Tottenham
Cristian Romero will not face retrospective action for pulling the hair of
Chelsea's Marc Cucurella on Super Sunday - as pulling a player's hair is not
considered an offence in football's rules.
In a controversial final few minutes of the Premier League game on Sunday
evening, Romero was seen tugging on Cucurella's hair as he looked to attack
a corner as Spurs looked for a late equaliser.
VAR official Mike Dean took a look at the incident and decided it was not a
red card offence, nor a free-kick to Chelsea. Referee Anthony Taylor allowed
Spurs to take another corner straight away, which Harry Kane scored from to
haul Tottenham back level to 2-2.
The finale left Chelsea manager Thomas Tuchel furious with the decision not
to punish Romero and award Chelsea a late free-kick, with the German head
coach imploring that the goal should not have been allowed to stand.
And because VAR took a look at the decision, Romero will not face any
further punishment for violent conduct. Retrospective action can only be
given when both the match and video officials fail to spot an incident on
the pitch in real time and do not mention it in their post-match report.
Had referee Taylor spotted the incident in real time, then the correct
course of action would have been a free-kick to Chelsea, leaving Spurs
unable to score from that specific attack.
Unlike rugby, football laws do not specifically mention hair-pulling. The
officials must decide whether the extent of the hair pulling is forceful
enough to be considered violent conduct, if it is not then it would probably
be considered unsporting behaviour and result in a yellow card.
Tuchel: Taylor shouldn't referee Chelsea
games | 'Where was VAR?'
In his post-match press conference, Tuchel felt that referee Taylor should
not be allowed to referee Chelsea games anymore - as he felt both of
Tottenham's goals on Sunday should have been ruled out.
In relation to the first goal, Chelsea felt there was a foul on Kai Havertz
in the build-up but Taylor disagreed. Referees have been told there is a
higher threshold for fouls this season to help with the flow of games but
VAR did not look closely at it because it wasn't deemed to be in the same
attacking phase of play as Tottenham's first goal, scored by Pierre-Emile
Hojbjerg.
A potential interference by Richarlison, who was standing in an offside
position when Hojbjerg struck the ball, was looked at, but it was decided
his position had no negative impact on goalkeeper Edouard Mendy's position.
Asked whether Taylor should never referee Chelsea again, the German replied:
"Maybe it would be better.
"But honestly, we also have VAR to help make the right decisions. Since when
can players be pulled at their hair? Since when is that? And if he does not
see it, I don't blame him.
"I didn't see it, but we have people at VAR who check this and then you see
it and then how can this not be a free-kick and how can it not be a red
card? How?
"This has nothing to do with the referee in this case. If he does not see
something, that's why we have people to check if there's a decisive error
going on."
The FA are expected to investigate the comments made by Tuchel about Taylor.
Post-match comments in the media or on social media are permitted if they
solely criticise a match official's performance or competence.
However, if the comments imply bias, attack their integrity, are personally
offensive, prolonged, or particularly unreasonable it could lead to the FA
issuing a charge or formal warning, reminding them of their responsibilities
or taking no further action depending on the seriousness of the incident or
track record of the 'participant'.
Tuchel and Tottenham manager Antonio Conte were involved in two separate
touchline incidents - after Tottenham's first goal and after full-time - and
the FA will study the referee's report and match footage before deciding
whether to charge both managers. This decision will be made before Wednesday
evening.
The referee's verdict
Analysis from Sky Sports pundit and former referee Dermot Gallagher:
INCIDENT: Should VAR have given Cristian Romero a red card for his hair pull
on Marc Cucurella ahead of Spurs' equaliser?
VERDICT: The VAR should have intervened - it was a red card and a free-kick
to Chelsea.
DERMOT SAYS: I think the VAR should intervene. I'm not sure the referee has
seen it, I think he looks down but I think he does it instinctively. I think
he watches the flight of the ball. He does look down, but I think it has
already happened. The VAR has the perfect look. As soon as I saw it, I said,
'I think he is going to get a red card here, he's pulled him down by the
hair'. I anticipated the VAR sending Anthony Taylor to the screen. I know
for a fact that if Anthony had been sent to the screen, he would have given
a red card and a free-kick to Chelsea.
INCIDENT: Tottenham equaliser for 1-1 - was an offside Richarlison
interfering with play?
VERDICT: Possibly.
DERMOT SAYS: The logic here is that the VAR will have been asked to decide
if he is impacting on the goalkeeper. You think yes, I think possibly, they
think no. Their logic is that the ball comes a long way, he's a long way
away from the goalkeeper, there was also a nick off Kalidou Koulibaly. With
all of that factored in the VAR felt the goal stood, that's the logic. I can
understand how they have arisen at that decision, I can understand why
people would be angry at that.
Stephen Warnock: For me, he is interfering. He is in the vicinity, he is in
the eyeline of (Edouard) Mendy, I think he is leaning to the left to see
around. The one that interests me is the distance from goal. This isn't
kids' football, this is the Premier League, the elite league, where players
strike the ball at a speed. For me, Richarlison is active. I know they say
he isn't, but he is, he's on the pitch. This is the rule which drives me
insane. He's in and around the penalty area and around the vicinity of the
goal.
top