• 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

Gloucester said:
It would be difficult to accuse RLB of making a frivolous appeal. He is so respectful in everything he says and does. He said the referee is a great referee, we do not want to be controversial and want to support the game and the Premier League.

I can’t think of any other manager who conducts himself so well in all situations.
Click to expand...
I read that too. He's such a good speaker and if he's at the hearing in person, I anticipate the red being reduced to a yellow and a full apology issued 🤣
 

Mboma said:
Hair nets or hair cuts next season. It's a workplace environment at the end of the day and should be treated the same as earrings and necklaces.

If someone gets whipped in the eye of one of those long dreadlocks and goes down, then there's no reason why that player shouldn't be sent off for violent conduct under these current fuckwit rules.
Click to expand...
Thing is with the hair net quips, Calvert-Lewin's hair was already in a bun when Martinez walked.


It's absolutely fuckin' sackless it's come to this like.
thamesvalleyman said:
Michael Turner iirc had his ban increased to 4 games
Click to expand...
Did us a favour.

Crap him like.
 
Not surprised with us appealing it. Shy bairns get nowt, etc.

Under the current rule the red card was correct. But that’s the problem, the rule is intentionally broad and vague so even touching someone’s hair accidentally when fighting for the ball is punished the same as someone who purposefully yanks a player’s hair to pull them back (like Romero did to Cucarella years ago). Ballard “pulled” Arokodare‘s hair, but he falls forward?

Hopefully they expand on the rule for next season. There’s a big difference between an accidental hair hold because it gets in the way and an intentional yank… one is violent, the other isn’t.
 
Last edited:
SAFC11 said:
Hes not. Because we arent appealing the length of the red card, but the decision itself. Only time it happened we stupidly appealed the length of the ban
Click to expand...
Didn't realise that was an option tbh but no way they overturn the red card

As much as I disagree with it, the decision was in line with the rules
 
Korra said:
Not surprised with us appealing it. Shy bairns get nowt, etc.

Under the current rule the red card was correct. But that’s the problem, the rule is intentionally broad and vague so even touching someone’s hair accidentally when fighting for the ball is punished the same as someone who purposefully yanks a player’s hair to pull them back (like Romero did to Cucarella years ago). Ballard “pulled” Arokodare‘s hair, but he falls forward?

Hopefully they expand on the rule for next season. There’s a big difference between an accidental hair hold because it gets in the way and an intentional yank… one is violent, the other isn’t.
Click to expand...
Players having longer hair have an advantage under that law... and if that is the case ...there must also be a case for getting then to tie up there hair to neutralise that advantage ...

Whose to say that more player could theoretically grow their hair to maximise fouls advantages ...
 
Last edited:
Korra said:
Not surprised with us appealing it. Shy bairns get nowt, etc.

Under the current rule the red card was correct. But that’s the problem, the rule is intentionally broad and vague so even touching someone’s hair accidentally when fighting for the ball is punished the same as someone who purposefully yanks a player’s hair to pull them back (like Romero did to Cucarella years ago). Ballard “pulled” Arokodare‘s hair, but he falls forward?

Hopefully they expand on the rule for next season. There’s a big difference between an accidental hair hold because it gets in the way and an intentional yank… one is violent, the other isn’t.
Click to expand...
Your avatar :lol:
 
We should win on the grounds his hair wasn't tied up.

That's the problem. How can a rule such as that be enforced if the player is swinging his hair round like a f***ing mermaid.

Hair in netball must be tied. so why not football...
 
HearMeRoar said:
We should win on the grounds his hair wasn't tied up.

That's the problem. How can a rule such as that be enforced if the player is swinging his hair round like a f***ing mermaid.

Hair in netball must be tied. so why not football...
Click to expand...
In American football any hair that extends out of the helmet is considered an extension of their uniform and thus is fair game to be grabbed onto to make a tackle someone

Over here defenders are at a disadvantage if the forward they come up against has long hair that goes down beyond the neck of the shirt. Thats why I think this ‘hair pull’ rule should be amended to only be enforced on intentional hair pulls. Every can see that Ballard’s was accidental, it wasn’t intentional or violent. That’s why there’s a bit of media debate over it now. I guarantee someone’s gonna be sent off for the same during the World Cup
 
Last edited:
GBSAFC said:
Players having longer hair have an advantage under that law... and if that is the case ...there must also be a case for getting then to tie up there hair to neutralise that advantage ...

Whose to say that more player could theoretically grow their hair to maximise fouls advantages ...
Click to expand...
Imagine if Brobbey had locks man. There’d be a lot more than 3 red cards for hair pulls this season :lol:
 
We basically owe it to football to apeal this .They need shaming into realising its a nonsense. Might not help us directly but it might partially push a rule amendment forward a bit .
 
Randy Savage said:
What is the punishment if someone's braid flicks an opponent in the eye?
Click to expand...
It it would be viewed (pardon the pun) as an accident, then surely there is scope to view Ballard's as the same.

In terms of a hair pull, if it is clearly not a deliberate pull and an accident, I don't know how they can possibly say with a straight face that it's violent conduct.
 
Randy Savage said:
It it would be viewed (pardon the pun) as an accident, then surely there is scope to view Ballard's as the same.

In terms of a hair pull, if it is clearly not a deliberate pull and an accident, I don't know how they can possibly say with a straight face that it's violent conduct.
Click to expand...
Compare to Keane's tackle last night which received a yellow. Nonsense law
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top