Greg Clarke trying to make a case on SSN for the ball boy needing to return the ball quicker. The funny thing in all of this is that he could be seen walking across to get the ball as normal as any other ball boy or person would do. It wasn't until Hazard, for some unknown reason, decided to start charging over that the boy/person decided to do a right numpty and fall onto the ball and start covering it. There's a good chance that had Hazard not ran over, the ball would of been returned in the normal fashion as per usual and none of this absolute nonsense would of happened.
Do you think that Hazard deliberately kicked him, with no attempt to kick the ball?
My whole comment was "I should probably ammend my previous comment to say at first I don't think he was planning on kicking the ball boy, but when he couldn't reach the ball, it then seemed to me that the kick was intentional. ". I think the answer to your question is there, so I don't know why you've cut and paste that bit.
I should probably ammend my previous comment say at first I don't think he was planning on kicking the ball boy, but when he couldn't reach the ball, it then seemed to me that the kick was intentional.
Its the same thing. Do you think he tried to kick the 17 yr old intentionally?
Greg Clarke trying to make a case on SSN for the ball boy needing to return the ball quicker. The funny thing in all of this is that he could be seen walking across to get the ball as normal as any other ball boy or person would do. It wasn't until Hazard, for some unknown reason, decided to start charging over that the boy/person decided to do a right numpty and fall onto the ball and start covering it. There's a good chance that had Hazard not ran over, the ball would of been returned in the normal fashion as per usual and none of this absolute nonsense would of happened.
I think the issue is that Chelsea players had seen the Ball Boys taking time over returning the balls earlier in the game and were clearly getting frustrated by the length of time it was taking and no officials saying anything about it. Thats probably what prompted Hazard to walk over to the Ball Boy in the first place. That doesnt excuse what he did of course but i think it was bourne out of frustration and he probably expected the Ball Boy to chuck the ball when he saw him approaching.
I think the issue is that Chelsea players had seen the Ball Boys taking time over returning the balls earlier in the game and were clearly getting frustrated by the length of time it was taking and no officials saying anything about it.
Indeed. Glen Hoddle had pointed this out (it was obvious and pre-meditated as we know) before the incident even occurred.
I think the issue is that Chelsea players had seen the Ball Boys taking time over returning the balls earlier in the game and were clearly getting frustrated by the length of time it was taking and no officials saying anything about it. Thats probably what prompted Hazard to walk over to the Ball Boy in the first place. That doesnt excuse what he did of course but i think it was bourne out of frustration and he probably expected the Ball Boy to chuck the ball when he saw him approaching.
Spot on Canty, exactly my thoughts, I am dam sure that these 'delaying tactics' by the ball boys had been well noted by the Chelsea players, and in the position they were in, it must have been frustrating as hell! If anything, I do feel the morals of this needs looking into, if you have ballboys openly cheating time, it is despicable - I have this vision of Fergie imploding and all the springs in his watch popping out in disgust had they done that to ManU! lol
Seriously though, this has to be stopped, and frankly, Swansea need to be bought to book on this, if just to ensure no teams cheat this way in future.
I think the issue is that Chelsea players had seen the Ball Boys taking time over returning the balls earlier in the game and were clearly getting frustrated by the length of time it was taking and no officials saying anything about it. Thats probably what prompted Hazard to walk over to the Ball Boy in the first place. That doesnt excuse what he did of course but i think it was bourne out of frustration and he probably expected the Ball Boy to chuck the ball when he saw him approaching.
But he didn't WALK over to him, when the ball went out, Hazard at first appeared to be going to walk away. he then RAN over to the boy who went down when Hazard put his hands on him. This incident wouldn't have happened if the ballboy had been allowed to do what he was there for and the officials could have added time on if there was timewasting.
Can't believe this thread is still going or has gone for so many pages. Both parties have apologised. Despite some of the hypocrisy on here I've got a lot of time for Eden Hazard on this. People saying it was paramount to assault etc are being silly. Hazard should have just let the ref deal with it but accusing him of child assault is ridiculous. Why is sorry not good enough from both parties? Why do people have to try and carry it on after that?
But he didn't WALK over to him, when the ball went out, Hazard at first appeared to be going to walk away. he then RAN over to the boy who went down when Hazard put his hands on him. This incident wouldn't have happened if the ballboy had been allowed to do what he was there for and the officials could have added time on if there was timewasting.
Which is of course the correct thing to do and in an ideal world probably what would happen 9 times out of 10, no one is saying Hazrd is in the right but sometimes people get frustrated and lash out. Its just one of those things.
The ball boys had been performing their delaying tactics before that too like rolling the ball around 3ft when the goalkeeper is 10yds away. It wasn't just this one had decided to start at the point Hazard approaches him, Hazard approached him because it had been going on all half.
That is irrelevant. The ball was out of his reach, and he kicked out at it, which meant he had to connect with the boy.
That is assault. It is against the laws of the game, and he was rightly punished for it.
There is no defence, only mitigation.
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.
Can't believe this thread is still going or has gone for so many pages. Both parties have apologised. Despite some of the hypocrisy on here I've got a lot of time for Eden Hazard on this. People saying it was paramount to assault etc are being silly. Hazard should have just let the ref deal with it but accusing him of child assault is ridiculous. Why is sorry not good enough from both parties? Why do people have to try and carry it on after that?
Maybe because there are a lot of people who want to express a view, particularly when they disagree with how others see the incident. Technically it was an assault but no one is asking for Hazard to be prosecuted. But when people say the ballboy was no boy because he is 17, I doubt Hazard had his age in mind when he kicked out, in fact the ballboy had his back to him most of the time and most people would expect ballboys to be 14ish.
Pretty sick country that trains a kid to kill, but not let him vote, or drink a beer.
An old woman ran her trolley into me deliberately in tesco the other day, when trying to force her way down the isle. I'm not injured, but when i noticed the manager was looking at me i held my ankle and rolled around a bit. For the record, i'm 40 years her junior. I believe i have been the victim of assault and battery. Should i dial 999?
The press are very interesting at the moment. We have a radio station making comparisons of him as a toddler. He gets called a "boy" and a "kid" in the press.
In other stories, girls are referred to as teenagers at 17 when they are shown drunk and in various states on undress in a northern city high street, and of course they have been running pics and stories of the love life & sexuality of Harry Styles, who is only 6 months older than the "ball boy".
17 yr olds are apparently children and kids when the story favors that, and in others they are a year over the age of consent and its fair game to exploit them!
Judging by the words of various pundits and in comments sections around the net there's a lot of support for Hazard which is good news. Now I hope the FA don't swallow the media's faux-outrage and lengthen his ban.
Have you seriously only just noticed this sort of thing going on?
I think we all have, but this is the first time a "ball boy" has tweeted that he is going out to deliberately waste time and to go down if necessary before he does exactly that (i assume to get the player into trouble?).
What next, ball boys goading players, sledging them? Where do you draw the line?
For the most part (not last night) they are just children too.
Have you seriously only just noticed this sort of thing going on?
It happens but it was compounded by the Swansea keeper timewasting (nothing done by the ref who was rubbish in this regard) as well as the ball boys. Swansea also took a bloody age taping up Osman's head sat in the middle of the pitch - the time added on at the end should have been heading towards 10 minutes if you factor in all the timewasting and ballboy booting.
"Football's fresh shame: Shocking moment £170,000-a-week Chelsea star kicked time-wasting BALLBOY, 17, in the ribs"
I love the way they try and guess the wages of the player, without saying that the family of the official ball-retriever probably has more money than Hazard!
Anyway, here is the pic that accompanies the story on the front page:
Comments
Alex fergusons already making calls. He'd be welcomed at old trafford with open arms. He fits their first and foremost criteria.
My whole comment was "I should probably ammend my previous comment to say at first I don't think he was planning on kicking the ball boy, but when he couldn't reach the ball, it then seemed to me that the kick was intentional. ". I think the answer to your question is there, so I don't know why you've cut and paste that bit.
Its the same thing. Do you think he tried to kick the 17 yr old intentionally?
I think the issue is that Chelsea players had seen the Ball Boys taking time over returning the balls earlier in the game and were clearly getting frustrated by the length of time it was taking and no officials saying anything about it. Thats probably what prompted Hazard to walk over to the Ball Boy in the first place. That doesnt excuse what he did of course but i think it was bourne out of frustration and he probably expected the Ball Boy to chuck the ball when he saw him approaching.
As I said, I believe the first part of my comment answers your question.
Indeed. Glen Hoddle had pointed this out (it was obvious and pre-meditated as we know) before the incident even occurred.
Spot on Canty, exactly my thoughts, I am dam sure that these 'delaying tactics' by the ball boys had been well noted by the Chelsea players, and in the position they were in, it must have been frustrating as hell! If anything, I do feel the morals of this needs looking into, if you have ballboys openly cheating time, it is despicable - I have this vision of Fergie imploding and all the springs in his watch popping out in disgust had they done that to ManU! lol
Seriously though, this has to be stopped, and frankly, Swansea need to be bought to book on this, if just to ensure no teams cheat this way in future.
But he didn't WALK over to him, when the ball went out, Hazard at first appeared to be going to walk away. he then RAN over to the boy who went down when Hazard put his hands on him. This incident wouldn't have happened if the ballboy had been allowed to do what he was there for and the officials could have added time on if there was timewasting.
Which is of course the correct thing to do and in an ideal world probably what would happen 9 times out of 10, no one is saying Hazrd is in the right but sometimes people get frustrated and lash out. Its just one of those things.
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.
Maybe because there are a lot of people who want to express a view, particularly when they disagree with how others see the incident. Technically it was an assault but no one is asking for Hazard to be prosecuted. But when people say the ballboy was no boy because he is 17, I doubt Hazard had his age in mind when he kicked out, in fact the ballboy had his back to him most of the time and most people would expect ballboys to be 14ish.
Pretty sick country that trains a kid to kill, but not let him vote, or drink a beer.
You want to give him both a gun AND alcohol?
An old woman ran her trolley into me deliberately in tesco the other day, when trying to force her way down the isle. I'm not injured, but when i noticed the manager was looking at me i held my ankle and rolled around a bit. For the record, i'm 40 years her junior. I believe i have been the victim of assault and battery. Should i dial 999?
The press are very interesting at the moment. We have a radio station making comparisons of him as a toddler. He gets called a "boy" and a "kid" in the press.
In other stories, girls are referred to as teenagers at 17 when they are shown drunk and in various states on undress in a northern city high street, and of course they have been running pics and stories of the love life & sexuality of Harry Styles, who is only 6 months older than the "ball boy".
17 yr olds are apparently children and kids when the story favors that, and in others they are a year over the age of consent and its fair game to exploit them!
This needs a very swift response from them, to nip all the media madness in the bud.
Have you seriously only just noticed this sort of thing going on?
I think we all have, but this is the first time a "ball boy" has tweeted that he is going out to deliberately waste time and to go down if necessary before he does exactly that (i assume to get the player into trouble?).
What next, ball boys goading players, sledging them? Where do you draw the line?
For the most part (not last night) they are just children too.
I dont see the knee-jerk FA opening up an investigation into that?
It happens but it was compounded by the Swansea keeper timewasting (nothing done by the ref who was rubbish in this regard) as well as the ball boys. Swansea also took a bloody age taping up Osman's head sat in the middle of the pitch - the time added on at the end should have been heading towards 10 minutes if you factor in all the timewasting and ballboy booting.
That is so typical from the media. Yeah make it look like Hazard is trying to stamp on his head :rolleyes:
I'm am shocked that people still read this countries papers, it's all full of lies and people who love to twist the truth.