[munta]

Originally Posted by codeblue

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.

[codeblue]

I wonder how many assaults take place when queuing for the turnstiles, a bit of pushing and shoving is technically an assault.

The language shouted from the crowd towards a player or official is also a verbal assault.

If we took it to the letter of the law, everyone everyday could be arrested for an assault.

[Deep Purple]

Originally Posted by codeblue

I wonder how many assaults take place when queuing for the turnstiles, a bit of pushing and shoving is technically an assault.

The language shouted from the crowd towards a player or official is also a verbal assault.

If we took it to the letter of the law, everyone everyday could be arrested for an assault.

For goodness sake, read what is being said.

I've not seen anyone saying Hazard should be prosecuted.

General pushing and shoving in life would technically ba an assault, but there are defences in all legislation, and accidental contact etc means such incidents are not dealt with.

It is ridiculous to come out with this stuff.

Last night a player used physical force on a ball boy, not something he is allowed to do.

[codeblue]

Originally Posted by munta

However much you would like it to be true, you are wrong.

When you have reduced the discussion to the speed of signals passing down a neuron, i think you may be clutching at straws.

The internet is amazing.

[codeblue]

Originally Posted by Deep Purple

General pushing and shoving in life would technically ba an assault, but there are defences in all legislation, and accidental contact etc means such incidents are not dealt with.

Incorrect.

This too is accidental contact, is it not.

The word you are really looking for is reckless, but lets not let the facts get in the way.

Oh no, i got pushed recklessly in a queue for the turnstyle, call the police!

[Deep Purple]

Originally Posted by codeblue

When you have reduced the discussion to the speed of signals passing down a neuron, i think you may be clutching at straws.

The internet is amazing.

That coming from someone who compares people accidently touching each other in everyday life to someone deliberately using force to retrieve a ball.

[Imonfire]

I've watched this incident several times and it's just embarassing.

The ball-boy was clearly in the wrong and Hazard was trying to get the ball off him.

I have no idea why he was on the ground in the first place, when he was seen walking over to the ball. Why was he even holding on to the ball on the floor and why did he allude to the fact that he was going to waste time in the match for Swansea on twitter.

His reaction was completely over the top, one second holding his ribs in agony to the next flailing his hands in the air like a player when he doesn't get the decision he wanted.

All in all, I think the FA need to investigate his connection to Swansea FC and interview him, if found guilty, the club should be fined.

[codeblue]

Originally Posted by Deep Purple

That coming from someone who compares people accidently touching each other in everyday life to someone deliberately using force to retrieve a ball.

I think you need to take a step back and look at the video again.

This thread is getting ridiculous now

Absolutely nothing to see here, its been reduced to "assault" and the speed of neurons.

[Deep Purple]

Originally Posted by codeblue

Incorrect.

This too is accidental contact, is it not.

The word you are really looking for is reckless, but lets not let the facts get in the way.

Oh no, i got pushed recklessly in a queue for the turnstyle, call the police!

You should try to understand what you are talking about if you are going to interpret the law to me.


Hazard used unlawful force on the boy. Do you deny that?

Someone accidently bumping into you is not unlawful force.

[codeblue]

Originally Posted by Deep Purple

Hazard used unlawful force on the boy.

Im sorry, this has gone too far even for me!

Im out!

[Deep Purple]

Originally Posted by codeblue

I think you need to take a step back and look at the video again.

This thread is getting ridiculous now

Absolutely nothing to see here, its been reduced to "assault" and the speed of neurons.

Look at the thread title again. It is asking if it was assault. There are varying degrees of assault, and this was at the lowest level. That is the answer.

[Deep Purple]

Originally Posted by codeblue

Im sorry, this has gone too far even for me!

Im out!

Was the force lawful. Where does it say in the rules that players can grab ball boys, and kick them?

[Seventeen]

You can see him kick the ball here: http://i.minus.com/ibcN3plDZj7bbS.gif

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that he's aiming for and kicking the ball, not the kid. He certainly looks like he may have made contact with the kid, but that wasn't his intention. He just simply wanted the ball the kid was lying on.

It's really not a big deal. He deserved his red card, yes. But he didn't go up to the kid to give him a kick.

[wolvesdavid]

Originally Posted by celesti

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.

OK clearly that hasn't happened before. But its not exactly uncommon for ball boys to waste time if needed.

[kimindex]

Originally Posted by Seventeen

You can see him kick the ball here: http://i.minus.com/ibcN3plDZj7bbS.gif

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that he's aiming for and kicking the ball, not the kid. He certainly looks like he may have made contact with the kid, but that wasn't his intention. He just simply wanted the ball the kid was lying on.

It's really not a big deal. He deserved his red card, yes. But he didn't go up to the kid to give him a kick.

He was still reckless. If you use force in a situation like that you know you risk making contact with the person. If I tried to get something my cat was lying on by kicking, I would know that the cat might get kicked.

He was frustrated and that got the better of him, when he should have let the officials deal with it or use another ball, regardless of whether or not the ballboy had tweeted beforehand or whatever else he was doing.

[Seventeen]

It certainly was reckless, but it's being widely reported that he literally aimed for and kicked the kid and every other camera angle (the ones that keep getting used) betray what actually happened.

[Syntax Error]

Originally Posted by gladiator18

Alex fergusons already making calls. He'd be welcomed at old trafford with open arms. He fits their first and foremost criteria.

Why single out Manchester United & Sir Alex Ferguson, especially when he has told 2 of the club's best known divers to stop diving in the past; namely Ruud Van Nistelrooy & Cristiano Ronaldo?

Every club in the league has or has had divers on their books.

[Mark F]

Originally Posted by Seventeen

It certainly was reckless, but it's being widely reported that he literally aimed for and kicked the kid and every other camera angle (the ones that keep getting used) betray what actually happened.

I suspect papers like the Mail and Sun wanted people to think like thisto have a pop at the footballers/celebs etc but now they've found out the lad's dad is really weathly and is an owner of Swansea they are sticking the knife into the bal boy.

They don't really care about what happened...just trying to get a "news" story angle to it.

[Deep Purple]

Originally Posted by Seventeen

You can see him kick the ball here: http://i.minus.com/ibcN3plDZj7bbS.gif

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that he's aiming for and kicking the ball, not the kid. He certainly looks like he may have made contact with the kid, but that wasn't his intention. He just simply wanted the ball the kid was lying on.

It's really not a big deal. He deserved his red card, yes. But he didn't go up to the kid to give him a kick.

From the other angle, it clearly shows he made contact with the kid, and h'e'd have to to get the ball, which was the opposite side to him.

I dont think anyone has suggested he went there with the intention of kicking the boy, but in the heat of the moment, that's what he did.

[TeeGee]

I thought that the ball boy was merely following the example set by players on the pitch all over the country. Hazard simply fell into the retaliation trap!

[Syntax Error]

Originally Posted by seellee

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?

Why are you shocked that people (including yourself BTW) are still talking about this?

The issue is still on the news & it's still being discussed on the radio, so why wouldn't be discussed on here?

It's a hot topic with many facets beyond the apologies from both parties & it will remain hot until such time we get tired of it, or another issue usurps it.

[Eurostar]

Originally Posted by JMTD

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.

If a player is running towards the ball to retrieve it (in order to quickly restart play), all the ball boy has to do is move out of the way and let him pick him up.

The ball boys are there to actually help speed up play, not slow it down. The idea of one deliberately falling on top of the ball to slow down play is preposterous and an example of cheating by a bystander who supports one of the two clubs.

[Syntax Error]

Originally Posted by TeeGee

I thought that the ball boy was merely following the example set by players on the pitch all over the country. Hazard simply fell into the retaliation trap!

Spot on.

Not to condone what the ball boy has done, but he is merely copying what he sees on the pitch week in, week out.

Cheating is endemic in football & it's no surprise that it is filtering out to the ball boys etc.

Saying that, he should be reprimanded for his actions though, just like players who cheat should be too.

[wolvesdavid]

Will Hazard get a ban longer than 3 matches.

3 matches is the standard ban for any violent conduct red card offence.

However the FA can increase the ban "in expectional circumstances."

Will the nature of this incident (i.e. the fact it happened off the pitch and didn't involve any of the opposition players) mean the FA deam it worthy of a extra ban.

I don't think it would be 8 months like Cantona received. Perhaps a 4 match ban (i.e. the FA add only 1 extra game on to the ban.)

[Eurostar]

Originally Posted by Syntax Error

Spot on.

Not to condone what the ball boy has done, but he is merely copying what he sees on the pitch week in, week out.

Cheating is endemic in football & it's no surprise that it is filtering out to the ball boys etc.

Saying that, he should be reprimanded for his actions though, just like players who cheat should be too.

Having said that, the ball boy has no business whatsoever interfering with play. He is not a player or a member of the coaching staff nor one of the refereeing officials, and his sole role is to return the ball into play quickly.