Ball boy assault or feigning injury? - League Cup

1282931333437

Comments

  • Tony_BurkeTony_Burke Posts: 99
    Forum Member
    Remind? Re-f'n-mind? So is there going to be any action taken towards the little cheater or what? It looks like Swansea are going to get away scott free, whilst Chelsea are bearing the full brunt of this stupid saga. Both parties have apologised and no-one got hurt, so what's the big deal? After watching loads of replays, there are numerous angles which shows Hazard kicked the ball first. How on earth can the 3 match ban be insufficient? The little cheat said he was going to time waste before the match and incited the saga even further when he put his body on the ball. Then he even had the cheek to feign injury and signal to the ref! These mitigating factors should be taken into consideration FFS! Feel so bad for Hazard, a young promising talent who does not deserve any of this. The BPL the best league in the world? You must be joking, its run by a bunch of clowns.

    You call him a little cheater. The ball boy was just about to pick up the ball when Hazard intervened. It is not Hazard's job to get the ball. If he left it to the ball boy he may of wasted at most 10 secs. Yes the ball boy was acting the fool but Hazard instigated the whole situation. He may have been trying to kick the ball but he made contact withe the ball boy. Yes he milked like so many premier players.

    Swansea have nothing to be punished for. Ball boys up and down the country slow things down when they are winning,. At most it could add up to a minute at most. Chelsea could.t score in 180 mins.

    I expect him to get 1 - 3 extra matches ban and that should be the end of it
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 3,538
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Tony_Burke wrote: »
    You call him a little cheater. The ball boy was just about to pick up the ball when Hazard intervened. It is not Hazard's job to get the ball. If he left it to the ball boy he may of wasted at most 10 secs. Yes the ball boy was acting the fool but Hazard instigated the whole situation. He may have been trying to kick the ball but he made contact withe the ball boy. Yes he milked like so many premier players.

    Swansea have nothing to be punished for. Ball boys up and down the country slow things down when they are winning,. At most it could add up to a minute at most. Chelsea could.t score in 180 mins.

    I expect him to get 1 - 3 extra matches ban and that should be the end of it

    Are you actually stating that that lad was not a cheater?:confused:
  • Cantona07Cantona07 Posts: 56,910
    Forum Member
    0rch1deam wrote: »
    Are you actually stating that that lad was not a cheater?:confused:

    If he isn't I am.
  • CaxtonCaxton Posts: 28,881
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Remind? Re-f'n-mind? So is there going to be any action taken towards the little cheater or what? It looks like Swansea are going to get away scott free, whilst Chelsea are bearing the full brunt of this stupid saga. Both parties have apologised and no-one got hurt, so what's the big deal? After watching loads of replays, there are numerous angles which shows Hazard kicked the ball first. How on earth can the 3 match ban be insufficient? The little cheat said he was going to time waste before the match and incited the saga even further when he put his body on the ball. Then he even had the cheek to feign injury and signal to the ref! These mitigating factors should be taken into consideration FFS! Feel so bad for Hazard, a young promising talent who does not deserve any of this. The BPL the best league in the world? You must be joking, its run by a bunch of clowns.

    I agree with what you say. The ball boy obviously a little cheat and should be banned too. The look on he face of this 17-year-old had the look of a 10-year-old "I want my mummy, look what he did to me" says it all.

    Hazard should have been reprimanded but not what they have given him. The ball boy should be the one banned and never be able to take part in any other match again. What he did was deliberate and it was even admitted by him what he would be doing.
  • mikeydddmikeyddd Posts: 11,565
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    0rch1deam wrote: »
    Are you actually stating that that lad was not a cheater?:confused:

    Totally irrelevent whether the lad was cheating- are you suggesting that someone should have kicked Ba for diving - of course not it is not for players to take the law into their own hands
  • Mark FMark F Posts: 53,293
    Forum Member
    Cantona07 wrote: »
    If he isn't I am.

    A player on the pitch would be for example he held onto the ball after a goal was scored to prevent the opposition getting the ball back to the half-way line so its a fair point...

    Hazard did react poorly to an extent though but not with intent or harm which I would say was a key point when considering how violent the incident was...
  • Deep PurpleDeep Purple Posts: 63,255
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Daryl Dark wrote: »
    I bet you're one of the three people who phoned the police

    I think I was the one who put up the link, and condemned it. Try harder.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,113
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Doesn't mean you weren't one of the three :D
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 3,538
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Amazing that photos of the lads ribs all battered and bruised have not been splattered all over the Internet isn't it? Or could it be that that violent kick never even touched him?
  • CaxtonCaxton Posts: 28,881
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Were there any pictures of the bruise on the boys body that would have been considerable if Hazard had kicked his body hard and not the ball.
    Just noticed the post above, obviously someone else have their doubts too.
  • Cantona07Cantona07 Posts: 56,910
    Forum Member
    Mark F wrote: »
    A player on the pitch would be for example he held onto the ball after a goal was scored to prevent the opposition getting the ball back to the half-way line so its a fair point...

    They absolutely would not . I have NEVER heard someone called "a cheat" for that. Ever.

    Neither have i heard people running the clock down, goalkeepers hanging onto the ball, subs taking ages to go off etc etc described as "cheating". Cheeky, against the spirit of the game, gamesmanship perhaps. Cheating? No.

    There is far too much emotive language being used here.

    What can technically be called "cheating" or "assault" by the letter of the law is one thing but its just being used for effect here.
  • Syntax ErrorSyntax Error Posts: 27,735
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Leo91 wrote: »
    Well the other 1% is Mark Saggers

    CHELSEA FOOTBALL CLUB ARE OUT OF CONTROL!

    :yawn: :sleep:

    I think Mr Saggers graduated from the University of Overreaction with First Class honours in Amateur Melodramatics.;)
  • habbyhabby Posts: 10,027
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Tony_Burke wrote: »
    You call him a little cheater. The ball boy was just about to pick up the ball when Hazard intervened. It is not Hazard's job to get the ball. If he left it to the ball boy he may of wasted at most 10 secs. Yes the ball boy was acting the fool but Hazard instigated the whole situation. He may have been trying to kick the ball but he made contact withe the ball boy. Yes he milked like so many premier players.

    Swansea have nothing to be punished for. Ball boys up and down the country slow things down when they are winning,. At most it could add up to a minute at most. Chelsea could.t score in 180 mins.

    I expect him to get 1 - 3 extra matches ban and that should be the end of it

    What? The little idiot picked it up, dropped it then threw himself on top of it & wouldn't give it back. It's just unfortunate for Hazard that it was him that got their first. It could have been any of the players wanting to get the ball back quicker. And I see he had to remember he was 'hurt' when he was led away.

    I assume you read the kids Tweets he sent before the game stating that he was going to waste time?

    And I don't believe ball boys up and down the country slow things down when the home team are winning, At Spurs, for example, I've never seen the ball boys/girls ever mess about like that. They just throw the ball back straight away to the home or away players.
  • Deep PurpleDeep Purple Posts: 63,255
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    0rch1deam wrote: »
    Amazing that photos of the lads ribs all battered and bruised have not been splattered all over the Internet isn't it? Or could it be that that violent kick never even touched him?

    Probably for the same reason the likes of Drogba never seemed to be rushed to hospital with apparent life threatening injuries.
  • mikeydddmikeyddd Posts: 11,565
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    habby wrote: »
    What? The little idiot picked it up, dropped it then threw himself on top of it & wouldn't give it back. It's just unfortunate for Hazard that it was him that got their first. It could have been any of the players wanting to get the ball back quicker. And I see he had to remember he was 'hurt' when he was led away.

    I assume you read the kids Tweets he sent before the game stating that he was going to waste time?

    And I don't believe ball boys up and down the country slow things down when the home team are winning, At Spurs, for example, I've never seen the ball boys/girls ever mess about like that. They just throw the ball back straight away to the home or away players.

    I think you saw a competely different incident to the rest of us
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 3,538
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    mikeyddd wrote: »
    I think you saw a competely different incident to the rest of us

    He saw the same as I did, and from what I've heard, the majority actually.
  • yellowlabbieyellowlabbie Posts: 59,081
    Forum Member
    0rch1deam wrote: »
    He saw the same as I did, and from what I've heard, the majority actually.

    Specsavers are going to be busy.
  • mikeydddmikeyddd Posts: 11,565
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    0rch1deam wrote: »
    He saw the same as I did, and from what I've heard, the majority actually.

    Well his discription didnt mention Hazard at all - how come he got sent off and how come the FA have charged him and the Police are investigating the incident. The brain is a funny thing sometimes, it can interpretate what the eyes see into what the person actually wants to see and pretty soon they convince themselves that's reality
  • d'@ved'@ve Posts: 45,452
    Forum Member
    Daryl Dark wrote: »
    Isn't the fact that Hazard was booting the ball out from under the ball-twerp as opposed to coming up to him and just kicking him in the ribs out of frustration not mitigating in some way?

    Yes, definitely that is mitigating.

    It's the reason why he probably won't get more than a few extra games tacked on, rather than being banned for the rest of the season.
  • Mark FMark F Posts: 53,293
    Forum Member
    Specsavers are going to be busy.

    I am sure he did make contact with the ball and ball-boy but certainly wasn't intent IMHO.

    Not enough to make a big fuss but then that is only what the pros do...I'd agree the actions of players themselves do set an example.

    Noticed you did replay to my post in the Wenger thread and yes you'd probably hope for some self control but young men particularly pumped up and frustrated footballers don't always seem to.
  • iamsofirediamsofired Posts: 13,054
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Standard 3 match ban is more than sufficient for someone trying to poke the ball out from under a ballboy inexplicably lying on top of it.
  • Tony_BurkeTony_Burke Posts: 99
    Forum Member
    habby wrote: »
    What? The little idiot picked it up, dropped it then threw himself on top of it & wouldn't give it back. It's just unfortunate for Hazard that it was him that got their first. It could have been any of the players wanting to get the ball back quicker. And I see he had to remember he was 'hurt' when he was led away.

    I assume you read the kids Tweets he sent before the game stating that he was going to waste time?

    And I don't believe ball boys up and down the country slow things down when the home team are winning, At Spurs, for example, I've never seen the ball boys/girls ever mess about like that. They just throw the ball back straight away to the home or away players.

    You see what you want to see I suppose. I agree the ball boy acted foolishly after Hazard had intervened, which he should not have done in the first place. He only dropped the ball because Hazard got in the way. As I previously said it would of only been 10 secs at most. Hardly game changing until Hazard intervened

    Surley Hazard's job is to get back into position ready to be involved when the goal kick is taken. If he wants to be a ball boy then fair enough
  • TheSlothTheSloth Posts: 18,711
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Cantona07 wrote: »
    Its not in my DNA to change my mind because i try and form an opinion before i post!

    You are saying that Hazard should receive a longer ban because if he had done it in a different situation, to a member of the public in a completely different set of circumstances there could have been a different outcome.

    This isnt a blanket situation.

    He didnt launch an attack on a member of the public. These incidents are treated on a case by case basis. Hazard being banned for three games will have no bearing on what happens to a player if they dive into the crowd after a fan this weekend because it is a completely different thing.

    Its pure hyperbole to be talking about members of the public having heart attacks or brandishing knives.

    This was a 17 year old employed specifically to throw the ball back into play, which he completely failed to do on this occasion. A frustrated footballer attempted to retrieve the ball and ended up kicking out. There was no injury, no pain. Hazard was wrong so was the ball boy, both for his actions and his reactions, both parties have kissed and made up.

    There is no comparable set of circumstances whereby whatever ruling or punishment here can be applied to another incident IMO.

    The crux of my reasoning (which you didn't seem to get) is the fact Hazard got unnecessarily involved in an off-the-field altercation COULD have put him and others in danger. The fact it didn't and was ultimately trivial in nature is immaterial.

    Did you not see the stewards piling in to ensure the fans nearby didn't also overreact? It would only take one fan in the crowd worsen what happened considerably had they got to Hazard.

    Yes, the youth was an idiot. Yes, no-one got hurt. Yes, it isn't a common occurrence. However, all these facts are irrelevant if you want to reduce risk and prevent a repeat - and that's what the FA will consider and I think the PFA will also accept that.

    If a burglar broke into my house but just ate my Jaffa Cake stash, I'd still want him deterred from breaking in again. :D

    As I said, a six to eight match ban is about right.
  • habbyhabby Posts: 10,027
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    mikeyddd wrote: »
    I think you saw a competely different incident to the rest of us
    Specsavers are going to be busy.

    Looks like you both better make an appointment!!!!
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 8,575
    Forum Member
    iamsofired wrote: »
    Standard 3 match ban is more than sufficient for someone trying to poke the ball out from under a ballboy inexplicably lying on top of it.

    Too right. Clearly insufficient sense being shown by the FA in saying that the standard 3 match punishment was "clearly insufficient"

    Hazard was silly but poking at the ball like that from under ballboy twerp was hardly real violent conduct.
Sign In or Register to comment.