Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
WHAT!!!! You obviously haven't seen the links - the rules 'say' that pulliing hair IS violent conduct and it IS a red card offence! That's the point! Have you actually seen the incident? He actually drags him to the ground by his hair!
Pulling hair comes under 'violent conduct', even if he didn't send him off (which he should) there should have been a free kick awarded to Chelsea (which there wasn't), i want to know why the incident was not brought up by VAR? Its a simple question that Gallagher (an actual Premier League referee) can't answer:-
I will agree with you that the hair pulling may be a foul but it was not indisputable violent conduct for the VAR official to call the ref to the monitor.
However, I have looked at IFAB (which governs FA) Laws of the Game 2022-2023 and specifically Rule 12.
No where in the rule states that pulling hair in itself is automatically deemed "violent conduct."
I will agree with you that the hair pulling may be a foul but it was not indisputable violent conduct for the VAR official to call the ref to the monitor.
However, I have looked at IFAB (which governs FA) Laws of the Game 2022-2023 and specifically Rule 12.
No where in the rule states that pulling hair in itself is automatically deemed "violent conduct."
So if during the next game at Leeds, at a corner if Raheem Sterling pulls over the Leeds defender by pulling him down to the ground by his hair and then scores the goal should be allowed to stand?? Or perhaps if Bamford is through on goal Silver can stop him by grabbing his hair and yanking him hard to the floor without fear of being sent off??
Really?
If in the future somebody assaults somebody this way during the game:-
WHAT!!!! You obviously haven't seen the links - the rules 'say' that pulliing hair IS violent conduct and it IS a red card offence! That's the point! Have you actually seen the incident? He actually drags him to the ground by his hair!
Pulling hair comes under 'violent conduct', even if he didn't send him off (which he should) there should have been a free kick awarded to Chelsea (which there wasn't), i want to know why the incident was not brought up by VAR? Its a simple question that Gallagher (an actual Premier League referee) can't answer:-
Man, you are like a broken record, continuing to care about what people who need to sell things say, instead of using your own mind. Here, I will make it easy for you since you clearly like to be spoon fed information. The Premier League follows the English FA Rules of the Game. https://www.thefa.com/football-rules...e/lawsandrules
If you want to cite to something when explaining a rule, instead of caring about a reporter, go to the source.
Law 12 is the ONLY rule governing fouls and misconduct. There are no "unwritten" rules. You follow what the rules say. Under rule 12, violent conduct is defined as:
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.
Now, had Romero gone up to anyone and pulled his hair when the ball was not being played toward him, it would have been deemed violent conduct. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIGRzIf3nZ8
But in this case, you have Cucurella with both his arms around Romero and Romero pulling and pushing him off of him. It is what happens on every corner. You seem to think the term Hair Pull is somehow in the Law of the Game. IT IS NOT. Just read. I am sorry its troubling for you, but "pulling hair comes under 'violent conduct' exactly to the same degree that locking arms with someone does. this was simply not violent conduct. Watch the whole play, not just the .8 seconds where the hair is pulled. But you don't care about rules.
Why was the incident was not brought up by VAR? Its is a simple question, and the answer is that ITY WAS BROUGHT UP BY VAR and the foul was REJECTED. Cucurella and Romero were fouling each other and the VAR decided not to award a foul on just one of them. I would have done the same in the Liverpool game.
You clearly haven't seen the play or read the rules. The rules DO NOT 'say' that pulliing hair IS violent conduct and it IS a red card offence. That's the point! You clearly have no idea what the rules say.
Have you actually seen the incident? Cucurella and Romero tie themselves up, Cucurella turns to face Romero while his left arm is holding him and he places his body between him and the goal, holiding him in place to preclude him from moving to the goal. Romero grabs his hair and pulls him laterally off his body, not to the ground. Like any good soccer player, when Cucurella feels the contact, he drops like a stone to try to draw a foul. this ref, having called the entirety of the game in allowing aggressive contact without a foul, continued the exact same standard for both teams he had been applying all game, and allowed both player's conduct. He did not drag him to the ground by his hair! Hyperbole! He pulled him by the hair and shirt off of him, stopping the illegal contact on him. Was it a foul on both of them, of course. Was it violent conduct on either, not a chance . Did the ref allow such conduct all game, yes. Was the VAR official correct, in my opinion yes.
So if during the next game at Leeds, at a corner if Raheem Sterling pulls over the Leeds defender by pulling him down to the ground by his hair and then scores the goal should be allowed to stand?? Or perhaps if Bamford is through on goal Silver can stop him by grabbing his hair and yanking him hard to the floor without fear of being sent off??
Really?
If in the future somebody assaults somebody this way during the game:-
And DOESN'T get sent off for violent conduct then I would like to see it.
Sorry, I am not going to waste my time watching a Youtube video, but you can write a summary of the video here if you like.
If you want to talk about next week's game, then it's pure speculation. Football rules are generally applied with specific set of facts and circumstances.
I don’t think you could find anyone who would disagree with that. I’m wondering if he will be benched for a few weeks.
He got goaded into a stupid move. It happens. Zindane??? But I think the goader was equally guilty. That push was just as bad. Its the rule on contact with the face that did it.
Rule 12: In addition, a player who, when not challenging for the ball, deliberately strikes an opponent or any other person on the head or face with the hand or arm, is guilty of violent conduct unless the force used was negligible.
Here the ref felt the head was used in place of the hand or arm in a deliberate strike to the face. I get the basis for the rule, but it may have been harsh in its application here. But the PL has made it clear, stay away from the face or head with direct strikes as a part of the concussion protections and anti-fighting campaign.
The mandatory suspension for a red card issued because of violent conduct is three matches. The FA may review the footage and decide that Nunez's ban should be extended, but I do not think they can shorten it unless they feel it was not a red card offense at all. So Nunez will miss Manchester United, Bournemouth, and Newcastle United. I doubt they will extend it, but given the rule on face strikes, it was a red card offense. Just sad he got goaded by a smart defender.
I will agree with you that the hair pulling may be a foul but it was not indisputable violent conduct for the VAR official to call the ref to the monitor.
However, I have looked at IFAB (which governs FA) Laws of the Game 2022-2023 and specifically Rule 12.
No where in the rule states that pulling hair in itself is automatically deemed "violent conduct."
Regardless, there should not have been given another chance to score with that corner. A foul and a free kick to Chelsea should have been the outcome. Bad officiating but that's life.
Regardless, there should not have been given another chance to score with that corner. A foul and a free kick to Chelsea should have been the outcome. Bad officiating but that's life.
Yes, it was possibly a foul.
However, under the current VAR standard, VAR cannot make the call to review whether or not it was a foul unless that specific play result in a goal. If every possible fouls are reviewed by VAR, the game will be as long as an American Football game (3 hours to play 60 minutes).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Or perhaps if Bamford is through on goal Silver can stop him by grabbing his hair and yanking him hard to the floor without fear of being sent off??