After the incident, someone made a complaint to the police. The police spoke to all parties and that was it. NO charges, no arrest, no assault.
And yet here you are stating in writing in a public forum that Eden Hazard was arrested, charged with assault, and then the police or CPS decided there was no evidence.
You also allege that someone paid off the ball boy, and that the ball boy accepted money to drop a police investigation.
These are very serious statements you have made in public.
Under normal circumstances, the player involved would almost certainly have faced charges for assault. Seems that my comments may have been misconstrued. According to a later Sky News bulletin, no further action was taken, and the matter appears to have been dropped. Now, what did really happen behind the scenes? My guess is as good as yours.
I'm loving your deliberate use of the word "assault".
A player verbally abusing the ref is technically "assault". A professional foul where a player trips the opponent is "assault". A player grabbing a handful of shirt and pulling a player to the ground is "assault".
In a game where we have players elbowing, headbutting, deliberately going over the ball we have had almost zero allegations of assault.
When Carragher threw a coin into the crowd...
When Neville booted a ball into the crowd...
Do you really want Hazard charged, in court, convicted and jailed because of this?
If you actually read what I said, I said I didn't think he should be prosecuted, but it is an assault, and outside the confines of the actual games, where such incidents do happen.
He has decided to deal with a time wasting ball boy by assaulting him. That's what he's done, whether you like it or not, and that is why he was punished.
Under normal circumstances, the player involved would almost certainly have faced charges for assault. Seems that my comments may have been misconstrued. According to a later Sky News bulletin, no further action was taken, and the matter appears to have been dropped. Now, what did really happen behind the scenes? My guess is as good as yours.
My guess is probably as close to the truth as you can get.
They asked the lad to show where he'd been kicked, from the way he reacted there would at the least have been a bruise forming, if not definite marks. On seeing absolutely nothing there, the lad confessed that he wasn't actually touched at all by Hazard. End of case.
Isn't it technically more a battery than an assault? But is battery available as a charge these days or does it come under some differently worded offence?
With mitigating factors and no aggravating factors, either no charge at all or a caution? If charged and convicted, a community service sentence? The lad does not appear to have been injured and was probably not even made to apprehend fear.
But common sense has prevailed, the lad didn't complain so as far as the law is concerned, end of.
Assault is the commonly used term to cover the battery aspect of it. This was a common assault, but no complaint has been made, and it is not worthy of anyone outside football getting involved.
The player has assaulted him though. It is not his role to physically challenge a ball boy.
I don't think there should be any more action Hazard will just have to face a 3 match ban and the so called ball boy will never be at a match again unless its watching from the stands. It looks worse than it is and of course Hazard shouldn't have done what he did, but its far from assault and no I don't support Chelsea.
Under normal circumstances, the player involved would almost certainly have faced charges for assault. Seems that my comments may have been misconstrued. According to a later Sky News bulletin, no further action was taken, and the matter appears to have been dropped. Now, what did really happen behind the scenes? My guess is as good as yours.
My guess is that if further action had been taken then the boy would have had give evidence in court and admitted that he was told to waste time and it would have been embarrassing for his fathers club.
Assault is the commonly used term to cover the battery aspect of it. This was a common assault, but no complaint has been made, and it is not worthy of anyone outside football getting involved.
The player has assaulted him though. It is not his role to physically challenge a ball boy.
I have been reading your campaign to try and get this classed as assault and i think you should take a look at this.
Hazard doesn't kick the ball-boy/adult, he gets ALL OF THE BALL. At most he catches the guys coat. Look at the his delayed reaction to his "injury", he knows he made an ass of himself so now he's going to try and get Hazard in trouble by faking injury and pretending to cry.
My guess is that if further action had been taken then the boy would have had give evidence in court and admitted that he was told to waste time and it would have been embarrassing for his fathers club.
I dont think ball boys wasting time would surprise anyone.
I also dont think the case warrants Police action. If the boy were younger, it may have done, and the player had no idea of his age.
Hazard doesn't kick the ball-boy/adult, he gets ALL OF THE BALL. At most he catches the guys coat. Look at the his delayed reaction to his "injury", he knows he made an ass of himself so now he's going to try and get Hazard in trouble by faking injury and pretending to cry.
It's not a campaign, it's a fact.
Showing one view that favours the player is not the whole story. Other angles show he kicked the boy. I agree he was going for the ball, but that doesn't wash if the foot connects with other players first either.
I'm staggered so many are prepared to defend this players actions.
As for feigning injury, he only has to look on the pitch to see how that is done, with Chelsea having the worst example I've ever seen, in Drogba.
Hazard doesn't kick the ball-boy/adult, he gets ALL OF THE BALL. At most he catches the guys coat. Look at the his delayed reaction to his "injury", he knows he made an ass of himself so now he's going to try and get Hazard in trouble by faking injury and pretending to cry.
I suppose you know that pain signals travel at 0.6 meters/sec. Any pain felt would take around half a second to reach the brain. That accounts for any delayed reaction.
I'm staggered so many are prepared to defend this players actions.
No one is defending his actions, most of us think that a red card and 3 game ban is the right thing.
However that is VERY different to claiming that an assault has taken place (according to your rules, about 100 assaults take place every single game!).
I got assaulted by an old lady in tesco when she rammed her trolly into me - should i phone the police?
I suppose you know that pain signals travel at 0.6 meters/sec. Any pain felt would take around half a second to reach the brain. That accounts for any delayed reaction.
My goodness me.
I suppose it also accounts for the look to the ref trying to get the player booked first for a few seconds too?
No one is defending his actions, most of us think that a red card and 3 game ban is the right thing.
However that is VERY different to claiming that an assault has taken place (according to your rules, about 100 assaults take place every single game!).
I got assaulted by an old lady in tesco when she rammed her trolly into me - should i phone the police?
What a country.
Still not reading what I said are you? I never suggested the Police should get involved.
However, he has physically taken on someone who is not involved in the game. In legal terms that is assault. I dont make up the rules on what is an assault.
If the kid had been younger, he'd have been in more trouble.
I suppose you know that pain signals travel at 0.6 meters/sec. Any pain felt would take around half a second to reach the brain. That accounts for any delayed reaction.
I think you've been watching too many 'Tom & Jerry' cartoons.
Still not reading what I said are you? I never suggested the Police should get involved.
However, he has physically taken on someone who is not involved in the game. In legal terms that is assault. I dont make up the rules on what is an assault.
If the kid had been younger, he'd have been in more trouble.
Do you agree then, according to your own opinion's that about 100 so called assaults happen every single game?
Do you agree then, according to your own opinion's that about 100 so called assaults happen every single game?
That has nothing to do with this.
An assault is an assault, but in the context of a football match, it is a physical contact sport, and those involved agree with the rules, and such contact is not complained about.
Sometimes there are assaults that are outside the rules, and the game deals with them.
Sometimes they are too serious for that, and the Police get involved, as with Duncan Ferguson, and many examples in lower level football.
This incident is about a player leaving the field, and using a degree of force on a ball boy. That is assault, according to law. Whether anything is done about it is another matter, and I have said I dont think the Police should deal.
What a little $hit. Clearly faking. Clearly making a meal of it. Clearly learnt everything he knew by watching professional football so at least there is some irony to the whole situation.
First time in my life I've felt sorry for a Chelsea player.
Why was he lying on top of the ball?
Why was he holding his face. Then his leg. Then his side?
Hazzard kicks the ball from UNDER him. He didn't kick HIM. Big difference.
That is assault, according to law. Whether anything is done about it is another matter, and I have said I dont think the Police should deal.
So i got assaulted in tesco, should the police deal with it?
Do you think Hazard should go to court?
What should his punishment be, a jail term?
Why not?
Assault (and battery if he physically touched him) can carry a stiff sentence.
I put it to you, that you are using the word "assault" to deliberately inflame a discussion to suit an agenda. Perhaps you should get a job at talk****
So i got assaulted in tesco, should the police deal with it?
Do you think Hazard should go to court?
What should his punishment be, a jail term?
Why not?
Assault (and battery if he physically touched him) can carry a stiff sentence.
I put it to you, that you are using the word "assault" to deliberately inflame a discussion to suit an agenda. Perhaps you should get a job at talk****
Yes, if you were rammed with a trolley in Tesco deliberately then you can claim it was assault. If someone saw it and reported it to the police they would have to investigate.
You would hope that no further action would be taken and common sense would prevail if no injuries were sustained and it was as minor as you would expect for such a thing.
So i got assaulted in tesco, should the police deal with it?
Do you think Hazard should go to court?
What should his punishment be, a jail term?
Why not?
Assault (and battery if he physically touched him) can carry a stiff sentence.
I put it to you, that you are using the word "assault" to deliberately inflame a discussion to suit an agenda. Perhaps you should get a job at talk****
Read what I've said, and read the thread title, which asks if this was an assault.
The answer is yes, it was an assault, and I've said umpteen times that I dont think the Police should get involved, therefore it wont go to court.
So how do you explain the 5 or 6 seconds it took him before he held his side?
Perhaps he is really 12 metres tall? It is a dodgy camera angle after all!
You are talking rubbish. He held his side almost imediately. It was only later that he signaled the ref. However much you would like it to be true, you are wrong.
Comments
Under normal circumstances, the player involved would almost certainly have faced charges for assault. Seems that my comments may have been misconstrued. According to a later Sky News bulletin, no further action was taken, and the matter appears to have been dropped. Now, what did really happen behind the scenes? My guess is as good as yours.
If you actually read what I said, I said I didn't think he should be prosecuted, but it is an assault, and outside the confines of the actual games, where such incidents do happen.
He has decided to deal with a time wasting ball boy by assaulting him. That's what he's done, whether you like it or not, and that is why he was punished.
My guess is probably as close to the truth as you can get.
They asked the lad to show where he'd been kicked, from the way he reacted there would at the least have been a bruise forming, if not definite marks. On seeing absolutely nothing there, the lad confessed that he wasn't actually touched at all by Hazard. End of case.
Assault is the commonly used term to cover the battery aspect of it. This was a common assault, but no complaint has been made, and it is not worthy of anyone outside football getting involved.
The player has assaulted him though. It is not his role to physically challenge a ball boy.
Your guess involves money changing hands to quash an assault charge, did it not?
Id like to see any evidence you have for that allegation?
My guess is that if further action had been taken then the boy would have had give evidence in court and admitted that he was told to waste time and it would have been embarrassing for his fathers club.
I have been reading your campaign to try and get this classed as assault and i think you should take a look at this.
http://www.theshedend.com/topic/22750-eden-v-ballboy/?p=598997
Hazard doesn't kick the ball-boy/adult, he gets ALL OF THE BALL. At most he catches the guys coat. Look at the his delayed reaction to his "injury", he knows he made an ass of himself so now he's going to try and get Hazard in trouble by faking injury and pretending to cry.
I dont think ball boys wasting time would surprise anyone.
I also dont think the case warrants Police action. If the boy were younger, it may have done, and the player had no idea of his age.
It's not a campaign, it's a fact.
Showing one view that favours the player is not the whole story. Other angles show he kicked the boy. I agree he was going for the ball, but that doesn't wash if the foot connects with other players first either.
I'm staggered so many are prepared to defend this players actions.
As for feigning injury, he only has to look on the pitch to see how that is done, with Chelsea having the worst example I've ever seen, in Drogba.
I suppose you know that pain signals travel at 0.6 meters/sec. Any pain felt would take around half a second to reach the brain. That accounts for any delayed reaction.
No one is defending his actions, most of us think that a red card and 3 game ban is the right thing.
However that is VERY different to claiming that an assault has taken place (according to your rules, about 100 assaults take place every single game!).
I got assaulted by an old lady in tesco when she rammed her trolly into me - should i phone the police?
What a country.
My goodness me.
I suppose it also accounts for the look to the ref trying to get the player booked first for a few seconds too?
Still not reading what I said are you? I never suggested the Police should get involved.
However, he has physically taken on someone who is not involved in the game. In legal terms that is assault. I dont make up the rules on what is an assault.
If the kid had been younger, he'd have been in more trouble.
I think you've been watching too many 'Tom & Jerry' cartoons.
Do you agree then, according to your own opinion's that about 100 so called assaults happen every single game?
That has nothing to do with this.
An assault is an assault, but in the context of a football match, it is a physical contact sport, and those involved agree with the rules, and such contact is not complained about.
Sometimes there are assaults that are outside the rules, and the game deals with them.
Sometimes they are too serious for that, and the Police get involved, as with Duncan Ferguson, and many examples in lower level football.
This incident is about a player leaving the field, and using a degree of force on a ball boy. That is assault, according to law. Whether anything is done about it is another matter, and I have said I dont think the Police should deal.
Couldn`t have put it better myself,100% correct.
Or I could just be in agreement with Biological Science
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2002/DavidParizh.shtml
So i got assaulted in tesco, should the police deal with it?
Do you think Hazard should go to court?
What should his punishment be, a jail term?
Why not?
Assault (and battery if he physically touched him) can carry a stiff sentence.
I put it to you, that you are using the word "assault" to deliberately inflame a discussion to suit an agenda. Perhaps you should get a job at talk****
So how do you explain the 5 or 6 seconds it took him before he held his side?
Perhaps he is really 12 metres tall? It is a dodgy camera angle after all!
Yes, if you were rammed with a trolley in Tesco deliberately then you can claim it was assault. If someone saw it and reported it to the police they would have to investigate.
You would hope that no further action would be taken and common sense would prevail if no injuries were sustained and it was as minor as you would expect for such a thing.
Read what I've said, and read the thread title, which asks if this was an assault.
The answer is yes, it was an assault, and I've said umpteen times that I dont think the Police should get involved, therefore it wont go to court.
You are talking rubbish. He held his side almost imediately. It was only later that he signaled the ref. However much you would like it to be true, you are wrong.