[indiana44]

Originally Posted by iamsofired

Standard 3 match ban is more than sufficient for someone trying to poke the ball out from under a ballboy inexplicably lying on top of it.

Too right. Clearly insufficient sense being shown by the FA in saying that the standard 3 match punishment was "clearly insufficient"

Hazard was silly but poking at the ball like that from under ballboy twerp was hardly real violent conduct.

[mikeyddd]

Originally Posted by habby

Looks like you both better make an appointment!!!!

Well it seems that the ones who really matter ie the FA saw the same as us

[TheSloth]

Originally Posted by indiana44

Too right. Clearly insufficient sense being shown by the FA in saying that the standard 3 match punishment was "clearly insufficient"

Hazard was silly but poking at the ball like that from under ballboy twerp was hardly real violent conduct.

I'm not getting the violent conduct thing either despite wanting a slightly longer ban than usual. Gross Stupidity would be better.

[yellowlabbie]

Originally Posted by Mark F

I am sure he did make contact with the ball and ball-boy but certainly wasn't intent IMHO.

Not enough to make a big fuss but then that is only what the pros do...I'd agree the actions of players themselves do set an example.

Noticed you did replay to my post in the Wenger thread and yes you'd probably hope for some self control but young men particularly pumped up and frustrated footballers don't always seem to.

I wonder if Hazard would have done that to the goalkeeper, or any opposition player for that matter, if they had tried a bit of time wasting?

It's wrong imho and he should be banned, violence is not acceptable, no matter how small, anywhere, never mind on a football match.

As for those blaming the ballboy, heavens, he was just doing what many goalkeepers and players do week after week.
I

[Funky Phil]

To the OP's original post - ball boy assault or feigning injury? Both I'd say.

The player was WELL out of order. Whether he hurt the boy or not is immaterial. Kicking at him was indefensible. And the ball was out of play at that moment, so the player had no right to kick it.

But I was also shocked at the boy apparently feigning injury, and, to hear Glen Hoddle defending his delay tactics saying that playing for time in this way (i.e. slow down to disadvantage the away team, speed up to advantage the home team) is home advantage. Here is a former England manager defending what in essence is cheating.

But more shocking is what Hoddle said in his TV interview, that managers encourage ball boys to do this. Given that most ball boys are much younger than seventeen years old, I was more shocked that managers should be teaching them to cheat at such a young age.

I'm not a huge follower of the beautiful game, so may I ask the more knowledgeable contributors here, was Hoddle right?

[yellowlabbie]

Originally Posted by habby

Looks like you both better make an appointment!!!!

Not me, I know what I saw.

[Mark F]

Fair point YL - he probably wouldn't although I dare say somebody might try to.

Actually thinking about it its quite ironic in a way because that would have been the right time to go running after the ref demanding action like the usually do!

Hoddle was probably just being honest...sadly but might as well be truthful than try to make excuses/cover things up.

[habby]

Originally Posted by mikeyddd

Well his discription didnt mention Hazard at all - how come he got sent off and how come the FA have charged him and the Police are investigating the incident. The brain is a funny thing sometimes, it can interpretate what the eyes see into what the person actually wants to see and pretty soon they convince themselves that's reality

The referee had to be seen to have taken some action. And the police are investigating because 3 people seem to have phoned them for some reason.

Originally Posted by Tony_Burke

You see what you want to see I suppose. I agree the ball boy acted foolishly after Hazard had intervened, which he should not have done in the first place. He only dropped the ball because Hazard got in the way. As I previously said it would of only been 10 secs at most. Hardly game changing until Hazard intervened

Surley Hazard's job is to get back into position ready to be involved when the goal kick is taken. If he wants to be a ball boy then fair enough

He didnt even drop the ball, as you would do if you were pulled over.You would want to protect your fall with your arms. The kid kept hold of the ball as he fell & laid on top of it.

While, as everyone says, Hazard shouldn't have done that, the kid doesnt seem to realise how pumped up with energy the players are while they're playing and didn't need the likes of him to stop the flow of the game, however brief it was. If it was about 10 seconds, his previous tweets about time wasting were a waste of time.

Originally Posted by TheSloth

The crux of my reasoning (which you didn't seem to get) is the fact Hazard got unnecessarily involved in an off-the-field altercation COULD have put him and others in danger. The fact it didn't and was ultimately trivial in nature is immaterial.

Did you not see the stewards piling in to ensure the fans nearby didn't also overreact? It would only take one fan in the crowd worsen what happened considerably had they got to Hazard.

Yes, the youth was an idiot. Yes, no-one got hurt. Yes, it isn't a common occurrence. However, all these facts are irrelevant if you want to reduce risk and prevent a repeat - and that's what the FA will consider and I think the PFA will also accept that.

If a burglar broke into my house but just ate my Jaffa Cake stash, I'd still want him deterred from breaking in again.

As I said, a six to eight match ban is about right.

Where were they supposed to be 'piling in'?

There was a senior steward looking at what was going on and didnt even move. In the videos you can see the police in their high vis coats front of the Chelsea fans and thats it.

[indiana44]

Originally Posted by mikeyddd

Well it seems that the ones who really matter ie the FA saw the same as us

Yes, I see the FA are totally overreacting too to a silly but quite understandable hardly violent action.

A 3 match ban is quite sufficient.

[habby]

Originally Posted by yellowlabbie

I wonder if Hazard would have done that to the goalkeeper, or any opposition player for that matter, if they had tried a bit of time wasting?

It's wrong imho and he should be banned, violence is not acceptable, no matter how small, anywhere, never mind on a football match.

As for those blaming the ballboy, heavens, he was just doing what many goalkeepers and players do week after week.
I

Thats up to the players & officials how much time they waste on the pitch.

Ballboys are instructed to throw the ball back straight away, not decide themselves to waste time. Its nothing to do with them.

[Leo91]

The whole point was to get the ball back to the opposition. Hazard wouldn't have done anything to the opposition. He will be banned for violent conduct because that's what he got sent off for, no need to extend it to more than 3 games.

[yellowlabbie]

Originally Posted by habby

Thats up to the players & officials how much time they waste on the pitch.

Ballboys are instructed to throw the ball back straight away, not decide themselves to waste time. Its nothing to do with them.

Why, if they see football players doing it week after week, it must be sorely tempting when your team are winning 2-0, ball-boys are only human after all and he didn't kick anyone now did he?

Hazard should have called the ref, now that's the correct thing to do.

[mikeyddd]

Originally Posted by Leo91

The whole point was to get the ball back to the opposition. Hazard wouldn't have done anything to the opposition. He will be banned for violent conduct because that's what he got sent off for, no need to extend it to more than 3 games.

Pesonally I have no interest in how many games he gets banned for I'm just making the point that whay the lad did was irrelevent Hazard should not have got involved, he chose to get involved the FA see it as more serious than violent conduct on the field of play and imo they are correct

[indiana44]

Originally Posted by yellowlabbie

Why, if they see football players doing it week after week, it must be sorely tempting when your team are winning 2-0, ball-boys are only human after all and he didn't kick anyone now did he?

Hazard should have called the ref, now that's the correct thing to do.

Except Hazard is a passionate footballer who acted stupidly but understandably in the moment when suddenly facing the unexpected scenario of a ballboy lieing on the ball.

It is easy to theorise in the cold light of day as to what he should have done.

As I said, understandable but silly. Should be 3 match ban and move on.

[yellowlabbie]

Originally Posted by indiana44

Except Hazard is a passionate fiotballer who acted stupidly but understabdaby in the moment when suddenly facing the unexpected scenaruo of a ballboy lieing on the ball.

It is easy to theorise in the cold light of day as to what he should have done.

As I said, understandable but silly. Should be 3 match ban and move on.

Or he was upset because he realised his team weren't going to make the final?

[Dai Clust]

Er, the clue is in the name "ball BOY" i.e. a boy, a child, a minor and this "adult" (and I use that term loosley) kicked him while he was on the floor because he wouldn't give him the ball - which wasn't "his" anyway as it was a Swansea goal kick.
If I had my car keys, or hat, or bottle of wine etc taken by a 17 year old on the street and booted him on the ground to get it back the police would quite rightly be down on me like a .ton of bricks. so what makes this different?

Quite frankly sadly you wouldn't expect different from Chelsea and their personnel (Terry, lampard, Cole etc), parking in disabled bays and having their photos taken there with fans, baiting american tourists after twin towers, photoing and sending pictures of their bits etc etc etc etc.

You can buy players, you can buy skills but you can't buy CLASS.

Bottom line. Swansea are in the Final and they didn't have to kick any kids to get there.

[Tony_Burke]

Originally Posted by yellowlabbie

Or he was upset because he realised his team weren't going to make the final?

Maybe he should of shown that passion on the pitch rather than beside it

[indiana44]

Originally Posted by yellowlabbie

Or he was upset because he realised his team weren't going to make the final?

Yes they were losing which is why Hazard simply wanted the ball to get on with the match.

I trust you are not suggesting it was a case of we're losing so I'll kick a ballboy !

[Dai Clust]

Originally Posted by Mark F

I was looking at what some of the BBC comments said and many suggested had this been in the street the police would have got involved and arrested the person who lashed out (this was in the news section)

Is that right or just people trying to make their "footballers get away with it" type comment have some substance and probably hadn't seen the incident itself.

Am no lawyer or legal minded person but could that rather tame little kick really lead to a jail term of for whatever reason the lad had wanted to press charges.

The fact people seem to view this in various ways gives me the feeling the case wouldn't exactly be easy to prove either way.

It could be suggested players do much worse on the pitch both phyiscally and verbally!

Tame kick, looks like a nasty sharp poke to me and he's not exactly wearing carpet slippers. It's assault , simple as that

[bingoman]

When the Ref sent Hazard off why didn't send the Ball boy off or send him to the stands as Ball boys can Technically (sp) can be sent off off as well so someone told me today

[0rch1deam]

Originally Posted by Dai Clust

Tame kick, looks like a nasty sharp poke to me and he's not exactly wearing carpet slippers. It's assault , simple as that

So the kid will be bruised had contact been made? Someone will have exmined him when thy took him off the pitch, so someone knows if contact was made or not. That someone needs to come forward and tell the FA what was found. I doubt there was a mark on him frankly.

[indiana44]

Originally Posted by Dai Clust

Er, the clue is in the name "ball BOY" i.e. a boy, a child, a minor and this "adult" (and I use that term loosley) kicked him while he was on the floor because he wouldn't give him the ball - which wasn't "his" anyway as it was a Swansea goal kick.
If I had my car keys, or hat, or bottle of wine etc taken by a 17 year old on the street and booted him on the ground to get it back the police would quite rightly be down on me like a .ton of bricks. so what makes this different?

Quite frankly sadly you wouldn't expect different from Chelsea and their personnel (Terry, lampard, Cole etc), parking in disabled bays and having their photos taken there with fans, baiting american tourists after twin towers, photoing and sending pictures of their bits etc etc etc etc.

You can buy players, you can buy skills but you can't buy CLASS.

Bottom line. Swansea are in the Final and they didn't have to kick any kids to get there.

Less of the fantasy please.

Hazard was not kicking a ballboy ( inexplicably ) on the floor because he would not give him the ball. Now that would be really worth an extended ban. What he was doing was kicking at the ball to retrieve it. Bit stupid, yes, but that's "all" it was.

Interesting the clear views you have on Chelsea.

[yellowlabbie]

Originally Posted by Dai Clust

Er, the clue is in the name "ball BOY" i.e. a boy, a child, a minor and this "adult" (and I use that term loosley) kicked him while he was on the floor because he wouldn't give him the ball - which wasn't "his" anyway as it was a Swansea goal kick.
If I had my car keys, or hat, or bottle of wine etc taken by a 17 year old on the street and booted him on the ground to get it back the police would quite rightly be down on me like a .ton of bricks. so what makes this different?

Quite frankly sadly you wouldn't expect different from Chelsea and their personnel (Terry, lampard, Cole etc), parking in disabled bays and having their photos taken there with fans, baiting american tourists after twin towers, photoing and sending pictures of their bits etc etc etc etc.

You can buy players, you can buy skills but you can't buy CLASS.

Bottom line. Swansea are in the Final and they didn't have to kick any kids to get there.

Oh yes indeed and well done to Swansea, they deserved it.

[yellowlabbie]

Originally Posted by indiana44

Yes they were losing which is why Hazard simply wanted the ball to get on with the match.

I trust you are not suggesting it was a case of we're kosing so I'll kick a ballboy !

As if I would.

[d'@ve]

Originally Posted by bingoman

When the Ref sent Hazard off why didn't send the Ball boy off or send him to the stands as Ball boys can Technically (sp) can be sent off off as well so someone told me today

Only a player, substitute or substituted player may be shown the red or yellow card.

Team officials cannot be shown the red or yellow card.

If a team official is guilty of irresponsible behaviour, the referee will send the official from the technical area and its vicinity behind the boundary fences (where such a fence exists).

The referee will report this conduct to the appropriate authorities.

There seems to be no provision for sending anyone else off and I would be surprised if ball boys were considered to be team officials!.
http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afde...unduct_557.pdf