By Martin Graham
For yet another time this season, a Premier League manager reacted angrily to a dismissal for pulling an opponent’s hair. This time it was Manchester United boss Michael Carrick, who labelled Lisandro Martinez’s red card against Leeds United as a “shocking decision.” Earlier in the campaign, Everton manager David Moyes had described a similar sending-off for Michael Keane against Wolves as “ridiculous.”
Despite the controversy, decisions in such situations have been consistent. Whenever there is clear proof of hair pulling, video assistant referees have intervened and classified it as violent conduct, leading to a three-match suspension. This strict interpretation has effectively created a uniform approach, regardless of context.
The turning point came in August 2022 when Tottenham’s Cristian Romero pulled Chelsea’s Marc Cucurella by the hair without punishment after VAR chose not to act. That moment led to a clear shift: from then on, any confirmed hair pull would result in a red card. Refereeing chief Howard Webb later reinforced this stance, stating that if the same incident occurred again, the outcome would not change.
Since then, similar incidents have followed the same pattern, including dismissals involving Southampton’s Jack Stephens and retrospective action in competitions without VAR. While evidence is sometimes inconclusive—such as a potential incident involving Fulham’s Kenny Tete—when proof is sufficient, the decision has been unwavering.
Punishment versus offence
A major source of frustration for managers is not just the red card itself but the automatic three-match suspension that follows. In English football, violent conduct and serious foul play carry identical bans, regardless of the nature of the offence.
This creates situations where vastly different actions receive the same punishment. A headbutt, a dangerous tackle, and a relatively minor hair pull are all treated equally under current rules. Moyes challenged Keane’s suspension as excessive, but an FA panel upheld the decision, reinforcing the existing framework.
Carrick may consider a similar appeal for Martinez, though given the consistency of rulings, success appears unlikely. Meanwhile, contrasting decisions elsewhere—such as a case involving Arsenal’s Katie McCabe, who avoided dismissal for a comparable incident—have only added to confusion among supporters and coaches.
Other leagues often apply shorter bans initially, with flexibility to extend them depending on severity. In contrast, the Premier League’s fixed approach leaves little room for nuance, intensifying debates about whether the punishment truly matches the offence.
Why hair pulling is deemed violent conduct
Many fans struggle to accept hair pulling being placed in the same category as punches or elbows. However, the reasoning behind the classification is rooted in the potential for pain and the element of force involved. Pulling hair away from the scalp is considered capable of causing discomfort and shock, which aligns with definitions of violent conduct.
Guidelines specify that an offence occurs when a player clearly pulls an opponent’s hair with force. Everton argued in their appeal that such force was absent in Keane’s case, but that claim was dismissed. In Martinez’s situation, the reaction of Dominic Calvert-Lewin—falling and holding his head—may further complicate any defence.
Another key factor is that such actions fall outside legitimate attempts to play the ball. Even when players are contesting an aerial duel, pulling hair is not regarded as part of a legal challenge. As noted in Keane’s appeal, it sits beyond the normal elements of footballing contact and can therefore be judged as violent conduct.
Still, there is a growing sense that the current framework may be too rigid. Some incidents appear far less severe than others, yet all are treated identically. This has led to calls for reconsideration, including the idea of creating a separate category for hair pulling, allowing punishments to vary based on severity—potentially ranging from one to three matches.