Laws of the Game

Laws of the Game

I've been boning up on the ol' Laws of the Game (2010/11 edition) and one or two things have caught my eye that I didn't know at all and I'm looking for clarification.

On page 18 the players equipment is outlined (jersey or shirt with sleeves (take that Cameroon), shorts, 'stockings', shinguards, and footwear) and it states that "if undershorts are worn, they must be of the same main colour of the shorts".  This is all well and good, yet I seem to recall in the NZ Knights vs Perth Glory (away) in season 2 Malik 'one hit wonder' Buari was sent from the field to remove a pair of long-johns which were black and the shorts of the Knights were also black.  Was this a failure of the refereee?  Or does 'undershorts' literally mean something which is the length of shorts worn under the shorts, excluding something which extends much further below the bottom of the shorts like long-johns?

On page 41 it details the procedure of the penalty kick and, among other things it says that the penalty-taker "must not play the ball again until it has touched another player".  This clearly means that if a ball came back off the upright or crossbar, having not touched the goalkeeper, that a goal could not be awarded if the penalty taker retained possession and scored.  Yet I'm fairly sure I've seen this happen sometime, though I can't for the life of me think of when (I know, doesn't sound convincing but still).

So yeah, doesn't matter much at all and would rarely be an issue, but I was just curious about those two things.

Also, interesting fact, provided it isn't an international match the field of play can be a square as the minimum length of the touch line is 90m while the maximum width of the goal line is 90m.

Penalty taker can't touch the ball until it's touched another player, so he wouldn't be able to score directly off a rebound from the post or crossbar. So either your memory is playing up or the ref got it wrong. Jag2010-07-01 10:21:36

Cheers.  Yes, I'll admit my memory over these last few years has waned considerably, despite my age, so I could be completely wrong about the penalty I thought I remembered.

Edit: 5 000 posts.  I officially have no life.
loyalgunner2010-07-01 10:27:39

Another question, so just figured I'd ask it in here.  It's about the Bosman Ruling.  Reading about it (on wikipedia) it said that it bans restrictions of foreign EU players in EU leagues.  Wouldn't the latest moves by the Premier League having a minimum number of English players constitute a restriction on foreign EU players?  E.g. each squad must have 25 players, 7 of which are 'homegrown' thus there is a restriction of foreigners (including from foreign EU states) at 18?

Also, it mentions that at the expiration of a players contract the club could refuse to let them go to another club and the Bosman ruling overturned that.  How did that work that a club, once the contract was over, could stop you leaving?

Anything else important about the Bosman Ruling?

I understand,the club can sign as many players as it wants,pay them as employees etc,but for the EPL competition the squad of 25 comes into play. So they aren't really restricting anyone from being signed etc. They can still play reserves or in europe i suppose.

Homegrown doesn't mean English (or even British) - it means a player who spent at least 3 seasons registered with an English or a Welsh club between the ages of 16 and 21 regardless of nationality.

Fabregas, fo example, is a homegrown player for Arsenal.

The only way to find out 100% that it complies is if someone decides to take it to court. Until (if) that happens, the law stands.

Like I said, homegrown does not equal English (or British). So there's no issue there at all really as far as EU is concerned.