• The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state and are still being worked on. Normal posting/reading should now be possible.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

Ballard

It's a stupid law, but I'm not sure if we've grounds to appeal.

At best Ballard got a handful of hair when he pulled his shirt. You're not supposed to pull people's shirts.
 

not spavin said:
You're not supposed to pull people's shirts.
Click to expand...
Probably about 50% of premier league action nowadays is grabbing shirts.

All I ask is that they do exactly the same when it is Man City v Arsenal....for example if Ballard did that head but on Haaland, do you think he would of escaped a red card?
 
In the CWC last summer, someone grabbed Cucurella's hair as he ran away from his opponent. No attempt to do anything else but yank his hair.

To equate what Ballard did with that is utterly ridiculous.
 
Richie K said:
Probably about 50% of premier league action nowadays is grabbing shirts.

All I ask is that they do exactly the same when it is Man City v Arsenal....for example if Ballard did that head but on Haaland, do you think he would of escaped a red card?
Click to expand...

I think that was a rare example of a common sense decision - it would've ruined the game and it wasn't a headbutt in any real sense.

I know Ballard didn't intentionally yank his hair, but he did intentionally commit a foul and so the cyborgs on the ref panel aren't going to give him any leeway.
 
Very surprised to see the appeal. Obviously hope it comes off but can’t see it unless they reduce the number of games he’s banned for but if they do that they’re setting themselves up for even more grief.

I can see them backing the ref and saying the letter of the law was followed in this instance with an agreement to look again at the issue this summer with a view to giving officials more discretion regarding this type of incident.
 
Last edited:
Brett said:
Pulling a shirt isn't a red card offence though , it happens multiple times every game
Click to expand...
Yeah some players in my Sunday league actually put vaseline and other slick products on their shirts to prevent the opposition from getting a good grip.
 
Odd to appeal it like, I imagine we’ll be saying there’s no malicious intent in it and no injury occurred.

Find it odd how some have got away with it this season though - again, lack of consistency is making the referees look a bit clueless.
 
Hopefully they will see sense and issue some sort of directive that there must be an obvious deliberate element to the offence . They should also ensure players tie their hair up .
 
Alfa said:
Very surprised to see the appeal. Obviously hope it comes off but can’t see it unless they reduce the number of games he’s banned for but if they do that they’re setting themselves up for even more grief.

I can see them backing the ref and saying the letter of the law was followed in this instance with an agreement to look again at the issue this summer with a view to giving officials more discretion regarding this type of incident.
Click to expand...
The letter of which law exactly?
 
Worth appealing because there’s been pressure from the media, and also because there’s no actual law about hair pulling. It was given for violent conduct.

If it is considered violent conduct, you’d have thought Calvert-Lewin will be getting a three game ban as well after he did the same thing last week.
 
Randy Savage said:
In the CWC last summer, someone grabbed Cucurella's hair as he ran away from his opponent. No attempt to do anything else but yank his hair.
To equate what Ballard did with that is utterly ridiculous.
Click to expand...
To sum it up in a single statement, this is it.
Deliberately pulling someone's hair should be a red card. Grabbing hold of someone and getting some hair at the same time is a foul, maybe a yellow for pulling the shirt/hair - but not a red. Not at all
 
SR7 said:
The letter of which law exactly?
Click to expand...
As hair pulling is treated as an act of violent conduct, referees' body Professional Game Match Officials Limited (PGMOL) made it clear to clubs at the start of the season that it will always be considered a red-card offence.
 
Alfa said:
As hair pulling is treated as an act of violent conduct, referees' body Professional Game Match Officials Limited (PGMOL) made it clear to clubs at the start of the season that it will always be considered a red-card offence.
Click to expand...
VIOLENT CONDUCT

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.

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.

I fail to see how that meets the definition of violent conduct. Either way, it's not to the letter of any law because the law is so vague. It should be judged in the spirit of the law and it should never be a straight red by that logic.
 
MadMackem10 said:
Didn't realise violent conduct had to be seen as intentional, not sure how VAR can say it was clearly intentional when he wasn't even looking at the player
Click to expand...

Violent conduct has to be while not trying to play the ball. Which makes this decision ridiculous because he was definitely trying to play the ball.

If it was serious foul play that'd be a different matter
hank williams said:
Could get extra ban for frivolous appeal knowing our luck
Click to expand...
Man utd didn't. But it also wasn't overturned
 
Last edited:
parsonjohn1985 said:
Violent conduct has to be while not trying to play the ball. Which makes this decision ridiculous because he was definitely trying to play the ball.

If it was serious foul play that'd be a different matter

Man utd didn't. But it also wasn't overturned
Click to expand...
My point exactly, it is clear and obvious that Ballard is challenging for the ball. Therefore this suspension does not meet the specific law for violent conduct. Absolute shambles.
 
SR7 said:
VIOLENT CONDUCT

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.

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.

I fail to see how that meets the definition of violent conduct. Either way, it's not to the letter of any law because the law is so vague. It should be judged in the spirit of the law and it should never be a straight red by that logic.
Click to expand...
Regardless of your interpretation of violent conduct or anyone’s for that matter, the fact that the PGMOL outlined clearly at the start of the season that hair pulling would be treated as such gave the match ref very little option once he’d been called to the monitor.
 
Last edited:
Alfa said:
Regardless of your interpretation of violent conduct or anyone’s for that matter, the fact that the PGMOL outlined clearly at the start of the season that hair pulling would be treated as such gave the match ref very little option once he’d been called to the monitor.
Click to expand...
It's not my interpretation, it's in black and white from the FA.

'WHEN NOT CHALLENGING FOR THE BALL' and 'DELIBERATELY STRIKES'. Anybody that thinks Ballard A) wasn't challenging for the ball and/or B) was acting deliberately, needs their head checking. Obviously pulling hair with intent is violent conduct, but in this instance you cannot tell me that was the intent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top