend another offence has happened to justify a stupid caution.
I didn't "pretend" anything. You may think the caution "stupid" but frankly, your manner and tone are (as ever) rude and uncalled for. You were the only member on my "ignore list" for over a year owing to the pathetically PC nature of your posts which I can't abide. You can go back on it. Don't bother to respond. If I want robotic bilge - I'll buy a talking robot ....
 

McTavish

Well-Known Member
#38
I didn't "pretend" anything. You may think the caution "stupid" but frankly, your manner and tone are (as ever) rude and uncalled for. You were the only member on my "ignore list" for over a year owing to the pathetically PC nature of your posts which I can't abide. You can go back on it. Don't bother to respond. If I want robotic bilge - I'll buy a talking robot ....
Although you can accuse Padfoot of many things I don't think being PC is one of them...:confused:
 

Mintyref

Well-Known Member
#40
Padfoot PC.........is it a new referee computer that applies the laws as they are writ?
I may not always agree with the tone, but I can rarely argue with the logic of his answers. Indeed if I reflect on some of the match management issues I suffered some were of my own making by not applying the appropriate sanctions at the appropriate time and that is the crux of the issue......timing!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.