Who / what says they have to go beyond a 3 match ban in such circumstances ?
There isn't anything in the laws to prevent them from doing so either. The punishment can be as long as the FA like, as its a flexible thing. Its got to be because they can't write a rule for every possible situation.
Its my gut fealing they will add an extra game on to the ban. Not because it was particularly a violent incident itself, but because the player was sent off for violent conduct against a person not even on the pitch.
Do I feal sorry for Hazard. Yes, I do. But I can see why the FA have charged him, and where they are coming from with this.
There are people earlier on in the thread who are saying: "he got the ball" in some kind of outrage that the FA have now got further involved, which does miss the point.
Actually a possible thought, maybe the FA might give him a suspended ban.
There isn't anything in the laws to prevent them from doing so either. The punishment can be as long as the FA like, as its a flexible thing. Its got to be because they can't write a rule for every possible situation.
Its my gut fealing they will add an extra game on to the ban. Not because it was particularly a violent incident itself, but because the player was sent off for violent conduct against a person not even on the pitch.
Do I feal sorry for Hazard. Yes, I do. But I can see why the FA have charged him, and where they are coming from with this.
There are people earlier on in the thread who are saying: "he got the ball" in some kind of outrage that the FA have now got further involved, which does miss the point.
Actually a possible thought, maybe the FA might give him a suspended ban.
Thank you for clarifying that your previous posr was inaccurate.
Er, the clue is in the name "ball BOY" i.e. a boy, a child, a minor and this "adult" (and I use that term loosley) kicked him while he was on the floor because he wouldn't give him the ball - which wasn't "his" anyway as it was a Swansea goal kick.
If I had my car keys, or hat, or bottle of wine etc taken by a 17 year old on the street and booted him on the ground to get it back the police would quite rightly be down on me like a .ton of bricks. so what makes this different?
No they wouldnt be down on you like a ton of bricks. A small kick in an attempt to retrieve your own property that caused no injury whatsoever wouldnt see you banged up in the big house and learning to slop out.
Compared with Hillsborough, this is of little consequence. I only mention it because it gives us some insight intto the character of the FA. It took 23 years for the FA to come out with a mealy-mouthed apology for their part in that disaster.
The FA have been described as "being white, male and late middle-aged" featuring "nobody who has played the game to any reasonable level". Faceless, nameless characters who have removed "governing" out of the description "governing body".
When it comes to producing bungling officials, England is simply without equal. They are out of touch and out of their depth, committing blunder after blunder. Their handling of this "non event", which has been blown out of all proportion by the mindless media, is just another example in their catalogue of incompetence. They are unfit for purpose.
We need football men running the game. Proper football men, men with football in their brains and hearts.
Still, It could be worse, they could be FIFA.
Surely the FA are just reacting to a difficult situation they have been put in. They have to do something over and above the ordinary 3 match ban, because the incident didn't involve another player but a ball boy.
The problem with the FA and what really really annoys me about them is that they seem to be influenced by the level of media coverage a situation gets.
Ive seen it with a couple of things whereby if its exploding on forums, SSN and talksport there seems to be a need for action to be taken. This is WRONG, they should be reacting to the seriousness of a situation and doing what is the correct thing not doing something because its in the headlines.
Ive seen it said here a few times "They have to be seen to be doing something" well, no, no they don't. If theres an issue they have to actually deal with it and if it isnt they have to have the balls to say "no further action" even if it flies in the face of a media storm. Being "seen to be doing something" is the very worst of both worlds.
Two people behaved like idiots, it happens all the time. Even a primary school teacher would realise that there was fault on both sides, no harm done, punishment handed out and time to move on.
Actually I think it is an issue. The only reason I've never posted about it is because its accepted and expected.
I don't know if you remember Blackburn Rovers v Liverpool in the 1991 FA Cup 3rd round. Blackburn were leading 1-0 in the last minute when a ball girl gave the ball to a Liverpool player for them to take a quick throw in. They scored, and got a replay, which they won.
Later that night Jimmy Hill on MOTD blamed the ball girl for the goal. (I actually think he had a point, but of course it left the girl upset and Jimmy Hill had to say sorry.)
Now here was a ball girl doing the job correctly, but she got slated for it! She actually felt bad because she was a fan of Blackburn Rovers!
I accept the point of what you are saying but the fact that you have had to go back 22 years to find a "ball boy controversy" rather backs up my point.
Theres a fine line with this, you assume ball boys are fans of the home team. I would defy any of us on here to say that they would be in a hurry to give the ball back to the opposition if our teams were winning a big game.
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.
I had originally raised that one elsewhere as a bit of a joke. It does go back a long way. It suggests there hasn't been a huge problem but issues can crop up either through persistent occurrences or through a single flashpoint.
A ball boy has gone on twitter saying he is there to timewaste and he did just that. The fact it hasn't generally been an issue doesn't mean its not something that can be looked at to see if we can do better next time and/or avoid the incident.
The whole thing ended with apologies and now an FA charge, there should be some look at how ball boys are employed and how they should do their job without the hysterics of suggesting an outright ban.
I accept the point of what you are saying but the fact that you have had to go back 22 years to find a "ball boy controversy" rather backs up my point.
Theres a fine line with this, you assume ball boys are fans of the home team. I would defy any of us on here to say that they would be in a hurry to give the ball back to the opposition if our teams were winning a big game.
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.
Little idea which I expect to be ridiculed. Why not have around 15 trays around the pitch and charge each ball boy with making a ball available at all times giving each one two or three to start. The player has to get the ball out of the tray himself.
Club at fault if the ball is not on the tray, player if they are taking too long to retrieve.
The problem with the FA and what really really annoys me about them is that they seem to be influenced by the level of media coverage a situation gets.
Ive seen it with a couple of things whereby if its exploding on forums, SSN and talksport there seems to be a need for action to be taken. This is WRONG, they should be reacting to the seriousness of a situation and doing what is the correct thing not doing something because its in the headlines.
Ive seen it said here a few times "They have to be seen to be doing something" well, no, no they don't. If theres an issue they have to actually deal with it and if it isnt they have to have the balls to say "no further action" even if it flies in the face of a media storm. Being "seen to be doing something" is the very worst of both worlds.
Two people behaved like idiots, it happens all the time. Even a primary school teacher would realise that there was fault on both sides, no harm done, punishment handed out and time to move on.
I couldn't agree more. I usually post regularly about anything connected with Chelsea, but this trivial incident was blown out of all proportion from the start.
I suppose it's a sign of the times, with the social media, Facebook, Twitter, and the fact that the match went out live.
The papers and radio talking heads then jump on the bandwagon, 5Live had an hours phone-in about it the following morning !
The ball-boy and Hazard were both stupid, but neither deserve the vitriol that has been directed at them from some sections of the public. If the referee was doing his job, he would have added time on anyway, there was no need for Hazard to get involved. The ball-boy probably fancies himself as a "bit of a character" and went for his few minutes of fame, not thinking it would turn out to be a talking point for days to come.
The FA should have been able to rise above all the nonsense that was going around and just treated the incident with common sense. A little humour wouldn't have gone amiss either, the incident was amusing I'll admit, even if it did result in our player being dismissed.
I couldn't agree more. I usually post regularly about anything connected with Chelsea, but this trivial incident was blown out of all proportion from the start.
I suppose it's a sign of the times, with the social media, Facebook, Twitter, and the fact that the match went out live.
The papers and radio talking heads then jump on the bandwagon, 5Live had an hours phone-in about it the following morning !
The ball-boy and Hazard were both stupid, but neither deserve the vitriol that has been directed at them from some sections of the public. If the referee was doing his job, he would have added time on anyway, there was no need for Hazard to get involved. The ball-boy probably fancies himself as a "bit of a character" and went for his few minutes of fame, not thinking it would turn out to be a talking point for days to come.
The FA should have been able to rise above all the nonsense that was going around and just treated the incident with common sense. A little humour wouldn't have gone amiss either, the incident was amusing I'll admit, even if it did result in our player being dismissed.
This is not a trivial incident, I posted a link last night showing how these incidents can get out of hand, so it's not suprising that the FA want to crack down on anything like this.
This is not a trivial incident, I posted a link last night showing how these incidents can get out of hand, so it's not suprising that the FA want to crack down on anything like this.
I did watch that. But even in that example, the incident itself was trivial. I can only assume that the resulting brawl was a result of previous grievances, and the ball-boy incident turned out to be the trigger.
I'm not sure they should punish something that is really quite trivial more severely because it "might" inflame passions.
(g) The standard punishment shall be increased where The Association satisfies the
Commission so that it is sure that:
(i) The circumstances of the dismissal under review are truly exceptional, such that
the standard punishment should not be applied; and
(ii) The standard punishment would be clealy insufficient.
(h) In considering the matters at (g) above, the Commission shall have regard to:
(a) The applicable Law(s) of the Game and any relevant FIFA instructions and/or
guidelines;
(b) The nature of the dismissal offence, and particular any intent, recklessness,
negligence or other state of mind of the Player;
(c) Where applicable, the level of force used;
(d) Any injury to an opponent caused by the dismissal offence;
(e) Any other impact on the game in which the dismissal occurred;
(f) The prevalence of the type of offence in question in football generally;
(g) The wider interests of football in applying consistent punishments for dismissal
offences;
i) If the Commission is not satisfied of the matters at (g) above, the Commission shall
deliberate no further on the charge and the Player shall serve the standard punishment;
Just so we know exactly what we are discussing here!
This is not a trivial incident, I posted a link last night showing how these incidents can get out of hand, so it's not suprising that the FA want to crack down on anything like this.
The FA never 'crack down' on anything in the game. They let all kinds of gamesmanship, feigning injury and comical falling over go unpenalised. Retrospective fining and red and yellow cards applied may stop it, and lead to a fairer and better sport to watch.
I have never known such a pampered, overpaid bunch of incipid namby pambies.
As for the ball boy/Hazard incident .......
The FA and the game reap what they sow.
I am amazed anbody is surprised what went on the other night, both with the ballboy, and the thuggish attitude of those who play professionally.
The FA are idiots - I expect fully idiotic resolution to be applied the matter.
They do often make a meal of things, but the player is the real idiot by thinking he could kick a ballboy, and get away with it as being part of the game.
They do often make a meal of things, but the player is the real idiot by thinking he could kick a ballboy, and get away with it as being part of the game.
If the ball hadnt been punted out when the player kicked it I might agree with your analysis.
They do often make a meal of things, but the player is the real idiot by thinking he could kick a ballboy, and get away with it as being part of the game.
Please don't misrepresent things. Hazard was poking at the ball to release it, not taking a kick at the ballboy.
Yes, it was stupid and he may have made contact with the ballboy. But do you seriously think he was taking a deliberate kick at the ballboy ?!
The FA never 'crack down' on anything in the game. They let all kinds of gamesmanship, feigning injury and comical falling over go unpenalised. Retrospective fining and red and yellow cards applied may stop it, and lead to a fairer and better sport to watch.
.
That is true...sometimes they do but its inconsistent.
Please don't misrepresent things. Hazard was poking at the ball to release it, not taking a kick at the ballboy.
Yes, it was stupid and he may have made contact with the ballboy. But do you seriously think he was taking a deliberate kick at the ballboy ?!
Poking well that's one way to describe, how long before someone says he was trying to tickle the ballboy. I don't think anyone is saying he deliberately kicked the ballball just that it was reckless to try and kick the ball out from underneath him as it was inevitable that he would make contact with the ballboy. The severity is not important here (if he had really hurt him he would be on a charge). How many headbutts on the field of play actually end up injuring the opposition player, very few in reality.
They do often make a meal of things, but the player is the real idiot by thinking he could kick a ballboy, and get away with it as being part of the game.
Poking well that's one way to describe, how long before someone says he was trying to tickle the ballboy. I don't think anyone is saying he deliberately kicked the ballball just that it was reckless to try and kick the ball out from underneath him as it was inevitable that he would make contact with the ballboy. The severity is not important here (if he had really hurt him he would be on a charge). How many headbutts on the field of play actually end up injuring the opposition player, very few in reality.
The post you replied to was in reply to the post ive quoted above your own.
I really dont think it was a premeditated attack whereby Hazard "thought he could kick the ball boy" hence the response from Indiana. I genuinely dont think kicking the ball boy entered his head at all. He was trying to get the ball back. That doesnt excuse or justify what he did because the end result was a player kicking a ball boy and you cant do that. However i think you would be very hard pushed to prove any sort of intent other than to get the game restarted.
I know that vicious hardman Hazard with a long history of violence went out to deliberately hurt a ballboy - maybe if you have a tabloid sensationalist mentality that might enter your head.
I know that vicious hardman Hazard with a long history of violence went out to deliberately hurt a ballboy - maybe if you have a tabloid sensationalist mentality that might enter your head.
I don't believe he meant to hurt the ballboy but he did take a kick at him to get the ball when he was lying on it.
The ballboy is not a top Premiership player. It is not acceptable to do what Hazard did, the boy wasn't playing in the game for heavens sake.
The "boy" grabbed the ball, then mounted it. It is a shame, Hazard didn't intend to kick him in the ribs, because then he would have had something to roll over about.
Comments
There isn't anything in the laws to prevent them from doing so either. The punishment can be as long as the FA like, as its a flexible thing. Its got to be because they can't write a rule for every possible situation.
Its my gut fealing they will add an extra game on to the ban. Not because it was particularly a violent incident itself, but because the player was sent off for violent conduct against a person not even on the pitch.
Do I feal sorry for Hazard. Yes, I do. But I can see why the FA have charged him, and where they are coming from with this.
There are people earlier on in the thread who are saying: "he got the ball" in some kind of outrage that the FA have now got further involved, which does miss the point.
Actually a possible thought, maybe the FA might give him a suspended ban.
Thank you for clarifying that your previous posr was inaccurate.
Well the previous post was meant as an opinion only. Sorry for any misunderstanding.
No they wouldnt be down on you like a ton of bricks. A small kick in an attempt to retrieve your own property that caused no injury whatsoever wouldnt see you banged up in the big house and learning to slop out.
The problem with the FA and what really really annoys me about them is that they seem to be influenced by the level of media coverage a situation gets.
Ive seen it with a couple of things whereby if its exploding on forums, SSN and talksport there seems to be a need for action to be taken. This is WRONG, they should be reacting to the seriousness of a situation and doing what is the correct thing not doing something because its in the headlines.
Ive seen it said here a few times "They have to be seen to be doing something" well, no, no they don't. If theres an issue they have to actually deal with it and if it isnt they have to have the balls to say "no further action" even if it flies in the face of a media storm. Being "seen to be doing something" is the very worst of both worlds.
Two people behaved like idiots, it happens all the time. Even a primary school teacher would realise that there was fault on both sides, no harm done, punishment handed out and time to move on.
I accept the point of what you are saying but the fact that you have had to go back 22 years to find a "ball boy controversy" rather backs up my point.
Theres a fine line with this, you assume ball boys are fans of the home team. I would defy any of us on here to say that they would be in a hurry to give the ball back to the opposition if our teams were winning a big game.
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.
A ball boy has gone on twitter saying he is there to timewaste and he did just that. The fact it hasn't generally been an issue doesn't mean its not something that can be looked at to see if we can do better next time and/or avoid the incident.
The whole thing ended with apologies and now an FA charge, there should be some look at how ball boys are employed and how they should do their job without the hysterics of suggesting an outright ban.
True on the last point.
This has an extra dimension in that Hazard has used force on a ball boy, something he is not allowed to do.
It is no surprise he faces extra punishment.
The ball boys actions do not justify Hazards.
Club at fault if the ball is not on the tray, player if they are taking too long to retrieve.
I couldn't agree more. I usually post regularly about anything connected with Chelsea, but this trivial incident was blown out of all proportion from the start.
I suppose it's a sign of the times, with the social media, Facebook, Twitter, and the fact that the match went out live.
The papers and radio talking heads then jump on the bandwagon, 5Live had an hours phone-in about it the following morning !
The ball-boy and Hazard were both stupid, but neither deserve the vitriol that has been directed at them from some sections of the public. If the referee was doing his job, he would have added time on anyway, there was no need for Hazard to get involved. The ball-boy probably fancies himself as a "bit of a character" and went for his few minutes of fame, not thinking it would turn out to be a talking point for days to come.
The FA should have been able to rise above all the nonsense that was going around and just treated the incident with common sense. A little humour wouldn't have gone amiss either, the incident was amusing I'll admit, even if it did result in our player being dismissed.
This is not a trivial incident, I posted a link last night showing how these incidents can get out of hand, so it's not suprising that the FA want to crack down on anything like this.
I did watch that. But even in that example, the incident itself was trivial. I can only assume that the resulting brawl was a result of previous grievances, and the ball-boy incident turned out to be the trigger.
I'm not sure they should punish something that is really quite trivial more severely because it "might" inflame passions.
Just so we know exactly what we are discussing here!
The FA never 'crack down' on anything in the game. They let all kinds of gamesmanship, feigning injury and comical falling over go unpenalised. Retrospective fining and red and yellow cards applied may stop it, and lead to a fairer and better sport to watch.
I have never known such a pampered, overpaid bunch of incipid namby pambies.
As for the ball boy/Hazard incident .......
The FA and the game reap what they sow.
I am amazed anbody is surprised what went on the other night, both with the ballboy, and the thuggish attitude of those who play professionally.
They do often make a meal of things, but the player is the real idiot by thinking he could kick a ballboy, and get away with it as being part of the game.
If the ball hadnt been punted out when the player kicked it I might agree with your analysis.
Please don't misrepresent things. Hazard was poking at the ball to release it, not taking a kick at the ballboy.
Yes, it was stupid and he may have made contact with the ballboy. But do you seriously think he was taking a deliberate kick at the ballboy ?!
That is true...sometimes they do but its inconsistent.
Poking well that's one way to describe, how long before someone says he was trying to tickle the ballboy. I don't think anyone is saying he deliberately kicked the ballball just that it was reckless to try and kick the ball out from underneath him as it was inevitable that he would make contact with the ballboy. The severity is not important here (if he had really hurt him he would be on a charge). How many headbutts on the field of play actually end up injuring the opposition player, very few in reality.
The post you replied to was in reply to the post ive quoted above your own.
I really dont think it was a premeditated attack whereby Hazard "thought he could kick the ball boy" hence the response from Indiana. I genuinely dont think kicking the ball boy entered his head at all. He was trying to get the ball back. That doesnt excuse or justify what he did because the end result was a player kicking a ball boy and you cant do that. However i think you would be very hard pushed to prove any sort of intent other than to get the game restarted.
I don't believe he meant to hurt the ballboy but he did take a kick at him to get the ball when he was lying on it.
The ballboy is not a top Premiership player. It is not acceptable to do what Hazard did, the boy wasn't playing in the game for heavens sake.