MegaSteve
Tour Winner
I actually believe Swansea could be in some trouble over this... Failure to properly vet/train the groundstaff...
Doesn't excuse Hazard for his actions though...
Doesn't excuse Hazard for his actions though...
The whole thing is embarrassing
Chelsea's performance = embarrassing
Hazard's reaction = embarrassing
The ball boys antics = embarrassing
The ball boy feigning injury = embarrassing
The comments that think that was assault = embarrassing
PS The 'boy' was 17 years old!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Spot on + Pat Nevins suggestion this morning to get rid of all ball boys. They are not needed in the modern game.
Because there was about the same amount of contact and force in both incidents; however, Duncan's offence was against another adult - this was a young kid
He kicked him in the ribs, clear as day, look at the circled image that keep replaying
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/eden-hazard-sent-off-for-kicking-ball-1552195
After watching that, there are a few things that make me think he was only after the ball.
If you watch the lad's leg, it's off the ground as he's lying on the ball, but after the kick it drops to the ground meaning the ball has gone.
Hazard steps over the lad after he kicked the ball to pick it up. If he'd kicked the lad the ball would've stayed Hazard's side as the kid rolled off it.
Assuming the fans in the background are Swansea fans (guessing they'd have been quite animated as the lad was laying on the ball if they were Chelsea fans?), if Hazard had kicked the lad in the ribs the fans would have gone nuts at him, but they hardly take any notice of what's going on.
Hazard was 100 percent correct in this situation.The ballboy is more than old enough to know what he is doing and is responsible for his actions.
In society nowadays too many people look at the response rather than what caused the incident.The boy was being a wee fud and got a dunt in the ribs for it.Its the least he deserved.
He is employed to do a job and was pretty much doing the opposite. Saying leave it to the ref is all very well and good but Hazard is employed to win football matches and that's what he was trying to do.
Of course he was only after the ball but it's how he went about it that's caused the controversy
I totally agree that he shouldn't have done it, but I was just giving my opinion on his intent as quite a lot of the posters seem to think he was kicking at the boy, not the ball.
I understand but there's people across a variety of forums who seem to think his actions are justified or unintentional. It's clear that he got frustrated, couldn't get the ball and gave the lad a punt in the ribs intentionally, it wasn't a kick of or at the ball, it was a kick at the thing shielding the ball, being the boy.
Cobblers - he was after the ball, only a fool could think there was a deliberate attack on the poor wee lad's ribs.