Question - Ponytail Pulling

I would consider that at minimum a caution and quite possibly a send off for SFP. You can compare it to an obvious jersey pull in one regard, but since it is part of her body, that is where one must judge if it warrants a send off or not, especially if it was a vicious as you make it sound (had to be there probably).

 

No, not in my mind. The foul is holding. It could be described as with excessive force; it could be described as intentional violence. I would send off the culprit for violent conduct.

 

I would issue a straight red card. That goes way beyond a jersey pull. As a ref your main priority is the safety of the players.

 

Irrespective of the body part or item of clothing, as TL has pointed out, the offense is holding, for which if there were no effect, the referee could allow play to continue or, if effect, recognize the foul, apply advantage and signal play on, or stop play and restart with a DFK at the spot of the offense.

If there was misconduct the referee must judge this separately, even if it had no effect or advantage was applied. Holding does not have to be either careless, reckless or with ecxessive force, it just has to occur to be an offense. Therefore, either at the stoppage or the next stoppage in play, were the referee to allow play to continue, the player could be cautioned for UB and shown a yellow, or if particularly serious, and this would include coming from behind, sent-off for serious foul play and shown the red card.

Since it occurred on the field, as part of play, it would be unlikely that violent conduct would apply.

Sherman

 

Would this depend on how far away the ball was?

The original post was unclear on distance - it only stated that the ball was kicked down the line and the puller and pullee were chasing after it. If it was a long through-ball, I could envision that while qualifying as a holding foul, the action was violent conduct. Puller knew she was badly beaten, couldn't keep up, and so violently pulled the opponent down by the hair.

If that was the way it happened, I would view it similar to a situation where a player has been beaten and out of frustration strikes the opponent.

On the other hand, if they were contesting for the near-by ball, then I would consider it severe foul play.

 

If they are constesting for the ball, and it is on the field, during play, and the act is committed against an opponent, particularly a violent act, which could be holding, striking, kicking, it is usually considered serious foul play. SFP involves the commision of a foul (ie. holding).

Violent conduct is normally punished for other acts, which are not fouls, which could be against or by a teammate, a substitute, on or off the field of play, and could occur during play or a stoppage.

The reason we must distinguish between the two is that for SFP, the player is always sent-off and the team plays down. In the case of VC, if it is a player, they are still sent-off and the team plays down, but if not a player, they are dismissed and the team does not play down.

In the hair pulling, since it occured during play between opponents contesting for the ball, irrespecive of proximity, UB or SFP are more appropriate than VC, in my opinion.

Sherman

 

Dangerous play on the girl with the long hair? After all, if she had short hair that didn't need to be ponytailed, it never would have been pulled. HAHAHA

Seriously.. if she was yanked down as hard as you mention... I would have gone straight read for Serious Foul Play.

 

It was from behind.
The victim fell over backwards violently.
Her hair/scalp would have hurt a lot! There are possible severe spine/back injuries.

I would be surprised if a fight didn't break out very shortly thereafter. Unless the referee walked the culprit. This is not a challenge for the ball -- and cannot be SFP -- it is VC.

 

Re: Re: Question - Ponytail Pulling

TL:

If it was a violent foul while contesting or going for the ball it is dealt with as serious foul play. The player is sent-off and shown the red card. SFP includes violence against an opponent by a player duiring play. See ATR 12:33.

VC is how we deal with violence that does not involve play. See ATR 12:34.

SFP is no less of an offense than VC.

Ironically, in pointyball, grabbing a player by their ponytail as a means of tackling them is perfectly legal.

Sherman

 

SFP-VC

We agree on ATR 12:33/34. The phrase is “challenge for the ball” and is used in Additional Instructions also and maybe LOTG (don’t remember). What we would have disagreed on is whether it was a challenge for the ball (yahaddabethere). But I agree with you seeing Tsunami’s subsequent post; it’s SFP.

 

Re: Re: Question - Ponytail Pulling

Aside from the question of who is involved, aren't SFP and VC pretty much the same thing. In this case even more so, since it involves players who are legally in the game so, whether it's SFP or VC, the result is the same: red card to the perpetrator and their team plays short.

Since this thread began I've been wondering how long it would be before someone suggested that ponytails are, in and of themselves, dangerous. It might be hard to argue that a short ponytail is dangerous, but I was wondering about a really long ponytail, say a couple of feet long, or longer. Such a thing might get caught up in some way during the heat of battle, possibly resulting in a serious neck injury to the pony-tail wearer.

Neck injuries are nothing to take lightly.

Huh? Players usually wear helmets in pointyball, so ponytails don't stick out nearly as much, and the leverage on the neck is considerably less. There is no valid comparison to pointyball. Clothes-lining a player in pointyball can result in serious sanctions.

You got that right! If this happened as described, the perpetrator would be getting off easy with a red card and a send-off, IMHO.

 

SFP is always around the ball. VC occurs away from the ball. That is the difference between the two.

The reason a referee must get this right is that most leagues issue longer suspensions for VC than SFP.

The difference between VC and SFP is not required for non-players. The only non-players who come under your authority is each team's management in the technical area. These people are not issued cards (but can be asked to leave - remember the report to the league) so you don't need to know whether it was VC or SFP just the circumstances that led to you removing him/her/them from the game.

If you are refering to substituted players who are off the field then you can't really have a SFP situation as they are not able to legally challenge for the ball.

Crowdie

 

Similar thing happened in the Rugby World Cup last weekend - an Irish player grabbed Australia's George Smith by the dreadlocks and dragged him to the ground.

After a short advantage a penalty was given. The (balding) New Zealand ref cracked everyone up with a comment along the lines of "wouldn't be able to do that to me"

 

That's Paddy O'Brien (the ref) for you He is a fantastic ref and he keeps talking to the players so they know when he is about to penalise them so they have the option of not infringing. This keeps the game flowing. Now if only some soccer refs would do the same....

Crowdie

 

Yep, Paddy is great. So are Andre Watson from Sth Africa and Peter Marshall from Oz.

It's no surprise that rugby refs are treated so much better than soccer refs as far as dissent goes - they talk and joke with the players a lot more and come across as more "human". It also helps that like cricket umpres, most of them have played the game at a reasonable level. (It also helps that in rugby you can take your frustrations out by kicking an opponent in the head)

 

crowdie,

You left a couple out.

If the ball is out of play, or not in play, or the incident occurs off the field fo play, it cannot be SFP either, and must be punished as UB or VC.

Further, around the ball is not so much a criteria, as being involved in play, including contesting for positon such as on a corner kick. If the violent misconduct occurs before the ball has been struck it would be punished as VC, however, if after the ball is in play, even if 30 to 40 yards away it would be punished as SFP.

How a league chooses to deal with a player has nothing to do with how misconduct is written up in my game report.

Sherman

 

A parallel to that, Craig, was a recent ruling in an NFL game back home recently, where Ricky Williams, the Miami Dolphins' star running back, has long dreadlocks of his own, and the referees have ruled that he can be tackled and brought down by his dreads. Reason being is that they are officially "a part of the uniform".

As I sport a blonde ponytail myself, I'd hope that it would be an automatic bookable offence. Same spirit as a tackle from behind, not to mention the unsportsmanlike conduct involved.

 

By the description this is serious foul play. The girl is moving one way, the force on her hair another way. The sheering of the counter-forces is placed directly on her neck. There was enough force to take the girl completely off her feet too. I don't see how this can be considered anything other than SFP. Tsunami says they are only about 7 feet away which to me sounds like the foul is committed as part of a challenge. If they were more than 3 or so strides away then it would be deemed violent conduct -- they are too far away for a challenge.

Not at all whipple. SFP is solely for direct challenges on the ball, whether 50/50 or attempting to take it away. Even if I have the ball at my feet, in my possession, and I kick the back of your knee it is violent conduct because I was not challenging you for the ball. On the other hand if you had the ball and I dug my cleats into your calf in an attempt to get the ball, that is a direct challenge and thus is SFP. No challenge for the ball, no SFP.

 

Statesman,

I have received guidance and instruction which runs counter to your statement, above.

For example, during the taking of a corner kick a defender comes up behind an attacker at the opposite side of the field, covering the far post. As the ball was put into play, the defneder grabs the attacker by the shirt and yanks him off his feet to keep him out of the play while the ball is still some 30 to 40 yards away. In my game report I noted that I had sent off the player for violent conduct. Was I right or wrong?

A second example, again during a corner kick. A clever team lofted the ball high in the air on their first corner kick and observed that the referee looked up to follow the flight of the ball. At the next opportunity, they again lofted the ball, but this time an attacker barrelled into the keeper and took him out of the play. The referee missed this, a goal was scored. The coach of the victimized team, as well as several parents, however, did not, and complained. The referee doing the next match this team played was alerted to this, played along on the first corner, and bagged them on the second. Should this have been SFP or VC?

Next, the defense has pulled up to midfield when the keeper takes possession of the ball. Simultaneously, both a defender and an attacker realize that a second defender has stayed back in the penalty area, tying his shoe and the defender breaks for the open space to recieve a long kick from the keeper. The defender comes from behind and clears his feet to prevent him from being in a position to receive the ball, which as a note was still in the keepers hands. In this case is it just a caution for UB, or a send-off for SFP or VC?

Finally, an attacker dribbles the ball along the goal line towards the goal, trying to sneak the ball into the corner of the goal, but misses outside and an instant later, a defender comes in with their cleats up, catching the attacker at about the knee and upending him, and causing serious injury. SFP or VC?

Sherman

 

Then it is faulty advice, check the Advice to Referees

This doesn't sound particularly violent, more along the lines of unsporting behavior. But, all that aside, it would be violent conduct given your choice.

This is also violent conduct. The ball was still in the air and was not 50/50 at this time.

I can't figure out what is taking place in this scenario, you'll have to describe it again for me.

If the ball was out of play when contact occured this is violent conduct. If the referee felt this action was done solely out of malice and not to play the ball it is violent conduct (rare). If it is clear the challenge was meant for the ball then it is serious foul play.

 

In the first example, I was told that it should have been SFP. Grabbing an opponent by the shirt collar (or ponytail if he had one) from behind, and pulling them to the ground to prevent them from playing the ball, while the players were contesting for the ball, even if the ball had not arrived yet, from the corner kick. It would only have been VC in this instance if it had occurred before the corner kick was taken.

In the second example, it was reported as SFP, and protested that it should only have been a caution because the attacker was not trying to cause harm to the keeper, just take them out of the play. VC was ruled out because the ball in flight was, in effect, a 50/50 or anyone's ball.

In the third example, the tackle from behind, off the ball, with undue force, was written up as SFP, After being reviewed following a protest, the referee was advised that because the keeper still had possession of the ball when the offense occurred, even though the ball was technically in play, it should have been VC or UB, but not SFP.

In the last example, the ball was already out of play so there was no foul, no SFP, only the misconduct which in this instance was VC. The restart was a goal kick after the player was sent-off.

My point is that while proximity to the ball in play is most often a determining factor, it is not the only factor in determining whether the misconduct is SFP or VC. It can be in flight, or in space where two players are racing to collect it, so long as it involves challenging for the ball while it is in play.

At the same time, I am not certain that this is the correct interpretation, so I will throw it up to our friend from Maryland and see what his take is.

Sherman

 

Well, those are the responses I provide based on how I interpret your description. The idea is that SFP is part of a challenge for a ball -- one player commits a send-off foul against another while they both are combatting for the ball. The ball has to be in their active area of play, which as we all know can be very large or very small.

However I don't think there is much argument for the case where the ball is still 30-40 yards away. If it is clear these two players will receive the ball and are jockeying for position when the send-off foul is committed, then that would SFP. I suppose theoretically the ball could be very far away, but in reality I don't anticiapte this ever happening -- when are two players jockeying singled out by a play with the ball incoming from a distance of 40 yards? That's pretty ugly soccer. As another referee quipped, "I'll let you know how I deal with it when it occurs."

 

I suspect that some of the confusion may stem from how FIFA has evolved SFP over the years. For example DGH and DOGSO were formerly dealt with as SFP along with violent or brutal play, so it was essentially the send-off catch-all, much as UB serves as the caution catch-all. VC was reserved for individual acts of violence which had nothing to do with play.

By removing and creating separate definitions of misconduct for non-violent SFP misconduct, we are left with only those which are violent, blurring the lines between SFP and VC.

Efforts in the ATR and Additional Instructions found in the Laws to clarify the difference, present examples which appear to narrow the definition of what it means to challenge for the ball. As I read the current iterations, one could logically conclude that close proximity or actual play on the ball is the criteria for SFP and everything else would logically be VC.

Frankly, I am not so certain that this is not exactly what they mean, but I hope not.

Sherman