[1974]

Remarkable stupidity from both player and 'ball person'. Hazard had to be sent off as violent conduct is violent conduct when your taking part in a football match, whoever the recipient of the violence is, and that means a red card. If Chelsea simulaneously publicly condone his actions and give him a hefty fine, while also supporting him it could lessen the action the FA may take beyond the regulation three match ban. Meanwhile the ball boy doesn't come out of this smelling of angelic roses and is fair game to ridicule, shortly before the incident the Swansea right back was actively telling another boy boy to waste time and retrieve the ball slowly by the corner flag.

[Staunchy]

IMHO the red card was justified but I have no sympathy for the ball boy.

I hope a review of how ball boys are instructed to behave takes place, they are there to assist the flow of the game not assist the home side.

[codeblue]

The red should stand, CFC should not appeal and Hazard should miss the next 3 games.

Carragher got 3 games for throwing a coin into the crowd.
Neville saw red for booting the ball into the crowd

This incident is similar.

[munta]

Originally Posted by Staunchy

IMHO the red card was justified but I have no sympathy for the ball boy.

I hope a review of how ball boys are instructed to behave takes place, they are there to assist the flow of the game not assist the home side.

Its part of the home advantage though - obviously abused in this case . I'm not really sure how you can do much to change the way ball boys work.

[Deep Purple]

Ball boys at all clubs play for time when necessary, and then rush if needed for their team.

It is for match officials to deal with.

Hazard has no excuse at all for what he did. This was actually a criminal assaualt in terms of the law. He has no right to kick a ball boy, simple as that.

It was not part of the game. He was correctly sent off, and will be very lucky if he only gets away with a standard ban.

[codeblue]

Originally Posted by Staunchy

IMHO the red card was justified but I have no sympathy for the ball boy.

I hope a review of how ball boys are instructed to behave takes place, they are there to assist the flow of the game not assist the home side.

I think there must be - it seems to be the worst kept secret in football, that ball persons are told and encouraged by the home team to waste time or speed up play.

In another thread, i question the need to have them in the first place. Whats the point in them? They are hardly playing the game on a field (like i used to) where every shot would mean the keeper walking 30 yards to get the ball from behind the goal (without nets)!

[shelleyj89]

Originally Posted by Heavenly

And stop with the 'deserving a kick in the ribs nonsense', it's all about intent. He was trying to get the ball, it was stupid and he deserved a red but there was no intent to cause harm whatsoever.

I'm responding to the poster who said the ball boy deserved what he got. I don't agree that he deserved a kick in the ribs for time wasting. But I'm not going to stop posting about something just beause you don't agree with it. It's not nonsense to me.

Originally Posted by codeblue

Hazard toe-poked the ball from under him.

Watch the clip again, its not until he complains to the ref, trying to get hazard a card, that he notices that the cameras are on him and somehow clutches his ribs, puts his arm over his eves and pretends to cry!

The statements released clearly state that there was "no injury".

I've watched the clip multiple times. I don't see where he toe pokes the ball, I see him kick him in the right of the ribs as the ball has already come out from underneath the ball boy on the other side. Regardless of whether it caused an injury or not, he still kicked him.

[Deep Purple]

Originally Posted by Elyan

The ball boy has made himself look like a right idiot. Rolling around and grimacing like a girl after a little tap in the ribs.

As for Hazard - the only thing he did wrong was to do it in front of so many people. If it was done with let's say an apprentice on the training pitch nobody would be saying anything.

Well he's clearly learned that from watching professional footballers every week.

Your last paragraph is simply stupid.

He has no right at all to assault a ball boy.

Players waste time all the time, and there is nothing that allows the opposition to assault them.

[Andy-B]

This is too bizarre. How badly do some people need to feel offended.

[codeblue]

Originally Posted by Deep Purple

Hazard has no excuse at all for what he did. This was actually a criminal assaualt in terms of the law. He has no right to kick a ball boy, simple as that.

Here we go again.

If you want to go this way, if you think he intentionally kicked a ball boy it is not assault, but it is ABH. Do you seriously think you witnessed that on the pitch last night?

Do you want Fellaini arrested for ABH after his head butt? After all that was technically a "criminal assault". Every elbow, push, heck even a tug on the shirt that pulls a player down is an assault.

If a defender verbally tells a striker to be careful as he will "get him" during the game, that's technically an assault. too!

[codeblue]

Originally Posted by shelleyj89

I've watched the clip multiple times. I don't see where he toe pokes the ball, I see him kick him in the right of the ribs as the ball has already come out from underneath the ball boy on the other side. Regardless of whether it caused an injury or not, he still kicked him.

The ball person was lying on the ball (just as he stated he would), the player kicks UNDER him.

[Deep Purple]

Originally Posted by codeblue

Here we go again.

If you want to go this way, if you think he intentionally kicked a ball boy it is not assault, but it is ABH. Do you seriously think you witnessed that on the pitch last night?

Do you want Fellaini arrested for ABH after his head butt? After all that was technically a "criminal assault". Every elbow, push, heck even a tug on the shirt that pulls a player down is an assault.

If a defender verbally tells a striker to be careful as he will "get him" during the game, that's technically an assault. too!

It is not ABH at all, it is common assault. No question at all.

Players striking each other are assaults, too, but are dealt with as being part of the game in most cases, but not all.

Duncan Ferguson ended up in prison for one such assault.

It is very different to assaulting someone who is not on the pitch.

I'm not saying he should be prosecuted, but it is assault, pure and simple.

[Deep Purple]

Originally Posted by codeblue

The ball person was lying on the ball (just as he stated he would), the player kicks UNDER him.

He kicks him. It is not his job to take the ball off the boy by force.

[Ed R.Marley]

The "ball boy" got off lightly in my opinion. If he had done that to me, I would have toe-punted him right in the gooch

[Deep Purple]

Originally Posted by Ed R.Marley

The "ball boy" got off lightly in my opinion. If he had done that to me, I would have toe-punted him right in the gooch

Very brave, and manly of you.

[Staunchy]

Originally Posted by munta

Its part of the home advantage though - obviously abused in this case . I'm not really sure how you can do much to change the way ball boys work.

It's the sort of thing that can be easily reviewed after a game and a punishment issued if a club's ball kids blatantly favour the home side, like last night.

Originally Posted by codeblue

I think there must be - it seems to be the worst kept secret in football, that ball persons are told and encouraged by the home team to waste time or speed up play.

We will always have a certain amount of bias, but when it's so obvious, sanctions should take place.

The authorities acted on the way towels were being carried and only made available to the home side, they should at least look into other forms of behaviour. I'm not going to say I predicted that something like last night was going to happen, but I'm not entirely surprised it did.

[shelleyj89]

Originally Posted by codeblue

The ball person was lying on the ball (just as he stated he would), the player kicks UNDER him.

I can't say it any more, but that's not what I see.

I'd also like to add this has nothing to do with it being a Chelsea player. I'd be equally as, possibly more, appalled if it had been one of my own team's players.

[codeblue]

Originally Posted by shelleyj89

I can't say it any more, but that's not what I see.

I'd also like to add this has nothing to do with it being a Chelsea player. I'd be equally as, possibly more, appalled if it had been one of my own team's players.

Isnt it amazing, that we all watch the same video replays and come to 100% different conclusions?

I mean this not as a CFC fan, but in lots of incidents recently, neutral fans see video replays completely differently. It just goes to show what a very difficult job refs have.

I am absolutely 100% convinced that Hazard did not intentionally "kick" the 17 yr old.

I am absolutely 100% convinced that hazard toe-poked the ball out from under him.

I am 100% convinced that Hazard may have made contact with the 17 yr old with his Shin.

I am 100% convinced that the 17 yr old faked any so called "injury".

I am 100% convinced hazard should not have allowed himself to get anywhere near this situation and a red card was the only option the ref had.

[0rch1deam]

Originally Posted by codeblue

Isnt it amazing, that we all watch the same video replays and come to 100% different conclusions?

I mean this not as a CFC fan, but in lots of incidents recently, neutral fans see video replays completely differently. It just goes to show what a very difficult job refs have.

I am absolutely 100% convinced that Hazard did not intentionally "kick" the 17 yr old.

I am absolutely 100% convinced that hazard toe-poked the ball out from under him.

I am 100% convinced that Hazard may have made contact with the 17 yr old with his Shin.

I am 100% convinced that the 17 yr old faked any so called "injury".

I am 100% convinced hazard should not have allowed himself to get anywhere near this situation and a red card was the only option the ref had.

Not something I have ever thought I would do in this forum, but I actually agree with what you are saying here.
You are now 'suffering' what the majority of LFC fans suffer, media overkill and about 30 different views of what actually happened. I do feel sorry for Hazard for being put, in that split second, into that situation. Few people look at it objectively, and just want to put the boot in (sic), he will be 'tagged' for ages now as the player that kicked a kid.
The media frenzy on these things is horrendous, isn't it?

[celesti]

Originally Posted by codeblue

I am absolutely 100% convinced that Hazard did not intentionally "kick" the 17 yr old.

I am absolutely 100% convinced that hazard toe-poked the ball out from under him.

I am 100% convinced that Hazard may have made contact with the 17 yr old with his Shin.

I am 100% convinced that the 17 yr old faked any so called "injury".

I am 100% convinced hazard should not have allowed himself to get anywhere near this situation and a red card was the only option the ref had.

Yup to all the above.

[shelleyj89]

Originally Posted by codeblue

Isnt it amazing, that we all watch the same video replays and come to 100% different conclusions?

I mean this not as a CFC fan, but in lots of incidents recently, neutral fans see video replays completely differently. It just goes to show what a very difficult job refs have.

I am absolutely 100% convinced that Hazard did not intentionally "kick" the 17 yr old.

I am absolutely 100% convinced that hazard toe-poked the ball out from under him.

I am 100% convinced that Hazard may have made contact with the 17 yr old with his Shin.

I am 100% convinced that the 17 yr old faked any so called "injury".

I am 100% convinced hazard should not have allowed himself to get anywhere near this situation and a red card was the only option the ref had.

Ok. Well I'm absolutely 100% convinced that he did intentionally kick him and that he didn't toe poke the ball.

I agree that it's strange how people can come up with different opinions having watched the same thing, but it would be boring if we all agreed.

[alanrollins]

Originally Posted by codeblue

Isnt it amazing, that we all watch the same video replays and come to 100% different conclusions?

I mean this not as a CFC fan, but in lots of incidents recently, neutral fans see video replays completely differently. It just goes to show what a very difficult job refs have.

I am absolutely 100% convinced that Hazard did not intentionally "kick" the 17 yr old.

I am absolutely 100% convinced that hazard toe-poked the ball out from under him.

I am 100% convinced that Hazard may have made contact with the 17 yr old with his Shin.

I am 100% convinced that the 17 yr old faked any so called "injury".

I am 100% convinced hazard should not have allowed himself to get anywhere near this situation and a red card was the only option the ref had.

Correct again codeblue. I'm starting to like you.

[habby]

Originally Posted by wolvesdavid

Its not really up to a steward to tell the referee what to do!

I never said they should tell the referee what to do, but they can go over and stop anything happening off the pitch. If you go to any games or watch football on the tv you'll see stewards go in when players rushing to the crowd to celebrate their goal start getting too near them.

Originally Posted by Dub2

That is the only thing that actually matters.

The kid holding on to the ball is a complete irrelevance.

Its not. It was the kid holding on to the ball that was the cause of the problem in the first place.

Originally Posted by wolvesdavid

The same thing would have happened at any ground in the country.

I don't think so. Hopefully some people on here can verify this doesnt happen at their ground. The idea of ballboys is that you don't realise that they're there, not become headline news. I know at Spurs they rush to throw back the ball as quickly as possible, whether its to the home or away team.

[habby]

Originally Posted by codeblue

The ball person was lying on the ball (just as he stated he would), the player kicks UNDER him.

Ball person?? Thats very PC

Hasn't this turned into "ballboygate" yet?

[celesti]

Originally Posted by habby

I don't think so. Hopefully some people on here can verify this doesnt happen at their ground.

Yep. I've seen ballboys not exactly be in a rush to get play moving, but I've certainly never seen one try to keep a player physically away from the ball as if it's a scrum.