[downtonfan]

The "boy" grabbed the ball, then mounted it. It is a shame, Hazard didn't intend to kick him in the ribs, because then he would have had something to roll over about.

[0rch1deam]

Originally Posted by yellowlabbie

I don't believe he meant to hurt the ballboy but he did take a kick at him to get the ball when he was lying on it.

The ballboy is not a top Premiership player. It is not acceptable to do what Hazard did, the boy wasn't playing in the game for heavens sake.

That's a point, the lad (boy doesn't suit that one) wasn't playing, so why did he have to intervene the way he did. Still reckon he's the 100% guilty party in all this.

[yellowlabbie]

Originally Posted by 0rch1deam

That's a point, the lad (boy doesn't suit that one) wasn't playing, so why did he have to intervene the way he did. Still reckon he's the 100% guilty party in all this.

Sorry, it's too easy to blame the ballboy, he just got carried away with the occasion, he didn't kick out at anyone though.

[Cantona07]

Originally Posted by yellowlabbie

I don't believe he meant to hurt the ballboy but he did take a kick at him to get the ball when he was lying on it.

The ballboy is not a top Premiership player. It is not acceptable to do what Hazard did, the boy wasn't playing in the game for heavens sake.

No one is saying its acceptable!

He was sent off, it sealed his teams fate in a cup semi and he will serve a ban. That is his punishment and illustrates that what he did is not acceptable.

But he didnt commit the crime that some people would have you believe, the ball "boy" was not an innocent victim and Hazard certainly doesnt need a further ban in order to "send a message" to the non existent group of players who are just desperate to give a ball boys a good shoeing.

We are also getting bogged down in what could have happened if any number of things had been different and losing sight of what actually happened and the relative little harm that was done.

[0rch1deam]

Originally Posted by yellowlabbie

Sorry, it's too easy to blame the ballboy, he just got carried away with the occasion, he didn't kick out at anyone though.

No he didn't, it was all pre planned by him, he is not an innocent boy as you would have, but old enough to drive a car, be a father, and join the army - he is totally culpable for what happened.

[yellowlabbie]

Originally Posted by 0rch1deam

No he didn't, it was all pre planned by him, he is not an innocent boy as you would have, but old enough to drive a car, be a father, and join the army - he is totally culpable for what happened.

I haven't said that he is an innocent boy but he wasn't violent and Hazard was. There is a difference in my world from a little bit of time wasting and a little bit of violence.

Did Hazard know how old he was? I suspect not.

[yellowlabbie]

Originally Posted by Cantona07

No one is saying its acceptable!

He was sent off, it sealed his teams fate in a cup semi and he will serve a ban. That is his punishment and illustrates that what he did is not acceptable.

But he didnt commit the crime that some people would have you believe, the ball "boy" was not an innocent victim and Hazard certainly doesnt need a further ban in order to "send a message" to the non existent group of players who are just desperate to give a ball boys a good shoeing.

We are also getting bogged down in what could have happened if any number of things had been different and losing sight of what actually happened and the relative little harm that was done.

I agree there was was very little harm done but I do not agree that they were both equally culpable.

I am not arguing for extra punishment for Hazard, only that he was the Premiership player paid a lot of money and should have behaved accordingly.

[0rch1deam]

Originally Posted by yellowlabbie

I haven't said that he is an innocent boy but he wasn't violent and Hazard was. There is a difference in my world from a little bit of time wasting and a little bit of violence.

Did Hazard know how old he was? I suspect not.

I don't actually care how old he was, his stupidity and cheating generated the whole thing, he knew exactly what he was doing, and if he was my lad he would be close to grounded for life. My sympathies lie with Hazard, and no, I do not support Chelsea in any way.

[Cantona07]

Originally Posted by yellowlabbie

I agree there was was very little harm done but I do not agree that they were both equally culpable.

I am not arguing for extra punishment for Hazard, only that he was the Premiership player paid a lot of money and should have behaved accordingly.

Im not sure many people are saying they were equally culpable just that the ball boy had pre planned this and isnt an innocent victim.

I totally agree that the footballer should in theory behave better but its an emotional game, he was clearly frustrated and he isnt a robot. Im sure we have all done things in the heat of the moment even as adults that we almost instantly know we shouldn't - i certainly have! I genuinely believe that he was just trying to get the ball back in this case. That totally doesnt excuse his behaviour in any way but thats why he was sent off and is serving a ban.

[mikeyddd]

Originally Posted by Cantona07

Im not sure many people are saying they were equally culpable just that the ball boy had pre planned this and isnt an innocent victim.

I totally agree that the footballer should in theory behave better but its an emotional game, he was clearly frustrated and he isnt a robot. Im sure we have all done things in the heat of the moment even as adults that we almost instantly know we shouldn't - i certainly have! I genuinely believe that he was just trying to get the ball back in this case. That totally doesnt excuse his behaviour in any way but thats why he was sent off and is serving a ban.

The ballboy had not pre- planned the events that unfolded unless he had a crystal ball and could foresee that Hazard would do what he did. He planned to waste time, if he got the opportunity and if Hazard hadn't got involved it would have wasted maybe 10 seconds.

[Cantona07]

Originally Posted by mikeyddd

The ballboy had not pre- planned the events that unfolded unless he had a crystal ball and could foresee that Hazard would do what he did. He planned to waste time, if he got the opportunity and if Hazard hadn't got involved it would have wasted maybe 10 seconds.

I know that.

He planned to waste time. Thats what i'm saying.

[yellowlabbie]

Originally Posted by Cantona07

Im not sure many people are saying they were equally culpable just that the ball boy had pre planned this and isnt an innocent victim.

I totally agree that the footballer should in theory behave better but its an emotional game, he was clearly frustrated and he isnt a robot. Im sure we have all done things in the heat of the moment even as adults that we almost instantly know we shouldn't - i certainly have! I genuinely believe that he was just trying to get the ball back in this case. That totally doesnt excuse his behaviour in any way but thats why he was sent off and is serving a ban.

I think many on here are saying they are equally culpable, as are a few neutral managers.

Yes, I agree that it was a spur of the moment thing but then I wouldn't kick out at anyone on the spur of the moment even to retrieve a ball.

[indiana44]

Originally Posted by yellowlabbie

I think many on here are saying they are equally culpable, as are a few neutral managers.

Yes, I agree that it was a spur of the moment thing but then I wouldn't kick out at anyone on the spur of the moment even to retrieve a ball.

Hazard was kicking out at the ball not the ballboy.

I an sure that most folk; while agreeing that it was stupid, do not think he was aiming to kick the ballboy.

However, a few folk continue to imply otherwise for whatever reason. As I asked another poster, do you really believe he was deliiberately trying to kick the ballboy ?

If yes, I am astonished, and absolutely disagree. If no, maybe choose your words more carefully.

[DSWNSM]

Originally Posted by yellowlabbie

Sorry, it's too easy to blame the ballboy, he just got carried away with the occasion, he didn't kick out at anyone though.

Neither did Hazard.

[yellowlabbie]

Originally Posted by indiana44

Hazard was kicking out at the ball not the ballboy.

I an sure that most folk; while agreeing that it was stupid, do not think he was aiming to kick the ballboy.

However, a few folk continue to imply otherwise for whatever reason. As I asked another poster, do you really believe he was deliiberately trying to kick the ballboy ?

If yes, I am astonished, and absolutely disagree. If no, maybe choose your words more carefully.

I have already said that I do not believe he kicked the ballboy deliberately in an earlier post but I do believe he should not have tried to kick the ball when the ballboy was over the top of it. The ballboy was not on the field of play. It was for the ref to retrieve the ball and I am certain he would not have tried to kick the ball from under the ballboy.

[Tony_Burke]

The thing that annoys me most about this is people saying the ballboy is 17 not a kid as if that makes it ok. Hazard would not of known the age of the ball boy. He looked a lot younger than 17. I don't know the average age of a ball boy but I expect it is nearer 14 than 17.

I don't believe Hazard was trying to kick him but his actions were reckless and the referee was right to send him off. Whether he deserves further sanction is debatable. If it is more than 1 - 2 games then t would be wrong.

[yellowlabbie]

Originally Posted by Tony_Burke

The thing that annoys me most about this is people saying the ballboy is 17 not a kid as if that makes it ok. Hazard would not of known the age of the ball boy. He looked a lot younger than 17. I don't know the average age of a ball boy but I expect it is nearer 14 than 17.

I don't believe Hazard was trying to kick him but his actions were reckless and the referee was right to send him off. Whether he deserves further sanction is debatable. If it is more than 1 - 2 games then t would be wrong.

Now I agree with ALL this.

[Cantona07]

Again we are talking about something that didnt happen. "In different circumstances the ball boy could have been 14 and Hazard would have kicked a 14 year old" .

All very true, but it WAS a 17 year old.

Its projecting an element of premeditation onto the incident that simply was never there. If the kid had been 14 then the same thing would have happened but he wasnt 14 he was 17 and thats the situation that has to be dealt with.

[Tony_Burke]

Originally Posted by Cantona07

Again we are talking about something that didnt happen. "In different circumstances the ball boy could have been 14 and Hazard would have kicked a 14 year old" .

All very true, but it WAS a 17 year old.

Its projecting an element of premeditation onto the incident that simply was never there. If the kid had been 14 then the same thing would have happened but he wasnt 14 he was 17 and thats the situation that has to be dealt with.

What I am saying is the age of the ball boy is immaterial in all this.

[Cantona07]

Originally Posted by Tony_Burke

What I am saying is the age of the ball boy is immaterial in all this.

Its relevant when people are making out that he assaulted a small child.

[mikeyddd]

Originally Posted by Cantona07

Its relevant when people are making out that he assaulted a small child.

who has said he assaulted a small child?

[mikeyddd]

Originally Posted by Cantona07

Its relevant when people are making out that he assaulted a small child.

The age is not relevent to him being sent off or as far as I am aware the charge against him

[Cantona07]

Originally Posted by mikeyddd

who has said he assaulted a small child?

Thats how it was being portrayed by some of the people wanting Hazard hung drawn and quartered. Theres a big difference between a 12 year old and a 17 year old although i doubt either would have been hurt.

At least we have moved on bit and there seems to be an acknowledgement that Hazard was in the wrong but doesnt need some huge ban. I suspect the FA may not share that view as this is an easy hit for them to appear "tough" while actually achieving nothing whatsoever.

[0rch1deam]

Originally Posted by mikeyddd

who has said he assaulted a small child?

Maybe you should read way back in this thread for a start, and then look back at some of the initial media reports. Some would have him hung out to dry for child molestation. Hazards red card was sufficient.

[Cantona07]

Originally Posted by mikeyddd

The age is not relevent to him being sent off or as far as I am aware the charge against him

Its relevant to the perception of the incident depending on what spin people want to put on it, and i suspect that the perception will hold influence over the eventual punishment.