• 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

seahamstar said:
But that opponent is only more likely to get sent off if he actually PULLS on the hair.
Does it not apply if a player pulls on an opponents short hair?
Click to expand...
But that includes an accidental pull. You can pull Brobbey's shirt all day long and not get sent off, in fact opponents do. But if he had hair like Rapunzel that covered his back, you'd have to be careful to get around it to get to the shirt.
 

seahamstar said:
Really?
I'd say , more to the point - just cos a player has long hair, should he expect (and accept) that an opponent can just tug at his hair to gain an advantage?

Where does the 'long haired ' player get the advantage from?
Click to expand...
Yes, mate. You have a fluffy hair and someone yanks it without malice and brute force should be a yellow and get on with it.
It's a tough physical sport where legs, hands, fingers, joints are breaking every day, what's with this special attention for haircuts?!
Even in a kindergarten it's a small incident, why would it be such a big deal in a brutal sport like football? That rule is a joke.
 
A little pull of the hair or a big pull of the hair? Both are red cards. A little shirt pull isn’t usually punished yet a big shirt pull is usually punished.🤔
 
Even Joe Hart and Wayne Rooney disagree.

Having seen the highlights I am fairly certain that it was not intentional and the player made more of it than it was. His gesticulation to the ref suggested his entire barnet was grabbed. Clearly for me Dan intended to get his shirt but of course deadlocks being dreadlocks he couldn’t help but grab one or two strands. Had Dan got a hold of his entire head of hair and scalped him then yes it would have been dangerous. But grabbing one or two strands of dreadlocks would not have impeded him as much as it did. He went down like he had been shot. Part of it I think was play acting.
 
The thing is Howard Webb an ex copper and built like a brick shithouse will say it's violent conduct and it's pathetic.
 
seahamstar said:
It's not an unfair advantage if somebody is pulling on their hair, it's against the rules.
Players an still 'challenge' - just do it fairly.

I'd like to know how somebody can 'accidently' grab somebody's hair

But that opponent is only more likely to get sent off if he actually PULLS on the hair.
Does it not apply if a player pulls on an opponents short hair?
Click to expand...
It’s like you are being argumentative for the sake of it!, if you don’t understand that a player which will generally be a centre forward with long hair, because of this new ridiculous rule is at advantage against a player with short hair then there is no point in discussing it. Should there not be some context on hair pulls like there is with say handballs in the penalty area?
superniall said:
It’s like you are being argumentative for the sake of it!, if you don’t understand that a player which will generally be a centre forward with long hair, because of this new ridiculous rule is at advantage against a player with short hair then there is no point in discussing it. Should there not be some context on hair pulls like there is with say handballs in the penalty area?
Click to expand...
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
 
Last edited:
ShieldsBlackCat2015 said:
Even Joe Hart and Wayne Rooney disagree.

Having seen the highlights I am fairly certain that it was not intentional and the player made more of it than it was. His gesticulation to the ref suggested his entire barnet was grabbed. Clearly for me Dan intended to get his shirt but of course deadlocks being dreadlocks he couldn’t help but grab one or two strands. Had Dan got a hold of his entire head of hair and scalped him then yes it would have been dangerous. But grabbing one or two strands of dreadlocks would not have impeded him as much as it did. He went down like he had been shot. Part of it I think was play acting.
Click to expand...
Ooooooo matron
 
Why would he purposely grab his hair when he’s got a 6ft 6 bloke to grab anywhere he wants he wasn’t even looking he skits grabbing anything he can because he’s backing in and obv he’s a strong fucker
 
You aren’t conscious of what your grabbing your just trying to battle and grab anything anyone knows if they have played before! had a few broken fingers off grabbing someone’s top and getting it stuck a few times you don’t even mean to do it . if you have hair all over the shop and someone is trying to grab a piece of you it’s gonna get get caught
 
Last edited:
ShieldsBlackCat2015 said:
Even Joe Hart and Wayne Rooney disagree.

Having seen the highlights I am fairly certain that it was not intentional and the player made more of it than it was. His gesticulation to the ref suggested his entire barnet was grabbed. Clearly for me Dan intended to get his shirt but of course deadlocks being dreadlocks he couldn’t help but grab one or two strands. Had Dan got a hold of his entire head of hair and scalped him then yes it would have been dangerous. But grabbing one or two strands of dreadlocks would not have impeded him as much as it did. He went down like he had been shot. Part of it I think was play acting.
Click to expand...
Should have been booked for play acting
 
You must be logged on to see media items

I’m surprised we are appealing. RLB basically admitted that under the current laws the decision was correct.
I’m not sure I can see them changing the punishment on this one.

Maybe the rules will change out of season, but it feels too late in the season for them to punish him differently to others that have done the same earlier in the season
 
Excellent.

It won't change because they're absolute fannies but it highlights how incredibly unfair it is for it to be a red card offence when there is no intent at all.
 
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top