Tonight's Football

[seanworth]

Little wank deserved a lot harder kicking than that.

[ChrisC]

It's a disgrace!

http://i.imgur.com/MbdRoOz.gif" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Half the crowd look like they have ticks.

[Annoyed Grunt]

Kid acted like a knob, Hazard to me tried to kick the ball out from under him. Shouldn't have done it perhaps but the kid was taking a liberty. I wonder if the ball boys were told by Swansea club staff to deliberately slow it down. They wont come out of it very well either.

Only just seen it this morning.....Hazard kicks the ball clearly.......ball bay shouldn't have done it..

[thebish]

Sent off for kicking the ball boy.

Should be a long ban for that. Disgraceful.

is that what really happened?? disgraceful?? c'mon - get a grip!!

Aye so assault is ok in your household is it?

He fecking kicked him.

The holding onto the ball is irrelevant. He hacked a great dirty kick into his ribs.

A professional footballer kicking a ball boy? Disgraceful in my book. Yes.

bollox. the ball-boy is wasting time (as he had previously tweeted he would do) - Chelsea are 2 down and need the ball - Hazard does NOT give him a "dirty great kick in the ribs" - it is NOT assault - Hazard tried to free the ball from under a cheating ballboy with his foot.

talk about a fecking ludicrous over-reaction!! "disgraceful" "assault"??? the ball boy apologised - neither he nor his dad want to take it any further - what the feck are you on about?

get a grip!

[bwfcdan94]

Kid acted like a knob, Hazard to me tried to kick the ball out from under him. Shouldn't have done it perhaps but the kid was taking a liberty. I wonder if the ball boys were told by Swansea club staff to deliberately slow it down. They wont come out of it very well either.

every club does it, when at home nearly all managers (including coyle, dont know about DG) will tell ballboys to waste time if there team is leading, the refwere could of chosen to add more stopage time if he wanted to, whuile the ball boy was being a dick and made gthe most out of Hazards push it was instructed to him by his manager and thus I cannot condon what Hazard did. you would all be furious if he did that to a Bolton ball boy.

[bobo the clown]

Tribal nature suggest we'd piss & moan if the kid was one of ours. But the little cry-baby, acting Welsh fanny is getting most of the blame today.

Good.

Chwarae Teg my arse.

[BWFC_Insane]

Sent off for kicking the ball boy.

Should be a long ban for that. Disgraceful.

is that what really happened?? disgraceful?? c'mon - get a grip!!

Aye so assault is ok in your household is it?

He fecking kicked him.

The holding onto the ball is irrelevant. He hacked a great dirty kick into his ribs.

A professional footballer kicking a ball boy? Disgraceful in my book. Yes.

bollox. the ball-boy is wasting time (as he had previously tweeted he would do) - Chelsea are 2 down and need the ball - Hazard does NOT give him a "dirty great kick in the ribs" - it is NOT assault - Hazard tried to free the ball from under a cheating ballboy with his foot.

talk about a fecking ludicrous over-reaction!! "disgraceful" "assault"??? the ball boy apologised - neither he nor his dad want to take it any further - what the feck are you on about?

get a grip!

So you're saying violence is ok, as long as there is provocation?


Or are you saying what Hazard did wasn't violent and didn't hurt the ball boy at all?

Which one is it? Lets be clear?

[thebish]

So you're saying violence is ok, as long as there is provocation?

Or are you saying what Hazard did wasn't violent and didn't hurt the ball boy at all?

Which one is it? Lets be clear?

I am saying that what hazard did does not equate to "violence" - get a grip - both of them have been a bit stupid and have both apologised to each other. (the boy wasn't hurt and wasn't intentionally kicked - hazard did not attack him - it was not assault. neither the boy nor his father want to take any further action. it is not a "disgraceful assault". if you call this a "disgraceful assault" - then you run out of language for actual assault.)

your equating my refusal to wet my pants over this nothing-incident with me being in support of domestic violence is the really stupid response to this - and I mean REALLY stupid.

[Bruce Rioja]

So you're saying violence is ok, as long as there is provocation?


Or are you saying what Hazard did wasn't violent and didn't hurt the ball boy at all?

Which one is it? Lets be clear?

Can I ask you summat, I ? If the one on the ground was a player and not a ball boy would you have felt any differently about it?

[BWFC_Insane]

So you're saying violence is ok, as long as there is provocation?


Or are you saying what Hazard did wasn't violent and didn't hurt the ball boy at all?

Which one is it? Lets be clear?

Can I ask you summat, I ? If the one on the ground was a player and not a ball boy would you have felt any differently about it?

No. And to be clear, I think it was a disgrace, he deserved his red card, has apologised (as has the ball boy), and thats fine. And I'm glad its going no further.

But kicking someone lying on the ground (or kicking through them to get the ball) is just stupid, because a) its a pretty awful thing to do and b) it is only going to result in you missing matches and it hardly reflects well on your club.

And yes, having watched it again, a few times, I still think it was violent and totally unacceptable under any circumstances.

[bwfcdan94]

So you're saying violence is ok, as long as there is provocation?


Or are you saying what Hazard did wasn't violent and didn't hurt the ball boy at all?

Which one is it? Lets be clear?

Can I ask you summat, I ? If the one on the ground was a player and not a ball boy would you have felt any differently about it?

the difference is Bruce is that that lads parents do not pay 100S of pounds a year so that they can be treated like s**t by footballer, that lads and parents have given up a huge amount of time and money to try to benefit the game of football by fetching the ball for the players, Premiership footballers should be delighted that somebody has to pay to go and get the ball for them instead of them having to to walk severael yards like the rest of us do when we kick the ball of the pitch!

[ChrisC]

A new camera angle has been show today which proves Hazard kicked the ball and not the boy. I can't believe he is 17 looks about 12.

[thebish]

So you're saying violence is ok, as long as there is provocation?


Or are you saying what Hazard did wasn't violent and didn't hurt the ball boy at all?

Which one is it? Lets be clear?

Can I ask you summat, I ? If the one on the ground was a player and not a ball boy would you have felt any differently about it?

No. And to be clear, I think it was a disgrace, he deserved his red card, has apologised (as has the ball boy), and thats fine. And I'm glad its going no further.

I know it is your modus operandi simply to change your opinion each day to suit the wind... but last night you opined that it was totally disgraceful and you hoped it would result in a lengthy ban....

[BWFC_Insane]

So you're saying violence is ok, as long as there is provocation?


Or are you saying what Hazard did wasn't violent and didn't hurt the ball boy at all?

Which one is it? Lets be clear?

Can I ask you summat, I ? If the one on the ground was a player and not a ball boy would you have felt any differently about it?

No. And to be clear, I think it was a disgrace, he deserved his red card, has apologised (as has the ball boy), and thats fine. And I'm glad its going no further.

I know it is your modus operandi simply to change your opinion each day to suit the wind... but last night you opined that it was totally disgraceful and you hoped it would result in a lengthy ban....

I still think it should be a ban, because it was unprofessional and reflected badly on the game.

The ball boy should not be allowed to ball boy again either!

[thebish]

So you're saying violence is ok, as long as there is provocation?


Or are you saying what Hazard did wasn't violent and didn't hurt the ball boy at all?

Which one is it? Lets be clear?

Can I ask you summat, I ? If the one on the ground was a player and not a ball boy would you have felt any differently about it?

No. And to be clear, I think it was a disgrace, he deserved his red card, has apologised (as has the ball boy), and thats fine. And I'm glad its going no further.

I know it is your modus operandi simply to change your opinion each day to suit the wind... but last night you opined that it was totally disgraceful and you hoped it would result in a lengthy ban....

I still think it should be a ban, because it was unprofessional and reflected badly on the game.

The ball boy should not be allowed to ball boy again either!

so - your position is that you think Hazard should get a lengthy ban AND that it should go no further than the red card?? ever considered politics??

[Annoyed Grunt]

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/blogs/wor ... 12955.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He'd planned to do it.......and he is the son of the director of Swansea...

[Bruce Rioja]

So you're saying violence is ok, as long as there is provocation?


Or are you saying what Hazard did wasn't violent and didn't hurt the ball boy at all?

Which one is it? Lets be clear?

Can I ask you summat, I ? If the one on the ground was a player and not a ball boy would you have felt any differently about it?

the difference is Bruce is that that lads parents do not pay 100S of pounds a year so that they can be treated like s**t by footballer, that lads and parents have given up a huge amount of time and money to try to benefit the game of football by fetching the ball for the players

And you know all of this how? He's 17 by the way. He's old enough to be playing. When I was a boy being ballboy meant that you got to watch the game for free - it was an honour.

[thebish]

So you're saying violence is ok, as long as there is provocation?


Or are you saying what Hazard did wasn't violent and didn't hurt the ball boy at all?

Which one is it? Lets be clear?

Can I ask you summat, I ? If the one on the ground was a player and not a ball boy would you have felt any differently about it?

the difference is Bruce is that that lads parents do not pay 100S of pounds a year so that they can be treated like s**t by footballer, that lads and parents have given up a huge amount of time and money to try to benefit the game of football by fetching the ball for the players, Premiership footballers should be delighted that somebody has to pay to go and get the ball for them instead of them having to to walk severael yards like the rest of us do when we kick the ball of the pitch!

no - that's not the difference - at least not for the point that BWFCi is trying to make. BWFCi is saying that this was a disgraceful violent assault. so - being a disgraceful violent assault - it shouldn't make any difference if it happened to player or a ballboy. unless, of course (which is the right answer) - it WASN'T a disgraceful violent assault!

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Hasn't Old Red Nose offered his opinion yet. I thought he was the arbiter of all things football, the oracle of the laws of the game, timekeeper, violent lethal assaults etc.?

[thebish]

Hasn't Old Red Nose offered his opinion yet. I thought he was the arbiter of all things football, the oracle of the laws of the game, timekeeper, violent lethal assaults etc.?

The ballboy could have been killed!