Hair pulling not in the Football rules

Coopertrueblue

Coopertrueblue

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
Couldn't belive that Romero wasn't pulled up for this yesterday and VAR let it go.

Sky have an article in it and hair pulling isn't in the rules (unsure if it is in the Womans rules but that's for another day) can only fall under violent conduct or unsporting behaviour.

'Romero will not be punished for Cucurella offence | Hair-pulling not in rules'

www.skysports.com

Cristian Romero: Tottenham defender will not face retrospective action for pulling Marc Cucurella's hair

Cristian Romero pulled Chelsea defender Marc Cucurellas hair just before Tottenham equalised to draw 2-2 with the Blues; the incident left Chelsea manager Thomas Tuchel fuming; hair-pulling is not listed in footballs laws as an offence
www.skysports.com www.skysports.com
 
louis-van-gaal.png
 
They said last night on MOTD that Ryan Shawcross (I think) got a retrospective 3 game ban for it years ago as it's deemed to be violent conduct.

The VAR officials were a disgrace yesterday. Both goals shouldn't have stood and that was clearly violent conduct on the afro.
 
First I've seen it after reading about it on here yesterday. How on earth can VAR not deem that a foul? If they still get it wrong down there with something as clear and obvious as that with all of the bells and whistles they have available then we've zero chance of the correct calls we are hoping for coming from the 6 cameras and no screen effort.
 
Spart7 said:
First I've seen it after reading about it on here yesterday. How on earth can VAR not deem that a foul? If they still get it wrong down there with something as clear and obvious as that with all of the bells and whistles they have available then we've zero chance of the correct calls we are hoping for coming from the 6 cameras and no screen effort.
Click to expand...
Cause it wasn't directly impacted in the goal - the ball went out for another corner. So it's not just a case of a foul that should have been given

so they way well have deemed it a foul, but only if the deemed it a red card would it be given

despite the fact that both Spurs goals really came from similar
 
The VAR guys clearly didn't think it fell under the remit of 'Violent Conduct'. I think they were wrong in that interpretation. No need to change the rules they just need to make it clear that an offence such as yesterday, and it wasn't a wee tug on the hair we are talking about, is deemed 'Violent Conduct'. It should have been a red card.
 
GreigC said:
Cause it wasn't directly impacted in the goal - the ball went out for another corner. So it's not just a case of a foul that should have been given

so they way well have deemed it a foul, but only if the deemed it a red card would it be given

despite the fact that both Spurs goals really came from similar
Click to expand...

IMO it was a red card though.

Their first goal also came from a foul in the build up then the Spurs player standing in an offside position blocking the keepers' view.
 
What about sticking chewing gum in the girls blouse that has a pony tail at a corner kick you could just say you were told to stick with your marker
 
Coopertrueblue said:
Couldn't belive that Romero wasn't pulled up for this yesterday and VAR let it go.

Sky have an article in it and hair pulling isn't in the rules (unsure if it is in the Womans rules but that's for another day) can only fall under violent conduct or unsporting behaviour.

'Romero will not be punished for Cucurella offence | Hair-pulling not in rules'

www.skysports.com

Cristian Romero: Tottenham defender will not face retrospective action for pulling Marc Cucurella's hair

Cristian Romero pulled Chelsea defender Marc Cucurellas hair just before Tottenham equalised to draw 2-2 with the Blues; the incident left Chelsea manager Thomas Tuchel fuming; hair-pulling is not listed in footballs laws as an offence
www.skysports.com www.skysports.com
Click to expand...

Should be ungentlemanly conduct.

But %^*& knows how the wumins leage would classify that.
 
GreigC said:
Cause it wasn't directly impacted in the goal - the ball went out for another corner. So it's not just a case of a foul that should have been given

so they way well have deemed it a foul, but only if the deemed it a red card would it be given

despite the fact that both Spurs goals really came from similar
Click to expand...
Well surely they apply common sense to these things if the incidents were close together. If they've scored from a corner awarded directly after a foul and potential red or even yellow card wasn't given then the corner and subsequent goal get ruled out and the player carded. Reading the Sky article the ref wasn't even called to the screen to look at it despite refs actively being encouraged to do so this season. It's a farce. What if a player gets forearm smashed off the ball, the ball goes out then is quickly returned into play? It's then not the same phase of play so VAR won't return to the incident and look at it? Bollocks (not directed at you or the point you make), guaranteed they would, they've made an arse of it and not for the first time either by the sounds of it.
 
Rangers daft said:
So you can't pull a players shirt but you can just pull them back by the hair...
Click to expand...
The issue is that VAR can only intervene if it was a red card offence (I think the ball wasn't yet in play at the time of the hair pull maybe). VAR cannot intervene for yellow card offences. They deemed it - wrongly in my opinion - to not be Violent Conduct and therefore not a red card offence.
 
Valley Bluenose said:
The issue is that VAR can only intervene if it was a red card offence (I think the ball wasn't yet in play at the time of the hair pull maybe). VAR cannot intervene for yellow card offences. They deemed it - wrongly in my opinion - to not be Violent Conduct and therefore not a red card offence.
Click to expand...
Cant var be used if there is a foul in the build up to a goal? Barisic hand ball vs braga at home springs to mind?
 
Rangers daft said:
Cant var be used if there is a foul in the build up to a goal? Barisic hand ball vs braga at home springs to mind?
Click to expand...
They review every goal. There was no goal in the Spurs game though - the goal came after the hair-pulling had been reviewed and deemed not to be a red card.
 
Spart7 said:
Well surely they apply common sense to these things if the incidents were close together. If they've scored from a corner awarded directly after a foul and potential red or even yellow card wasn't given then the corner and subsequent goal get ruled out and the player carded. Reading the Sky article the ref wasn't even called to the screen to look at it despite refs actively being encouraged to do so this season. It's a farce. What if a player gets forearm smashed off the ball, the ball goes out then is quickly returned into play? It's then not the same phase of play so VAR won't return to the incident and look at it? Bollocks (not directed at you or the point you make), guaranteed they would, they've made an arse of it and not for the first time either by the sounds of it.
Click to expand...
Thats why the referees stop the ball being returned to play when theres a VAR check - the play would get blown dead

The point you make is, IMO, mental - you'd be going down the lines of was the corner correctly awarded if you go with your argument

The fact is, the common sensical way to do things, is that once the ball is back in play - previous plays can't be reviewed - which is what happens

They deemed the foul on Havertz to be too far back in the passage - and the ball hadn't even gone out by then
 
Valley Bluenose said:
The VAR guys clearly didn't think it fell under the remit of 'Violent Conduct'. I think they were wrong in that interpretation. No need to change the rules they just need to make it clear that an offence such as yesterday, and it wasn't a wee tug on the hair we are talking about, is deemed 'Violent Conduct'. It should have been a red card.
Click to expand...
The VAR guys is as big a twat as Taylor who was looking right at it.

Something corrupt going on there. Pal backing his pal for having missed it maybe but it stinks.
 
The only one who got it wrong was the ref. He saw it, he did nothing about it. It should have been a yellow the same as a shirt pull IMO, rather than a red card. VAR cannot be used to overturn a separate phase of play, I thought we all understood that by now! Clearly not. It could have been used to decide it was a red and violent conduct, but it still wouldn't have stopped the second corner, and so as Kane scored that goal, it would have stood. Let's stop pretending both Spurs goals should have been chopped off.
 
What they need is a compliance officer
Or maybe they should make players wear hair nets

I vaguely remember somone getting sent off in Italy years ago
It looked as if they'd just turned round & punched a player that was close marking them at a corner
When asked what prompted the reaction - the offender said the punched player had been pulling out the hairs on the back of his legs

Maybe hair pulling - from any location - could be written into the rules ?
Then again maybe a foul, obstruction or deliberate infringement could be correctly punished instead of being hair-ist
 
Coopertrueblue said:
Couldn't belive that Romero wasn't pulled up for this yesterday and VAR let it go.

Sky have an article in it and hair pulling isn't in the rules (unsure if it is in the Womans rules but that's for another day) can only fall under violent conduct or unsporting behaviour.

'Romero will not be punished for Cucurella offence | Hair-pulling not in rules'

www.skysports.com

Cristian Romero: Tottenham defender will not face retrospective action for pulling Marc Cucurella's hair

Cristian Romero pulled Chelsea defender Marc Cucurellas hair just before Tottenham equalised to draw 2-2 with the Blues; the incident left Chelsea manager Thomas Tuchel fuming; hair-pulling is not listed in footballs laws as an offence
www.skysports.com www.skysports.com
Click to expand...
Football has no rules, only 17 laws. I would imagine hair pulling would constitute ungentlemanly conduct and attract the appropriate punishment. Football was created for men, some gentle, some less so. ask Souness. WATP
 
Coopertrueblue said:
Couldn't belive that Romero wasn't pulled up for this yesterday and VAR let it go.

Sky have an article in it and hair pulling isn't in the rules (unsure if it is in the Womans rules but that's for another day) can only fall under violent conduct or unsporting behaviour.

'Romero will not be punished for Cucurella offence | Hair-pulling not in rules'

www.skysports.com

Cristian Romero: Tottenham defender will not face retrospective action for pulling Marc Cucurella's hair

Cristian Romero pulled Chelsea defender Marc Cucurellas hair just before Tottenham equalised to draw 2-2 with the Blues; the incident left Chelsea manager Thomas Tuchel fuming; hair-pulling is not listed in footballs laws as an offence
www.skysports.com www.skysports.com
Click to expand...
No problems for the likes of Barker there then.
 
dt17 said:
They said last night on MOTD that Ryan Shawcross (I think) got a retrospective 3 game ban for it years ago as it's deemed to be violent conduct.

The VAR officials were a disgrace yesterday. Both goals shouldn't have stood and that was clearly violent conduct on the afro.
Click to expand...
Tbf there wasn’t anything wrong with the first. The last replay shows he just touched the ball before havertz fell. Couldn’t believe ma eyes when they never blew for the Romero foul. After that ye just know what’s happening from the corner.
 
Why would something so specific be in the rules? It’ll be covered by violent conduct, unsportsmanlike behaviour or just a plain old foul because he makes contact and doesn’t get the ball.

MOTD last night were trying to make it out like such a grey area because the rules don’t specific hair pulling. I’m sure they doing mention slapping, punching or rear naked chokeholds but they probably aren’t allowed either.
 
Just because it's not in the rules shouldn't matter. Using excessive force is in the rules as a foul so that would cover it. The rules won't specify every single thing that could or could not happen.
 
It's a red card offence, plain and simple.

Violent conduct is when a player uses or attempts to use excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball, or against a team-mate, team official, match official, spectator or any other person, regardless of whether contact is made.
Click to expand...

Dragging someone by the hair to the extent they fall over is excessive force.

You also have the direct free kick offence, although perhaps slightly more wooly

A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:

  • charges
  • jumps at
  • kicks or attempts to kick
  • pushes
  • strikes or attempts to strike (including head-butt)
  • tackles or challenges
  • trips or attempts to trip
If an offence involves contact, it is penalised by a direct free kick.

  • Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution. No disciplinary sanction is needed
  • Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned
  • Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and/or endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off
Click to expand...
 
His hair is an absolute riot, it deserves to be pulled. If he shaved that off he could probably run even quicker, aerodynamics and all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top