we still differ, to call it 'unnacceptable' is showing outrage at something extremely minor. Majority of people laughed at it and some people are taking it far too seriously. I'd have done exactly the same as him in that situation (as majority of footballers do) and gone over to retrieve the ball quicker, load of bollocks that he pushed him over, the **** fell like a sack of bricks as soon as he felt Hazard near him and then proceeded to timewaste as said on his twitter. He then feigned injury after Hazard kicked the ball from underneath him. Only thing Hazard did wrong for me personally (and you) is try and kick the ball from underneath him (we differ here) due to the uproar is was going to (and has) cause. I still maintain however he tried to a successfully kicked the ball and not the ****er lying on top of it. His red card should be enough imo. Nobody should be charged for anything else as both parties have put it behind them.
you are aware it was a ballboy not a player, and if one of our ballboys did it I'd be embarrassed for the prick.
If it is an identical replay of the Hazard incident, with a Chelsea player being kicked, I'd say grow up. Like diving, play acting, and time wasting, I wouldn't and don't support it even with Chelsea players.
I'm not outraged. It's not a tragedy. But yes, it is unacceptable behaviour. What is the alternative? Something has clearly happened, various players have run over to calm the incident and some Chelsea players are even trying to help the apparently injured ballboy. The referee calls Hazard over and asks what happened. Between the various players he pieces together that Hazard went over to the ballboy and started a physical altercation with him in order to gain possession of the ball. What else can the referee possibly do but issue a red card?
see that makes it sound like he's intended to injure him, when he has presented a kick like that to dislodge the ball from underneath a little cheating ****stain!
Yes I can actually see your viewpoint on this particular issue but I fail to see why he should be banned for a further 4 games for kicking a ball?
Well done sir, i applaud you, though i may remind you of this at some point in the future if one of your payers brushes ankles with an opponant in the chase for a ball and then proceeds to roll around like his foot has fallen off as proffesionals are prone to do.
Where did the further four games come from? i suspect at most he will get one game extra because it was off the field of play and uneccesary but in fact believe an additional fine would be enough.
3 games is automatic. I think an extra game as a way of saying "don't be stupid enough to start going after ballboys" is fair.
come on, only reason it's getting the limelight is cus it's a ball boy. If it was a 17 year old player, **** all would've happened let's be honest! "If Hazard is found guilty it is thought he will face a four-match ban - with one further fixture added to the standard three-game suspension." BBC I meant further 3 sorry.
Precisely because it is all circumstantial evidence - there is absolutely no proof of Hazards intention to kick the ballboy, only that he intended to retrieve the ball. Only if the FA can prove Hazards intent to cause injury (see Zidane/Cantona examples in original post), would a 3-match ban indeed be 'clearly insufficient'. Given the lack of evidence however, and given Hazards record and personality, no unbiased jury could possibly return a verdict of guilty in this regards. It is therefore clearly UNCLEAR as to why a 3 match ban is 'clearly insufficient'. He is being tried in an unfair court with a biased jury - what happened to 'innocent before proven guilty'?
No Chelsea fans cared about fair trials or quality of evidence when they were cheering the anti-Suarez showtrial. At least in the Hazard case you can see a minimum of Hazard approaching the ballboy unprovoked and pushing him. That alone is clearly worth 4 games.
Right so your view on Hazar is because some Chelsea fans vilified Suarez? Very big of you. Proves to me that your opinion is down to an agenda.
No it's down to application of the rules (automatic 3 game ban) and common sense (extra game ban for being stupid enough to start a fight with a ballboy). Very simple.
