No but if a player does the crime, as they say, he/she should do the time but only the time that he/she deserves. Most leagues work from the misconduct report (or equivalent) and if your report is inaccurate then the player will not get the correct punishment for his/her crime. Crowdie
What I was trying to say was that the referee's only concern should be to get it correct, not what the league does with it. Sherman
In an ideal world, yes. It's almost absurd that a league would hand out discipline based solely on the name given to the offense rather than actually read the narrative. Unfortunately, especially say in a state youth league where the folks handing out the discipline can't possibly know each of the individual referees and their writing style, any available clue as to the severity of the incident, including how the referee chose to categorize it, probably comes into play. A better option might be to contact the referee if there were any uncertainty as to the appropriate discipline, but this option is probably rarely used in states where there are hundreds of games per weekend. (Its also probably easier to avoid criticism of any particular decision if all discipline is handled generically)
I'm late in the game here, but this was another interesting thread and I wanted to chime in. To me, this hair-pulling is violent conduct. In a situation like that, when I'm writing up the report I'm not thinking about the laws themselves (which don't give a whole lot of guidance on specific circumstances) or the USSF advice to refs. Instead, I'm thinking about whether this offense was part of the game or not. A whack to the knee is part of the game. So is a cleat to the inside of the calf. But pulling someone down by the hair so forcefully that she is taken off her feet and lands violently on the ground - that's not part of the game. I really don't care where the ball is at the time of the offense. To me, that is not a challenge for the ball even if the player whose hair is pulled is in clear possession of the ball.
Hey fellow Detroit-areaer!! Well how is this different from grabbing hold of a shoulder or arm and pulling back hard while challanging for the ball? I really do think where the ball is in this situation matters and what it appears the offending player is going for. I think there are siutations where you could classify it in either category.
The point about importance of ball location is well taken. In some ways, I agree that it's important. Still, my bottom line is that yanking someone's pony tail has no place in the game, it's not part of the game, and therefore I see it as violent conduct and not serious foul play.
Call it as you see it. In my opinion, I am more in agreement with Statesman SFP MUST be an EXCESSIVE challenge, for the ball, while a foul is taking place. The ball must be in my opinion within playing distance during normal play for SFP to be considered. If there was no opportunity to play the ball then it is a physical assault. If in the opinion of the referee the reach out and grab was a frantic effort to detain the player and play the ball then SFP is correct. The USB actions were excessive . The hair grab is Holding as TL states and as a penal foul by which we restart. However, subject to the opinion of the referee if there was no challange for the ball than VC is correct as the actions are so blatantaly destructive. It was a violent malicious and VERY dangerous act, soley intent on injuring the player with NO opportunity to play the ball. I agree with those who believe in mentioning it as VC it could get a stronger sanction by those who administer the discipline. I also admit as Whip stated I would word the incident of the misconduct be it called SFP or VC as to leave no doubt of what I thought of its effect and severity.
Re: Call it as you see it. After reading the first post describing the incident, and reading the posts after, I need to chime is here. This is truly not a difficult situation to judge and sanction. Yes, the infringement is holding. It is close to the same thing as holding an opponent by grabbing the shirt or shorts but the biggest difference is that the hair does not come out or tear and there is usually no pain involved. It should be serious foul play.
Re: Re: Question - Ponytail Pulling Which is like saying "if she didn't want to get raped, she shouldn't have dressed like a slut". A player having long hair does not offer an excuse for an opponent to pull it. Given the possible effects of jerking someones head by pulling their hair on the spine and neck, I'd be inclined to show a straight red.
Re: Re: Call it as you see it. I think a majority of the posters here are or have come to that opinion. However, I am of the opinion that regardless of whether the ball is within playing distance of the players how a player holds the other players hair make the difference between serious foul play and violent conduct. Holding, SFP, yanking hard with intent to injure, VC. Grizz said it quite eloquently in his post.
Re: Re: Re: Call it as you see it. Maybe, but by definition, violent conduct would not be the correct send off. The player in the discussed example held the player because she got beat. Clearly this is serious foul play and not violent conduct. That is a big difference. But the color card is still the same.
I'd have to go with VC. The defensive player could have "held" any other part of the body to slow down the other player, she chose to pull the girl's ponytail and in doing so crossed the line from a simple SFP to VC, IMO.
That several referees are having a back-and-forth discussion on what is the proper sanction shows me that this is not at all a clear-cut situation. There's no telling how a referee would handle this situation in a split second. Even with time to ponder it while I'm sitting in a chair, I have a tough time deciding the proper way to interpret the action and punish it.
Ahh. But it is very clear cut in our little scenario. It is exactly like a defender tackling from behind with full force or a defender running behind the attacker with the ball and kicking out the heels of the attacker. The defender doesn't have to play that way to beat the attacker. So, whether the defender yanks the attackers hair to beat her or tackles her from behind, the call is still serious foul play. It has all to do with one player playing the ball and the other playing dirty to prevent that player from getting the upper hand. Violent conduct is just violence against a player without trying to prevent that player from gaining the upper hand in the game.
I agree with whistleblower that this is a case of SFP. In reality, as we all are aware, it's just a matter of semantics insofar as the game is concerned, because either VC or SFP results in a red card. The only place it makes a difference is in the match report and how the competition authority decides to sanction the offending player. While it is true that many leagues have stiffer penalties for VC vis-a-vis SFP, it is not a steadfast rule. A well-written, cogent match report that describes the incident in detail will ensure the appropriate punishment. But, no matter the description, such an incident should still be classified as SFP, for the reasons whistleblower stated above. To respond to Claymore, who I think raises an interesting point: at what point can a tackle from behind (SFP) be upgraded to VC, if you follow your logic? A defender may 'choose' to raise his studs into the back of a knee, or 'choose' to scissor tackle his opponent when all he needs to do is 'choose' to tackle him from behind. Does a 'simple' SFP then become a VC situation because of the nature of the foul? Although I understand where you're coming from, if you follow your logic, violent conduct becomes a more serious offence than serious foul play, and there's nothing in the laws to support that assertion. They are sanctioned equally.
You didn't ask me, but I would say yes - at some point, a SFP becomes a VC due to the level of violence associated with the act committed. If a player runs stride for stride with another player and rather than his 'challenge for the ball' consisting of taking his legs out or stomping his knee to prevent the other player from winning the ball (which most folks here seem to consider SFP), he instead 'challenges for the ball' by punching the opponent in the mouth with a closed fist, I would say that player is guilty of VC and not SFP. I don't think there's a very strong argument for SFP in that case. To me, the blatant ponytail pulling falls into the same category. It's not part of the game. I don't look at this VC as 'serious SFP' but rather simply as VC. I don't consider the VC any more serious than SFP. Even if that's how it was viewed, so what? They both have a set of criteria and both are punished in the match with the same sanction.
You're trying to make things up to prove your point and it just doesn't fly under the Laws. You describe the act in your new scenario as a player challenging for the ball by striking the opponent in the mouth. If he is challenging then it is serious foul play. If he is not, it is violent conduct. The sanctions are the same for the match but afterward the leagues usually view them as very different and will punish accordingly. Beleive me, from my experience and level, it is not violent conduct in our incident.
It is very clear cut, and I will write it very simplistically. If the player pulled the hair because she got beat and wanted to slow the other player down to get the ball, it is SFP. If the player pulled the hair out of malice for being beat or retaliation for something else and was no longer concerned with the ball, it is VC. The referee determines the motivation of the player based on the body language and history of the player. It could be either one, but it would be very rare to encounter the latter as players usually do not lose their composure to such an extreme level over something as small as being beat out. It is most likely holding with excessive force to challenge for the ball, thus SFP.
Come on, now. Don't you think that's a little rough? 'Making things up?' Sure, I provided another scenario to try and illustrate my point. You don't agree with that point. I happen to think you are wrong. It bothers me that folks too often try to make things so black and white. With human beings running around on the field and human beings blowing the whistle, judgement comes into play. What you may consider as 'challenging for the ball,' someone else may not. I've never encountered an incident like this as a referee, or as a player. I won't bother to give my soccer resume, because in a discussion like this I don't feel it is relevant.
This is "black and white" and nothing else. If you were trained properly and paid attention, you would understand the difference between serious foul play and violent conduct. There really isn't much to think about. you can't be one of those Referees that try and analyze an infringement or play on the field before the whistle is blown or a card given. By then it is too late. Observe and act under the Laws. Don't muck it up by thinking too much, too long.
The referee applies his personal judgement and unique perspective within the absolute (read black and white) context of the Laws. If you review your 7 + 7 Cautionable and Send-Off Offenses and section 12 in Advice to Referees... you will see that SFP requires violence and why it is the correct way to record the send-off. VC would be inappropriate. Sherman
In the opinion of this referee, it comes down to that dirty little word "intent". One could argue that a studs-up tackle or a scissors tackle could be unintentional at its inception and simply developed that way as part of the dynamic act of tackling. However, one does not grab a ponytail by mistake - it's an intentional act with the obvious goal of harming the other player. We are arguing semantics in this case; red is red. I'm just saying what I would have put in the game report.
Umm, actually I don't remember this point being discussed in detail in any recert. or initial Grade 8 class, so I wouldn't get too huffy and puffy about not paying attention. Trained properly....maybe.
...and I stand corrected. I just happened to be talking with a state assessor this morning, and he said it's real simple: ball in play = SFP, dead ball = VC. Thanks, dad.