Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 

Ball boy assault or feigning injury? - League Cup


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 24-01-2013, 11:30
Heavenly
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Banshee
Posts: 29,815
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.
Agree.

I frequent several football forums, Chelsea mainly obviously but also others and from what I have read this morning, most Utd and Liverpool fans agree he went for the ball, he deserved the red and the media are being ridiculous.

Almost fell over with shock, Durham's opinion on the situation.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/foo...Newcastle.html
Heavenly is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 24-01-2013, 11:31
Andy2
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Vault 101, Cheshire
Posts: 8,432
He kicks him. It is not his job to take the ball off the boy by force.
It's not the ball boy's job to hide the ball to influence the outcome of the match either, but that's what he did. If nothing else, the boy deserves a b*llocking and a ban.
Andy2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-01-2013, 11:33
whedon247
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 14,034
he kicked the ball(with a bit of force)

it was not assault,he got the red, kids an idiot..move on.
whedon247 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-01-2013, 11:34
Cantona07
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 51,529
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.
Duncan Ferguson wasnt jailed for assault per se though, he was jailed for breaking the condidtion of his conviction for another assualt in the street whereby he was told if he got into ANY violent confrontation he would face prison. The violent confrontation took place on a pitch in front of TV cameras bang to rights so no one had any choice but to jail him for it.
Cantona07 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-01-2013, 11:34
shelleyj89
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kent
Posts: 13,408
It may have been discussed in the 24 pages of this thread so far, but what makes this incidence of time wasting so much different/worse than when keepers take forever to take a goal kick, managers hold on to the ball for a little while, players throw the ball away from their team mate at a throw in to waste time etc? This isn't aimed at everyone, but to those who seem to have taken such offence at the ball boy's actions.
shelleyj89 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-01-2013, 11:35
Deep Purple
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Deep Within The Chain Of Evil
Posts: 43,837
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.
I think his intention was to kick the ball from undwer the boy, but the ball was the opposite sidfe to Hazard, and I agree with you, he kicked the boy.

We all know what ball boys do, but it is not for players to take action against them, and certainly not by assaulting them.

The boy may have followed players examples of making more of the "injury", but Hazard kicked him. Simple as that.

We see players going down as if seriously hurt when lightly touched, or not touched at all, so there is the example players set to others about feigning injury.
Deep Purple is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-01-2013, 11:39
Syntax Error
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 17,491
Simple fact is, both the ball boy (are you still a boy at 17?) & Hazard were both wrong.

1) The ball boy should not have shielded the ball.
2) The ball boy did a Paul Allcock & has been awarded 10/10 for simulation by Jurgen Klinsmann & Robert Pires.
3) Eden Hazard should not have used his foot, even though it was not that forceful, it was still wrong.

Thankfully both parties have seen sense & the matter will not escalate.
Syntax Error is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-01-2013, 11:39
Deep Purple
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Deep Within The Chain Of Evil
Posts: 43,837
Duncan Ferguson wasnt jailed for assault per se though, he was jailed for breaking the condidtion of his conviction for another assualt in the street whereby he was told if he got into ANY violent confrontation he would face prison. The violent confrontation took place on a pitch in front of TV cameras bang to rights so no one had any choice but to jail him for it.
But he was prosecuted for assault. Any sentence, such as a suspended one could only be carried out if he was prosecuted for an offence again.

That is the point of what I'm saying.

This kick on the ball boy was an assault in terms of the law. Whether any action is taken is a different matter.

We had the Police involved last season for players calling each other things, which I thought was over the top.

This is slightly different. it is an assault on someone not involved in the game.

His mitigation would be he was trying to retrieve the ball, and the assault was not intended, but it is assault.
Deep Purple is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-01-2013, 11:40
Deep Purple
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Deep Within The Chain Of Evil
Posts: 43,837
It's not the ball boy's job to hide the ball to influence the outcome of the match either, but that's what he did. If nothing else, the boy deserves a b*llocking and a ban.
Of course it isn't, and it is for the officials to sort out, not a players job to kick the boy.
Deep Purple is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-01-2013, 11:41
Deep Purple
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Deep Within The Chain Of Evil
Posts: 43,837
he kicked the ball(with a bit of force)

it was not assault,he got the red, kids an idiot..move on.
It is assault. He kicked the boy it is irrelevant whether he touched the ball or not.

I'm not suggesting he should be arrested for assault, but it is assault.
Deep Purple is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-01-2013, 11:42
Heavenly
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Banshee
Posts: 29,815
Hazard told Chelsea TV: 'The boy put his whole body onto the ball and I was just trying to kick the ball and I thought I kicked the ball and not the boy. I apologise.

'The ball boy came in the changing room and we had a quick chat and I apologised and the boy apologised as well, and it is over. Sorry.'
Heavenly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-01-2013, 11:42
Deep Purple
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Deep Within The Chain Of Evil
Posts: 43,837
It may have been discussed in the 24 pages of this thread so far, but what makes this incidence of time wasting so much different/worse than when keepers take forever to take a goal kick, managers hold on to the ball for a little while, players throw the ball away from their team mate at a throw in to waste time etc? This isn't aimed at everyone, but to those who seem to have taken such offence at the ball boy's actions.
Exactly. All players do it all the time, and the outrage here against a ball boy doing what we all know they do is ridiculous.

Perhaps players should be allowed to kick other players who time waste.
Deep Purple is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-01-2013, 11:53
Wobbly Steve
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Midlands/East Anglia - Sandy H
Posts: 949
Ball person?? Thats very PC

Hasn't this turned into "ballboygate" yet?
Would venture to suggest that person in this case is not to do with gender - more to do with differentiating between a 17 year old and the more typical (mental) image of a ball BOY (11-12 yr old).
Wobbly Steve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-01-2013, 11:54
shelleyj89
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kent
Posts: 13,408
I think his intention was to kick the ball from undwer the boy, but the ball was the opposite sidfe to Hazard, and I agree with you, he kicked the boy.
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.
shelleyj89 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-01-2013, 12:06
Heavenly
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Banshee
Posts: 29,815
The lunacy of Twitter

Swansea City Official Account - 77,281k followers

Ball Boy - 84,684k followers
Heavenly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-01-2013, 12:08
codeblue
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: A Sound Expert
Posts: 7,856
Ball person?? Thats very PC

Hasn't this turned into "ballboygate" yet?
Im not trying to be PC, but the media were responding to the incident last night as if this 17 year old was not a "young adult" , "youth", "boy", but actually compared him to a toddler.

Yes thats right,a toddler who is not even in primary school. It was done for shock value, and it certainly wound up callers to that media station who i assume had not even seen the video at that time. I can only assume that was their intention?

It is interesting to see how the European media have reported the incident. Strangely enough they are not using "player assaults child on side of pitch with kick" hyperbole.

I suppose they don't have 24 hours of rolling news airtime to fill.
codeblue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-01-2013, 12:10
codeblue
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: A Sound Expert
Posts: 7,856
it then seemed to me that the kick was intentional.
Do you think that Hazard deliberately kicked him, with no attempt to kick the ball?
codeblue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-01-2013, 12:15
Deep Purple
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Deep Within The Chain Of Evil
Posts: 43,837
Do you think that Hazard deliberately kicked him, with no attempt to kick the ball?
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.
Deep Purple is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-01-2013, 12:22
Cantona07
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 51,529
Do you think that Hazard deliberately kicked him, with no attempt to kick the ball?
They arent mutually exclusive. If a person is lying on the ball regardless of intent you can be fairly certain you are going to clump the person whether you make contact with the ball on not. Even as a question of scale if a fully grown adult (regardless of birth certificate!) is lying on a football there is a lot more person it hit than there is football.
Cantona07 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-01-2013, 12:24
Inspiration
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 45,816
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.
I don't think it's that clear DP.

In this photo:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/...12_634x510.jpg

The ball boy's body is being held up by the ball.. his chest isn't on the ground. You can see theres a gap between his ribs and the grass. Perhaps enough of a gap for the Chelsea players foot to fit into and make contact with the ball. Has he caught the boy with his shin in the process? Perhaps. I think you can even see the ball in that shot, the white bit under his jacket.
Inspiration is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-01-2013, 12:26
codeblue
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: A Sound Expert
Posts: 7,856
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.
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?
codeblue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-01-2013, 12:28
codeblue
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: A Sound Expert
Posts: 7,856
They arent mutually exclusive. If a person is lying on the ball regardless of intent you can be fairly certain you are going to clump the person whether you make contact with the ball on not. Even as a question of scale if a fully grown adult (regardless of birth certificate!) is lying on a football there is a lot more person it hit than there is football.
I agree, it was probably a bit of both, his shin could of and probably did contact the 17 yr old. Thats where the red card comes from.

Thats it, we move on.
codeblue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-01-2013, 12:29
codeblue
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: A Sound Expert
Posts: 7,856
I don't think it's that clear DP.

In this photo:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/...12_634x510.jpg

The ball boy's body is being held up by the ball.. his chest isn't on the ground. You can see theres a gap between his ribs and the grass. Perhaps enough of a gap for the Chelsea players foot to fit into and make contact with the ball. Has he caught the boy with his shin in the process? Perhaps. I think you can even see the ball in that shot, the white bit under his jacket.
To me that is exactly what happened.

We should also not forget hazard crouching down trying to wrestle the ball from him for a few seconds before hand, whilst the 17 yr old tries his best to hang on.

Quite unbelievable really.
codeblue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-01-2013, 12:51
Alexis07
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,145
He`s seventeen. He`s a kid.

You don`t kick kids in the stomach.

17 - a kid ?

He could be serving abroad in the armed forces .
Alexis07 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-01-2013, 12:52
gladiator18
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 3,157
God ppl are so soft. No way a little tap like that from hazard can do any harm to the teenager. The ball 'boy' shouldnt have been lying on the ball. Hazard didnt kick him, he kicked the ball and just happened to make a little contact with the lad.
All much ado about nothing.

And this is coming from someone who hates chelsea.

Very funny though, had me in stitches the way he jumped onto the ball and then feigned injury drogba-esque to waste further time, the lad is a pro.
gladiator18 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:51.