Hazard vs Ball Boy

kryogen

764dak wrote: »

I can't believe people took the side of Hazard. What if it was Suarez or Joey Barton?

Some people would more then likely let their opinions of those players have an impact on how they viewed the incident?

Hazard very clearly is trying to poke the ball out, the kid makes a meal of it and Hazard is sent off. He was stupid to get involved in that way but hey, thats frustration for you, its not like he took aim and booted the guy in the face or intended to kick him in the ribs.

Kid wastes time, Hazard gets frustrated, Hazard gets sent off. That should be the end of it really. (Subsequent ban obv)

Utopia Parkway

764dak wrote: »

I can't believe people took the side of Hazard. What if it was Suarez or Joey Barton?

The Daily Mail would probably be campaigning for Suarez to be deported. Or shot.

Essien

My favourite part was when John Terry held the kid down and Suarez ran up and stole his lunch money.

cournioni

If it had to be Ashley Williams he would have kicked him in the head.

Soups123

This thread is like the film '50 first dates' every 3 pages we relive the same gifs, Suarez, Terry and Fergie jokes and the young lads pre match tweets and post match apology.

I think we're done here

efb

Intense pressure of capital one semi final second leg...

NukaCola

Soups123 wrote: »

This thread is like the film '50 first dates' every 3 pages we relive the same gifs, Suarez, Terry and Fergie jokes and the young lads pre match tweets and post match apology.

I think we're done here

50 first dates is an awful awful movie.....could you not have just said groundhog day? :pac:

everdead.ie

Very hard to feel bad for the ball boy but Hazard should of known better.

It's been dealt with though and that should be the end of it.

SlickRic

the faux outrage by some is absolutely pathetic.

i said last night, jokingly, that he should've wellied the kid. obviously he shouldn't have, but it's what I'd have liked to do.

Hazard was a moron and completely unprofessional for reacting the way he did, but don't anyone pretend he did anything approaching assault like I've seen from some here, and many elsewhere.

let's get it straight...

the ballboy was purposely timewasting.
Hazard tried to get the ball from him.
he put his hand on the boy's back, and he fell as if he'd been shot.
the boy then lay on the ball like an immature toddler.
Hazard took about 5 seconds, had a look, then toe-poked the ball out from under him, lightly touching the boy's rib area with his shin.
there was no follow through, and there was no kick.

it wasn't violent. it wasn't criminal. it wasn't heinous.

Hazard got trolled, was silly to get involved, made his mistake, and that's it.

any sort of witch-hunt for the lad would be utterly ridiculous, and anyone who wants to see it has lost all objectivity and reason.

i've seen calls for life bans.
i've seen calls for a lengthy ban, maybe until the end of the season.

lunacy. absolute lunacy.

dahat

And as predicted Joey Barton rows in and says Hazards only crime was not kicking him harder.......

.jacksparrow.

SlickRic wrote: »

the faux outrage by some is absolutely pathetic.

i said last night, jokingly, that he should've wellied the kid. obviously he shouldn't have, but it's what I'd have liked to do.

Hazard was a moron and completely unprofessional for reacting the way he did, but don't anyone pretend he did anything approaching assault like I've seen from some here, and many elsewhere.

let's get it straight...

the ballboy was purposely timewasting.
Hazard tried to get the ball from him.
he put his hand on the boy's back, and he fell as if he'd been shot.
the boy then lay on the ball like an immature toddler.
Hazard took about 5 seconds, had a look, then toe-poked the ball out from under him, properly lightly touching the boy's rib area with his shin.
there was no follow through, and there was no kick.

it wasn't violent. it wasn't criminal. it wasn't heinous.

Hazard got trolled, was silly to get involved, made his mistake, and that's it.

any sort of witch-hunt for the lad would be utterly ridiculous, and anyone who wants to see it has lost all objectivity and reason.

i've seen calls for life bans.
i've seen calls for a lengthy ban, maybe until the end of the season.

lunacy. absolute lunacy.

Fell like he has been shot,now where have I seen that before,oh Ye every week on the pitch.

I also seen hazard go down earlier in the match,look at the ref then hop straight back up when there was an attack.

It has been taken out of context but if grown footballers are gonna go down like a sniper took them out,don't expect a 17 year old to lead by example and get straight up.

Irishcrx

Blown way out of proportion as expected. Charlie Morgan is not a child he is 17 years old and went out with the intention to waste time if he got an opportunity , Hazard should have known better yes but anyone here who plays football at any level and was 2-0 down with 12 minutes to go might have reacted the same , I know I would have.

Your a ball boy , your job is to give the ball back regardless if your team is winning , what he did was bloody stupid and looking for attention then he made a meal of it. Hazard was trying to get the ball not injure him and he shouldn't have been put in that position in the first place. Swansea should be apologising to Chelsea for the behaviour of the ball boy as well , who happens to be a directors son with an obvious chip on his shoulder. Shouldn't be a ball boy at 17 either.

And I'm not a Chelsea fan before anyone asks , I'm a Utd fan.

Reading this thread and all I can see is sexy Arab girls

.jacksparrow.

dahat wrote: »

And as predicted Joey Barton rows in and says Hazards only crime was not kicking him harder.......

He obviously doesn't remember his carry on against arsenal last season.

andrew241983

Irishcrx wrote: »

Blown way out of proportion as expected. Charlie Morgan is not a child he is 17 years old and went out with the intention to waste time if he got an opportunity , Hazard should have known better yes but anyone here who plays football at any level and was 2-0 down with 12 minutes to go might have reacted the same , I know I would have.

Your a ball boy , your job is to give the ball back regardless if your team is winning , what he did was bloody stupid and looking for attention then he made a meal of it. Hazard was trying to get the ball not injure him and he shouldn't have been put in that position in the first place. Swansea should be apologising to Chelsea for the behaviour of the ball boy as well , who happens to be a directors son with an obvious chip on his shoulder. Shouldn't be a ball boy at 17 either.

And I'm not a Chelsea fan before anyone asks , I'm a Utd fan.

not if his employers told him to do different it happens everywhere.. hazard should have known better but the ball boy did milk it...

.jacksparrow.

Irishcrx wrote: »

Blown way out of proportion as expected. Charlie Morgan is not a child he is 17 years old and went out with the intention to waste time if he got an opportunity , Hazard should have known better yes but anyone here who plays football at any level and was 2-0 down with 12 minutes to go might have reacted the same , I know I would have.

Your a ball boy , your job is to give the ball back regardless if your team is winning , what he did was bloody stupid and looking for attention then he made a meal of it. Hazard was trying to get the ball not injure him and he shouldn't have been put in that position in the first place. Swansea should be apologising to Chelsea for the behaviour of the ball boy as well , who happens to be a directors son with an obvious chip on his shoulder. Shouldn't be a ball boy at 17 either.

And I'm not a Chelsea fan before anyone asks , I'm a Utd fan.

But goalkeepers waste time all the time when their
team is winning.

Lets face it when you're team is winning you have no problem with a bit of timewasting.

iregk

I have to say the mock outrage by the PC brigade is absolute hillarious around the web today. "Hazard should be banned for life" "Bring back the death penalty"... Yes Hazard was silly to get involved but the ball boy was being a little bit of a twat.

People have said this is man versus boy etc... lets put the context on it though. This is a 17 y/o soon to be 18 y/o ball boy who got a kick from the just turned 22 (two weeks ago) Eden Hazard. It's not exactly a JT or Joey Barton v a 12 y/o now is it. I do expect a sizable ban for EH because of this but based on his twitter account the ball boy should also face some sort of sanction. Pre meditated.

Jelle1880

.jacksparrow. wrote: »

But goalkeepers waste time all the time when their
team is winning.

Lets face it when you're team is winning you have no problem with a bit of timewasting.

Exactly.

And don't forget that Hazard was acting like a fanny himself, rolling about as if he just had a boot in the ribs and trying to get fellow professionals booked.

everdead.ie

rarnes1 wrote: »

Reading this thread and all I can see is sexy Arab girls

All I can see is Ailesbury Hair Clinic and I'm not even bald!

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Xavi6 wrote: »

I'd have done the exact same has Hazard in the situation, as would a lot of people, so I won't be taking out a pitchfork or anything of the sort.

If Hazard gets strung up for it, and he probably will, then so should that little smart arse bollox.

Had it been Luis Suarez, would you have been of the same opinion?

Frank Black

SlickRic wrote: »

let's get it straight...


Hazard took about 5 seconds, had a look, then toe-poked the ball out from under him, lightly touching the boy's rib area with his shin.
there was no follow through, and there was no kick.

Let's get it straight indeed.
Most ridiculously one-eyed interpretation of the event I've yet read.

noodler

black francis wrote: »

Let's get it straight indeed.
Most ridiculously one-eyed interpretation of the event I've yet read.

Thats pretty much what happened.

sReq | uTeK

black francis wrote: »

Let's get it straight indeed.
Most ridiculously one-eyed interpretation of the event I've yet read.

Don't think so I've come to the same conclusion also, there is a pause for a few moments where he is clearly looking for the ball.

I'm no Chelsea fan nor Hazzard fan but I'd have probably done the same.

Little scummer of a ball boy and to be tweeting about it before the game, karma is a bitch.

flanzer

Thread is becoming like ground hog day. I'm laughing my tits off at the PC brigade. Hazard shouldn't have done what he did. 3 game ban. Ball boy should get an oscar and never be allowed to be a ball boy again. Move on

GavRedKing

black francis wrote: »

Let's get it straight indeed.
Most ridiculously one-eyed interpretation of the event I've yet read.

If anything its the most unbiased, and hes not even a Chelsea fan, hes anything but actually.

Leftist

ballboy should be banned too. Chancer.

Quazzie

black francis wrote: »

Let's get it straight indeed.
Most ridiculously one-eyed interpretation of the event I've yet read.

Are you seriously outraged at what went on, and do you genuinely believe that it happened any other way to as was described in the post you quoted?

Some people really just like to look for reasons to talk shíte.

.jacksparrow.

sReq | uTeK wrote: »

Don't think so I've come to the same conclusion also, there is a pause for a few moments where he is clearly looking for the ball.

I'm no Chelsea fan nor Hazzard fan but I'd have probably done the same.

Little scummer of a ball boy and to be tweeting about it before the game, karma is a bitch.

It is and hazard got a mighty slice of it last night.

sReq | uTeK

.jacksparrow. wrote: »

It is and hazard got a mighty slice of it last night.

....Confused slightly, was hazzard tweeting about delaying game time before the game, if you're on about hazzard receiving a backlash due to a couple of dives then you may as well put the premiership on hold and cancel all games for the rest of the season as everyone is guilty of it at some stage.

I'm a united fan, I DETEST Chelsea, you keep looking at it with rose tinted glassed all you like and focus on the kick instead of the incident as an entirety, that's cool by me but you're just looking like a mug, burn them at the stake and all that....

The ball boys JOB is to get the ball back in a timely fashion he failed to do that, Hazzad shouldn't get a ban he should get a ****ing award.

All this **** about Man v child, it's a 17 yr old and a 22 yr old.......Come off it honestly, come down from your internet pedestal with your high and nightly morals.

.jacksparrow.

sReq | uTeK wrote: »

....Confused slightly, was hazzard tweeting about delaying game time before the game, if you're on about hazzard receiving a backlash due to a couple of dives then you may as well put the premiership on hold and cancel all games for the rest of the season as everyone is guilty of it at some stage.

I'm a united fan, I DETEST Chelsea, you keep looking at it with rose tinted glassed all you like and focus on the kick instead of the incident as an entirety, that's cool by me but you're just looking like a mug, burn them at the stake and all that....

The ball boys JOB is to get the ball back in a timely fashion he failed to do that, Hazzad shouldn't get a ban he should get a ****ing award.

All this **** about Man v child, it's a 17 yr old and a 22 yr old.......Come off it honestly, come down from your internet pedestal with your high and nightly morals.

I'm looking like a mug?have you even read what I said.most players dive waste time every week,hazard included,so why the outrage when a ballboy does it.

It has been taken way out of context,I never said ban for life or anything,but everyone does it,you wouldn't get away doing it on the pitch to a player.

Keepers time waste players,I have even seen managers not give the ball back,did this not happen with mourinho last season?seems to me the ballboy is been made an example of which is unfair.

GLaDOS

I really don't consider a 17 year old to be a boy, and referring to him as such is just playing on emotions to sensationalise the issue.

GavRedKing

Daily Mail said Hazard attacked him.

There's a new panto villain in town now for a few weeks.

SlickRic

GavRedKing wrote: »

Daily Mail said Hazard attacked him.

There's a new panto villain in town now for a few weeks.

As stupid as it was to do what he did, if the red card was for violent conduct then "violent" has had its meaning changed somewhat.

GavRedKing

Deleted User wrote: »

As stupid as it was to do what he did, if the red card was for violent conduct then "violent" has had its meaning changed somewhat.

I think on the Sky commentary they were saying Foy was right to send him off as the law states " dangerous play towards a player, fan, official or steward " or something along those lines.

Now I can only assume hes taking the word of his assistant on the matter who at most, is about 10 yards away.

If he looks back at the video its not dangerous or violent, it was stupid but I'd hope Chelsea do appeal it, although I can see them not appealing to save themselves some face over another potential PR disaster.

patmac

Jimmy Hill would have approved of the actions of the Swansea ball boy, I remember him berating a Blackburn ball boy (turned out to be a girl) back in 1991 on Match of the Day for throwing the ball back quickly and costing her team a famous victory against the then all conquering Liverpool, Houghton set up Rush for the equalizer. The club stood by her though and jimmy was rightly criticised all round.

wonderfullife

GavRedKing wrote: »

I think on the Sky commentary they were saying Foy was right to send him off as the law states " dangerous play towards a player, fan, official or steward " or something along those lines.

Now I can only assume hes taking the word of his assistant on the matter who at most, is about 10 yards away.

If he looks back at the video its not dangerous or violent, it was stupid but I'd hope Chelsea do appeal it, although I can see them not appealing to save themselves some face over another potential PR disaster.

Dermot Gallagher was saying the precedent was set for this type of incident when Jamie Carragher threw a coin back into the crowd and got sent off for it. Even with no intent to harm anybody (like with Hazard) it's still a red card offence.

IMO chelsea won't appeal anything other than an extended ban. If they give him 3 games they'll take it on the chin, anything more is worthy of an appeal.

Davidth88

patmac wrote: »

Jimmy Hill would have approved of the actions of the Swansea ball boy, I remember him berating a Blackburn ball boy (turned out to be a girl) back in 1991 on Match of the Day for throwing the ball back quickly and costing her team a famous victory against the then all conquering Liverpool, Houghton set up Rush for the equalizer. The club stood by her though and jimmy was rightly criticised all round.

Interestingly I thought of the same incident !

homerjay2005

GavRedKing wrote: »

If he looks back at the video its not dangerous or violent, it was stupid but I'd hope Chelsea do appeal it, although I can see them not appealing to save themselves some face over another potential PR disaster.

good god lad, there is zero ground to appeal it, zero. he kicked him and its a red all day, 100%.

he will be lucky not to receive a big ban for this, appealing the card itself is Kenny Dalglish talk. what next, tshirts for hazard at the Bridge next game?

GavRedKing

homerjay2005 wrote: »

good god lad, there is zero ground to appeal it, zero. he kicked him and its a red all day, 100%.

he will be lucky not to receive a big ban for this, appealing the card itself is Kenny Dalglish talk. what next, tshirts for hazard at the Bridge next game?

At no point was what Hazard done dangerous or violent.

If its a 3 game ban I'd expect them to just get on with it but if its anything longer an appeal will surely follow.

Big ban for what exactly though? Are you taking the Daily Mail's stance on it that its an " attack "?

The drama llama's are making it out to be worse then what it is.

Oh and by the time we're back at the Bridge, his suspension will be served, if the FA issue a 3 game ban, no need for t-shirts.

hoodwinked

don't know how authentic it is but this gif is now doing the rounds..

Quazzie

homerjay2005 wrote: »

good god lad, there is zero ground to appeal it, zero. he kicked him and its a red all day, 100%.

he will be lucky not to receive a big ban for this, appealing the card itself is Kenny Dalglish talk. what next, tshirts for hazard at the Bridge next game?

He kicked the ball not the ball boy. Stop being such a drama queen.

Jelle1880

GavRedKing wrote: »

At no point was what Hazard done dangerous or violent.

If its a 3 game ban I'd expect them to just get on with it but if its anything longer an appeal will surely follow.

Big ban for what exactly though? Are you taking the Daily Mail's stance on it that its an " attack "?

The drama llama's are making it out to be worse then what it is.

Oh and by the time we're back at the Bridge, his suspension will be served, if the FA issue a 3 game ban, no need for t-shirts.

So I assume you want Di Maria's red card from yesterday taken away too ?

I mean, he deliberately kicked out at a player but didn't hit him, so it wasn't actually dangerous ?

Quazzie wrote: »

He kicked the ball not the ball boy. Stop being such a drama queen.

The gif right above your post clearly shows he hit both, you can see the impact on the kid and the ball being kicked away.

GavRedKing

hoodwinked wrote: »

don't know how authentic it is but this gif is now doing the rounds..

The ref, IMO is acting on what the assistant "seen" which cant be much as his view is been partially blocked by Hazard standing over him so of course to him its going to look like he kicked him.

If the above is true then it highlights what I thought at the time.

GavRedKing

Jelle1880 wrote: »

So I assume you want Di Maria's red card from yesterday taken away too ?

I mean, he deliberately kicked out at a player but didn't hit him, so it wasn't actually dangerous ?

Didnt see it, cant comment.

MagicIRL

It's quite obvious Hazard got both the ball and the boy. Being a complete independent spectator in that game, he got what he deserved. The ball-boy was time wasting, but that is an issue for the officials, Swansea F.C. and the FA. At the end of the day, Hazard kicked the ball-boy (and the ball) which deserved the red card. You can argue all day about how the kick wasn't violent (Just look at DiMaria's little flick last night too, that got him his second yellow -> red)

Hazard is definitely getting some match bans. I doubt it'll be for the rest of the season, though.

SlickRic

that gif doesn't show if he kicked the lad, the ball or both.

pointless.

GavRedKing

MagicIRL wrote: »

It's quite obvious Hazard got both the ball and the boy. Being a complete independent spectator in that game, he got what he deserved. The ball-boy was time wasting, but that is an issue for the officials, Swansea F.C. and the FA. At the end of the day, Hazard kicked the ball-boy (and the ball) which deserved the red card. You can argue all day about how the kick wasn't violent (Just look at DiMaria's little flick last night too, that got him his second yellow -> red)

Hazard is definitely getting some match bans. I doubt it'll be for the rest of the season, though.

I accept that, but if its anything over a 3 game ban its a joke, although the FA and its decisions are at times baffling.

.jacksparrow.

Was hazard in control of his kick at all times,he wasn't looking under the ballboys body to see where his kick could end up,he could have got the ball or his body with his kick.

Sorry just thinking the way refs do with players!silly ay.

Quazzie

SlickRic wrote: »

that gif doesn't show if he kicked the lad, the ball or both.

pointless.

Of course it does. His foot goes in and the ball comes out. It's obvious to anybody that he kicked the ball. The ball being moved under the kid moves the kid, and there was certainly some contact between the players foot/leg and the kid, but to say he kicked the kid is ridiculous.