First of all it was violent conduct which is what the red card was for and second did you actually see and hear the commentary? Listen & watch again more carefully if you think the commentator didn't chastise Hazard or that Williams & Davies weren't having a go at him.
Fair enough, perhaps I remember that bit wrong. I remembered him eventually being chastised, but a small period where nobody really knew what to make of it. Likewise I recall Williams reaction, but by the time Hazard was sent off, he was smirking somewhere around halfway untroubled. I thought he had gotten away with it and the fuss was over to be honest.
Aww, just cos your dads not a millionaire eh? Thought or hoped? Chelsea fan?
I have nothing in particular about children of rich people, I come from a pretty well off family myself. It's not really a flaw that you have parents who earned a lot of money as long as they had done it in a fair way. I do have a problem when they act like this though.
Sorry, but I've just noticed your tagline.
We'll leave it there.In a perfect world he shouldn't have gotten involved. But I thought he was well within his rights to do so. It's not as though he was having a few pints and someone wanted to fight him so he glassed the cnut.
So you don't see anything remotely strage or wrong about a 17-year old lying on top of the ball in order to waste time?Sorry, but I've just noticed your tagline.
What him being 17 has to do with anything I don't know. And it's my opinion he ended up on the ball due to Hazard being a prick and preventing the lad pick the ball up and then pushing him down...the whole incident last a few seconds so not much time was wasted. Also Hazard's time would have been better spent either rolling the lad over or even lifting him off the ball but he bizarrely chose to try and kick the ball which obviously would mean he got some of the lad too....better still he'd have been better off taking his position up field ready for the goal kick.
No, according to some on here, Hazard shoved the boy onto the floor - the ball was on the other side of his prostrate body, so Hazard saw red and punted him in the ribs and co-incidentally the ball happened to miraculously roll out of the other side.
" - the media and public opinion seems to have calmed down. You do realize kid would not have been on top of the ball if Hazard had not gotten involved. You might want to watch the video of the ENTIRE incident, not just the kick.
Pretty much spot on.
Who said it was worse than or deserved a longer ban than Cantona? I get the feeling that post is mostly made up of hyperbole, and I doubt you'll find too many in here saying it deserved a longer ban than Cantona got.No, according to some on here, Hazard shoved the boy onto the floor - the ball was on the other side of his prostrate body, so Hazard saw red and punted him in the ribs and co-incidentally the ball happened to miraculously roll out of the other side.
I'm glad after the initial hysteria "worse than/deserves a longer ban than Cantona
I do think it's a sad state of affairs when the police are willing to investigate complaints from people who weren't even there, watching the match on Sky. It sets a very dangerous precedent - the next time a United player is involved in any kind of furore, expect RAWK to be jamming the phone lines of the nearest force.
Part of the problem is that even laying on the ball was only done for a few seconds with Hazard standing over him and trying to grab the ball.
The incident started with the ballboy trying to keep Hazard from getting the ball so that he could waste more time, as he had for the whole match and as he had indicated that he was going to before the game on twitter. The reason that he collapsed on top of the ball was simply cos it made it harder for Hazard to get hold of it, not cos of any force that Hazard applied to him.
The way the boy was grabbing it, it was a done thing that he was not going to hand over the ball unless he himself got up and gave it. cnutish thing to do. But yes, hazard choosing to kick the kid was insanely stupid. so many other ways of getting the ball.
Wow. He's a fecking cnut then. I cant relieve believe how people can be such spastics on sites like twitter.
Are you on a wind up?!
I've seen the incident many times, I don't need to watch it again. The kid had been wasting time all game. Earlier in the match, Mata had come to collect the ball of him and he looped it over his head, throwing it to no one to waste time to which the crowd sang "Swansea ballboy, he does what he wants". All of the ballboys had been wasting time for the whole game (I don't blame them necessarily, home advantage etc) and Hazard clearly just wanted to get the ball back and get play resumed as quickly as possible. The ballboy had made his intentions clear before the game on twitter when he described himself as "the king of timewasting".Are you on a wind up?!
The lad virtually had his hands on the ball when Hazard kicked it away....did you not see that? Of course you didn't because you didn't watch the clip in the link did you?
Try watching at 78 mins and 4 secs... http://soccernet.espn.go.com/video/espnfc/video?id=1310799&cc=5739
The incident happened with a ballboy going to get the ball, as is his job. He may well have had every intention of timewasting, he'd said he was going to beforehand, but he didn't get a chance to before Hazard was over at him. If you watch it, and actually watch it, not do what you appear to have done and put it on whilst ignoring what is going on, you'll see both Hazard hands on the ballboys back. Was it enough to make him fall? I've no idea, but then you've no idea that it wasn't. He then swung a boot when he had no real need to.
Yeah and your club seem to be at the bottom of the barrel in almost all opinions.
the incident started with the ballboy doing what he was supposed to, getting the ball and then Hazard doing what he was not supposed to interferring and causing the ballboy to end up on the ground on top of the ball. Then preventing the ballboy from getting up.
I've been asking myself the same question
Funny people would say he kicked a ballboy, when that's exactly what he did.bite?I've been asking myself the same question
For some inexplicable reason, some of the posts on here - mainly the ones that say "he kicked the ball boy" have made my blood boil to an irrational level. That is football I suppose. If any were WUM's, they had me over the barrel.
Last time I will say it - he toed the ball out, which you can clearly see from the side angle. Think of the surface area of a toe - what is the likelihood of a toe connecting with both the ball and the kid lying on top of it?
Everyone agrees that Hazard was simply trying to pry the ball loose and in no way was attacking the ballboy. The boy was lying on the ball and it does appear that Hazard clipped ball AND boy.I've been asking myself the same question
For some inexplicable reason, some of the posts on here - mainly the ones that say "he kicked the ball boy" have made my blood boil to an irrational level. That is football I suppose. If any were WUM's, they had me over the barrel.
It's based on that incident alone, which is all it can be based on.
You are being wummed at least a littleI've been asking myself the same question
For some inexplicable reason, some of the posts on here - mainly the ones that say "he kicked the ball boy" have made my blood boil to an irrational level. That is football I suppose. If any were WUM's, they had me over the barrel.
) and I thought "feck this, I'd never beable to stomach talking to some of these fecking morons". Oh and watch for that pesky white text Yeah, that's ok then. As long as it's based on something worthy.
When I see that incident, I can see myself behaving like Hazard (think he had no bad intentions), but can't see myself acting like the ball boy.
I watched football in the 70's too and never remember seeing a player kick a ball boy like Hazard did...and before you moan on about him toe poking the ball...the ball was under the lad...out of sight...so any toe poke will have meant Hazard also made contact with the lad.
This is another opinion that annoys me. How do you know what was in or out of sight to Hazard? There are two camera angles, one from the side which shoes that the ball was clearly toed out and one from behind where you can't see what is happening due to the boy's body obscuring sight - this is the angle that most people started lynching him for. Unless you had a first person view of the incident from Hazard's perspective, there is no way of knowing what he could or couldn't see - but the fact that the ball popped out the way that it did suggests that Hazard knew exactly where the ball was.I watched football in the 70's too and never remember seeing a player kick a ball boy like Hazard did...and before you moan on about him toe poking the ball...the ball was under the lad...out of sight...so any toe poke will have meant Hazard also made contact with the lad.
And that's the violent conduct he was rightly sent off for.
Stupid incident that Hazard caused and in which he wasted much more time than any ball boy did that day.
(Nice white text Neviller)
