RBSC

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The FA's stupidity

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Hazard escapes further ban as FA take no further action against Chelsea ace over ball-boy booting



    By Matt Barlow
    PUBLISHED:16:30, 31 January 2013| UPDATED:17:19, 31 January 2013


    Eden Hazard’s three-match ban will not be extended after a disciplinary panel rejected the FA’s claim that it was insufficient punishment for kicking a ball-boy.
    Hazard was sent off as Chelsea crashed out of the Capital One Cup at Swansea’s Liberty Stadium last week when he kicked the ball from beneath ball-boy Charlie Morgan as he hurried to retrieve possession.
    Scroll down for the video



    Flashpoint: Chelsea's Eden Hazard clashed with the teenage ball boy



    Seeing red: Hazard was given his marching orders by referee Chris Foy

    Morgan, 17, claimed he hurt his ribs and the FA hit Hazard with a misconduct charge which was dismissed by an independent disciplinary commission today.
    The red card brought an automatic three-match ban for violent conduct and the winger has already served two of those. He will be banned for Saturday’s trip to Newcastle and available for the Barclays Premier League clash with Wigan.
    An FA statement read: 'Chelsea player Eden Hazard will not have his standard three match sanction for violent conduct increased.

    'Following a hearing earlier today, an independent regulatory commission was of the opinion the existing three match sanction for this offence was sufficient.

    Letting fly: Hazard unleashes a firecracker during training at Cobham this week

    'Hazard was charged by The FA following his side’s League Cup semi-final at Swansea City on 23 January 2013.
    'The FA alleged that Hazard’s behaviour in relation to a Swansea City ball boy, for which the player was dismissed in the 78th minute, constituted violent conduct whereby the standard punishment that would otherwise apply was clearly insufficient.
    'The player denied the charge and the matter was dealt with at a non-personal hearing.
    'The FA will be reminding all clubs of their responsibilities in ensuring ball boys and other personnel around the pitch act in an appropriate manner at all times and The FA will be liaising with competitions accordingly.'


    Centre of attention: Charlie Morgan alluded to 'timewasting' on his Twitter account before the game




    Kick it out: Hazard has until 6pm on Tuesday to respond to the FA charge

    Chelsea submitted evidence to argue their case including camera angles which suggested Hazard had made more contact with the ball than with the ball-boy.
    They also referred to the Belgian’s instant personal and public apologies and his previous good behaviour.
    In the days after the incident, there was a groundswell of support inside football for Hazard and against the actions of Morgan, the son of millionaire businessman Martin Morgan, who is a Swansea director and the club’s largest shareholder.
    The ball-boy had tweeted ahead of the game that he was an expert time-waster and that he would help the Swans reach their first major cup final. Chelsea lost the semi-final 2-0 on aggregate.


    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/foo...#ixzz2Jb1esem1
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

    Comment


    • #17
      at least some good sense prevails... what they really should have done was reduce the ban to the two he had served as they couldn't "unban" him from what he already missed!
      Peter R

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Tilla View Post
        There was nothing violent about Hazard's conduct. He toe poked the ball from under the ballman who was covering the ball with his body and would not return the ball to play in a timely manner. I would think that for it to be considered violent conduct, there has to be a clear indication that there was intent to kick or hurt the ballman. From my perspective, I do not see it as kicking the young man. The young man made a meal of the whole incident, thus making a fool of the match officials and a lot of onlookers of the match.

        I think the three match ban should be allowed to stand if people think Hazard needs to be punished. I also think the home club Swansea should be held responsible for the actions on the ballman that led to this issue.

        My thruppance haypenny wut.
        Would you call Hazard's action - though understandable - *"reckless conduct"...one where it was not a result of his act why the ball boy was not injuried?

        Aside: Based on the videos I am assuming that the ball boy put on a hell of a good job acting hurt!

        I also would not find a problem with Hazard getting off with a 'strong warning' and the ball boy punished for act that falls under 'bringing the game in disrepute'.

        Just saying...Hazard's conduct could be reasonably assumed to be worthy of expulsion! Would not kill the ref!!!
        Last edited by Karl; January 31, 2013, 07:19 PM.
        "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

        Comment


        • #19
          "one where it was not a result of his act why the ball boy was not injuried?" care to clarify? not too sure what you mean... but

          NO.. it was not reckless conduct IMO, based on the replays I saw... it was a controlled toe poke... anyway, he was expelled from the match so...
          Peter R

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Peter R;404516[COLOR=darkred
            ]*"[/COLOR]one where it was not a result of his act why the ball boy was not injuried?" care to clarify? not too sure what you mean... but

            NO.. it was not reckless conduct IMO, based on the replays I saw... it was a controlled toe poke... anyway, he was expelled from the match so...
            *Would you call it reckless to take a shot at an apple on your child's head?
            Well...? Hazard took his shot!
            "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Karl View Post
              *Would you call it reckless to take a shot at an apple on your child's head?
              Well...? Hazard took his shot!
              Yes, it would be reckless as the act and the potential negative outcome could be disastrous... BUT, having seen the replays, I wouldn't make that analogy... it would be more like spanking the kid with a feather...
              Peter R

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Peter R View Post
                Yes, it would be reckless as the act and the potential negative outcome could be disastrous... BUT, having seen the replays, I wouldn't make that analogy... it would be more like spanking the kid with a feather...


                Hazard could not have seen into the kids mind...and had no clue on whether or not the kid could have moved as he made his kick and increased risk of a lethal blow.

                Hazard acted stupidly! He got carried away by his competitive nature...wish to win for his TEAM.

                It would not be unreasonable for someone or reasonable persons (e.g. ref & the FA's authorised persons) taking the recklessness of the act as part of reason for his expulsion being the right decision and the following 3 match ban being appropriate.

                ...but having said the above I appreciate your take!
                "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

                Comment


                • #23
                  Finally a bit of commons sense...but if they really wanted to show brains, they should have reduced it to one game and charged the ball boy.
                  "H.L & Brick .....mi deh pan di wagon (Man City)" - X_____ http://www.reggaeboyzsc.com/forum1/showthread.php?p=378365&highlight=City+Liverpool#p ost378365

                  X DESCRIBES HIMSELF - Stop masquerading as if you have the clubs interest at heart, you are a fraud, always was and always will be in any and every thing that you present...

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X