It was the same player on the receiving end (Cucurella).I think it was a Chelsea game more than a few seasons ago when Mike Dean only cautioned or nothing when a player clearly had his hair pulled & it was discussed/determined then that it’s a red card offence.
Oh yes, that was it - Dean on VAR.It was the same player on the receiving end (Cucurella).
Dean wasn't the on field referee, he was on VAR and didn't recommend a review.
This was the one he later came out and said he didn’t want to recommend a review as AT was his mate…… or something along those linesOh yes, that was it - Dean on VAR.
All coming back to me now - what a strange reason to say, though I do remember him saying that. What friendship has to do with it is beyond me - the Law is the law and it would have done AT a favour not a disfavour.This was the one he later came out and said he didn’t want to recommend a review as AT was his mate…… or something along those lines
100%. As a Saint who'll take in half a dozen or so games a season at St Mary's, it's clearly the correct decision and I just don't know what he was thinking.Southampton truly are the architects of their own downfall this season.
At the same time as when violent conduct became a red card offence.I was wondering when that became a red card offence.
if you’re pulling a shoulder you do so with a flat hand that then clenches on top of the shoulder, at no point would you make a clenched fist to do so, like you would need to to pull someone’s hairHe was probably just trying to pull his shoulder but couldn't find it though the hair.
Although the reaction may have only brought it to the attention of the on field officials, hopefully the action would have been identified by VAR ( unlike Mike Dean who didn’t a few seasons ago when he was VAR at a similar incident involving the same Chelsea player).Question... would it even have been looked at if he hadn't went down? and would the hair pull be enough to bring him down? I am not saying that the decision is wrong, but it is the reaction, not the action that has brought it to the attention of the officials.
Although the reaction may have only brought it to the attention of the on field officials, hopefully the action would have been identified by VAR ( unlike Mike Dean who didn’t a few seasons ago when he was VAR at a similar incident involving the same Chelsea player).
Probably not with your final sentence & we will never know for your opening sentence, but it has been defined as a sending off incident for anyone & ignorance of this fact by the offender is no excuse and he should not have done it anyway.So basically, the purpose of the reaction was to make sure it was checked on VAR. I certainly don't think it is enough for him to go down, but he knows they will look at why he did and he knows the outcome. It is a stupid thing to do by the opposition player, but is it really a serious attempt at injuring someone?
This is not the definition of violent conduct though. I suggest you read the definition of violent conduct and this action fits it., but is it really a serious attempt at injuring someone?
I suspect he is aware of that, but I can see where he is coming from - comparing the pulling of someone’s hair as opposed to striking someone in the face or a head butt, or an elbow etc, though I also think the Law is correct to treat all the same.This is not the definition of violent conduct though. I suggest you read the definition of violent conduct and this action fits it.