Hazard
- Thread starter theevilreddevil
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
the only reason Hazard shouldn't have done it is because of the totally OTT reaction he's getting from tree hugging football fans. He meant to kick the ball away from his grasp and the the kid has feighned injury (in my opinion) to make Hazard look bad.
Replays clearly show the boot going into the ribs. Are you not getting ever so slightly tired of the way your club continually drag along the bottom of the gutter?
You will again be vilified, but then, I suspect a lot of your fans enjoy that!
No, it's a valid point, he's outraged at this but probably stuck up for cantona. Don't be a ****
then he probably missed, either way he's trying to get the ball from the cheating bellend's grip.
That kind of sums you lot up.
+1
David Beckham was sent off playing for England for a much milder kick than Hazard's so the right decision was made.
Some arrogant **** Witt wrote it not so long ago before losing to the mighty Hoops! I like it when karma bites arrogant twats.
the only reason Hazard shouldn't have done it is because of the totally OTT reaction he's getting from tree hugging football fans
The only reason a fully grown adult man shouldn't have kicked a CHILD on the ground is because of the OTT reaction of tree huggers?????
Seriously...shouldn't an adult realise that kicking a child for laying on a ball is simply wrong???? The clue is the fact the ball boy is a child and you do not kick children ... unless you are a bully or a ****ing idiot either way ... chelsea fc are in for a new ****storm
Drogs:4149967 said:
Yeah, it's just the same Drogs.
Cantona kicks a scrote who's abusing him.
Hazard kicks a schoolboy because he won't give him his ball back.
Just the same.
As I said earlier, it would be unacceptable to kick a player who was wasting time. Why is this situation any different?
yep, that makes it perfectly acceptable to boot him in the head studs first
. He tried to get the ball back, he did not kick him in the sense people are going on about.Jesus christ.
The only reason a fully grown adult man shouldn't have kicked a CHILD on the ground is because of the OTT reaction of tree huggers?????
Seriously...shouldn't an adult realise that kicking a child for laying on a ball is simply wrong???? The clue is the fact the ball boy is a child and you do not kick children ... unless you are a bully or a ****ing idiot either way ... chelsea fc are in for a new ****storm
last time I'll say it - he tried to kick the ball, not the lad.