[mikeyddd]

Originally Posted by 0rch1deam

Maybe you should read way back in this thread for a start, and then look back at some of the initial media reports. Some would have him hung out to dry for child molestation. Hazards red card was sufficient.

Well I don't know about the media, but I haven't seen anyone on here say that, particularly since the lads age was known

[mikeyddd]

Originally Posted by Cantona07

Its relevant to the perception of the incident depending on what spin people want to put on it, and i suspect that the perception will hold influence over the eventual punishment.

Well now that the ballboy's age is known, surely it's more likely that the eventual punishment will be less than it might otherwise have been

[Cantona07]

Originally Posted by mikeyddd

Well now that the ballboy's age is known, surely it's more likely that the eventual punishment will be less than it might otherwise have been

So therefore his age IS relevant then.

[mikeyddd]

Originally Posted by Cantona07

So therefore his age IS relevant then.

No - because he has been charged with violent conduct no age has been mentioned - my comment was in answer to your view that the the punishment might be harsh because the ballboy is percieved by some to be a small child

[Cantona07]

Originally Posted by mikeyddd

Well now that the ballboy's age is known, surely it's more likely that the eventual punishment will be less than it might otherwise have been

Originally Posted by mikeyddd

No - because he has been charged with violent conduct no age has been mentioned - my comment was in answer to your view that the the punishment might be harsh because the ballboy is percieved by some to be a small child

If you are accepting in the top post that he may get a lesser ban because the ball boy is 17 rather than 12 then the age of the ball boy is relevant to the overall situation, contrary to what people on the previous page have been saying.

If the FA are punishing the

"player assaults defenceless ball boy by kicking him while he is on the ground"

headline then they will probably throw away the key.

Alternatively

"player accidentally lightly kicks 17 year old time wasting youth while attempting to retrieve ball from under him, both parties apologise"

comes across as a bit different.

The truth may lie somewhere in between but the people saying that the guys age doesnt matter arent really correct on any level. Thats not to say Hazard wouldnt have done the same thing to a 12 year old but we will never know.

[indiana44]

Originally Posted by Cantona07

If you are accepting in the top post that he may get a lesser ban because the ball boy is 17 rather than 12 then the age of the ball boy is relevant to the overall situation, contrary to what people on the previous page have been saying.

If the FA are punishing the

"player assaults defenceless ball boy by kicking him while he is on the ground"

headline then they will probably throw away the key.

Alternatively

"player accidentally lightly kicks 17 year old time wasting youth while attempting to retrieve ball from under him, both parties apologise"

comes across as a bit different.

The truth may lie somewhere in between but the people saying that the guys age doesnt matter arent really correct on any level. Thats not to say Hazard wouldnt have done the same thing to a 12 year old but we will never know.

The above alternative I'd say is basically what we had.

Pathetic that the FA for whatever reasons want to make more of it. A 3 match ban for Hazard, some general advice re leaving such things to the referee, and then just move on would be appropriate for in truth a fairly trivial, albeit unusual, incident.

[Tony_Burke]

Originally Posted by Cantona07

If you are accepting in the top post that he may get a lesser ban because the ball boy is 17 rather than 12 then the age of the ball boy is relevant to the overall situation, contrary to what people on the previous page have been saying.

If the FA are punishing the

"player assaults defenceless ball boy by kicking him while he is on the ground"

headline then they will probably throw away the key.

Alternatively

"player accidentally lightly kicks 17 year old time wasting youth while attempting to retrieve ball from under him, both parties apologise"

comes across as a bit different.

The truth may lie somewhere in between but the people saying that the guys age doesnt matter arent really correct on any level. Thats not to say Hazard wouldnt have done the same thing to a 12 year old but we will never know.

Well I think his actions would of been the same as he would of had no idea how old the ball boy was at he time unless he stopped to ask him first

[indiana44]

Originally Posted by Tony_Burke

[/b]

Well I think his actions would of been the same as he would of had no idea how old the ball boy was at he time unless he stopped to ask him first

Yes probably. His actions would probably still have been just about as relatively trivial whatever the age of the ballboy.

The more I think of all Hazard was trying to do in the moment, the more ridiculously overblown I think the whole thing has become.

[habby]

Originally Posted by Cantona07

If you are accepting in the top post that he may get a lesser ban because the ball boy is 17 rather than 12 then the age of the ball boy is relevant to the overall situation, contrary to what people on the previous page have been saying.

If the FA are punishing the

"player assaults defenceless ball boy by kicking him while he is on the ground"

headline then they will probably throw away the key.

Alternatively

"player accidentally lightly kicks 17 year old time wasting youth while attempting to retrieve ball from under him, both parties apologise"

comes across as a bit different.

The truth may lie somewhere in between but the people saying that the guys age doesnt matter arent really correct on any level. Thats not to say Hazard wouldnt have done the same thing to a 12 year old but we will never know.

In an odd sort of way the idiot ballboy may have helped Hazard by putting out his tweets about the time he was going to waste. The FA may use that in their evidence.

[JasonWatkins]

Eden Hazard ballboy Charlie Morgan banned from Wales international fixture

Oops

[man_bear_pig]

Anyone who thinks that this was violent surely has had a sheltered life and should probably just stick to watching their peppa pig DVD's.

[Deep Purple]

Originally Posted by man_bear_pig

Anyone who thinks that this was violent surely has had a sheltered life and should probably just stick to watching their peppa pig DVD's.

There are levels of violence. Players get sent off for violent conduct if they gently touch heads together, although one usually rolls on the floor like a dying swan.

The violence was in the act of using physical force against someone he had no right to do so on.

[Syntax Error]

Originally Posted by JasonWatkins

Eden Hazard ballboy Charlie Morgan banned from Wales international fixture

Oops

That's fair.

He should not be allowed to be a ball boy at all, anywhere in the future.

[Mark F]

I know people went on about how come a 17 year old was ball-boy but quite a few sides do use their youth players (know he wasn't...)

Thought that point was a bit petty.

[Jimmy_McNulty]

The ball lad's father deserves as much stick has his reprobate of a son. Not only for obviously raising a human being devoid of all respect or morals, but allowing him to be a ball lad in the first place.

Other's would have just given their son's a nice plush seat in the stadium, not this tool.

[yellowlabbie]

Originally Posted by Syntax Error

That's fair.

He should not be allowed to be a ball boy at all, anywhere in the future.

So Hazard should never be allowed to play football again, ever?

[yellowlabbie]

Originally Posted by Jimmy_McNulty

The ball lad's father deserves as much stick has his reprobate of a son. Not only for obviously raising a human being devoid of all respect or morals, but allowing him to be a ball lad in the first place.

Other's would have just given their son's a nice plush seat in the stadium, not this tool.

Reprobate, oh dear me. And what about Hazard kicking a ball out of a ballboys hands. What does that make him? A violent thug?

Brendon Rodgers says he is a nice young lad, should we disbelieve him?

He did a silly thing to try and help his team, he hasn't beaten anyone up.

[wolvesdavid]

Originally Posted by Cantona07

All that needs to happen is a wee note going to all clubs saying that the referees assessor (or tv coverage or whatever) will now be used to note any excessive time wasting from ball boys and as the ball boys are under the control of the home team an appropriate punishment will be administered to the club in the event of this happening. Its THAT simple really.

Fair enough. But then the question would be what would be the "appropriate punishment?" There wouldn't be much that could be done to prevent it.

Imagine the last minute of the last match of the season, with United leading 1-0 in injury time, needing to win the match to win the league. The opposition get a corner with the United defence out of position, but yet your ball boy give the opposition the ball and they score from a quick corner. The match ends 1-1 and you lose the league. Surely you would be annoyed at the ball boy for giving the ball back too quickly. (NB not actually checked if you are at home or not on the last day of the season.)

Surely with the league title at stake, you would rather the ball boy kept hold of the ball until your defence was ready. If you then won the league, I'm sure that any football club would rather take the "appropriate punishment" from the FA for the ball boy timewasting on purpose. Because the FA certainly wouldn't give you a points deduction etc!

[wolvesdavid]

Originally Posted by Cantona07

At least we have moved on bit and there seems to be an acknowledgement that Hazard was in the wrong but doesnt need some huge ban.

I don't think he needs a huge ban. Some people comparing it to the Cantona incident was silly!

However, even if its a fine, a suspended ban, or an extra game(s) ban (1-3 extra games?) then I think the FA will do something over and above the normal 3 match ban for a red card.

[grimtales1]

Hazard should be appropriately punished for what he did (has he been?) - 'accidentally' or not, he ended up kicking the ball boy in the ribs. Against a player, thats violent conduct and a 3 match ban.
But the boy doesnt come out of this guilt free either, certainly not, because of his premeditated time wasting and being an arse. I think both were wrong TBH but it should be over now as both parties said sorry to one another.

[wolvesdavid]

Originally Posted by man_bear_pig

Anyone who thinks that this was violent surely has had a sheltered life and should probably just stick to watching their peppa pig DVD's.

But what we are going with the FAs definition of violent conduct for the purposes of discussing if he will get an extended ban or not.

[wolvesdavid]

Originally Posted by grimtales1

I think both were wrong TBH but it should be over now as both parties said sorry to one another.

The fact that both parties have said sorry to each other, doesn't prevent (and nor should it) the FA taken further action if they see the need to.

[grimtales1]

Indeed, but maybe they dont feel there is need. I meant more the fact Hazard was sent off = 3 match ban at the time so it was seen by the ref. I dont think a huge ban is needed.

[gomezz]

Not a longer ban but perhaps some re-education about the basics of behaviour in a civilised world.

[The_abbott]

mountain out of a molehill springs to mind when I first heard about this story.

PLayer has been punished with 3 match ban. The kid should have stuck to the job at hand. You don't see the ball boys at Wimbledon act in this manner. They are trained and disciplined. He had one job to do and failed.