What punishment, if any, do you suggest then?

I've been going to football a while now but if kicking a ball boy is now acceptable I think I'll pack it in.

I dont care what the lad was doing, the referee and officials are there to deal with that.

a message needs to be sent out with a long ban for Hazard.

 

None and recind his red card.

You can argue both sides until you're Chelsea blue in the face, but to me it's more dangerous behaviour than violent.

 

 

How so ?, not being funny just wondering where you draw the line between the two

Only violent if he meant to hurt another person.

 

Dangerous because a person was in the way of the thing Hazard was trying to get.

 

That's why some tackles that get the ball, can also be deemed dangerous and worthy of a card.

 

If you think Hazard meant to kick the ball boy do you think he would have done even if the ball was no where near,

 

If not, then why can't you see he was trying to get the ball, from a cheat who was guarding the ball and slowing things down.

Edited January 24, 201313 yr by Didledee

Only violent if he meant to hurt another person.

 

Dangerous because a person was in the way of the thing Hazard was trying to get.

 

That's why some tackles that get the ball, can also be deemed dangerous and worthy of a card.

 

If you think Hazard meant to kick the ball boy and would have done even if the ball was no where near, then I understand your opinion, maybe you should think a little better of people? I dunno.

 

But this was not on the field of play, it was not a tackle, it was not another player (if it was he would still be rolling around on the floor), it was a ball boy laying on the football (for whatever reason) so to me its violent.

But this was not on the field of play, it was not a tackle, it was not another player (if it was he would still be rolling around on the floor), it was a ball boy laying on the football (for whatever reason) so to me its violent.

 

An act of violence is to intentionally hurt someone.

 

Hazard was trying to kick the ball, not the imbecile ball boy ... therefore it wasn't violent.

 

As Traf says, dangerous, yes, possibly.

Its a 6 & half dozen scenario. The ball boy was doing all he could to help his team win a game and the Chelsea player was doing all he could to get the ball back in play. Neither of them should have gone to the extremes they did but in the heat of the moment they did, what has happened, happened and the ref quite rightly sent the player off.

 

That should be the end of it. Move along nothing to see here if you like but sky and the media have blown it all out of proportion

The ball boy was doing all he could to help his team win a game

 

Anyone remember when we played Port Vale ?1973 in the old Div 3? Their ball boy kept on throwing the ball back so our players couldn't collect it. The ref added something like 8 minutes and Greavo equalised in the 97th minute. Served him right.

 

Refs should add as much as they want on for ball-boys playing silly buggers. It'd soon stop it.

Anyone remember when we played Port Vale ?1973 in the old Div 3? Their ball boy kept on throwing the ball back so our players couldn't collect it. The ref added something like 8 minutes and Greavo equalised in the 97th minute. Served him right.

 

Refs should add as much as they want on for ball-boys playing silly buggers. It'd soon stop it.

 

or maybe just get rid of ball boys and let the over paid wankers go and get there own balls,

Bert Millichip's viewpoint on the topic...

 

 

Thursday, 24 January, 2013, 12:10 GMT

 

 

Sir Bert Millichip was chairman of the English Football Association for 15 years between 1981 and 1996.

 

"It was silly buggers all round, but hopefully the FA has decided to clamp down - My recommendation is that Eden must sign the sex offenders register for the next ten years, and the ball boy is sent to Borstal for a short, sharp shock. This will learn ball boy abuse and abuse of balls by ball boys won't be tolerated..."

Edited January 24, 201313 yr by Youri McAnespie

Didn't Sunbed get into an altercation with a ball boy in his playing days for us?

You can argue both sides until you're Chelsea blue in the face, but to me it's more dangerous behaviour than violent.

 

Add reckless and I'd agree

Anyone remember when we played Port Vale ?1973 in the old Div 3? Their ball boy kept on throwing the ball back so our players couldn't collect it. The ref added something like 8 minutes and Greavo equalised in the 97th minute. Served him right.

 

Refs should add as much as they want on for ball-boys playing silly buggers. It'd soon stop it.

We approached the ball boy and politely asked him to refrain from his time wasting tactics. He must have misunderstood our reasonable request as a threat (probably as we were climbing the wall at the same time) and ran round the pitch to the players tunnel. JB witnessed our altercation, smiled and gave us a thumbs up.

I do not like violence, hooligans are pathetic,

 

is this "yoof" speak for " i really want to come out of the closet ,but im scared even less people will like me "

The problem here, is that if they hit Hazard with a massive ban and nothing happens to the "kid", there'll be a raft of ball boys wasting time by lying on the ball, with no repercussions there'll be no reason for them not to, especially if it's a generally hated player - it will be like a sport to get big bans for certain players.

 

Personally, I don't think Hazard should face any punishment (excepting maybe a 1-3 match ban for the red card if the FA want to "save face"). England is too soft these days, and sometimes it takes a bit of a kick to the ribs to teach these little scrotes that they can't just do what they want to do.

 

And yes, if it were my kid I'd certainly be a little annoyed at Hazard, but my kid would also get a clobbering from me when I got him home.

You wouldn't

 

If he'd kept the ball off Wayne Rooney in the closing minutes of a semi which we won, you wouldn't

I would (clobber him when he got home), even if he did that to Rooney, handing us a glorious and scabby victory over the scum.

 

Not for his unsporting behaviour, simply by virtue of him being Welsh.

Edited January 24, 201313 yr by Youri McAnespie

And if I hit a 17 year old tomorrow I would be sacked.

I look forward to the impressionable youngsters (many who unfortunately follow Chelsea) thinking that its ok to kick ball boys. They already have Rooney and Ferguson as classic role models in the treatment of officials.

 

fuck me, can you not get away with slapping anyone in your job?

A lot of you are talking utter shit. The lad had literally only just picked the ball up when Hazard pushed him over. Fair enough, he let the ball roll past him, and picked it up after it rebounded off the hoarding, but the push from Hazard caused him to end up lying on the ball. And less than 2 seconds later, Hazard kicked him in the side. Where the fuck has all this "time wasting" bullshit come from? The way some of you are describing it, anyone would think the fat little cunt had put the ball up his jumper or done a few keep-ups.

 

I know he said something on Twitter, but there is no way he was "time wasting" in this incident. If anything, he didn't get the chance to purposefully waste any time.

Edited January 24, 201313 yr by Cheese

I don't know why folk are trying to defend one or the other

 

The las was being a cock time wasting, said so, and apologised

 

Hazard, whether he kicked the ball or the lad, and I believe he went for the ball knowing the lad would feel his "frustration", should not have kicked anything, he said so, and apologised, plus has a red card, ban and fine

 

That's that

 

Sensationalised is not the word

 

Stop watching SSN

Yeah, the little cunt must have wasted at least 1.5 seconds by being dragged to the floor.

Not to mention the fact that when the ball is out of play, it doesn't count as 'time' anyway.

refs saved him a ten match ban as he gave a red card so he will get 3 game ban as the ref has dealt with it, if he never did anything he could of been done on video evidence

We need to count our chickens, it could have been much worse. If Abramovich had got the hump and flown back to Moscow in a northerly direction, then the snow meant he'd had to divert to manc, but a navigational problem meant the plane had overshot and landed on Sellafield, then the resulting nuclear discharge had alerted the automatic NORAD defence systems and they'd launched a pre-emptive strike on Russia, who then responded accordingly - then most of humanity would have been wiped out prompting the Galagtic police to issue the order "klaatu barada nikto", the barrage from which would have have unwittingly destabilised the vacuum state of the universe, causing it to repolarise to a lower energy, resulting in the entire history of all and everything to be consigned to nothing. Now that would be summat for the papers to latch on to. Hazard is a lucky lad.

We need to count our chickens, it could have been much worse. If Abramovich had got the hump and flown back to Moscow in a northerly direction, then the snow meant he'd had to divert to manc, but a navigational problem meant the plane had overshot and landed on Sellafield, then the resulting nuclear discharge had alerted the automatic NORAD defence systems and they'd launched a pre-emptive strike on Russia, who then responded accordingly - then most of humanity would have been wiped out prompting the Galagtic police to issue the order "klaatu barada nikto", the barrage from which would have have unwittingly destabilised the vacuum state of the universe, causing it to repolarise to a lower energy, resulting in the entire history of all and everything to be consigned to nothing. Now that would be summat for the papers to latch on to. Hazard is a lucky lad.

 

I reckon in 12 months there'll be a small corner of page 5 of the Welsh Sun with an article about the strange death due to poisoning of a spazy looking 18 kid from Swansea.

Them oligarchs, they always get their mon. They bide their time. I've seen programmes on Brighton Beach NY.

just funny