For me it isn't an assault as he tries to kick the ball but catches the boy. For me it's dangerous and reckless meaning the normal three game ban plus an extra one or two to send the message out.
Why try and kick the ball if someone is holding it? He wouldn't do it to a keeper but seemed to think it was okay because it was only a ball boy.
That's a real question? You don't know the answer? The obvious one? He wanted the ball boys around the stadium to stop wasting time as time was running out. The goalkeeper is entitled to lay on the ball.
The reason he done it is irrelevant it's what he done and the intentionin which he done it. For me he wanted to kick the ball and thus the punishment I mentioned earlier is suitable.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Yes, it is a real question. Chelsea had 13 minutes left and would have had more of a chance with 11 men. If the referee feels time has been wasted he adds it on at the end. If it was a minute or two from the end I might have understood Hazard's reaction but 13 is plenty. It's like when a player takes the ball into the corner with 5 minutes still on the clock, people yell at then because 5 minutes is not the end of the game.
Hazard has over reacted and ultimately kicked a non-participant lying prone. Intention doesn't matter.
Hazard has over reacted and ultimately kicked a non-participant lying prone. Intention doesn't matter.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
comment by RuiCostaJr (U10462)
posted 1 minute ago
Yes, it is a real question. Chelsea had 13 minutes left and would have had more of a chance with 11 men. If the referee feels time has been wasted he adds it on at the end. If it was a minute or two from the end I might have understood Hazard's reaction but 13 is plenty. It's like when a player takes the ball into the corner with 5 minutes still on the clock, people yell at then because 5 minutes is not the end of the game.
Hazard has over reacted and ultimately kicked a non-participant lying prone. Intention doesn't matter.
------------------------------------
it's not about understanding why Hazard did it, we know why.
It's about understanding what he did and whether the outcome of what he did was intended.
For me it wasn't intended but the potential for it was there, it was wreckless and thus he deserves an added game or two to the automatic three.
Why are you up at this hour? My school bus didn't come.
As for Hazard he shouldn't be punished, the ball boy is a little turdman. He's trying to kick the ball. The ball boy is lying on top of the ball like a cretin. It's his own fault if he gets kicked.
Of course intention matters!
If you're driving a car and suddenly somebody leaps from a tree onto your car and you kill him, would you say intention doesn't matter I deserve life? Don't be ridiculous.
Hazard's intention was to get the ball.
f you're driving a car and suddenly somebody leaps from a tree onto your car and you kill him, would you say intention doesn't matter I deserve life? Don't be ridiculous.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not the same. More comparable to drink driving, if you're going to get behind a wheel spannered, you can't complain to didn't intend to kill the guy
I know it's not the same but I was talking about the incidents being the same, I was talking about whether intention is relevant and using it as an example. It's very easy to understand.
The boy was time-wasting and it appears Hazard was trying to release the rather than just straight-forward kick him. For me the red card is sufficient, and furthermore I'd even say Swansea should be fined for having their ball boys time-waste.
Kinda splitting hairs there, Reds, the situations are very different.
Whether Hazard says to the FA that he was trying to kick the ball, or trying to jab the ball boy into action, they'll look at the video and say, "You kicked a ball boy." It's like when someone goes in flying and takes out another player and injures him. He can plead innocence and say he intended to get the ball. If it's bad enough, the ref won't say, "Ok then, I'll let you off." A red's a red.
Andrei - No doubt the ball boy is a rat, he will probably face action from his club, and would have got worse if Hazard hadn't kicked him.
Certainly Swansea should be fined and warned about future conduct.
Would Cantona's karate kick set the precedent? It's not as bad as that was though.
For me the red card is sufficient, and furthermore I'd even say Swansea should be fined for having their ball boys time-waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Probably agree with both these points, but at the end of the day you simply cannot kick out at a ballboy, so I won't exactly feel sorry for Eden if he gets a further ban
I think the red should be rescinded if it can be. I'm not sure it will, and it definitely shouldn't be an increased ban. I wouldn't fine Swansea, I'd just not let the ball boy have anything to do with the club for a while.
comment by RuiCostaJr (U10462)
posted 10 seconds ago
Kinda splitting hairs there, Reds, the situations are very different.
--------------------
I thought we covered that already? The situations are not the same but the examples about intention go far to prove the point. Intention is relevant, in all walks of life.
If you don't mean to do something, you shouldn't be punished as if you meant it. Manslaughter/murder as another example of intention. The fact that the potential to do it and the wreckless nature of it(manslaughter...Hazard's kick) then you should be punished accordingly.
First time I saw it I didn't even see that he kicked the ball boy. Yes he was stupid for doing it, but I don't think it was all that severe. Plus plenty of people are blaming the ball boy, but stadium staff are encouraged by the clubs and the home fans to behave like this, time-wasting when their team is winning and then being as quick as possible when they're losing. It's like Stoke reducing the width of their pitch and moving the advertising boardings back, and Wigan letting their pitch get churned up by Rugby games and not trying to sort it out prior to a game against one of the top teams - it's just not in the spirit of the game (even if technically within the rules), that's the real problem imo We've allowed teams to behave in an unsportsmanlike manner, and we can't blame schoolboys for following the bad example set by the clubs...
The funny thing is when you watch the video, Hazard can't even see the ball, he kicks the guy straight in the ribs, it's hardly a clear cut "accident"
He can see the ball. I saw it, right at the time Hazard went to kick it, the ball was visible, under the boy's fat stomach.
There's time-wasting, then there's lying on top of the ball like a complete mug and actively refusing to give it back. I know they're 'technically' both time-wasting, but what the little chitbag did was just idiotic. I've been to Swansea, he's going to end up living in a bin.
Sign in if you want to comment
Hazard warning
Page 1 of 2
posted on 24/1/13
For me it isn't an assault as he tries to kick the ball but catches the boy. For me it's dangerous and reckless meaning the normal three game ban plus an extra one or two to send the message out.
posted on 24/1/13
Why try and kick the ball if someone is holding it? He wouldn't do it to a keeper but seemed to think it was okay because it was only a ball boy.
posted on 24/1/13
That's a real question? You don't know the answer? The obvious one? He wanted the ball boys around the stadium to stop wasting time as time was running out. The goalkeeper is entitled to lay on the ball.
The reason he done it is irrelevant it's what he done and the intentionin which he done it. For me he wanted to kick the ball and thus the punishment I mentioned earlier is suitable.
posted on 24/1/13
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 24/1/13
Yes, it is a real question. Chelsea had 13 minutes left and would have had more of a chance with 11 men. If the referee feels time has been wasted he adds it on at the end. If it was a minute or two from the end I might have understood Hazard's reaction but 13 is plenty. It's like when a player takes the ball into the corner with 5 minutes still on the clock, people yell at then because 5 minutes is not the end of the game.
Hazard has over reacted and ultimately kicked a non-participant lying prone. Intention doesn't matter.
posted on 24/1/13
Hazard has over reacted and ultimately kicked a non-participant lying prone. Intention doesn't matter.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on 24/1/13
comment by RuiCostaJr (U10462)
posted 1 minute ago
Yes, it is a real question. Chelsea had 13 minutes left and would have had more of a chance with 11 men. If the referee feels time has been wasted he adds it on at the end. If it was a minute or two from the end I might have understood Hazard's reaction but 13 is plenty. It's like when a player takes the ball into the corner with 5 minutes still on the clock, people yell at then because 5 minutes is not the end of the game.
Hazard has over reacted and ultimately kicked a non-participant lying prone. Intention doesn't matter.
------------------------------------
it's not about understanding why Hazard did it, we know why.
It's about understanding what he did and whether the outcome of what he did was intended.
For me it wasn't intended but the potential for it was there, it was wreckless and thus he deserves an added game or two to the automatic three.
posted on 24/1/13
Why are you up at this hour? My school bus didn't come.
As for Hazard he shouldn't be punished, the ball boy is a little turdman. He's trying to kick the ball. The ball boy is lying on top of the ball like a cretin. It's his own fault if he gets kicked.
posted on 24/1/13
Of course intention matters!
If you're driving a car and suddenly somebody leaps from a tree onto your car and you kill him, would you say intention doesn't matter I deserve life? Don't be ridiculous.
posted on 24/1/13
Hazard's intention was to get the ball.
posted on 24/1/13
f you're driving a car and suddenly somebody leaps from a tree onto your car and you kill him, would you say intention doesn't matter I deserve life? Don't be ridiculous.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not the same. More comparable to drink driving, if you're going to get behind a wheel spannered, you can't complain to didn't intend to kill the guy
posted on 24/1/13
I know it's not the same but I was talking about the incidents being the same, I was talking about whether intention is relevant and using it as an example. It's very easy to understand.
posted on 24/1/13
Wasn't*
posted on 24/1/13
The boy was time-wasting and it appears Hazard was trying to release the rather than just straight-forward kick him. For me the red card is sufficient, and furthermore I'd even say Swansea should be fined for having their ball boys time-waste.
posted on 24/1/13
Kinda splitting hairs there, Reds, the situations are very different.
Whether Hazard says to the FA that he was trying to kick the ball, or trying to jab the ball boy into action, they'll look at the video and say, "You kicked a ball boy." It's like when someone goes in flying and takes out another player and injures him. He can plead innocence and say he intended to get the ball. If it's bad enough, the ref won't say, "Ok then, I'll let you off." A red's a red.
Andrei - No doubt the ball boy is a rat, he will probably face action from his club, and would have got worse if Hazard hadn't kicked him.
posted on 24/1/13
Certainly Swansea should be fined and warned about future conduct.
posted on 24/1/13
Would Cantona's karate kick set the precedent? It's not as bad as that was though.
posted on 24/1/13
For me the red card is sufficient, and furthermore I'd even say Swansea should be fined for having their ball boys time-waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Probably agree with both these points, but at the end of the day you simply cannot kick out at a ballboy, so I won't exactly feel sorry for Eden if he gets a further ban
posted on 24/1/13
I think the red should be rescinded if it can be. I'm not sure it will, and it definitely shouldn't be an increased ban. I wouldn't fine Swansea, I'd just not let the ball boy have anything to do with the club for a while.
posted on 24/1/13
comment by RuiCostaJr (U10462)
posted 10 seconds ago
Kinda splitting hairs there, Reds, the situations are very different.
--------------------
I thought we covered that already? The situations are not the same but the examples about intention go far to prove the point. Intention is relevant, in all walks of life.
If you don't mean to do something, you shouldn't be punished as if you meant it. Manslaughter/murder as another example of intention. The fact that the potential to do it and the wreckless nature of it(manslaughter...Hazard's kick) then you should be punished accordingly.
posted on 24/1/13
Morning mass debating.
posted on 24/1/13
First time I saw it I didn't even see that he kicked the ball boy. Yes he was stupid for doing it, but I don't think it was all that severe. Plus plenty of people are blaming the ball boy, but stadium staff are encouraged by the clubs and the home fans to behave like this, time-wasting when their team is winning and then being as quick as possible when they're losing. It's like Stoke reducing the width of their pitch and moving the advertising boardings back, and Wigan letting their pitch get churned up by Rugby games and not trying to sort it out prior to a game against one of the top teams - it's just not in the spirit of the game (even if technically within the rules), that's the real problem imo We've allowed teams to behave in an unsportsmanlike manner, and we can't blame schoolboys for following the bad example set by the clubs...
posted on 24/1/13
The funny thing is when you watch the video, Hazard can't even see the ball, he kicks the guy straight in the ribs, it's hardly a clear cut "accident"
posted on 24/1/13
He can see the ball. I saw it, right at the time Hazard went to kick it, the ball was visible, under the boy's fat stomach.
posted on 24/1/13
There's time-wasting, then there's lying on top of the ball like a complete mug and actively refusing to give it back. I know they're 'technically' both time-wasting, but what the little chitbag did was just idiotic. I've been to Swansea, he's going to end up living in a bin.
Page 1 of 2