Zidane's DELIBERATE headbutt on Materazzi - THAT was violent Cantona's DELIBERATE kung-fu kick - THAT was violent Let's put aside the ballboy for the time being - let's say he really was hurt. Then the rules of the game say it's a red card & 3-match ban. No argument here. But on what grounds are the FA saying a 3-match ban is CLEARLY INSUFFICIENT. What exactly is CLEAR? Why is it insufficient? They are getting mixed up here. The only thing that is CLEAR is that Hazard got the ball - which in itself is not a VIOLENT action. It is completely UNCLEAR whether or not Hazard INTENDED to hurt the ball boy and ergo, was guilty of violence. Given Hazard's spotless record as a player, his calm personality, his testimony, and the situation that Chelsea were in trying to chase the game - no UNBIASED jury could return a verdict that the harm was intended, and the judge would have to rule that the harm was caused as a result of an ACCIDENT, not of violence. Ergo: 1) There is no grounds for the FA to suggest an extension to the ban is clearly insufficient 2) The FA CLEARLY do not want to apply punishment in proportion to the crime. Do the FA have an agenda? .....Seriously, the whole situation is farking ridiculous.
It is clearly an exceptional circumstance. They will add on another match because of that. The message should be obvious, it doesn't matter whether you get the ball or not, you have no business tackling ballboys.
cheating ballboys deserved to be challenged and I, and many others, would do exactly the same in the heat of the moment in that situation.
That is fine, but he did not tackle the ballboy, he merely tried to retrieve the ball from him and did so in the only way possible given the ballboys position (self imposed). This incident has been blown up because the referee deemed it violent conduct which it was surely not and this sorry affair would have been avoided if the referee had shown some common sense at the time of the incident.
You have clearly misunderstood my point,being that it wasn't the intention of Hazard to tackle the ballboy. i.e. that the ballboy was hurt (if indeed he was) was an ACCIDENT. Would Hazard have been guilty of violent conduct if he had accidentally tripped over the hoarding and injured a spectator?
You have clearly misunderstood my point,being that it wasn't the intention of Hazard to tackle the ballboy. i.e. that the ballboy was hurt (if indeed he was) was an ACCIDENT. Would Hazard have been guilty of violent conduct if he had accidentally tripped over the hoarding and injured a spectator?
This was nothing like that. It wasn't an accident that he started physcially harassing the ballboy for the ball he wasn't even entitled to have.
When people do things "in the heat of the moment" it doesn't mean they don't deserve punishment. In fact, it usually means you do deserve punishment. Joey Barton got 12 games for what he did in the heat of the moment. Different scenario, but then Hazard also has a much lower punishment.
You've obviously got such an agenda that you're just believing what you want to, was an accident and everyone with sane mind thinks so to including every pro/pundit/manager who's commented on it backs Hazard. Now **** off, there's a good boy
of course not, it depends on the scenario, but Hazard did absolutely nothing wrong and did as most players do in that situation and went to retrieve the ball from the ball boy.
Predictably astroturfnaut makes the first comment. Must have tabs on all Hazard articles. Perhaps he was in love with Eden's GF or something.
Love this one, the ball is "blasted" into the spectators half a dozen times per game, every game, the striker who shoots and misses the goal, the defender who runs to the touchline to cover and puts the ball as far into the stand as he can to allow time to form up a defence. Yes Rio was petulant but hardley violent and it is unlikeley he aimed at a particular person in the crowd. If a player falls on the ball during a game (think of it as one of your players) do you think an opponant has the right to aim a short sharp kick at him to retrieve the ball?
I agree they were both in the wrong fella, haven't once denied it. What I don't agree with is that he kicked him on purpose, Phil Neville and Laudrup - both wrong. Want me to get the dozens who have backed Hazard now? Strongly outnumbers your figure.
I agree that the main purpose of his kick was to get the ball, but also partially kicking the ballboy is not an unforseeable accident. He has no right to have the ball, and so going out of his way to push the ballboy and then kick him (even if minor and collateral) is unacceptable for a professional footballer. If you agree that he was in the wrong, what is the problem with his punishment (probably 4 games)?
