Should hair pulling be violent conduct?

By

Football issues correspondent

Not for the first time this season a Premier League manager was left incensed by a red card for hair pulling.

On this occasion it was Manchester United manager Michael Carrick, who described Lisandro Martinez's dismissal against Leeds United on Monday as a "shocking decision".

In January Everton boss David Moyes said it was "ridiculous" that Michael Keane was sent off against Wolves.

It has been consistent in the Premier League at least.

If there has been definitive evidence of a hair pull, it has led to a video assistant referee (VAR) intervention for violent conduct and a three-match ban.

But this one-size-fits-all approach is controversial.

Match of the Day pundit Alan Shearer summed up the general opinion of former players on BBC Breakfast.

"Never a red card, not in the Premier League," former England striker Shearer said of Martinez's dismissal.

"We need to be careful about where the game is heading if that is being deemed violent conduct and a red card. It's not what we want to see."

So why is hair pulling always seen as a red card? What makes it violent conduct? And does a player really deserve to miss three matches because of it?

Cast your mind back to August 2022. Tottenham defender Cristian Romero tugged back Chelsea's Marc Cucurella by his hair.

The VAR, Mike Dean, opted not to intervene for an obvious red card.

It created a line in the sand. From that point on, a zero tolerance approach was adopted.

Has the hair been tugged? Then it is a red card for violent conduct.

A strict application means we have to accept that there are cases, like Keane and Martinez, where the punishment appears too severe.

It is a bit like handball in the Champions League. People do not like some of the penalties, but they know what they are getting.

If you want consistency then you cannot have common sense too.

After the Keane red card, referees' boss Howard Webb was very clear that hair pulling was "quite an offensive thing".

"It was the appropriate outcome," Webb said. "It was unusual but if we see it again next week it will be the same outcome."

It took a few months before we did see it in similar circumstances with Martinez, and Webb was proved to be correct.

There has only been one other VAR red card in the Premier League, for Southampton's Jack Stephens on Cucurella.

There have been several other instances in the Club World Cup, Women's Super League and Women's Euros.

Hair pulling is one of those dark arts which is usually only spotted through video evidence.

It happens off the ball but is more identifiable than the subtle elbow to the chest or a nip to the stomach.

Even in the EFL, which does not have VAR, Ipswich's Leif Davis was recently banned after being picked up on camera pulling the hair of Leicester's Caleb Okoli.

Evidence is not always clear, however.

Fulham's Kenny Tete could have been sent off for yanking the hair of Manchester City's Antoine Semenyo in February. It may well have happened, but the VAR did not feel the evidence was conclusive enough for a review.

What is potentially most frustrating for managers is the three-match ban.

Does the punishment really fit the crime?

Carrick's defensive resources have been depleted by injuries, while Harry Maguire could be suspended for Saturday's trip to Chelsea. That had to play into his level of frustration.

One of the issues is the catch-all approach to disciplinary action in England.

Other leagues tend to work off a one-match ban, which can be extended on a case-by-case basis.

But in the Premier League violent conduct and serious foul play are both automatic three-game suspensions.

A headbutt? Three games.

A potentially leg-breaking tackle? Three games.

A small tug on the hair? Three games.

Moyes could not believe he would be without Keane for that long and lodged an appeal against the red card and the "excessive punishment".

A three-man Football Association panel, made up of former players, rejected the appeal by two votes to one.

Carrick may well attempt to get Martinez's ban overturned too, although the incidents were so similar that success seems unlikely.

A red-card escape in the Women's Champions League for Katie McCabe perhaps shows the kind of decision fans really see as deserving of a ban.

The Arsenal player hauled back Chelsea's Alyssa Thompson by the hair. Somehow McCabe was not sent off through a VAR intervention.

Chelsea boss Sonia Bompastor was furious and questioned the level of refereeing in the women's game.

In the supporters' minds, McCabe getting nothing but Keane and Martinez being sent off makes no logical sense.

Fans really struggle to accept hair pulling as violent conduct, pigeon-holed alongside a punch, an elbow to the head or being kicked off the ball.

Supporters seem to want to compartmentalise it into its own offence.

But think of it this way: if a player gets hold of some hair, it will be pulled away from scalp. That is going to come as a shock and cause pain - just as an elbow or a punch might do.

As far as violent conduct is concerned, that is when "brutality" comes into play.

Premier League guidance says a player must "clearly pull the hair of an opponent with force".

In their appeal, Everton argued that force was not present from Keane. That was rejected.

United may well say the same for Martinez, yet Dominic Calvert-Lewin did go to ground holding the back of his head. It makes it harder for United to make a case.

Another sticking point is the definition of violent conduct as it applies when a player "is not challenging for the ball".

So how could Keane and Martinez be sent off when going up for a header?

Keane's appeal hearing noted that you cannot legitimately challenge for the ball by pulling someone's hair.

It said that hair pulling "falls outside the normal constituent elements of a challenge in football and can therefore fall into the category of violent conduct".

Managers do have a point, though.

Anthony Gordon received a three-match ban for a lunging challenge on Liverpool's Virgil van Dijk. That could have caused a serious injury.

Martinez faces a three-match ban for holding on to Calvert-Lewin's hair.

It does not quite feel right. No doubt this discussion will be back around again the next time there is a VAR red card.

The Premier League takes the views of stakeholders on board every summer and tweaks a few interpretations.

Maybe the views of captains and clubs will be that referees are being too strict about hair pulling.

Former Premier League assistant referee Darren Cann

Before the start of each season all 20 Premier League clubs have a visit from a referee.

They advise the coaching staff and, importantly, all the first-team squad of any impending law changes. They also provide other information on, for example, what constitutes serious foul play and violent conduct.

Guidance to the clubs is made very clear - pulling hair will be considered a red card.

The frustration for some fans is was it really violent conduct?

This is where the law is somewhat problematic.

Understandably, some may feel that Martinez's actions were not particularly violent, but this is merely the red-card category into which all hair pulls are assigned, irrespective of the level of force.

Is it time to reconsider where hair pulling should sit? I think so.

One solution worthy of consideration would be to make 'pulling an opponent's hair' a separate category.

There is precedent for this.

'Biting or spitting at someone' is an act of violent conduct but, as far as a ban goes, it is treated separately.

Those offences carry a minimum six-game ban, hence the need for a different category.

It is clear that some hair pulls are extremely violent and others are not.

Removing it from the violent conduct category would allow a sliding scale of, say, a one, two or three-game ban - depending on the severity of the hair pull.