Haydos Posted 24 January 2013 Posted 24 January 2013 You guys are all deluded, hazard pushed him onto the floor. If i was the ball boy, i would have reacted in the same way. If i get pushed i'm not gonna just let it go by. hazard then took it another step further and kicked him. Im quite worried about the amount of people who are saying the ball boy got what he deserved, if this goes unpunished, every time the ball gets kicked into the stand and fans keep it to time waste, then every player has the right to assault the members of the crowd who have kept the ball. This post is an absolute joke. I'm not condoning Hazard's behavior in any means but the lad acted like a cvnt and DID get what he deserved. He then proceeded to act like the little fvck he is and roll around on the floor crying. Where are we now that ballboys are diving to try and get players sent off? Again, Hazard's behavior not acceptable but people need to stop being twats. It's not going to go unpunished is it? He'll get a 3 match ban, probably more, for a harmless dig at a cheating ball boy who should never be allowed to represent his club doing that role again.
Simo86 Posted 24 January 2013 Posted 24 January 2013 Might be a silly comparison as I do know what Hazard did wasn't exactly violent - but when Cantona karate kicked the spectator back in the day - because he said something to him. Was it the spectator's fault then for getting kicked by Cantona? By the logic of most of you on here he deserved it. No doubt, the ballboy is a little shit. Hazard should either have appealed to the ref or stood and waited for the ball. If it was a challenge on the pitch with two players it would have been at least a yellow for both, and given that it was against the ballboy, and not a player makes it absolutely a red card. I would expect a 4-8 game ban. It was partly his fault. He racially insulted Cantona and threw something at him. Nobody is blameless in either of these instances
Carl the Llama Posted 24 January 2013 Posted 24 January 2013 It was partly his fault. He racially insulted Cantona and threw something at him. Nobody is blameless in either of these instances Exactly, one man overreacting to another man's wrongdoing shouldn't wipe the slate clean for that other man.
cambridgefox Posted 24 January 2013 Posted 24 January 2013 Yeah, if this was Simon Cox booting the boot in to one of our ball boys for Forest we'd be on about ninety pages by now calling him a scumbag. Hazard's "cool" though. Not contesting the ballboy was being a nob but anyone who thinks it's okay to boot a MINER in the ribs on live TV needs to calm down and have words with themselves. Not calling it crime of the century but it's hardly a cracking bit of vigilante justice, either, is it? Just abject stupidity from a footballer gleefully reinforcing the stereotype that everyone in the sport is a complete disabled. Way to give footballers a good name, Eden. Jeez. Thought they had all closed!
Monk Posted 24 January 2013 Posted 24 January 2013 It's a ridiculous comparison. He just kicked the ball out from under him, didn't kick the lad at all. If he'd gone up to him, booted him and then picked the ball up, then fair enough. But he clearly just kicks the ball out from under him. My point wasn't the severity of the incident - what I'm trying to say is that it shouldn't matter what the situation is (unless its self defence), there is no excuse for the player to get involved. Whether he actually kicked him or not is pretty irrelevant.
Monk Posted 24 January 2013 Posted 24 January 2013 It was partly his fault. He racially insulted Cantona and threw something at him. Nobody is blameless in either of these instances Again - not saying he's blameless, but Cantona should never have done what he did. Apologies for the poor analogy I had totally forgotten it was a racist incident.
Babylon Posted 24 January 2013 Posted 24 January 2013 This isn't some innocent 8 year old, it's a 17 year old who has publicly declared before the game he's going to cheat. I have no sympathy for the play acting little twerp, but I also have no sympathy for Hazard. Whether he went for the ball and got it doesn't matter, it was a stupid bloody thing to do. He'll get his ban and rightfully so.
Guest BlueBrett Posted 24 January 2013 Posted 24 January 2013 You guys are all deluded, hazard pushed him onto the floor. What?? No he didn't. I really don't understand how anyone who has actually seen the incident could interpret what happened that way. You should be a Championship referee mate.
GingerrrFox Posted 24 January 2013 Posted 24 January 2013 I don't see how people can really think he kicked the ball and nothing else?? Do you honestly think you can kick a ball someone is lying on without hitting them? Plus Hazard had no reason to go for the ball it was a Swansea goal kick. He will be banned just to set an example, the FA are the ones trying to make football family friendly.
cambridgefox Posted 24 January 2013 Posted 24 January 2013 When you have the Directors son boasting beforehand and carrying out his threat,this isn't good for the club and having an old ball boy of his age is probably asking for trouble too,showing off he probably had everything he has always wanted and thinks he can act and behave how he wants.However,a pro like Hazardshould know better and will have to be punished.end What would have been better with the kid rolling around was if the player had been Oscar.Red top papers dream.
Guest BlueBrett Posted 24 January 2013 Posted 24 January 2013 I don't see how people can really think he kicked the ball and nothing else?? Do you honestly think you can kick a ball someone is lying on without hitting them Well yes because my foot is relatively flat and protrudes from my leg at a right angle. Don't you think you could?
MrSpaM Posted 24 January 2013 Posted 24 January 2013 I don't see how people can really think he kicked the ball and nothing else?? Do you honestly think you can kick a ball someone is lying on without hitting them? Plus Hazard had no reason to go for the ball it was a Swansea goal kick. He will be banned just to set an example, the FA are the ones trying to make football family friendly. If he'd made contact with the ball boy he'd be done for assault, no question about it. The ball boy and his parents have dropped charges. I think that tells you everything. There was no contact.
FoxLAD Posted 24 January 2013 Posted 24 January 2013 If he'd made contact with the ball boy he'd be done for assault, no question about it. The ball boy and his parents have dropped charges. I think that tells you everything. There was no contact. This.
iamafox Posted 24 January 2013 Posted 24 January 2013 The ball boy got himself in harm's way and ended up paying the price for not giving the ball to Hazard. Yes, I don't condone what Hazard did but this wouldn't have happened if the ball boy let the ball go straight away.
GingerrrFox Posted 24 January 2013 Posted 24 January 2013 [/size] Well yes because my foot is relatively flat and protrudes from my leg at a right angle. Don't you think you could? Even if his foot kicks the ball its still attached to his leg. He didn't hook the ball out so he would still have followed through with his shin which is more painful than being hit by his foot. Physically impossible to get that ball out without hitting him.
Babylon Posted 24 January 2013 Posted 24 January 2013 Physically impossible to get that ball out without hitting him. It's not! Whether he actually did is another question though.
GingerrrFox Posted 24 January 2013 Posted 24 January 2013 It's not! Whether he actually did is another question though. It definietly is. The swinging motion of his leg means that even if he's angled his foot to go under the lads body to toe poke the ball out, it's still attached to his leg and his shin has to make contact with something because otherwise the motion would carry on through the lads body (physically impossible).
MrSpaM Posted 24 January 2013 Posted 24 January 2013 Even if his foot kicks the ball its still attached to his leg. He didn't hook the ball out so he would still have followed through with his shin which is more painful than being hit by his foot. Physically impossible to get that ball out without hitting him. Dont really get what you dont understand about this, if he'd made contact with him, infront of how ever many millions of people as witnesses, he'd be charged with assaulting him. If a high profile millionaire football player kicked you infront of that many people you would press charges. They've decided not to press charges against him, probably after they realised they didnt have a leg to stand on. It's not like they've decided against it due to kindness is it, they've decided against it because it didnt happen.
z-layrex Posted 24 January 2013 Posted 24 January 2013 Even if his foot kicks the ball its still attached to his leg. He didn't hook the ball out so he would still have followed through with his shin which is more painful than being hit by his foot. Physically impossible to get that ball out without hitting him.
Babylon Posted 24 January 2013 Posted 24 January 2013 It definietly is. The swinging motion of his leg means that even if he's angled his foot to go under the lads body to toe poke the ball out, it's still attached to his leg and his shin has to make contact with something because otherwise the motion would carry on through the lads body (physically impossible). You are aware that the leg bends in several places?
GingerrrFox Posted 24 January 2013 Posted 24 January 2013 You can say what you want about my view point still makes contact with the lad. Although if your saying its bullshit that it hurts more being kicked with a shin than a foot, get someone to kick you in the leg with their foot and then with their shin. Then you'll know why in sports like Thai boxing your taught to make contact with your shin. The fact his dad is a director at the club is probably one of the reasons it's not going any further imo.
GingerrrFox Posted 24 January 2013 Posted 24 January 2013 You are aware that the leg bends in several places? Actually the leg bends in one place at the knee joint. You can't bend your leg at the hip joint and the ankle joint only effects the angle of your foot (dorsi-flexion and plantar-flexion) and not your leg. Your shin physically cannot bend.
Carl the Llama Posted 24 January 2013 Posted 24 January 2013 You can say what you want about my view point still makes contact with the lad. Although if your saying its bullshit that it hurts more being kicked with a shin than a foot, get someone to kick you in the leg with their foot and then with their shin. Then you'll know why in sports like Thai boxing your taught to make contact with your shin. The fact his dad is a director at the club is probably one of the reasons it's not going any further imo. Because you're less likely to damage yourself. Nothing to do with it being more painful for the opponent, whether that's true or not.
Carl the Llama Posted 24 January 2013 Posted 24 January 2013 Clear evidence no contact was made... Seems legit.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.